SECOND
Division
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus – ROMY ATADERO, Accused-Appellant. |
G.R. No.
183455 Present: CARPIO, J, Chairperson, NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,* PERALTA, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: October 20, 2010 |
x - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - x
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This
is an appeal from the January 24, 2008 Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00106, affirming the
November 28, 2002 Decision[2]
of the Regional Trial Court Branch 37, Dumaguete City (RTC), in Criminal
Case Nos. 14247, 14248, and 14249, which convicted accused Romy Atadero of the
crime of rape in Criminal Case No. 14249 but acquitted him in Criminal Case
Nos. 14247 and 14248.
In Criminal Case
No. 14249, the Information dated
That
on or about June 27, 1999 at about, 7:00 o’clock in the morning in Sitio
Balastro, Barangay Casala-an, Siaton, Negros Oriental, Philippines, within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused entered the house of XXX[3]
who was then and there alone, and by means of force and intimidation,
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously did lie, and succeeded in having carnal
knowledge of said XXX.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.[4]
During
the trial, the prosecution presented two witnesses, private complainant XXX and
her husband YYY. As set forth in the
Appellee’s Brief, the thrust of the prosecution’s evidence is as follows:
Sometime
in September of 1998, accused-appellant Romy Atadero, from Barangay Kakha, Sta.
Catalina, Negros Oriental, visited the home of private complainant XXX and
her husband YYY in Sitio Balastro, Casala-an, Siaton, Negros Oriental,
to get acquainted with XXX’s husband and to look for land to work on.
After the initial visit, appellant went to his cousin Nory Atadero’s house in
the same sitio where he stayed for two (2) weeks.
After
two (2) weeks, he went back to XXX’s house and asked permission from her
husband if he could stay with them. Sympathetic of appellant, XXX’s husband
allowed him to stay with them. Appellant indeed sojourned in their house from
September 1998 to February 1999 until he moved to the house of Carmelita Lago
in the same sitio where he organized a farming association. He still visited
and even fetched XXX’s husband to plow his farm.
On
Meanwhile,
appellant closed the main door. When XXX opened the door that appellant
closed, he got up, held her shoulders, and told her that he was going to kiss
her. She resisted by pushing him away,
but he pointed a gun at her head. As he held his gun with his left hand, he
used his right hand to unzip his pants, held her left shoulder and pushed her
to the floor.
In
an instant, appellant removed XXX’s shorts and panty, went on top of her
and forcefully forced his penis into her vagina, even as she resisted by moving
her body left and right. For five (5) minutes, he satisfied himself on the
helpless XXX until he ejaculated seminal fluid inside her. Thereafter,
he put the gun on his waist and sat down on the stairs. XXX could not do
anything but cried. He stayed on for five (5) minutes, then threatened her not
to tell anyone.
That
same day, at
XXX also narrated two (2) other
instances of sexual assault, one – on
At
any rate, XXX eventually told her husband of the incident of
The defense presented as witnesses in
this case, accused Romy Atadero, Bienvenido Valiente (Valiente) and
Ronnie Climaco (Climaco).
The
accused interposed the defense of alibi and advanced the theory that the XXX
and YYY imputed such a crime on him because he was the president of a
rival farmer’s association.
The
accused testified that in the early morning of June 27, 1999 when the rape was
allegedly committed, he was having breakfast in the house of Leopoldo Lago in
Sitio Balastro, Casala-an, Siaton. After eating, he waited for the other
members of Casala-an Independent Small
Farmers Association (CISFA) for a scheduled weeding/plowing
activity in the Balastro area. They started working at around
His alibi was
corroborated by Valiente, a farmer residing in Apoloy, Siation and a fellow-officer
of CISFA. On
Another
member of CISFA, Climaco, reinforced the testimonies of the accused and Valiente. He claimed that from
On
WHEREFORE,
accused ROMY ATADERO is hereby declared GUILTY of one (1) felony of rape in
Criminal Case No. 14249 and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify XXX
the sum of Fifty Thousand
(-P-50,000.00) Pesos as moral damages, and another Fifty Thousand
(-P-50,000.00) Pesos as civil indemnity. He shall, however, be credited with
the full time of his preventive imprisonment in accordance with Article 29 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6127, if the conditions
therein prescribed have been complied with.
With
respect to Criminal Case Nos. 14247 and 14248, the accused is hereby ACQUITTED
for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
SO
ORDERED.[6]
In reaching said
determination, the RTC gave credence to the lone testimony of XXX finding it to be candid and
straightforward, and rejected the defense of alibi of the accused.
