THIRD DIVISION
|
Petitioner, - versus - PEOPLE OF THE Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 186441
Present: Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: March 3,
2010 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
For review are the Court
of Appeals (CA) Decision[1]
and Resolution[2]
dated July 29, 2008 and February 16, 2009, respectively, in CA-G.R. CR No.
30949. The assailed decision affirmed
the Regional Trial Court’s[3]
(RTC’s) Joint Judgment[4]
dated March 9, 2007, convicting petitioner Salvador Flordeliz y Abenojar of nine (9) counts of Rape and one (1) count of Acts of Lasciviousness, with a
modification of the award of damages, while the assailed resolution denied
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
The case stemmed from the
following facts:
Sometime in March 1995, ABC,
the wife of petitioner and the mother of private complainants AAA and BBB, left
for
In April 1995, while sleeping with
BBB and AAA, who was then eleven (11) years old, petitioner woke up AAA,
touched her vagina, then played with it. AAA cried and told petitioner that it
was painful. The latter stopped, but
warned AAA not to tell anyone about it; otherwise, she would be harmed.[6] Petitioner
allegedly committed the same acts against AAA repeatedly.
Petitioner and his daughters later
transferred residence and lived with the former’s siblings. Not long after,
petitioner was convicted of homicide and imprisoned in
In 2001, petitioner was released on
parole. He would frequently fetch AAA
and BBB from their grandparents’ house during weekends and holidays and they
would stay with him in Gabriela Silang,
Unsatisfied with the
abuses committed against AAA, petitioner allegedly started molesting BBB in May
2002.[10]
In 2003, BBB spent New Year’s Day with her father. On January 3, 2003, while
they were sleeping, petitioner inserted his two (2) fingers into BBB’s vagina.[11]
BBB did not attempt to stop petitioner because of fear. Thereafter, they slept beside each other.[12]
BBB suffered the same ordeal the following night.[13]
On
The same incident allegedly
took place on
During All Saints’ Day of
2003, BBB spent two nights with her father and, during those nights (November 1
and 2), she experienced the same sexual abuse.[17]
The same thing happened on
Notwithstanding the
repeated incidents of sexual abuse committed against her, BBB did not reveal her
ordeal to anybody because of fear for her life and that of her mother.[19]
AAA and BBB had the
chance to reveal their horrifying experiences when their mother ABC arrived for
a vacation. AAA immediately told ABC
what petitioner did to her. When
confronted by ABC, BBB likewise admitted the repeated abuses committed by
petitioner. ABC forthwith reported the
incidents to the National Bureau of Investigation.[20]
After conducting medical
examinations on AAA and BBB, the attending physician remarked that there was a
“disclosure of sexual abuse and she noted the presence of hymenal notch in
posterior portion of hymenal rim that may be due to previous blunt force or
penetrating trauma suggestive of abuse.”[21]
With these findings,
petitioner was charged with the crimes of Acts of Lasciviousness,[22]
committed against AAA, and nine (9) counts of Qualified Rape through Sexual
Assault,[23]
committed against BBB, before the RTC. The crime of acts of lasciviousness was
allegedly committed as follows:
That sometime in the month of
April 1995 up to 1996 in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design and
deliberate intent to cause malice and satisfy his lascivious desire, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously touched and play the private
part of the offended party AAA, a minor 14 years of age against her will and
consent which act debeased (sic), demeaned and degraded the intrinsic worth and
dignity of the minor as a human being.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.[24]
On the other hand, except
for the dates of the commission of the crime, each Information for Rape reads:
That on or about the 8th
day of February 2003, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of
force and intimidation and taking advantage of his moral ascendancy over the
private offended party he being the biological father of said offended party,
did then and there remove the pants and underwear of said offended party and
thereupon fondles her private part and forcibly inserted his finger into the
vagina of the offended party BBB, a minor, 11 years of age against her will and
consent, which acts constitute Rape as defined under Republic Act 8353 and
which acts demeaned, debased and degraded the intrinsic worth and dignity of
the minor as a human being.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[25]
Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded
“Not guilty” to all the charges. During trial, he interposed the defense of
denial and insisted that the charges against him were fabricated by his wife to
cover up the infidelity she committed while working abroad.[26]
Petitioner also relied on the testimonies of Florabel Flordeliz, Levy Hope
Flordeliz and Roderick Flordeliz, whose testimonies consisted mainly of the
alleged infidelity of ABC; and petitioner, being a good father, was often
visited by his daughters at his residence, where the rooms they occupied were
only separated by see-through curtains.[27]
On
WHEREFORE, premises all duly considered[,]
the court finds that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt and hereby imposes upon him the following penalties:
1. In
Criminal Case No. 23145-R for Acts of
Lasciviousness, the Indeterminate Penalty of 6 months of Arresto Mayor as the
minimum penalty to 6 years of Prision Correccional as the maximum penalty and
to indemnify the victim AAA the amount of P20,000.00 as moral damages
and to pay the costs.
