THIRD
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus
- EDWIN MEJIA, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 185723 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J., Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,* JJ. Promulgated: August 4, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D
E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For Review
under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is the Decision[1]
dated
On
Out of fear and shame, it took some time
before AAA had the courage to report the incident to her relatives.
On
CRIMINAL CASE NO. SCC-4080
That on or about 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of March 2, 2003, in Barangay XXX, XXX City, Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, intimidation or violence, and with lewd designs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, has (sic) carnal knowledge with his step-daughter AAA, against her will and consent.
Contrary to Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.[4]
CRIMINAL CASE NO. SCC-4081
That on or about 8:00 o’clock in the morning of March 2, 2003, in Barangay XXX, XXX City, Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, intimidation or violence, and with lewd design, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, has (sic) carnal knowledge with his step-daughter AAA, against her will and consent.
Contrary to Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.[5]
Both criminal cases were raffled to
Branch 57, presided by Judge Anthony Sison, and thereafter consolidated and
jointly tried. On arraignment, the Informations were read to accused-appellant
in a dialect known to, and understood by, him; and with the assistance of his
counsel, accused-appellant pleaded NOT GUILTY to both charges.[6]
Pre-trial was conducted on
Two
witnesses testified. Private complainant
AAA testified for the prosecution. Accused-appellant
Edwin Mejia testified for the defense.
AAA, 18 years old, single and a
resident of Barangay XXX,
While AAA was babysitting her
brother, accused-appellant, who was armed with a bolo, forcibly held her, laid
her on the living room floor (sala) and with the use of threats, undressed her
and removed her panty. He then removed
his short pants and brief and placed himself on top of AAA. Appellant inserted
his penis into AAA’s vagina, and as he did, she felt pain. Satisfying his
sexual desire after about three minutes of inserting his penis inside AAA’s
vagina, accused-appellant removed it from AAA’s vagina and dressed up. Accused-appellant threatened to kill AAA and
her mother should she leave the house and/or report the incident. Because she was afraid of the threat, AAA
stayed inside the bedroom for several hours.
At
AAA did not inform her grandparents
about the abominable act accused-appellant committed upon her person out of
fear due to his threats. However, she told her aunt with whom she lived in XXX
about her pregnancy, for she could no longer hide the change in her physical
appearance. After telling her aunt,
private complainant reported the incident to the police station, where she
executed her sworn statement. AAA also
underwent medical examination.
On cross-examination, AAA stated that
BBB and accused-appellant started living as husband and wife in XXX, XXX City,
Pangasinan when she was 16 years old. Her
father (FFF) and her mother BBB had been living separately. Private complainant disclosed that she was
under the care of her maternal grandparents and did not live with her mother
BBB and accused-appellant.
Upon AAA’s arrival at the house of
BBB and accused-appellant, accused-appellant was out of town harvesting
mangoes. Accused-appellant arrived after
the harvest was done. She was taking
some time to rest after doing household chores, and after the children of BBB
with accused-appellant had already left for school. AAA said that when she arrived at the house of
her mother, accused-appellant was still talking to Noel Soriano who just lived
nearby.
The
defense presented accused-appellant Edwin Mejia. Accused-appellant declared
that at around
Accused-appellant
explained that AAA was the daughter of his live-in partner/common-law-wife BBB
by her husband. When AAA was only 10
years old, accused-appellant and BBB started to cohabit. He had five children
with BBB, and they resided in XXX,
Accused-appellant
claimed the rape charges AAA filed against him were fabricated because he was
in Manaoag, Pangasinan, harvesting mangoes at the time of the alleged incident.
He, however, said that the distance from
Manaoag, Pangasinan to XXX City, Pangasinan could be traveled for more or less
one hour, using the same elf truck they used going to Manaoag and back to XXX
City.
On
WHEREFORE,
the Court finds accused Edwin Mejia, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the
crime of Rape as charged under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code in
Criminal Case No. SCC-4081, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. Accused is directed
to pay the victim P50,000.00 as indemnity.
However, as to Criminal Case No. SCC-4080, it is settled that each charge of rape is a separate and distinct crime and each must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Mere laying on top of the alleged victim even if naked does not constitute rape. The prosecution therefore failed to prove the essential elements of rape, but the Court finds accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the lesser offense of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum to 3 years of prision correctional, as maximum.
