FIRST
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - Accused. GRACE CALIMON AND AIDA
COMILA, Accused-Appellants. |
G.R. No. 175229
Present: pUNO, C.J.,* QUISUMBING,** AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,*** CoronA,**** CARPIO MORALES,*** and LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, JJ. Promulgated: January 29, 2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, J.:
For
our consideration is an appeal from the Decision[1]
dated
On
After
several months, accused-appellants were apprehended for their involvement in
other cases of illegal recruitment and estafa.
Private complainants Magnaye, Agramon and Devanadera were summoned to a
preliminary investigation at the DOJ.
On
Criminal Case
No. 00179745:
That on or about September
1998, and thereafter in Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously recruit the herein complainants, FE MAGNAYE, LUCILA AGRAMON and
DAISY DEVANADERA to Italy as factory workers for the consideration thereof,
they were required to pay placement fees, the complainants delivered and paid
the total amount (P110,000.00) Philippine Currency for the consideration
thereof, without accused having secured the necessary license and authority
from the Department of Labor and Employment to recruit and deploy workers to
Italy.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Three separate Informations[10]
for estafa arising from the same acts penalized under paragraph 2(a), Article
315 of the Revised Penal Code were also filed against the three, docketed as
Criminal Case Nos. 00-180519, 00-180520, and 00-180521, thus:
Criminal Case No.
00-180519:
That on or about October
1998, and thereafter in Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with
each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously recruit
and promise employment to FE MAGNAYE in Italy as factory worker for a total
consideration of fifty five thousand pesos (P55,000.00) as placement and
processing fees, knowing that they have no capacity whatsoever and with no
intention to fulfill their promise, but merely as a pretext, scheme or excuse
to get or exact money from the said complainant as they in fact collected and
received the amount of P55,000.00 from said FE MAGNAYE to her damage,
loss and prejudice for the aforesaid amount.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal
Case No. 00-180520:
That on or about September
1998, and thereafter in Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating
with each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
recruit and promise employment to LUCILA C. AGRAMON in Italy as factory worker
for a total consideration of twenty seven thousand and five hundred pesos (P27,500.00)
as placement and processing fees, knowing that they have no capacity whatsoever
and with no intention to fulfill their promise, but merely as a pretext, scheme
or excuse to get or exact money from the said complainant as they in fact collected
and received the amount of P27,500.00 from said LUCILA C. AGRAMON to her
damage, loss and prejudice for the aforesaid amount.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 00-180521:
That on or about September
1998, and thereafter in Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating
with each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
recruit and promise employment to DAISY DEVANADERA alias ‘Renata P. Luciano’ in
Italy as factory worker for a total consideration of twenty seven thousand five
hundred pesos (P27,500.00) as placement and processing fees, knowing
that they have no capacity whatsoever and with no intention to fulfill their
promise, but merely as a pretext, scheme or excuse to get or exact money from
the said complainant as they in fact collected and received the amount of
P27,500.00 from said DAISY DEVANADERA alias ‘Renata P Luciano’ to her damage,
loss and prejudice for the aforesaid amount.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.
Upon
arraignment, herein accused-appellants pleaded “not guilty” to the crimes
charged. Accused Lo, however, has not
yet been apprehended and has remained at large.
Trial on the merits ensued thereafter.
The prosecution presented as
witnesses the three private complainants, as well as Corazon Cristobal,[11]
an employee of the POEA, and PO2 Edward Catalan.[12] A summary of facts, culled from their
collective testimonies, follows:
Sometime in 1998, Lo persuaded
private complainants to apply for a job in
Thus, when accused Calimon
asked P10,000.00 from each of the private complainants to cover expenses
for medical examination and processing fees for travel documents, both
Devanadera and Agramon readily parted with their money, as evidenced by
receipts[17] duly
signed by Calimon.[18] They likewise gave their respective
passports, birth certificates, NBI clearances, resumes and other documents.[19] Thereafter, Calimon brought them to St.
Martin’s Clinic for medical examination.[20]
On
P20,000.00 to
Calimon for the latter’s recruitment services.[21]
On P15,000.00[22]
to Calimon. While Devanadera and Agramon
gave her an additional amount of P7,500.00[23] each.