The penalty shall also carry the accessory
penalty of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage (Art.
43, Revised Penal Code)[.]
2.
In Criminal Cases Nos. 23072-R to 23080-R, the Indeterminate Penalty
of twelve (12) years of Prision Mayor as the minimum penalty to twenty (20)
years of Reclusion Temporal as the maximum penalty for each case or nine (9)
counts of sexual assault considering the aggravating/qualifying circumstance of
relationship against the accused and to indemnify BBB the amount of P75,000.00
as moral damages and to pay the costs.
The
penalties shall carry with them the accessory penalties of civil interdiction
for life and perpetual absolute disqualification (Art. 41, Revised Penal Code).
The
accused shall be credited with 4/5 of his preventive imprisonment in the
service of his sentences.
In
the service of his sentences, the same shall be served successively subject to
the provisions of Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code or the Three-Fold Rule.
SO ORDERED.[29]
On appeal, the CA affirmed
petitioner’s conviction with a modification of the amount of his civil
liabilities.
Petitioner now comes before us,
raising the following errors:
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
The Honorable Court A Quo gravely erred in
affirming the judgment of conviction of the Honorable Regional Trial Court for
the crime charged despite the fact that the guilt of the petitioner has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt
with moral certainty.
RAPES
THROUGH SEXUAL ASSAULT
1. The Honorable Court A Quo gravely erred in
affirming the judgments of conviction of the Honorable Regional Trial Court in
Criminal Cases Nos. 23075-R (alleged rape
through sexual assault sometime in May, 2002) and 23078-R (alleged rape through sexual assault on
August 3, 2003) respectively, despite the complete absence of evidence to show how the alleged
incidents of rape through sexual assault were committed by petitioner on said
particular dates.
2. The Honorable Court A Quo gravely erred in
affirming the judgments of conviction of the Honorable Regional Trial Court in
the other alleged counts of rape through sexual assault despite the fact that
the guilt of the petitioner has not
been proven beyond reasonable doubt with moral certainty.[30]
Simply
put, petitioner assails the factual and legal bases of his conviction, allegedly
because of lack of the essential details or circumstances of the commission of
the crimes. Petitioner, in effect, questions the credibility of the witnesses
for the prosecution and insists that the charges against him were designed to
conceal ABC’s infidelity.
We have repeatedly held that when the
offended parties are young and immature girls, as in this case, courts are
inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not
only their relative vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to
which they would be exposed if the matter about which they testified were not
true.[31]
It is not uncommon in incestuous rape
for the accused to claim that the case is a mere fabrication, and that the
victim was moved by familial discord and influence, hostility, or revenge. There is nothing novel about such defense,
and this Court had the occasion to address it in the past. In People
v. Ortoa,[32] we held
that:
Verily, no child would knowingly expose
herself and the rest of her family to the humiliation and strain that a public
trial surely entails unless she is so moved by her desire to see to it that the
person who forcibly robbed her of her cherished innocence is penalized for his
dastardly act. The imputation of ill
motives to the victim of an incestuous rape [or lascivious conduct] becomes
even more unconvincing as the victim and the accused are not strangers to each
other. By electing to proceed with the
filing of the complaint, the victim risks not only losing a parent, one whom,
before his moral descent, she previously adored and looked up to, but also the
likelihood of losing the affection of her relatives who may not believe her
claim. Indeed, it is not uncommon for
families to be torn apart by an accusation of incestuous rape. Given the serious nature of the crime and its
adverse consequences not only to her, it is highly improbable for a daughter to
manufacture a rape charge for the sole purpose of getting even with her father.
