THIRD
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus
- TORIBIO JABINIAO, JR. and JOHN DOE, Accused-Appellants. |
|
G.R. No. 179499 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and
REYES, JJ. Promulgated: |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This is an
appeal from the Decision[1]
dated
On 10 March
1999, an Amended Information was filed against appellant Jabiniao before the
RTC of Cagayan de Oro City, charging him with the crime of Robbery with
Homicide, penalized under Article 294 in relation to Article 14 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, allegedly committed as
follows:
That on August 27, 1998 at about 1:00
o’clock dawn at Cugman, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping with
one another being both armed with handguns and with intent to gain and
after entering without permission into the dwelling of the offended party Maria
Divina Pasilang where she was sleeping together with her husband Ruben Pasilang
and their minor children and by means of force, threat, intimidation and
violence with the use of their handguns by pointing the same to the offended
party and her husband who were awakened
after they were kicked by co-accused Toribio Jabiniao, Jr., the accused
demanded for their money and after finding it the accused did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to gain, take, rob and carry
away the money of the offended party and her husband amounting to more or less P2,000.00
to their damage and prejudice which the couple intended to use for the
hospitalization of their son who was then sick with dengue fever and thereafter
before fleeing with the money, the herein accused, in pursuance of their
conspiracy did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
evident premeditation, taking advantage of their superior number and strength
and with intent to kill, by reason and on the occasion of the robbery,
treacherously attack the victim Ruben Pasilang by shooting him with the use of
their guns thereby inflicting a mortal gunshot wound on the victim which
cause[d] his untimely death, to the great damage and prejudice of the offended
party, the victim and his heirs.
That the commission of the crime was also
attended by the aggravating circumstance of nightime purposely sought by the
accused and by committing it inside the dwelling of the victim.
The killing of Ruben Pasilang is committed
with the use of an unlicensed firearm.
Contrary to Article 294 in conjunction
with Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659.[2]
Appellant
Jabiniao was arraigned on
The
prosecution presented as its witnesses Maria Divina Pasilang, Ireneo Haclad,
SPO1 Bladimer Fabre Agbalog, SPO4 Hilario Balensola, PO1 Fernando Edoria, Dr.
Efren Celeste, Dawn Florendo, Atty. Eleuteria Algodon and Rolando Jabiniao.
Private
complainant Maria Divina Pasilang testified that at around P2,000.00 and Maria Divina’s
shoulder bag. Appellant Jabiniao removed
his mask, revealing his face.
Appellant
Jabiniao approached Maria Divina, raised her duster and stroked her thighs.
She mercifully begged not to be touched in exchange for all their
belongings. Ruben likewise pleaded and
told appellant Jabiniao that he could take all their things. Appellant Jabiniao, however, continued
stroking Maria Divina’s thigh. He then
stood up and cut the wire of an electric fan which he used to tie Ruben’s feet.
Appellant Jabiniao then proceeded to tie Ruben’s hands with the strap of Maria
Divina’s bag, but Ruben resisted and was able to free his hands from appellant
Jabiniao’s hold. Appellant Jabiniao ran
towards the door. Ruben crawled and knelt
towards the door and closed it. A few
seconds later, gunshots were fired from the outside which pierced through the
door, hitting the chest of Ruben. Maria
Divina heard appellant Jabiniao and his masked companion pass through the gate
and flee the area. Maria Divina went to
Ruben and embraced him. Ruben said:
“Mards, I am going to die because of the wound.” She replied, “Do not succumb to the pain
because you still have children who need your care.” Maria Divina shouted for help. Her nearest neighbor, Nang Emie, answered:
“We are afraid, Day, to help because of the gunfire.” Ruben died in Maria Divina’s arms.[3]
Appellant
Jabiniao was arrested on
Maria
Divina also testified that she misses her husband and was worried about the
future of her children. Ruben was
earning P200.00 a day as a foreman of a building contractor. She spent P500.00 every night for ten
days as wake expenses, P6,000.00 for the 9th day rites, and P1,000.00
for the 40th day rites. She
also paid P1,800.00 for the coffin and P3,000.00 for the tomb.[4]
Barangay
Tanod Ireneo Haclad testified that on
SPO4
Hilario Balensola Rosilla, Jr., senior police officer of the Firearms and
Explosives Unit of the Philippine National Police, testified to his
PO1
Fernando Edoria, who was assigned to the Warrant and Subpoena Section and the Central
Record Section of the PNP, Cagayan de Oro City, testified that his office
issued a Certification dated 20 May 1999 stating that appellant Jabiniao has
three criminal records, as follows: (1) Robbery with Homicide [CC Nr 98-953]; (2)
Murder [CC Nr 96-374]; and (3) Illegal Possession of Firearms [CC Nr
96-10-40-96].