The
court a quo gave more credence to the
testimony of private complainant AAA, who charged accused-appellant with committing
the bestial act resulting in her pregnancy. The trial court applied the principle that an affirmative
testimony carries more weight than a mere denial. Accused-appellant’s denial was found to be
unsubstantiated and merely self-serving, vis-à-vis
the positive declaration of AAA and the frank manner in which she recounted her
ordeal. In fact, the defense of alibi
put up by accused-appellant was uncorroborated. Finally, the element of hate was not given
much weight by the trial court. It
stated that, assuming this element was present, it did not detract from AAA’s
credibility.
The
trial court appreciated the qualifying circumstance of minority and
relationship, so that under Article 266-B of Republic Act No. 8353, the penalty
would have been death. With the
suspension of the death penalty due to the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346,
the RTC imposed reclusion perpetua.
Insisting
on his innocence and invoking the twin defenses of denial and alibi,
accused-appellant elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a notice of appeal.
Thus,
on
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court in Crim Case No. 6295 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, to wit:
(1)
In Criminal Case No. SCC-4081, appellant Edwin Mejia is
hereby found guilty of simple rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Appellant is further
ORDERED to indemnify AAA in the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity and
P50,000 as moral damages.
(2) In Criminal Case No. SCC-4080, appellant Edwin Mejia is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of Six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum to three (3) years of prision correctional, as maximum.[9]
The
Court of Appeals was not persuaded by accused-appellant’s contention that
hatred caused AAA to concoct rape charges against him. This attempt to
discredit AAA failed. The Court of Appeals
ruled that the hate element was too petty a cause for the victim’s family to
fabricate allegations of rape. Motive is
not necessary when the identity of the wrongdoer is positively identified by
the victim herself. In giving full credit to AAA’s testimony, the appellate
court affirmed the dictum that the
assessment of trial courts is generally viewed as correct and entitled to great
weight.
The
Court of Appeals opposed the trial court’s appreciation of the qualifying
circumstance of minority of the victim in view of the information’s failure to
allege such circumstance and the prosecution’s failure to adduce proof as to
the age of AAA at the time the alleged rape took place. The qualifying circumstance of minority was
not sufficiently established by independent proof during trial. Thus, the qualifying circumstances of minority
and relationship were not appreciated by the Court of Appeals.
Hence,
this appeal before this Court.
On
Asking for his acquittal,
accused-appellant raises the following assignment of errors:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY OF THE VICTIM ALTHOUGH THE INFORMATION DOES NOT ALLEGE SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE AND THAT THE PROSECUTION INTRODUCED NO PROOF AS TO THE AGE OF THE VICTIM AT THE TIME THE ALLEGED RAPE INCIDENT HAPPENED.
The
defense argues that it was impossible for accused-appellant to have raped AAA,
for two reasons. First, he and AAA did
not reside at the same place. Second, at
the time the alleged rape incident took place, accused-appellant was harvesting
mangoes in Casantiagoan, Pangasinan. Accused-appellant attempts to discredit
AAA by showing that AAA was actuated by ill motives. Accused-appellant asserts that AAA had a very
strong motive against him, elucidating that AAA and BBB’s family hated him
because he hurt BBB. The defense also
questions the trial court’s appreciation of the qualifying circumstance of
minority when the information failed to allege such circumstance and the
prosecution did not present proof pertaining to the age of the victim at the
time the alleged rape took place.
On
the side of the prosecution, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) supports
accused-appellant’s conviction. However,
it agrees that accused-appellant should only be convicted of Simple Rape in
Criminal Case No. SCC-4081, because the qualifying circumstance of minority was
neither alleged in the information nor proved in the trial.
The
appeal fails.
The
Informations charge accused-appellant with the crime of Rape, defined and
penalized under the provisions of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, viz:
ART. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. – Rape is committed –
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a. Through
force, threat or intimidation.
The
prosecution must be able to establish the following essential elements under
Article 266-A(1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, namely: (a) that the
offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (b) that the same was committed
by using force and intimidation.
Accused-appellant
anchors his claim of innocence on two defenses, denial and alibi. At the same time, accused-appellant impugns
the credibility of AAA.