Thus, the alleged ill motives have never
swayed the Court against giving credence to the testimonies of victims who
remained firm and steadfast in their account of how they were ravished by their
sex offenders.[33]
Neither can we sustain petitioner’s
claim that the charges against him were products of ABC’s fabrication to cover
up the infidelity she committed while working abroad. No matter how enraged a
mother may be, it would take nothing less than psychological depravity for her
to concoct a story too damaging to the welfare and well-being of her own
daughter. Courts are seldom, if at all,
convinced that a mother would stoop so low as to expose her own daughter to
physical, mental and emotional hardship concomitant to a rape prosecution.[34]
We now proceed to discuss the
specific crimes with which petitioner was charged.
Criminal Case Nos. 23072-R, 23073-R, 23074-R, 23076-R, 23077-R, 23079-R,
and 23080-R for Rape Through Sexual Assault
The
RTC, affirmed by the CA, correctly convicted petitioner of Rape in Criminal
Case Nos. 23072-R, 23073-R, 23074-R,
23076-R, 23077-R, 23079-R, and 23080-R.
In
her direct testimony, BBB clearly narrated that, on seven (7) separate
occasions, petitioner woke her up, held her vagina, played with it, and
inserted his fingers. During trial, the
prosecutor presented a small doll where BBB demonstrated how petitioner
inserted his forefinger and middle finger, making an up and down motion between
the doll’s legs.[35]
The insertion of petitioner’s fingers into the
victim’s vagina constituted the crime of Rape through sexual assault[36]
under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353, or “The Anti-Rape Law of 1997,” which in
part provides:
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;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or
is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present.
2) By any person who, under any of the
circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault
by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any
instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.[37]
Aside
from proving the fact that Rape was committed, the prosecution also established
that petitioner is the biological father of BBB and that the latter was less
than twelve (12) years old at the time of the commission of the crimes. Under
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), rape by sexual assault, if
attended by any of the aggravating circumstances under paragraph 1[38]
of Article 266-B, would carry the penalty of reclusion temporal, ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day
to twenty (20) years.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty shall be that which could be
properly imposed under the RPC. Other than the aggravating/qualifying
circumstances of minority and relationship (which are already taken into
account to raise the penalty from prision
mayor to reclusion temporal),[39]
no other aggravating circumstance was alleged and proven. Hence, the penalty
shall be imposed in its medium period, or fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months
and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months.
On the
other hand, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be within the
range of the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by the Code
which is prision mayor or six (6)
years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years.
For each count of sexual assault,
petitioner should be meted the indeterminate sentence of ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum, to seventeen
(17) years and four (4) months of reclusion
temporal as maximum.
In
line with prevailing jurisprudence, the victim of Rape through sexual assault
is entitled to recover civil indemnity in the amount of P30,000.00 for
each count. This is mandatory upon a
finding of the fact of Rape.[40]
Moreover, the award of moral damages is automatically granted without need of
further proof, it being assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral
damages entitling her to such award. She
is, thus, entitled to recover moral damages of P30,000.00 for each count.[41] In
addition, the presence of the aggravating circumstances of minority and
relationship entitles her to an award of exemplary damages. The amount of P30,000.00 for each
count is appropriate under the circumstances.
Criminal Case Nos. 23075-R and 23078-R
In
Criminal Case No. 23075-R, it was alleged that petitioner sexually abused BBB
on
In
Criminal Case No. 23078-R, it was also stated in the Information that, from May
2002 to December 2003, petitioner committed the crime of Rape through sexual
assault against BBB. The Court notes, however, that the RTC decision is silent
as to the sexual abuse allegedly committed in May 2002. The RTC’s narration of facts started only
with the incident that occurred in January 2003. While the CA stated that, in May 2002,
petitioner started sexually abusing BBB, the statement was merely a conclusion unsupported
by proof of how the crime was committed. Assuming that acts of Rape were indeed
committed in 2003 (which is within the period from May 2002 to December 2003 as
stated in the Information), those instances could very well be the same
incidents covered by the other Informations discussed earlier.
Absent specific details of how and
when the sexual abuses were committed, petitioner should be acquitted in Criminal
Case Nos. 23075-R and 23078-R.
Criminal Case No. 23145-R for Acts of Lasciviousness
In
Criminal Case No. 23145-R, petitioner was charged with and convicted of Acts of
Lasciviousness and sentenced to suffer the penalty prescribed by Article 336 of
the RPC. While we sustain petitioner’s
conviction of acts of lasciviousness, we modify the assailed Decision in order
to give the proper designation to the crime committed and the law violated, and
eventually to impose the proper penalty.