Dr. Efren
Celeste, Medical Officer IV of the City Health Department of Cagayan de Oro
City, issued a Death Certificate dated
CAUSES OF DEATH
Immediate Cause: a.
Cardio Respiratory Arrest
Antecedent Cause: b.
Hypovolemic Shock
Underlying Cause: c.
Gunshot wound (L) chest[5]
Social
Security System employee Dawn Florendo testified that Maria Divina filed a
funeral claim in said agency. Public
Attorney’s Office Officer-in-Charge
Atty. Eleuteria Algodon testified that she subscribed to appellant Jabiniao’s
Counter-Affidavit wherein the latter declared that he owned the bonnet taken by
the police officers, but used the same during harvest time to avoid scabies and
for the cold weather at night.
Appellant
Jabiniao’s brother, Rolando Jabiniao, testified that appellant Jabiniao was not
in his house on
The
defense, on the other hand, presented as its witnesses appellant Jabiniao
himself, Leonardo Gacang and Felix Ramos.
Appellant
Jabiniao, a hollow block maker and a resident of Dao, Gusa, Cagayan de Oro
City, denied any involvement or participation in the crime. He claimed that on
Leonardo Gacang,
a tuba gatherer, farmer and hilot, claims that on
Felix
Ramos, former neighbor of appellant Jabiniao, testified that on
On
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING consideration[s],
judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Toribio Jabiniao, Jr. guilty
beyond reasonable doubt as charged of the crime of Robbery with Homicide as
principal by direct participation and in conspiracy with John Doe with the
following aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and taking
advantage of superior strength with the following aggravating circumstances:
a.) use of unlicensed firearm;
b.) the crime be committed in the dwelling of the victims;
c.) night time purposely sought;
d.) the crime be committed with treachery;
and sentences the accused Toribio Jabiniao, Jr. to
death by lethal injection and to indemnify the offended party the sum of
Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) and to pay moral damages to the
offended party, the sum of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) and
to pay actual damages of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) and Twelve
Thousand Pesos for funeral expenses and temperate damages for wake and 9 days
prayer in the sum of Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) and to pay the cost.
The accused is however entitled to be
credited in the service of his sentence consisting of deprivation of his
liberty with the full time during which he has undergone preventive
imprisonment.[6]
The trial
court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible, particularly
the clear and positive identification of appellant Jabiniao by Maria
Divina. In so doing, the trial court
considered the account of Maria Divina of the open electric light, the removal
of the bonnet, and the “mashing” of her thighs by appellant Jabiniao to be
credible and trustworthy. The trial
court likewise rejected Jabiniao’s alibi that he was ill and was in his brother
Rolando’s house. Said defense was belied
by Rolando himself who testified otherwise.
Appellant
Jabiniao appealed the Decision of the trial court to the Court of Appeals. On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
assailed Decision dated April 19, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25,
Cagayan de Oro City is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION to the effect that
appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with
Homicide and is sentenced to suffer the imprisonment of reclusion perpetua in lieu of the death penalty pursuant to Section
2(a) of R.A. 9346. Appellant is hereby
directed to pay the heirs of the victim P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00
as moral damages, P14,000.00 as actual damages, P25,000.00 as
exemplary damages and P6,000.00 as temperate damages.[7]
Appellant
Jabiniao filed the present appeal, submitting the same Brief and Assignment of
Errors it had presented before the Court of Appeals. His Assignment of Errors reads:
I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED.
II
GRANTING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS GUILTY, THE
COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING HIM FOR THE COMPLEX CRIME OF ROBBERY
WITH HOMICIDE SINCE THE CRIMES COMMITTED ARE TWO SEPARATE CRIMES OF SIMPLE
ROBBERY AND HOMICIDE WHICH WILL ENTITLE HIM TO THE IMPOSITION OF TWO DIVISIBLE
PENALTIES FOR EACH OF THE TWO FELONIES CORRESPONDINGLY.[8]
Whether the guilt of appellant Jabiniao was proved
beyond reasonable doubt
In
asserting that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, appellant
Jabiniao claims the contention of Maria Divina that the perpetrator removed his
mask when he was searching the cabinet of the victim was tainted with
falsehood, arguing that a robber who intended to hide his face would not conveniently
remove his mask to reveal his identity.