In
resolving rape cases, this Court is guided by the following principles: (a) an
accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but
even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) in view
of the intrinsic nature of the crime where only two persons are usually
involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme
caution; (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own
merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence
for the defense; and (d) the evaluation of the trial court judges regarding the
credibility of witnesses deserves utmost respect on the ground that they are in
the best position to observe the demeanor, act, conduct, and attitude of the
witnesses in court while testifying.[12]
In
light of these principles and considering the gravity of the offense charged
and the severity of the penalty that may be imposed, this Court has
meticulously evaluated the entire records and transcript of stenographic notes,
and find no reason to deviate from the appellate court’s findings.
AAA’s
testimony, quoted hereunder, indubitably shows that accused-appellant had carnal
knowledge of her by using force and intimidation, thus:
Pros. Taminaya
Q. Do you know accused Edwin Mejia?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why do you know Edwin Mejia?
A. He is my stepfather, sir.
Q, Is he in the Court room now?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you kindly point to him?
Interpreter
Witness pointed to a man wearing blue green t-shirt and he respondent that he is Edwin Mejia when he was asked of his name.
Pros. Taminaya
Q. Some time on
A. I was at the house of my mother, sir.
Q. Where is the house of your mother located?
A. In XXX, XXX, Pangasinan, sir.
Q. Why were you there in the house of your mother?
A. I was asked to take care of my younger brother, sir.
Q. What is the name of your brother?
A. CCC, sir.
Q. How old is CCC you are taking cared of?
A. More than two (2) months, sir.
Q. While you were taking care of your
younger brother in the morning of
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is that unusual incident?
A. He threatened me with a bolo, sir. (Inangatan to ak na barang)
Q. Who threatened you with a bolo?
A. Edwin, sir.
Q. After he threatened you with a bolo, what did he do to you?
A. He laid me down, sir.
Q. What part of the house were you laid down?
A. In the sala, sir.
Q. Where was your mother?
A. She was selling, sir.
Q. After he forced you down, what did Edwin Mejia do?
A. He undressed me and removed my panty, sir.
Q. After Edwin Mejia removed your dress and your panty, what did he do next?
A. He removed his short pants and brief and he went on top of me, sir.
Q. When he was on top of you, what did he do?
A. That I will never go down and went out or else he will kill me, sir.
Q. While on top, what happened to you?
A. Painful, sir.
Q. What is painful to you?
A. My vagina, sir.
Q. Why is your vagina painful?
A. Very painful, sir.
Q. Why, what did you feel to (sic) your vagina that caused the pain?
A. He forcefully inserted his penis on (sic) my vagina sir.
Q. How long did he enter his penis into your vagina.
A. He inserted it very well, sir.
Q. How long?
A. About three (3) minutes, sir.
Q. What did he do while his penis was inside your vagina for 3 minutes?
A. After that he removed it, sir.
Q. When he removed his penis, what did he tell you?
A. That I will not go down from the house because he will kill me and he will kill my mother sir.
x x x x
Q. At around
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is that unusual incident?
A. He pulled my hair, sir.
Q. Who pulled your hair?
A. Edwin
Mejia, sir.
x x x x
Q. After pulling your hair, what did Edwin Mejia do?
A. He laid me down and then he raped me, sir.
Q. After laiding (sic) you down, what did Edwin Mejia do?
A. He removed my dress and my panty, sir.
Q. After Edwin Mejia removed your dress and your panty, what did he do next?
A. He went on top of me again, sir.
Q. Was he able to insert again his penis into your vagina?
A. Not anymore, sir.
Q. After that what transpired next?
A. He told me not to report, sir.
Q. Were you able to wait for your mother
that afternoon of
A. No, sir.
Q. Where did you go?
A. In our house, sir.
Q. Where is your house located?
A. In XXX, Pangasinan.
Q. Whose house is that?
A. My grandparents, sir.
Q. When you reached your grandparents’ house that afternoon, did you tell to (sic) your grandparents what happened to you?
A. No, sir.
Q. Why did you not tell your grandparents of what happened to you?
A. Because he threatened me with a bolo, sir.
Q. How about to your mother, were you able to tell the incident to your mother?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you tell your mother what happened to you?