At one time, in the course of
following up the status of her overseas employment application, Calimon
introduced complainant Devanadera to accused-appellant Comila who showed her
file and informed her of the need to secure a visa with the Italian Embassy. Calimon then asked for more money to secure
the visa, but Devanadera refused to pay.[24]
Private complainant Agramon’s
follow ups with Calimon were just met by repeated assurance that she will be
deployed immediately once her papers are completely processed.[25] The other complainants received similar
treatment.
Finally, in January 1999, Calimon
gave private complainants their supposed individual employment contracts as
factory workers in
The defense presented
accused-appellants as witnesses.
Accused-appellant Calimon denied the
accusations against her. She claimed
that she was also an applicant for overseas job placement and that she never
promised any work abroad to private complainants.[28] She averred that it was Lo who recruited her
and private complainants.[29] She likewise denied having received any money
from private complainants. She
maintained that it was accused-appellant Comila who received the money from her
amounting to P16,000.00 as payment for her placement fee.[30]
Accused-appellant Comila, on the other hand, denied having
known or seen Lo.[31] However, she maintained that it was accused
Lo who recruited and received money from private complainants.[32] She averred she could not have recruited
private complainants because she gave birth in
On
“WHEREFORE, judgment is
rendered:
A. In Criminal Case No.
00-179745, (1) pronouncing accused GRACE CALIMON guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of illegal recruitment in large scale and sentencing said accused to life imprisonment
and to pay a fine of P800,000.00; and (2) pronouncing accused AIDA COMILA guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of simple illegal recruitment and sentencing said
accused to imprisonment from eight (8) to ten (10) years, and to pay a fine of
P300,000.00. With costs against the two
accused in proportionate shares;
B. In Criminal Cases Nos.
00-180519 and 00-180521, pronouncing accused GRACE CALIMON guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of two counts of estafa defined under paragraph 2 (a) of
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, and (1) sentencing said accused in Criminal
Case No. 00-180519 to the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2)
months of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years of prision
mayor as maximum; and (2) sentencing said accused in Criminal Case No.
00-180521, to the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of
prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and
twenty (20) days of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay the costs for
each case.
C. In Criminal Case No.
00-180520, pronouncing accused GRACE CALIMON and AIDA COMILA guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of estafa defined under paragraph 2 (a) Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code, and sentencing each of the said accused to the indeterminate
penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2)
years, eleven (11) months and ten (10) days of prision correccional, as
maximum, and to pay the costs in equal shares.
In the service of her
(accused Aida Comila) sentence in Criminal Case No. 00-179745, and the
respective sentences of both accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 00-180519,
00-180520 and 00-180521, inclusive, the period during which they have been
under preventive imprisonment should be credited in their favor provided that
they agreed voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules
imposed upon convicted prisoners, otherwise, they should be credited with
four-fifths only of the time they have been under preventive imprisonment.
In Criminal Cases Nos.
00-179745, 00-180519 and 00-180521, accused Grace Calimon is ordered to pay to
complainants Fe Magnaye and Daisy Devanadera the sums of P35,000.00 and
P17,500.00, respectively, as reparations for the damages she caused them.
In Criminal Cases Nos.
00-179745 and 00-180520, accused Grace Calimon and accused Aida Comila are
ordered, jointly and severally, to pay offended party Lucila C. Agramon the sum
of P10,000.00, as reparation for the damages she caused her.
SO ORDERED.”
On appeal, the CA affirmed the
Decision of the RTC but with modifications.
The CA’s reasoning for the modification and the dispositive portion of
the CA Decision follow:
Summing up, in Criminal Case
No. 00-179745, the RTC correctly convicted Calimon of Illegal Recruitment in
Large Scale, which is punishable by the maximum penalty of life imprisonment
and a fine of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) when the offender is a
non-licensee or non-holder of authority to recruit and deploy workers abroad,
as in the instant case (Sec. 7, Republic
Act No. 8042). Hence, the penalty
imposed by the RTC must be modified to life imprisonment and a fine of One
Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00).
Comila was likewise correctly
convicted by the RTC of the crime of simple Illegal Recruitment. The sentence pronounced by the RTC, was
proper.