It
is undisputed that at the time of the commission of the sexual abuse, AAA was
eleven (11) years old.[42] This calls for the application of R.A. No.
7610 or “The Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation
and Discrimination Act,” which defines sexual abuse of children and prescribes
the penalty therefor in its Article III, Section 5, to wit:
SEC. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse.
— Children, whether male or
female, who for money, profit,
or any other consideration or due to
the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in
prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in
its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the
following:
x
x x x
(b)
Those who commit the act of
sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse: Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years
of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3,
for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code,
for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the
victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in
its medium period.[43]
Paragraph (b) punishes sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited in
prostitution, but also with a child subjected to other sexual abuses. It covers not only a situation where a child
is abused for profit, but also where one -- through coercion, intimidation or
influence -- engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child.[44]
However,
pursuant to the foregoing provision, before an accused can be convicted of
child abuse through lascivious conduct committed against a minor below 12 years
of age, the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC
must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of R.A.
No. 7610.[45]
The
crime of Acts of Lasciviousness, as defined in Article 336 of the RPC, has the
following elements:
(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; and
(3) That
the offended party is another person of either sex.[46]
In addition, the
following elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of R.A. No.
7610 must be proven:
(1)
The accused commits the act of sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct;
(2)
The said act is performed with a
child exploited in prostitution or subjected
to other sexual abuse; and
(3)
The child, whether male or female, is
below 18 years of age.[47]
Section
32, Article XIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7610
defines lascivious conduct as follows:
[T]he intentional touching, either directly
or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or
the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth of any person,
whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate,
harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person,
bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area
of a person.[48]
Based
on the foregoing definition, petitioner’s act of touching AAA’s vagina and
playing with it obviously amounted to lascivious conduct. Considering that the act was committed on a
child less than twelve years old and through intimidation, it is beyond cavil
that petitioner is guilty under the aforesaid laws.
We are aware that the Information
specifically charged petitioner with Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC, without
stating therein that it was in relation to R.A. No. 7610. However, the failure to designate the offense
by statute or to mention the specific provision penalizing the act, or an
erroneous specification of the law violated, does not vitiate the information
if the facts alleged therein clearly recite the facts constituting the crime charged. The character of the crime is not determined
by the caption or preamble of the information nor by the specification of the
provision of law alleged to have been violated, but by the recital of the
ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information.[49]
In
the instant case, the body of the Information contains an averment of the acts
alleged to have been committed by petitioner and unmistakably describes acts
punishable under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610.
It
is also undisputed that petitioner is the father of AAA. The RTC did not appreciate the alternative
circumstance of relationship, because it was not alleged in the Information. We do not agree.
The
resolution[50] of the
investigating prosecutor, which formed the basis of the Information, a copy of
which is attached thereto, stated that petitioner is the victim’s biological
father. There was, therefore, substantial compliance with the mandate that an
accused be informed of the nature of the charge against him.[51]
In
crimes against chastity, like acts of lasciviousness, relationship is
considered aggravating.[52] Considering
that AAA was less than twelve (12) years old at the time the crime was
committed, petitioner should be meted the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period, or fourteen (14) years,
eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, petitioner should be meted the
indeterminate penalty of thirteen (13) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11)
days of reclusion temporal as
minimum, to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months and ten (10) days of reclusion temporal as maximum.
With respect to the lascivious
conduct amounting to child abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 committed
by petitioner, we impose a fine of P15,000.00.[53]
Civil indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P20,000.00
shall be awarded.[54] Additionally,
upon a finding of guilt of the accused for acts of lasciviousness, the amount
of P15,000.00 as moral damages may be awarded to the victim in the same
way that moral damages are awarded to victims of rape even without need of
proof because it is assumed that they suffered moral injury.[55] In
view of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship, the amount
of P15,000.00 as exemplary damages should likewise be awarded.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Court of Appeals’ July 29, 2008 Decision and February
16, 2009 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 30949 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.
