Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
ELY AGUSTIN, |
|
G.R. No. 158788 |
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., |
|
|
|
Chairperson, |
|
-
versus - |
|
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, |
|
|
|
CHICO-NAZARIO, |
|
|
|
NACHURA, and |
|
|
|
REYES, JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
PEOPLE OF THE |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
April 30, 2008 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) dated January 22, 2003, affirming the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 24 of Cabugao, Ilocos Sur (RTC) convicting Ely
Agustin (petitioner) of the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms under Presidential
Decree (P.D.) No. 1866, and the CA Resolution[2]
dated June 23, 2003, denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
The
records reveal that on P600,000.00.[3] Forthwith, the spouses reported the matter to
the police, who, in turn, immediately applied for a search warrant with the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Cabugao, Ilocos Sur.[4] The MTC issued Search Warrant No. 5-95,[5]
directing a search of the items stolen from the victims, as well as the
firearms used by the perpetrators. One
of the target premises was the residence of petitioner, named as one of the
several suspects in the crime.
On
That on or about the 6th day of
October 1995, in the municipality of Cabugao,
province of Ilocos Sur,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in his possession, control and custody one (1) revolver caliber .38 (Cebu Made) with
Serial No. 439575 with five (5) live ammunitions, without the necessary license
or authority to possess and carry the same being usual instrument in the
commission of crimes or acts of violence.
Contrary to
law.[6]
Thereafter, trial ensued. The prosecution presented eight witnesses
namely: (1) P/Insp. Anselmo
Baldovino[7]
(P/Insp. Baldovino), a
police investigator and the applicant for the search warrant; (2) Rosemarie Gante (Gante), the victim of the
robbery and private complainant; (3) Ignacio Yabes (Yabes), a Municipal Local Government Operations Officer of
the Department of Interior and Local Government who was the civilian witness to
the search; (4) P/Supt. Bonifacio Abian[8]
(P/Supt. Abian), Deputy Provincial Director of the
Philippine National Police and part of the search team; (5) SPO4 Marino Peneyra (SPO4 Peneyra); (6) SPO1 Franklin Cabaya
(SPO1 Cabaya); (7) SPO1 James Jara
(SPO1 Jara); and (8) SPO2 Florentino
Renon (SPO2 Renon).
For
his defense, petitioner and his wife Lorna Agustin
(Lorna) testified.
The
prosecution's case centered mainly on evidence that
during the enforcement of the search warrant against petitioner, a .38 caliber revolver firearm was found in the latter's house.[9] In particular, SPO1 Cabaya
testified that while poking at a closed rattan cabinet near the door, he saw a
firearm on the lower shelf.[10] The gun is a .38 caliber
revolver[11]
with five live ammunitions,[12]
which he immediately turned over to his superior, P/Insp.
Baldovino.[13]
Petitioner
anchored his defense on denial and frame-up. The petitioner and his wife Lorna assert that petitioner
does not own a gun.[14] Lorna testified that she saw a “military” man
planting the gun.[15]
After
trial, the RTC rendered its Decision[16]
dated
WHEREFORE,
finding the accused, Ely Agustin @ “Belleng” GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Firearm, he is hereby
sentenced to a prison term ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS, as
minimum, to SIX (6) YEARS, as maximum, both of prision
correccional, with the accessories of the law [sic],
to pay a fine of P15,000.00 without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The
gun (Exh. “G”) is confiscated and forfeited in
favor of the Government.
SO ORDERED.[17]
Petitioner filed an appeal with the
CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 25452.
The CA rendered herein assailed Decision[18]
dated
WHEREFORE,
except for the MODIFICATION reducing and changing the maximum of the prison
term imposed to Five (5) Years Four (4) Months and Twenty (20) Days, the
appealed Decision is otherwise AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[19]
Hence, the instant Petition for
Review, on the principal ground that the CA gravely erred in finding that the
guilt of petitioner has been proven beyond reasonable doubt; and more
specifically, in giving weight and credence to the testimonies of the police officers
who searched the house of the petitioner which are replete with material and
irreconcilable contradictions and in giving SPO1 Cabaya
the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty despite the claim of
Lorna that the .38 caliber revolver was planted.