In Criminal Case No.
00-180519, Grace Calimon was properly found guilty of Estafa through false
pretenses. Since the amount defrauded from Fe Magnaye was P35,000.00, the
penalty imposed by the RTC was proper.
In Criminal Case No.
00-180520, since the amount defrauded from Lucila Agramon is P17,500.00, the
correct penalty that should be imposed upon Calimon and Comila, in the absence
of any modifying circumstances, should be the indeterminate penalty of four (4)
years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6)
years, eight (8) months and twenty (20) days of prision mayor, as
maximum.
In Criminal Case No.
00-180521, the amount involved is P17,500.00.
There being no modifying circumstances, the penalty imposed by the trial
court on Calimon is correct. However, it
has been duly proven that Comila was a conspirator to the crime subject of this
case. In view of her acquittal by the
RTC, this matter can no longer be questioned in this appeal on the ground of
double jeopardy. However, Comila should
be made solidarily liable with Calimon to indemnify P17,500.00 to Daisy
Devanadera, since Comila’s acquittal on the ground of reasonable doubt did not
declare whether the facts from which the civil liability might arise did not
exist (Last paragraph, Section 2, Rule
120, Rules of Court).
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
WHEREFORE, judgment is
rendered:
A. In Criminal Case No.
00-179745, (1) pronouncing accused GRACE CALIMON guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of illegal recruitment in large scale and sentencing said accused to life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00;
and (2) pronouncing accused AIDA COMILA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
simple illegal recruitment and sentencing said accused to imprisonment from eight
(8) to ten (10) years, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00. With costs against the two accused in
proportionate shares;
B. In Criminal Cases Nos.
00-180519 and 00-180521, pronouncing accused GRACE CALIMON guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of two counts of estafa defined under paragraph 2 (a) of
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, and (1) sentencing said accused in
Criminal Case No. 00-180519 to the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and
two (2) months of prision correccional,
as minimum, to nine (9) years of prision
mayor as maximum; and (2) sentencing said accused in Criminal Case No.
00-180521, to the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of
prision correccional, as
minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty (20) days of prision mayor, as maximum; and to
pay the costs for each case.
C. In Criminal Case No.
00-180520, pronouncing accused GRACE CALIMON and AIDA COMILA guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of estafa defined under paragraph 2 (a) Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code, and sentencing each of the said accused to the
indeterminate penalty of four (4)
years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years,
eight (8) months and Twenty (20) days of prision mayor, as maximum, and
to pay the costs in equal shares.
In the service of her
(accused Aida Comila) sentence in Criminal Case No. 00-179745, and the
respective sentences of both accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 00-180519,
00-180520 and 00-180521, inclusive, the period during which they have been
under preventive imprisonment should be credited in their favor provided that
they agreed voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules
imposed upon convicted prisoners, otherwise, they should be credited with
four-fifths only of the time they have been under preventive imprisonment.
In Criminal Cases Nos.
00-179745 and 00-180519, accused Grace Calimon is ordered to pay to complainant
Fe Magnaye the sum of P35,000.00, as reparations for the damages she
caused her.
In
Criminal Cases Nos. 00-179745 and 00-180521, accused Grace Calimon is ordered
to pay jointly and severally with Aida Comila to complainant Daisy Devanadera
the sum of P17,500.00, as reparation for the damages she caused her.
In Criminal Cases Nos.
00-179745 and 00-180520, accused Grace Calimon and accused Aida Comila are
ordered, jointly and severally, to pay offended party Lucila C. Agramon the sum
of P10,000.00, as reparation for the damages they caused her.
SO ORDERED.”
Hence, the present appeal based
on the following lone assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT GRACE CALIMON FOR
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE AND THREE (3) COUNTS OF ESTAFA AND AIDA
COMILA FOR SIMPLE ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT AND ONE (1) COUNT OF ESTAFA DESPITE THE
FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
In
their brief[34],
accused-appellants contend that the prosecution witnesses established that only
Lo recruited private complainants and promised to deploy them abroad. They deny having collected placement fees,
but ironically admitted that the amount collected was for medical examination,
visa and passport fees. Further, they
insist that they are not guilty of estafa through false pretenses because they
did not commit any act of deceit as it was only accused Lo who promised to
deploy private complainants to Italy for a fee.