On
appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the RTC conviction in a Decision dated
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the appeal. The decision dated
SO
ORDERED.[7]
Dissatisfied,
the accused interposes this appeal praying for the reversal of the subject decision
and adopts his Appellant’s Brief filed with the CA as his Supplemental Brief, with
the following assignment of errors:
I
THE
TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE
TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.
II
THE
TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF
RAPE DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.
The accused
contends that the RTC failed to apply the principle that in rape cases, the
evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense, as the testimony of
the private complainant was not truthful, and her story smacked of
improbabilities and incredibilites. These contentions must fail.
The Court is
mindful of the guiding principles it has laid down in reviewing the evidence of
rape cases, namely: (1) an accusation
for rape can be made with facility; while the accusation is difficult to prove,
it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2)
considering that, in the nature of things, only two persons are usually
involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must
stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from
the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[8]
Complementing such
principles is the rule that the credibility of the victim is always the single
most important issue in a prosecution for rape.[9]
The elements of
rape, relevant to this case, are defined
under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code as follows:
(1)
That the offender had carnal knowledge
of a woman; and
(2)
That such act was accomplished through
force, threat or intimidation.
The private
complainant’s testimony proved the elements of carnal knowledge accomplished
through force, threat or intimidation, to wit:
ATTY. ZERNA:
Q: After opening that door what did Romy
Atadero do? I withdraw that.
Then what happened next when you opened the door?
A: After I opened the door he suddenly
stood up and held me.
COURT:
Q: Where did he hold you?
A: On my shoulder.
Q: What did you do when he held you on your
shoulder?
A: He said: “Let me kiss you.”
ATTY.
ZERNA:
Q: Then what did you do?
A: I pushed him.
Q: After pushing him what did he do?
A: He pointed a gun at me.
Q: At what part of your body did he point
the gun?
A: At my head.
Q: Then after that what did he do?
A: He zipped down the zipper of his pants.
Q: Then after unzipping his pants what did
he do?
A: He undressed me.
Q: Did you resist? You said he undressed
you, did you resist?
A: Yes.
Q: How did you resist?
A: While I resisted I pushed him.
Q:
A while ago, you said you pushed
him then now you said you again pushed him, may you make it clear whether this
is the first or second time that you pushed him?
A: Yes.
Q: You said you resisted then were you
successful in resisting Romy Atadero?
A: No.
Q: Why?
A: Because I was afraid that he pointed a
gun at me.
Q: Was there any word from him when he
pointed a gun at you?
A: Yes, there was.
Q: What was his words?
A: He said to me not to tell.
Q:
You said that he tried... he
undressed you, was he successful in undressing you?
A: Yes.
Q: What was your attire then?
A: Gartered shorts.
Q: And in the upper portion of your body
what was your dress then?
A: T-shirt.
Q: Did you have underwear then?
A: Yes.
Q: The brassiere?
A: None.
Q: You said that he undressed you, was he
able to make you undressed
everything?
A: No.
Q: What were the clothes that he was able to
take off from you?
A: Only shorts and panty.
Q:
You said that he was able to take
off your shorts and panty a while ago and a while ago you said that there was
this struggle, how did this happen that he was able to take off your panty and
shorts when in fact you have struggled?
A: Because he held me.
Q: Where?
A: On my shoulder.
Q: With what hand?
A: Right.
Q: With what hand did he hold his gun?
A: Left.
Q:
When you undressed or when he took
off your panty and shorts what was your position then, standing, sitting, lying
or whatever?
A: I was lying down.
Q: How did it happen that you lie down?
A: Because he pushed me.
Q: How did he push you?
A:
Like this. (Witness demonstrating
by pushing her hand down using her right hand).
Q:
Will you please demonstrate here in
court how did he do it? This is you and you are Romy Atadero, how did Romy
Atadero push her down?
FISCAL
ROCAMORA:
For
the record, the interpreter is the victim supposedly and the witness is the
supposed accused.
COURT
INTERPRETER:
The
witness demonstrated by holding the left shoulder of the victim down hard and
pushed forward using her right hand with full force.
ATTY.
ZERNA:
Q: So after taking off your panty and your
shorts what did he do?
A: He held his penis and inserted it into
my vagina.
Q:
When he do that did you make any...
was there any resistance from you?
A: Yes, I resisted.
Q: How
did you resist?
FISCAL
ROCAMORA:
May
we request, your Honor, that the word “kisi-kisi” be included in the record.
x x x
ATTY.
ZERNA:
Q:
When
you say “kisi-kisi” what were the... will you demonstrate the movements you
made?
A: Moving from side to side.