A. When I was already pregnant, sir.[13]
Indeed,
at the heart of almost all rape cases is the issue of credibility of witnesses,
where conviction or acquittal of the accused may depend entirely on the
credibility of the victim’s testimony, as only the participants therein can
testify to its occurrence. By the nature
of rape, the only evidence that oftentimes is available is the victim's own
declaration. The rule is clear that the lone testimony of the victim in the
crime of rape, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.
In
challenging the credibility of AAA’s accusations against him, accused-appellant
points out the confusion in her testimony as to the exact time of the alleged
rape to show that AAA was concocting the charges. He claims that AAA was moved by hatred, as
accused-appellant often hurt AAA’s mother BBB.
However,
time and again, this Court has emphasized that the manner of assigning values
to declarations of witnesses on the witness stand is best and most competently
performed by the trial judge who has the unique and unmatched opportunity to
observe the witnesses and assess their credibility. In essence, when the
question arises as to which of the conflicting versions of the prosecution and
the defense is worthy of belief, the assessment of the trial court is generally
given the highest degree of respect, if not finality. The assessment made by
the trial court is even more enhanced when the Court of Appeals affirms the
same, as in this case.
Moreover,
although AAA’s testimony was allegedly marred by confusion as to the time of
the rape, the supposed inconsistency refers to a minor detail, which cannot
affect the credibility of the testimony as a whole.
On
accused-appellant’s claim -- that he could not have raped AAA since 2 March
2003 was a Sunday; thus, his five children were home -- is of no merit, as lust
is no respecter of time and place. This
Court has repeatedly held that rape can be committed even in places where
people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, and
even inside a house where there are other occupants or where other members of
the family are also sleeping. Thus, it
is an accepted rule in criminal law that rape may be committed even when the
rapist and the victim are not alone. The
fact is, rape may even be committed in the same room while the rapist’s spouse
is asleep, or in a small room where other family members also sleep.[14]
Accused-appellant
relies on his averment that he was harvesting mangoes in Casantiagoan,
Pangasinan when the incidents occurred. For
alibi to succeed as a defense, the accused must establish by clear and
convincing evidence (a) his presence at another place at the time of the
perpetration of the offense and (b) the physical impossibility of his presence
at the scene of the crime.[15] No other principle in criminal law
jurisprudence is more settled than that alibi is the frailest of all defenses
as it is prone to fabrication.
The
defense failed to prove the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene
of the crime. As testified to by accused-appellant,
the distance from Casantiagoan, Pangasinan to the house of BBB in XXX town,
which was the scene of the crime, can be traversed by ordinary commute in a
span of one hour.[16] It was thus not physically impossible for him
to have been at the locus criminis.
Accused-appellant’s
defense of denial is inherently weak. Jurisprudence has established that the
defense of denial assumes significance only when the prosecution’s evidence is
such that it does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Mere denial, unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence, is negative, self-serving evidence, which cannot be given
greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the complaining witness who
testified on affirmative matters. While
accused-appellant claimed to be in the company of a group of men during those
times, the defense could not present even a single corroborative testimony. Appellant’s denial and alibi cannot prevail
over the affirmative testimony of AAA, more so when the records lack any
suggestion that AAA’s testimony should be seen in a suspicious light.
In
all, the totality of the evidence presented by the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that accused-appellant is guilty of Rape in Criminal Case No.
SCC-4081.
Simple rape is punished under Article 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code by the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. Article
266-B of the Revised Penal Code mandates that the death penalty shall be
imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following
aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
(1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim;
Although the qualifying circumstances
of minority and relationship were appreciated by the trial court, the Court of
Appeals correctly disregarded them. These
qualifying circumstances cannot be considered in fixing the penalty because
minority, though proved, was not alleged in the information. As regards relationship, the same was alleged
and proved. Pursuant, however, to Section 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, in
order to fall within subparagraph 1 of said provision, both circumstances of
minority and relationship must be alleged in the information and proved during
trial. In People v. Tabanggay,[17]
we held:
Jurisprudence dictates
that when the law specifies certain circumstances that will qualify an offense
and thus attach to it a greater degree of penalty, such circumstances must be
both alleged and proven in order to justify the imposition of the graver
penalty. Recent rulings of the Court relative to the rape of minors invariably
state that in order to justify the imposition of death, there must be
independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies
of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused. A duly
certified certificate of live birth accurately showing the complainant's age,
or some other official document or record such as a school record, has been
recognized as competent evidence.