The
people, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), maintains that
accused-appellant Calimon committed the crime of illegal recruitment in large
scale while accused-appellant Comila committed the crime of simple illegal
recruitment. By her conduct, Calimon
successfully gave private complainants the impression that she had the ability
to send workers abroad although she did not in fact have the authority to do
so. She was also able to induce private
complainants to tender payment for fees.
Since there were three (3) workers involved in the transaction, she
committed the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale. As to Comila, the
OSG argues that there is clear and convincing evidence that she conspired
with Calimon. The OSG, however, points
out that conspiracy was not alleged in the Information. Hence, Comila can only be convicted for
simple illegal recruitment, not for illegal recruitment in large scale in
conspiracy with Calimon. [35]
Additionally,
the OSG submits that accused-appellant Calimon committed two counts of estafa
through false pretenses while accused-appellant Comila committed one count of estafa
through false pretenses.
Accused-appellants’ acts of deliberately misrepresenting themselves
to private complainants as having the
necessary authority or license to recruit applicants for overseas employment,
and collecting money from them allegedly for processing fees and travel
documents, but failing to deploy them and to return the money they had
collected despite several demands clearly amount to estafa.
After
a thorough review of the records, we hold that the present appeal is plainly
unmeritorious.
The pertinent provisions of Republic Act No.
8042 state:
SEC. 6. Definition. – For purposes of this Act, illegal
recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring,
contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for
profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority
contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended,
otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, that any such
non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. x x x
Illegal
recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three
(3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if
committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. x x x
Sec. 7. Penalties. –
(a) Any person found guilty of illegal recruitment
shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one
(1) day but not more than twelve (12) years and a fine of not less than Two
hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00)
nor more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).
(b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a
fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more
than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal
recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein.
Provided,
however, That the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the person illegally
recruited is less than eighteen (18) years of age or committed by a
non-licensee or non-holder of authority.
In a litany of
cases,[36]
we held that to constitute illegal recruitment in large scale
three (3) elements must concur: (a) the offender has no valid license or
authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and
placement of workers; (b) the offender undertakes any of the activities within
the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Art. 13, par. (b),
of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Art. 34
of the same Code (now Sec. 6, RA 8042);
and, (c) the offender committed the same against three (3) or more persons,
individually or as a group.
Corollarily, Article 13, paragraph (b) of the Labor Code
enumerates the acts which constitute recruitment and placement:
(b) ‘Recruitment
and placement’ refer to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals,
contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad,
whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any
manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be
deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.
Here, we are convinced that the
three elements were sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt.
First, accused-appellants,
undoubtedly, did not have any license to recruit persons for overseas
work. This is substantiated by the POEA,
Licensing Branch which issued a Certification[37]
to this effect and the testimony of an employee of the POEA, Corazon Cristobal.[38]
Second, accused-appellants
engaged in illegal recruitment activities, offering overseas employment for a
fee. This is supported by the
testimonies of the private complainants, particularly Devanadera[39] who
categorically testified that accused-appellants promised private complainants
employment and assured them of placement overseas.
Magnaye and Agramon
also corroborated the testimony of Devanadera.[40] Their narration undoubtedly established
that accused-appellants promised them employment in
Accused-appellants’
mere denials, as well as their self-serving and uncorroborated testimonies,
cannot stand against the straightforward
testimonies of private complainants who positively identified[41]
them in court as the persons who enticed them to part with their money upon
their fraudulent representations that they (accused-appellants) would be able
to secure for the former employment abroad. In the absence of any evidence that the
prosecution witnesses were motivated by improper motives, the trial court’s
assessment of the credibility of the witnesses shall not be interfered with by
this Court.[42]
Third, accused-appellant
Calimon committed illegal recruitment activities involving at least three persons,
i.e., the three private complainants
herein. On the part of Comila, this third element was not proved and thus, she
was properly convicted of simple illegal recruitment only.
This Court is likewise convinced that the
prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants are guilty
of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code:
ART. 315. Swindling
(estafa). ….