The Court finds petitioner Salvador Flordeliz y Abenojar:
1. GUILTY of seven (7) counts of RAPE
Through Sexual Assault in Criminal Case Nos. 23072-R, 23073-R, 23074-R, 23076-R, 23077-R, 23079-R,
and 23080-R. He is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of ten (10)
years of prision mayor, as minimum,
to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for each count. Petitioner is
ordered to indemnify BBB P30,000.00 as civil indemnity; P30,000.00
as moral damages; and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, for each count;
2. GUILTY of ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS in Criminal Case No. 23145-R. He is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of thirteen (13) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to
sixteen (16) years, five (5) months and ten (10) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is likewise ordered to pay a
fine of P15,000.00 and to indemnify AAA P20,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P15,000.00 as moral damages, and P15,000.00 as
exemplary damages;
3. NOT GUILTY
in Criminal Case Nos. 23075-R and 23078-R.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
MARIANO C. |
JOSE CATRAL
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
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.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third 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 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.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta per Special Order No. 824 dated February 12, 2010.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. de Leon, with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Ramon R. Garcia, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 392-402.
[2]
[3] Branch 59,
[4] Penned by Judge Iluminada P. Cabato; records (Criminal Case Nos. 23072-R), pp. 691-715.
[5] Rollo, p. 95.
[6] Records (Criminal Case No. 23072-R), p. 701.
[7] Rollo, p. 95.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] BBB demonstrated how her father
touched her vagina with her forefinger and middle finger by making a sliding up
and down motion on the area between the two legs of the doll. (
[12] TSN, February 7, 2005; records (Criminal Case No. 23072-R), pp. 441-445.
[13] TSN, June 2, 2005; id. at 452-453.
[14]
[15] Rollo, p. 96.
[16] TSN, June 2, 2005; records (Criminal Case No. 23072-R), pp. 456-457.
[17]
[18]
[19] Rollo, p. 97.
[20]
[21] Records (Criminal Case No. 23072-R), p. 7.
[22] Docketed as Criminal Case No. 23145-R.
[23] Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 23072-80.
[24] Records (Criminal Case No. 23145-R), p. 1.
[25] Records (Criminal Case No. 23072-R), p. 1.
[26] Rollo, p. 98.
[27]
[28] Records (Criminal Case No. 23072-R), pp. 691-715.
[29]
[30] Rollo, pp. 26-27.
[31] People
v. Candaza, G.R. No. 170474, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 280, 295-296.
[32]
G.R.
No. 176266,
[33]
[34]
[35] Records (Criminal Case No. 23072-R), p. 702.
[36] People
v. Hermocilla, G.R. No. 175830,
[37] Emphasis supplied.
[38] Article 266-B. Penalties. – x x x.
The death penalty shall also 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, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.
[39] See People v. Noveras, G.R. No. 171349, April 27, 2007, 522 SCRA 777, 794; see also People v. Tonyacao, G.R. No. 134531-32, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 513, 534.
[40] People
v. Bunagan, G.R. No. 177161,
[41] People v. Bunagan, supra, at 814; People v. Hermocilla, supra note 36, at 305.
[42] TSN, March 8, 2005; records (Criminal Case No. 23145-R), p. 217.
[43] Emphasis ours.
[44] Malto v. People, G.R. No. 164733, September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA 643, 656-657.
[45] Navarrete v. People, G.R. No. 147913, January 31, 2007, 513 SCRA 509, 517; Amployo v. People, 496 Phil. 747, 755 (2005).
[46] Navarrete v. People, supra, at 517; Amployo v. People, supra, at 755; People v. Bon, 444 Phil. 571, 583-584 (2003).
[47] People of the Philippines v. Salvino Sumingwa, G.R. No. 183619, October 13, 2009; People v. Montinola, G.R. No. 178061, January 31, 2008, 543 SCRA 412, 431; Navarrete v. People, supra note 45, at 521; Olivarez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163866, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 465, 473; Amployo v. People, supra note 45, at 758.
[48] Navarrete v. People, supra note 45, at 521-522; Olivarez v. Court of Appeals, supra, at 473-474; People v. Bon, supra note 46, at 584.
[49] People of the Philippines v. Salvino Sumingwa, supra note 47, citing Malto v. People, supra note 44; and Olivarez v. Court of Appeals, supra note 47.
[50] Records (Criminal Case No. 23145-R), p. 3.
[51] Olivarez
v. Court of Appeals, supra note 47, at 478-479.
[52] People of the Philippines v. Salvino Sumingwa, supra note 47; People v. Montinola, supra note 47, at 432.
[53] People of the Philippines v. Salvino Sumingwa, supra note 47; People v. Montinola, supra note 47; People v. Candaza, supra note 31; Amployo v. People, supra note 45, at 762-763.
[54] See People v. Palma, supra note 36.
[55] Amployo v. People, supra note 45, at 761-762.