In the instant case, we
find insufficient the bare testimony of private complainants and their mother
as to their ages as well as their kinship to the appellant. x x x [We] cannot
agree with the solicitor general that appellant's admission of his relationship
with his victims would suffice. Elementary is the doctrine that the prosecution
bears the burden of proving all the elements of a crime, including the
qualifying circumstances. In sum, the death penalty cannot be imposed upon
appellant.[18]
The twin circumstances of minority of
the victim and her relationship to the offender must concur to qualify the
crime of rape.[19] In the instant case, only relationship was
duly alleged and proved.
As
amended, and effective
Anent
the award of damages, civil indemnity ex
delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape, while moral
damages are awarded upon such finding without need of further proof, because it
is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling
the victim to such award.[21] The Court of Appeals correctly awarded (a) P50,000.00
as civil indemnity and (b) P50,000.00 as moral damages to the victim,
pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[22] Exemplary damages are not awarded in light of
the absence of proven aggravating circumstances.
With respect to Criminal Case No. SCC-4080, we are in full
agreement with the trial court and Court of Appeals in downgrading the crime
from rape to acts of lasciviousness inasmuch as carnal knowledge was not
established. The mere act of lying on
top of the alleged victim, even if naked, does not constitute rape.
Instead,
the Court finds accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Acts of
Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. The felony of acts of lasciviousness, a crime
included in rape, is defined and penalized by Article 336 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, thus:
ART. 336. Acts of lasciviousness. - Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by prision correccional.
Its
elements are as follows:
1. That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness.
2. That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation; or
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or
c. When the offended party is under 12 years of age.
3. That the offended party is another person of either sex.[23]
The
Court finds accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the lesser
offense of acts of lasciviousness with the presence of the foregoing elements,
specifically: (1) the acts of lasciviousness or lewdness and (2) the fact that
these were done by using force or intimidation.
The
penalty for the felony of acts of lasciviousness is prision correccional in its full range. Reducing the penalty by one degree to
determine the minimum of the indeterminate penalty, such penalty is arresto mayor, which has a range of one
(1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months.
The minimum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the full
range of arresto mayor. Absent any modifying circumstances attendant
to the crime, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the
medium period of prision correccional. Accordingly, accused-appellant is hereby
meted an indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to three years of prision correccional, as maximum in Criminal Case No. SCC-4080. Moreover, the amount of P30,000.00 as
moral damages is awarded to the victim.[24]
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the decision of the Court of Appeals finding
accused-appellant Edwin Mejia, GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Simple Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness is
hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that in Criminal Case No.
SCC-4080, the amount of P30,000 is awarded to the victim as moral
damages. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate
Justice |
|
|
|
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO 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
* Associate
Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro was designated to sit as additional
member replacing Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta per Raffle dated
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison with Associate Justices Juan Q.
Enriquez, Jr. and Isaias P. Dicdican concurring; rollo, pp. 2-18.
[2] CA
rollo, pp. 11-16.
[3] Private
complainant is referred to as AAA. In view of the legal mandate on the utmost
confidentiality of proceedings involving violence against women and children
set forth in Section 29 of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the
Anti-violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.
[4] Records,
Volume I, pp. 1-2.
[5] Records,
Volume I-A, pp. 1-2.
[6]
[7] Records,
Volume I, p. 43; Records, Volume I-A, p. 28.
[8] CA
rollo, pp. 11-16.
[9]
[10] Rollo, p. 24.
[11]
[12] People
v. Miñon, G.R. Nos. 148397-400,
[13] TSN,
[14] People v. Castel, G.R. No. 171164, 18
November 2008, citing People v. Evina, 453 Phil. 25, 41 (2003), citing People
v. Perez, 357 Phil. 17, 29 (1998).
[15] People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 141599,
[16] TSN,
[17] 390 Phil. 67 (2000).
[18]
[19] People v. Espino, Jr., G.R. No. 176742,
[20] People v. Lopit, G.R.
No. 177742, 17 December 2008.
[21] People v. Sabardan, G.R. No.132135,
[22] People v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 178536,
[23] Amployo v. People, G.R. No. 157718,
[24] People v. Ceballos, Jr., G.R. No.
169642,