Appellant Jabiniao likewise points to the portion in Maria Divina’s
testimony wherein the robber panicked and ran away when Ruben was able to untie
his hands. Appellant Jabiniao argues
that this is incredible, as Ruben’s feet had still been tied with a cord at
that time, while the assailant was armed with a gun. Appellant Jabiniao thus offers his theory
that he was pinned down by police officers for already facing several other
criminal charges.
We
are not convinced.
Unable
to find inconsistencies in the prosecution’s account of the alleged crime,
appellant Jabiniao desperately seeks the indulgence of this Court by invoking
what it claims to be natural reactions to a given situation. He claims that it is incredible for an
assailant who had purposely concealed his identity with a bonnet or ski mask to
remove the same while still in the presence of the victims. He claims that it is incredible for an
assailant with a gun to panic when his nemesis was tied at the feet.
To
a certain extent, a logical and methodical assailant having nerves of steel
would probably not do what the alleged assailant in the case at bar did. But while we can agree that an assailant who
had purposely concealed his identity with a ski mask would probably not remove
the same while still in the presence of the victims, and that an assailant with
a gun would probably not panic while his nemesis was tied at the feet, we
cannot say that an account claiming the contrary is incredible.
There
is no reason why the oft-quoted axiom – that there is no standard form of
behavior when one is confronted with a shocking incident[9]
– should not apply to everyone present in such incident. Furthermore, a reading
of Maria Divina’s account shows that she and Ruben appeared to be compliant to
all the wishes of the assailant at the start.
At the time the assailant allegedly removed his ski mask, said assailant
appeared to be in complete control and had absolutely no reason to panic. Ruben even told the assailant to take
everything he can.[10] The assailant could have been lured to a
false sense of security which allowed him to remove an uncomfortable piece of
clothing. On the other hand, Ruben’s attempt
to untie himself from Maria Divina’s bag’s strap was the very first resistance
offered by the victims. Ruben’s actually
being able to untie himself would certainly be a reason for the assailant to
panic after he had thought he was in complete control. As stated by the Court of Appeals, Maria
Divina’s testimony was clear and straightforward, and survived a grueling
cross-examination. Thus, on cross, Maria
Divina testified:
CROSS EXAMINATION:
ATTY. GIOVANNI NAVARRO:
Q: You
did not really see the face of the person who ransacked your plastic cabinet,
Ms. Witness?
A: I
was able to see the face of the person who ransacked my plastic cabinet because
he lowered down the bonnet he was wearing.
Q: So you
were not afraid to look at him at that time?
A: I
was not afraid to look at his face because I wanted to identify his face.
x x x x
Q: When
you arrived at the OKK for the second time, you saw Toribio Jabiniao already
being investigated by the police?
A: When
I arrived at the OKK, Toribio Jabiniao was not yet investigated by the
policemen. He was still inside the mini cell.
Q: Was he
alone inside the mini cell?
A: Toribio
Jabiniao was talking with a small boy at the cell.
Q: What
did you do when you saw him?
A: I
looked at him directly in order to find out whether his face and his built was
the very person whom I saw on
x x x x
Q: When
you went to the OKK and saw Toribio Jabiniao, Jr. inside the mini-cell, you
were with your parents-in-law, is that correct?
A: When
I went to the OKK, I was with my parents-in-law, but I was the first one who
entered the cell.
Q: But,
when you were in the OKK, your parents-in-law told you that Toribio Jabiniao,
Jr. was the one who robbed your neighbor in Cugman?
A: At that
time, my parents-in-law did not tell me about that.
Q: But,
you noticed that your parents-in-law also saw Toribio Jabiniao, Jr. inside the
mini cell?
A: My
parents-in-law saw Toribio Jabiniao only after I shouted, “he is really the one
who killed my husband and he is really the one who entered my house” because my
parents-in-law entered and get me from the mini cell.[11]
Maria Divina’s testimony was clear,
direct, and was without inconsistencies.
Appellant Jabiniao, however, countered this positive identification with
denial and alibi. As it is, denial and
alibi are already inherently very weak in the face of a positive identification
by a credible witness. Inconsistency in
the defense’s evidence and credible contrary evidence presented by the
prosecution sealed appellant Jabiniao’s fate.
We quote with approval the following reasoning of the Court
of Appeals:
Herein appellant declared that he was
staying at the house of his mother, located at the same barangay with that of
private complainant’s house, removing corn from its kernel when the crime was
committed. It was not, therefore,
physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime considering the
accessibility of his place to that of the victims. It also bears stressing that his testimony
was inconsistent with that of his own witness, Felix Ramos, who testified that
appellant was allegedly not in his mother’s house but in the house of his
brother. Appellant’s brother, however,
categorically declared that appellant was not in his house at that time nor
within the vicinity of Mintugsok, Cugman.