Petitioner insists that the trial
court and the CA committed reversible error in giving little credence to his
defense that the firearm found in his residence was planted by the policemen. He also alleges material inconsistencies in
the testimonies of the policemen as witnesses for the prosecution, which
amounted to failure by the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
The petition has merit.
The paramount issue in the present
case is whether the prosecution established the guilt of petitioner beyond
reasonable doubt; and in the determination thereof, a factual issue, that is,
whether a gun was found in the house of petitioner, must necessarily be
resolved.
It is a well-entrenched rule that
appeal in criminal cases opens the whole case wide open for review.[20]
In convicting petitioner, the RTC
relied heavily on the testimony of SPO1 Cabaya, who
testified that he discovered the subject firearm in a closed cabinet inside the
former's house. The trial court brushed aside petitioner's
defense of denial and protestations of frame-up. The RTC justified giving full credence to Cabaya's testimony on the principles that the latter is
presumed to have performed his official duties regularly; that he had no ill
motive to frame-up petitioner; and that his affirmative testimony is stronger
than petitioner's negative testimony.[21]
For its part, the CA justified its
affirmation of the trial court's decision on the basis of long-standing
principles that denials, such as the one made by petitioner, “cannot be given
greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who
testified on affirmative matters,” and reiterated that “absent evidence x x x that the prosecution witness
was moved by improper motive, the presumption is that no such ill motive
exists, and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.”[22]
The CA upheld the trial court's findings
of presumption of regular performance of duty on the part of the searching
policemen and the weakness of the petitioner's defense of frame-up.[23]
Weighing these findings of the lower
courts against the petitioner's claim that the prosecution failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt due to the material inconsistencies in the
testimonies of its witnesses, the Court finds, after a meticulous examination
of the records that the lower courts, indeed, committed a reversible error in
finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime he was charged with.
The RTC and the CA have overlooked
certain facts and circumstances that would have interjected serious
apprehensions absolutely impairing the credibility of the witnesses for the
prosecution.
The conflicting testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses as to who actually entered the house and conducted the
search, who “discovered” the gun, and who witnessed the “discovery” are
material matters because they relate directly to a fact in issue; in the
present case, whether a gun has been found in the house of petitioner; or to a
fact to which, by the process of logic, an inference may be made as to the
existence or non-existence of a fact in issue.[24] As held in United States v. Estraña,[25]
a material matter is the main fact which is the subject of inquiry or any
circumstance which tends to prove that fact or any fact or circumstance which
tends to corroborate or strengthen the testimony relative to the subject of
inquiry or which legitimately affects the credit of any witness who testifies.
The evidence of prosecution is
severely weakened by several contradictions in the testimonies of its
witnesses. Especially damaged is the
credibility of SPO1 Cabaya, none of whose
declarations on material points jibes with those of the other prosecution witnesses.
In the face of the vehement and consistent
protestations of frame-up by petitioner and his wife, the trial court and the
CA erred in overlooking or misappreciating these inconsistencies.
To repeat, the inconsistencies are
material as they delve into the very bottom of the question of whether or not
SPO1 Cabaya really found a firearm in the house of
petitioner.
First material inconsistency:
On SPO1 Cabaya's companions
and the circumstances of
his
discovery of
the subject firearm
SPO1 Cabaya
testified that he entered the house with four other policemen, among whom were SPO1 Jara, SPO4 Peneyra, SPO3 Bernabe Ocado (SPO3 Ocado) and another
one whose name he does not remember.[26]
While searching, he discovered the
firearm in the kitchen, inside a closed cabinet near the door.[27] He said that SPO1 Jara
was standing right behind him, at a distance of just one meter, when he (Cabaya) saw the firearm;[28]
and that he picked up the gun, held it and showed it to SPO1 Jara.[29]
He asserted that SPO2 Renon was not one of those who went inside the house.[30]
The following is the testimony of SPO1 Cabaya on direct examination:
Q. You
mentioned that you were able to recover a firearm from the house of Ely
Agustin. Who actually recovered the firearm?
A. I
was the one, sir.