2. By means of any of the
following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name,
or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of other
similar deceits.
….
There are three ways of committing
estafa under the above-quoted provision:
(1) by using a fictitious name; (2) by falsely pretending to possess
power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions; and (3) by means of other similar deceits. Under this class of estafa, the element of
deceit is indispensable.[43] In the present case, the deceit consists of accused-appellants’
false statement or fraudulent representation which was made prior to, or at
least simultaneously with, the delivery of the money by the complainants. To convict for this type of crime, it is
essential that the false statement or fraudulent representation constitutes the
very cause or the only motive which induces the complainant to part with the
thing of value.[44]
Accused-appellants led private
complainants to believe that they possessed the power, means and legal qualifications
to provide the latter with work in Italy, when in fact they did not. Private complainants parted with their
hard-earned money and suffered damage by reason of accused-appellants deceitful
and illegal acts. The
elements of deceit and damage for this form of estafa are indisputably present,
hence their conviction for estafa was proper.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit and the assailed
Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR No. 00611 dated
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
RENATO C. CORONA Acting Chairperson |
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez Associate
Justice |
|
Conchita carpio morales Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
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
RENATO
C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson, First
Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13,
Article VIII of the Constitution and the Acting Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify 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.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Acting Chief Justice
* On Official Leave.
** Additional Member in lieu of Justice Antonio T. Carpio as per Special Order No. 547.
*** Additional Members in lieu of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno and Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna as per Special Order No. 553.
**** Acting Chairperson of the First Division in lieu of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno as per Special Order No. 552.
[1] Penned by then Associate Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion and concurred in by Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo; rollo, pp. 168-179.
[2] Penned by Judge Ramon P. Makasiar; id. at 24-39.
[3] Records, pp. 8-11.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.
[10] Records, pp. at 5-10.
[11] Transcript of Stenographic Notes
(TSN),
[12] TSN, August 7, 2000, pp. 2-7.
[13] TSN,
[14] TSN, August 1, 2000, p. 3; TSN, July 24, 2000, p. 4; TSN, July 12, 2000, pp. 4-5.
[15] TSN, July 12, 2000, p. 6; TSN, July 18, 2000, pp. 6-7; Exhibits “I” and “H.”
[16] TSN, July 18, 2000, p. 7.
[17] TSN, August 1, 2000, pp. 5-6; Exhibits “J” & “J-1.”
[18] TSN, July 12, 2000, pp. 5-6; TSN, July 18, 2000, p. 7; TSN, August 1, 2000, pp. 5-6.
[19] TSN, August 1, 2000, pp. 5-6; TSN, July 24, 2000, p. 14.
[20] TSN, July 12, 2000, pp. 7-8; TSN, July 24, 2000, p. 5; TSN, August 1, 2000, pp. 3 and 7.
[21] TSN, July 18, 2000, pp. 7-9.
[22]
[23]
[24] TSN,
[25] TSN, August 1, 2000, pp. 6-7.
[26] TSN,
[27]
[28] TSN,
[29]
[30] TSN,
[31] TSN, January 26, 2001, p. 11.
[32]
[33]
[34] Rollo, pp. 63-100.
[35] Id. at 134-160.
[36] People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 135382, September 29, 2000, 341 SCRA 458, citing People v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 127159, May 5, 1999; People v. Reyes, G.R. Nos. 104739-44, November 18, 1997, 282 SCRA 105; People v. Diaz, G.R. No. 112175, July 26, 1996, 259 SCRA 441; People v. Calonzo, G.R. Nos. 115150-55, September 27, 1996, 262 SCRA 535; People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 113547, February 9, 1995, 241 SCRA 216; People v. Cabacang, G.R. No. 113917, July 17, 1995, 246 SCRA 530.
[37] Records, p. 15.
[38] TSN, August 14, 2000, pp. 2-6
[39] TSN,
[40] TSN,
[41] TSN,
[42] People v. Saulo, G.R. No. 125903, November 15, 2000, 344 SCRA 605, 614.
[43] People v. Olermo, G.R. No. 127848, 17 July 2003, 406 SCRA 412, 429.
[44] Ibid.