Furthermore, appellant, at another instance, posited that he was sick at
that time. This Court wonders how a sick
person could be physically fit enough to stay awake at up to
We find no compelling reason to
overturn the factual findings of the court a quo. Findings of the trial court are accorded not
only the highest respect, but also finality, unless some weighty circumstances
have been ignored or misunderstood which could alter the result and affect the
judgment to be rendered. The same is not
present in the case before Us.[12]
Whether the crime was that of a complex crime of Robbery
with Homicide or two separate crimes of (1) Simple Robbery and (2) Homicide.
According
to appellant Jabiniao, assuming arguendo that he was the real
perpetrator, his conviction for the special complex crime of Robbery with
Homicide is erroneous. He claims that
since he had already run away from the house of the victim when he fired the
gun and accidentally hit the victim, the robbery had already been accomplished
when the killing occurred.
We disagree.
The crime
of Robbery with Homicide is punished under Article 294 of the Revised Penal
Code, which provides, in part:
Art. 294. Robbery
with violence against or intimidation of persons – Penalties. – Any person
guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any
person shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime
of homicide shall have been committed or when the robbery shall have been
accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.
Homicide is
said to have been committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if, for
instance, it is committed to (a) facilitate the robbery or the escape of the
culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to
prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or (d) to eliminate witnesses
to the commission of the crime.[13] In Robbery with Homicide, so long as the
intention of the felon is to rob, the killing may occur before, during or after
the robbery. It is immaterial that death
would supervene by mere accident, or that the victim of homicide is other than
the victim of robbery, or that two or more persons are killed. Once a homicide is committed by reason or on
the occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is the special complex crime
of Robbery with Homicide.[14]
In the case
at bar, appellant Jabiniao demanded money from Maria Divina and Ruben from the
very start, plainly manifesting his and his companion’s original intent to
commit robbery. It was only after Ruben
freed his hands when appellant Jabiniao panicked, ran outside the door and
fired gunshots from the outside. Clearly,
appellant Jabiniao fired the shots in order to facilitate his escape and
eliminate his victims who could become witnesses against him and his companion.
We agree
with both lower courts that the aggravating circumstances of (a) use of unlicensed
firearm; (b) dwelling; and (c) treachery, which were alleged in the
information, were established. With the
presence of these aggravating circumstances, the penalty imposed should be the
maximum, which is death.
However, in
view of the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 or the Act Prohibiting the
Imposition of Death Penalty on
Whether courts a quo correctly ruled on the civil
liabilities of appellant Jabiniao.
It is
settled that in a criminal case, an appeal throws the whole case open for
review, and it becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct such errors
as may be found in the judgment appealed from, whether they are made the
subject of the assignment of errors or not.[15]
As to
damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1)
civil indemnity ex delicto for the
death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4)
exemplary damages; (5) attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation; and (6)
interest in proper cases.[16]
The amount
of P75,000.00 for civil indemnity awarded by the trial court as affirmed
by the Court of Appeals, is sustained.
The award for civil indemnity is mandatory and is granted to the heirs
of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[17] The amount of P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity is awarded only if the crime is qualified by circumstances which
warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[18] Though the penalty imposed on appellant was
reduced to reclusion perpetua, the
civil indemnity to be awarded remains at P75,000.00.
The Court
of Appeals however modified the awards for moral damages and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals reduced the trial court’s
award of moral damages from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00. We agree with this change, pursuant to
current jurisprudence.[19] As held by the Court of Appeals, moral
damages are awarded in cases of violent deaths even in the absence of proof of
mental and emotional suffering of the victim’s heirs, because the violent and
sudden death of a loved one invariably and necessarily brings about emotional
pain and anguish on the part of the victim’s family.[20]
We also
agree with the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00. Exemplary damages may be imposed when the
crime is committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[21] As held above, appellant Jabiniao’s crime was
aggravated by (1) the use of an unlicensed firearm; (2) commission of the crime
in the dwelling of the victims; and (3) treachery.