Q. In
what particular place in the house of Ely Agustin were you able to recover the
firearm?
A. Inside
a cabinet, sir.
Q. Where
is that cabinet located in relation to the main house?
A. At
the door of the house, sir.
Court
Q. Before
or after the door?
A. Inside
the house already, Your Honor.
Court
Q. Continue,
Fiscal.
APP Gascon
Q. Will
you describe that cabinet?
A. It
is made of rattan, sir.
Q. Does
it have covers and doors of its own?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. What
part of the cabinet did you discover the firearm?
A. On
the lower shelf, sir.
Q. That
lower shelf, was it closed or opened when you discovered the firearm?
A. It
was closed, sir.
Q. How
far was that cabinet to the door?
A. About
70 centimeters, sir.
Q. How
many police officers including you entered the house of Ely Agustin to conduct
the search?
A. Five
(5), sir.
Q. When
you discovered that firearm, do you remember who was or were the persons near
you?
A. SPO1
James Jara, sir.
Q. Who
else, if any, aside from SPO1 James Jara?
A. SPO4
Marino Peneyra, sir.
Q. Who
else?
A. SPO3
Bernabe Ocado, sir.
Q. Were
those the only police officers who were with you when you discovered the
firearm?
A. Yes,
sir.
x x x
x
Q. So,
who were with you then inside the house when you discovered the firearm?
A. SPO4
Peneyra, SPO3 Ocado and
SPO1 Jara, sir.
Q. You
mentioned a while ago that there were five (5) of you who conducted the search?
A. I
cannot recall the other one, sir.
Q. Do
you know SPO2 Florentino Renon?
A. Yes,
sir, but he was not there at the time.
x x x
x
Q. Not
even any one of your companions who were inside the house actually witnessed
the taking of the gun inside that cabinet?
A. They
saw it, sir.
Q. You
mean to say that SPO4 Peneyra, SPO3 Ocado and SPO1 Jara witnessed the
taking of the gun by you inside the cabinet?
A. SPO1
Jara only, sir.
Q. How
about SPO4 Peneyra and SPO3 Ocado?
A. They
were inside the sala, sir.
Q. You
did not call for them before you took the gun from the cabinet?
A. I
shouted, sir.
Q. But
they did not come to your place?
A. They
did not, sir.
Q. And
who was that companion of yours whom you said witnessed the taking of the gun?
A. SPO1
Jara was at my back, sir.
Q. But
you were already holding the gun when SPO1 Jara saw
the gun?
A. Yes,
sir.
x x x x
Q. And
where was SPO1 Jara when you discovered the firearm?
A. He
was at my back, sir.
Q. How
near or how far was he to you when you discovered the firearm?
A. One
(1) meter, sir.[31]
(Emphasis supplied)
SPO1 Cabaya's
testimony is contradicted by the testimonies of four other prosecution witnesses
on material points, making Cabaya's testimony in
particular, and the prosecution's evidence in general, not credible, and
therefore, of no probative weight, thus:
1. SPO1 Jara, the best witness who could have corroborated SPO1 Cabaya's testimony, related a different story as to the
circumstances of the firearm's discovery. SPO1 Jara testified
that he merely conducted perimeter security during the search and did not enter
or participate in searching the house.[32]
SPO1 Jara testified
that he remained outside the house throughout the search, and when SPO1 Cabaya shouted and showed a gun, he was seven to eight
meters away from him.[33]
He could not see the inside of the house
and could see Cabaya only from his chest up.[34]
He did not see the firearm at the place
where it was found, but saw it only when Cabaya
raised his arm to show the gun, which was a revolver.[35]
He is certain that he was not with Cabaya at the time the latter discovered the firearm.[36]
He further testified that SPO3 Ocado, who, according to SPO1 Cabaya
was one of those near him when he (Cabaya) discovered
the firearm, stayed outside and did not enter or search the house.[37]
2. P/Insp. Baldovino testified that only
SPO2 Renon conducted the search and entered the house
together with SPO1 Cabaya,[38]
directly contradicting SPO1 Cabaya's testimony that he,
together with SPO1 Jara, SPO4 Peneyra,
SPO3 Ocado, and another one whose name he cannot
recall, were inside the house when he discovered the gun[39]
and that SPO2 Renon did not enter the house of
petitioner.[40]
3. P/Supt. Abian categorically testified that it was SPO4 Peneyra, not SPO1 Cabaya, who
recovered the firearm from petitioner's house.[41]
4. SPO4 Peneyra contradicted SPO1 Cabaya
and P/Supt. Abian.
He testified that he did not enter the house, but stayed outside, during
the search.[42]
He also said that it was SPO1 Cabaya and SPO2 Renon who
discovered the firearm.[43]
5. SPO2 Renon contradicted SPO4 Peneyra
and SPO1 Cabaya when he (Renon)
testified on rebuttal that Cabaya was alone
in the kitchen[44]
when the latter allegedly discovered the gun.[45]
Second inconsistency:
On the reaction of petitioner
to SPO1 Cabaya's alleged
discovery of the subject
firearm
SPO1 Cabaya
testified that when he turned over the firearm to his superior, P/Insp. Baldovino, petitioner was
present and did not utter a single word of protest.[46] This was contradicted, however, by P/Insp. Baldovino, who testified
that petitioner protested, claimed that he did not know anything about the gun
and refused to sign the certification that a search was conducted in his house.[47]
Likewise, prosecution witnesses –
P/Supt. Abian, SPO4 Peneyra
and SPO1 Jara – all confirmed that petitioner
vehemently denied possession of the firearm as soon as its “discovery” was
announced.[48]
Third inconsistency:
On the witnessing of the actual
discovery of the subject firearm
by civilian Yabes
At first, SPO1 Cabaya
testified that Municipal Local Government Operations Officer Yabes was outside the house when the firearm was
discovered, but later, he clarified that Yabes was
actually inside the house when it happened.[49]
He informed Yabes
of the discovery by shouting,[50]
but he did not call Yabes to witness the actual
taking of the gun from its hiding place because he had to show it to his
officer;[51]
and that Yabes saw the gun when he showed the gun
outside.[52] However, Yabes
contradicted SPO1 Cabaya. Yabes claimed to
have seen the gun in an open shelf, after hearing the shouts of a policeman who
was not one of those who entered the house to conduct the search, to wit:
Q. You said that three (3) policemen
entered the house. All
the time that they where inside the house, where were you in relation to them?
A. At the door of the house, sir.
Q. When they conducted the actual search
inside the house, what were you doing?
A. I was looking at them, sir.
Q. Will you describe the inside of the
house of Ely Agustin?
A. On the northeast corner of the
house, there is a bed, no room, sir.
Q. Where did and the three (3) policemen
conduct the search?
A. They requested Mrs. Agustin to make
the “halungkat” and they were only watching her, sir.
Q. Aside from you, Mrs. Agustin and the
three (3) policemen, who else was or were inside the house?
A. No more, sir.
Q. How about Ely Agustin?
A. He was conversing with the Chief of
Police, sir.
Q. And while Mrs. Agustin was the one
who was actually making the search, as requested by the three (3) policemen,
what happened?
A. None, sir. They did not see anything. Nothing was found.
Q. In what place of the house did Mrs.
Agustin do the “halungkat” or the search?
A. At the “duag”
(extension). We entered from the north
which is actually the “duag” (extension) of the house
and then proceeded towards the west, and then, towards the south, and then, we
entered the main building, sir.
Q. Then, what happened next?
A. While we were already about through,
a certain policeman shouted that he found something near the door of the annex,
sir, the place where we first entered. But
that policeman was not one of those who entered the house to conduct the search.
Q. The three (3) policemen, you and Mrs.
Agustin were still inside the main house when that policeman shouted that he
found something?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What were the three (3) policemen
actually doing when you heard the shout of that policemen?
A. They were still inside the house,
but I did not pay particular attention what they were actually doing, sir.
x x x x
Q. After hearing the shouts of that
policeman that he found something, what did you, personally, do?
A. I was taken aback and so I went out
to see what it was all about, sir.
Q. Among you five (5), who went out of
the house first?
A. I was the one, sir.
Q. Who followed you next?
A. I cannot remember who followed me,
sir.