The Court
of Appeals, however, should have added an award for loss of earning capacity. Maria Divina testified that Ruben was earning
P200.00 a day prior to his death.[22]
While Maria Divina failed to
substantiate this amount, we held in the similar case of People v. Laut[23]
that:
As to the award of damages for loss of earning
capacity, Erlinda testified that her husband Tomas was earning P600.00 a
week prior to his death. She however failed to produce evidence to substantiate
her claim. Nonetheless, Art. 2206 of the
Civil Code provides, "the defendant shall be liable for the loss of the
earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs
of the latter x x x unless the deceased on account of permanent disability not
caused by the defendant had no earning capacity at the time of his death."
In the present case, as there is no indication that the deceased had no earning
capacity at the time of his death due to a permanent physical disability, we
are inclined to give credit to Erlinda’s testimony. Based on her computation, Tomas was earning
an annual income of P28,800.00 counted at the rate of P600.00 a
week for forty-eight (48) weeks. To this
amount would be deducted his necessary and incidental expenses estimated at
fifty percent (50%), leaving a balance of P14,400.00. His net annual
income would then be multiplied by his life expectancy using the following
formula: 2/3 x 80 – 40 (age of the victim at time of death). Tomas can
therefore be said to have a life expectancy of twenty-six (26) years. All taken, an award of P374,400.00 for
loss of earning capacity is just and proper.
The daily
income of P200.00 is equivalent to a gross annual income P48,000.00[24] The formula[25]
for unearned income is as follows:
Life expectancy x [Gross
Annual Income (G.A.I.) less Living expenses (50% G.A.I.)]
where life expectancy = 2/3 x (80 - age of the deceased )
Thus, the
unearned income of Ruben, who was 29 years old[26]
at the time of his death, is computed as follows:
Unearned
income = 2/3 (80-29)(P48,000.00-P24,000.00)
= 2/3 (51)(P24,000.00)
= P816,000.00
As to the P2,000.00
taken by appellant, the latter is ordered to return the same by way of
restitution. As regards the funeral and
burial expenses, the trial court found that the prosecution was able to
substantiate only the amount of P12,000.00. In People
v. Garin, we had this to say:
In support of the claim for actual damages,
the victim’s mother testified that she spent a total [amount of] P31,800.00
for the funeral service and other expenses during the wake. To justify an award of actual damages, it is
necessary to prove with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent
proof and on the best evidence obtainable by the injured party, the actual
amount of loss. Of the expenses
allegedly incurred, the only receipt presented by the prosecution was for the
payment made to St. Matthew Funeral Homes in the amount of P12,500.
However, in the case of People v. Dela Cruz, it was held that
when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount[s] to less than P25,000,
as in the present case, the award of temperate damages for P25,000 is
justified in lieu of actual damages for a lesser amount. This Court ratiocinated that it was anomalous
and unfair that the heirs of the victim who tried but succeeded in proving
actual damages amounting to less than P25,000 would be in a worse
situation than those who might have presented no receipts at all but would be
entitled to P25,000 temperate damages.[27]
In light of
our ruling in Garin, in lieu of
actual damages for funeral and burial expenses, we award the amount of P25,000
as temperate damages.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P50,000.00
as moral damages; P25,000.00 as exemplary damages; P25,000.00 as
temperate damages; P816,000.00 as indemnity for loss of earning
capacity; and P2,000.00 as restitution for the amount taken from the
victim. No costs.
SO
ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were 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 were 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 Ramon
R. Garcia with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Antonio L. Villamor,
concurring. Rollo, pp. 4-26.
[2] Records, pp. 51-52.
[3] CA rollo, p. 23.
[4]
[5] Records, p. 23.
[6]
[7] CA rollo, p. 147.
[8]
[9] People
v. Segundo, 228 SCRA 691; People v. Lo-ar, G.R. No. 118935, 6
October 1997; People v. Sagun, G.R. No. 110554,
[10] Records, p. 343.
[11] TSN,
[12] Rollo,
pp. 140-141.
[13] People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 139697, 15 June 2004, 432 SCRA 104, 121-122; People v. de Jesus, G.R. No. 134815, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 384, 403.
[14] People v. Cabbab, Jr., G.R.
No. 173479,
[15] People v. Flores, Jr., 442 Phil. 561, 569 (2002).
[16] People
v. Buban, G.R. No. 170471,
[17]
[18] People
v. Lara, G.R. No. 171449,
[19] People
v. Dulay, G.R. No. 174775,
[20] People
v. Orilla, G.R. Nos. 148939-40,
[21] Llave
v. People, G.R. No. 166040,
[22] Records, p. 329.
[23] 403 Phil. 819, 828-829 (2001).
[24] People v. Villarba, 398 Phil. 382, 399 (2000).
[25]
[26] Records, p. 23.
[27] G.R. No. 139069,