Q. You said you went out to see what
they found. What did you see?
A. There was a sort of an open shelf
and on the second rung where they placed the floor mat,
the gun was there, sir.
Q. You said there was
a floor mat and then the gun. Which was exposed, the floor mat or the gun?
A. Only the barrel of the gun was
hidden, sir.
Court
Q. The body of the gun was exposed when
you saw it?
A. Yes, Your
Honor.[53]
x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Yabes had to go out of the house
to see what was found at the “duag” or extension.[54] Yabes further
testified:
Q. From
the time you heard the shouts of the policemen, up to the time you went out and
saw the barrel covered by the floor mat, how many seconds or minutes elapsed?
A. Less
than a minute because I rushed outside, sir.
Q. From
the time you rushed outside after hearing the shouts that something was found,
did you see any person near the place?
A. Some
policemen, sir.
Q. What
were those policemen doing when you saw them?
A. They
were looking at the gun, sir.
Court
Q. Did
you see any policeman placed [sic] the gun there?
A. No,
your Honor, because I was far.
App Gascon
Q. The
place where you were standing near the door of the main house, could you see
the place where the shelf is?
A. No,
sir.
Court
Q.
Let
us clarify this. Is that shelf outside [or]
inside of the extension?
A.
Inside
the extension, just beside the door, Your Honor.[55]
Although
Yabes did not see that the gun was planted, neither could
he attest that the gun was not planted.
In fact, P/Insp. Baldovino
testified that Yabes refused to sign the receipt,
Exhibit “O”,[56]
wherein it is stated that the seizure was done in the presence of Yabes, for reasons he (Baldovino)
does not know.[57] And yet, Yabes,
when asked about Exhibit “O”, testified, thus:
Q. Showing
to you another document related to this which you were earlier confronted by
the Fiscal, Exh. “O”, there is a statement here that
the seized property was found in the presence of Ignacio Yabes
and that in his testimony before this court, Police Inspector Baldovino testified that when you were aked
[sic] to sign this piece of paper, you refused.
Can you recall now?
A. I
was not shown any paper, except Exh. “E”, Your Honor.
Q. What
can you say then to the testimony of Police Inspector Baldovino
that you refused to sign Exh. “O”?
A. I
never refused, Your Honor, to sign Exh. “O”. I could not have refused because they did not
show any paper and had they shown to me, I must have uttered some derogatory
remarks against them.
Q. Exh. “O” purports to show that a gun, caliber .38 with
serial number 439575 with five (5) live ammunitions for caliber .38 were seized
from the residence of Ely Agustin at Sitio Padual, Brgy. Pug-os, Cabugao, Ilocos
Sur on
A. As
I have testified earlier, Your Honor, the gun was not found by the policemen
who conducted the search of the house.
It was only mentioned by a policeman outside that the gun was seen at
the shelf, second rung, with a floor mat covering the barrel.[58] (Emphasis supplied)
The testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses further muddled the
prosecution evidence with more inconsistencies as to matters material to the
determination of whether a gun had in fact been found in the house of
petitioner. SPO4 Peneyra
testified that Yabes stayed outside of the house
during the search;[59]
whereas SPO1 Jara testified that Yabes
was inside, at the sala, but the latter saw the gun
only when SPO1 Cabaya raised it.[60]
Such inconsistencies on the material
details of the firearm's discovery are so glaring that they ought not to have
been ignored or brushed aside by the lower courts. The contradictions of the prosecution
witnesses not only undermine all efforts to reconstruct the event in question,
but altogether erode the evidentiary value of the prosecution evidence.
Given the incoherent story presented
by the prosecution, it is hardly persuasive that SPO1 Cabaya
indeed found the firearm in a regular manner. Serious doubts are raised on whether
petitioner really possessed or owned that weapon and hid it in his house. On the face of the
contradicting evidence presented by the prosecution, petitioner's denial and
his wife's emphatic claim of frame-up from day one, that is, at the time and on
the very spot of the alleged discovery of the gun, gained substantial significance.
Although the Court has held that
frame-up is inherently one of the weakest defenses,[61] as it is both easily concocted and difficult to
prove,[62] in
the present case, the lower courts seriously erred in ignoring
the
weakness of the prosecution's evidence and its failure to prove the guilt of
petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The rule requiring a
claim of frame-up to be supported by clear and convincing evidence[63]
was
never intended to shift to the accused the burden of
proof in a criminal case. As the Court held in People of
the Philippines v. Ambih:[64]
[W]hile the
lone defense of the accused that he was the victim of a frame-up is easily fabricated, this claim assumes importance when faced with
the rather shaky nature of the prosecution evidence. It is well to remember
that the prosecution must rely, not on the weakness of the defense evidence,
but rather on its own proof which must be strong enough to convince this Court
that the prisoner in the dock deserves to be punished. The constitutional
presumption is that the accused is innocent even if his defense is weak as long
as the prosecution is not strong enough to convict him.[65] (Emphasis supplied)
In People of the Philippines v.
Gonzales,[66]
the Court held that where there was material and unexplained inconsistency
between the testimonies of two principal prosecution witnesses relating not to
inconsequential details but to the alleged transaction itself which is subject
of the case, the inherent improbable character of the testimony given by one of
the two principal prosecution witnesses had the effect of vitiating the
testimony given by the other principal prosecution witness.[67]
The Court ruled that it cannot just
discard the improbable testimony of one officer and adopt the testimony of the
other that is more plausible.[68]
In such a situation, both testimonies
lose their probative value. The Court
further held:
Why should two (2) police officers
give two (2) contradictory descriptions of the same sale transaction, which
allegedly took place before their very eyes, on the same physical location and
on the same occasion? We must conclude that a reasonable doubt was generated as
to whether or not the "buy-bust" operation ever took place.[69]
In the present case, to repeat, the glaring contradictory testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses generate serious doubt as to whether a firearm was
really found in the house of petitioner. The prosecution utterly failed to discharge its
burden of proving that petitioner is guilty of illegal possession of firearms beyond
reasonable doubt. The constitutional
presumption of innocence of petitioner has not been demolished and therefore
petitioner should be acquitted of the crime he was with.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
The Decisions of the Court of Appeals
and the Regional Trial Court of Cabugao, Ilocos Sur are REVERSED
and set aside. The petitioner is ACQUITTED of the
crime charged in Criminal Case No. 1651-K.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article
VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Perlita J. Tria Tirona and Edgardo F. Sundiam; rollo, pp. 104-114.
[2]
[3] RTC records, p. 90.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] Also referred to as “Baldomino” in some parts of the records.
[8] Also referred to as “Avian” in some parts of the records.
[9] Exhibit “G”; TSN, October 1, 1996, p. 3; TSN January 19, 1996, p. 16; TSN, April 18, 1996, pp. 7-8; TSN, June 4, 1996, pp. 6, 15; TSN, August 1, 1996, p. 5; TSN, October 24, 1996, p. 5.
[10] TSN,
[11] Exhibit “G”.
[12] Part of Exhibit “F”.
[13] TSN,
[14] TSN,
[15] TSN,
[16] Rollo, pp. 38-43.
[17]
[18]
[19] Id at 113.
[20] Andaya v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 168486, June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA 539, 551; Brillante v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 118757 & 121571, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 480, 483.
[21] Rollo, p. 42.
[22]
[23]
[24] Rules of Court, Rule 128, Section 4; Sibal and Salazar, Compendium on Evidence, 2006, p. 7.
[25] 16 Phil. 520, 529 (1910).
[26] TSN,
[27] TSN,
[28] TSN,
[29] TSN,
[30]
[31] TSN,
[32] TSN,
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38] TSN,
[39] TSN,
[40] TSN,
[41] TSN,
[42] TSN,
[43]
[44] TSN,
[45] TSN,
[46] TSN,
[47] Exhibit “A”; TSN,
[48] TSN,
[49] TSN,
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53] TSN,
[54]
[55]
[56] Records, p. 94.
[57] TSN,
[58] TSN,
[59] TSN,
[60] TSN,
[61] People of the
[62] People of the
[63]
[64] G.R. No. 101006,
[65]
[66] G.R. Nos. 67801-02.
[67]
[68]
[69]