Q: What part of your body did you move
from side to side?
A: The whole part of my body.
Q:
You said a while ago that he held
his sex organ and inserted, was he successful in inserting that in your sex
organ despite the fact that you moved side by side?
A: Yes, he was successful.
Q:
After inserting his organ on your
vagina were you... did you continue your movement or your struggle?
A: Yes.
Q:
At this point in time when he
inserted his organ on yours where was the gun?
A: I did not notice anymore where he
placed it.
x x x
Q:
You said that you were already
lying down because he pushed you and then he inserted his organ on yours, where
was he in relation to you at this very moment?
A: On top of me.
Q:
How long does it take... how long
was he there staying on top of you?
A: Five (5) minutes.
Q: What was he doing on top of you?
A: He raped me.[10]
The oft-repeated principle is that the
assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best
undertaken by a trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the
witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under
examination.[11]
Its findings on such matters are binding and conclusive on appellate courts
unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been
overlooked, misapprehended, misinterpreted, or the court gravely abused its
discretion.[12]
None of these exceptions are present in this case.
Private
complainant’s narration was simple and unambiguous, natural, and consistent
with human nature, and the normal course of things. The Court agrees with both
the RTC and CA in finding the testimony of the private complainant to be
straightforward, candid, categorical, spontaneous, consistent, and never
contradictory despite the rigorous and gruelling cross-examination, thereby bearing
the earmarks of truthfulness. The RTC also noted that the private complainant
was crying during her direct examination. Such, further bolsters the
credibility of her testimony as the crying of a victim during her testimony is
evidence of the credibility of the rape charge with the verity born out of
human nature and experience. [13]
The accused calls
the attention of the court that, at one point, the private complainant no
longer noticed where the gun was. He, therefore,
argues that there was no more threat to speak of at that moment. The Court is not persuaded. It is not necessary that the force or
intimidation employed in the commission of the rape be so great as could not be
resisted because all that is required is that it be sufficient to consummate
the purpose which the accused had in mind.[14]
What is important is that because of force and intimidation, the victim was
made to submit to the will of the accused.[15]
The test of sufficiency of force or
intimidation in the crime of rape is whether it produces a reasonable fear in
the victim in that if she resists or does not yield to the demands of the
accused, his threat would be carried out.[16]
As clearly
established by her testimony, it was the use of a gun that created a reasonable
fear in private complainant. At the moment when private complainant could no
longer notice where the gun was, the fear caused by the accused had already
overcome her, thereby facilitating the commission of the rape. In
rape, it is not required that the victim resists the accused’s sexual advances.
A review of Article 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code will reveal that the law does not impose upon a rape victim the
burden of proving resistance.[17]
All that is necessary is that force and intimidation were employed by the accused
against her, which enabled him to commit the crime.[18]
Accused further
contends that private complainant’s behavior after the alleged rape belies her
credibility and is inconsistent with human nature. He pointed out that things
went smoothly as if no rape had occurred as evidenced by her admission that two
days after the alleged rape, she simply dozed off with her child; that the door
of her house remained unlocked; she allowed herself to be left alone with her
child; and that she did not immediately tell her husband about the rape.
Although the conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual
assault is of utmost importance as tending to establish the truth or falsity of
the charge of rape,[19]
it is not accurate to say that there is a typical reaction or norm of behavior
among rape victims, as not every victim can be expected to act conformaby with
the usual expectation of mankind and there is no standard behavioral response
when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience, each situation
being different and dependent on the various circumstances prevailing in each
case.[20]
In this case, private
complainant’s delay in reporting the rape was due to the fear brought about by the
threat to her life, as can be gleaned from her testimony, to wit:
ATTY.
ZERNA
Q:
Now, when your husband arrived did
you tell him about the incident?
A: No.
Q: Why?
A: Because I was afraid.
Q: Afraid of what?
A:
Of what he told me that if I am
going to tell anyone it would be a waste of my life to die because I am still
young.
Q:
Why did you believe him, I mean why
did you believe in the warning of Romy Atadero?
A: Because he has a gun.
Q: Did you actually believe that he would
use that gun against you?
A: Yes, I believed.[21]
A rape victim’s
actions are oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than by reason, and it is
this fear with which the perpetrator hopes to build a climate of extreme
psychological terror, with which he hopes to numb his victim into silence and
submissiveness.[22] Hence, long silence and delay in reporting the
crime of rape has not always been construed as an indication of a false
accusation[23]
and, therefore, cannot undermine or impair the victim’s credibility, especially
when there is a threat to her life.[24]
The threat was
made even more menacing considering that the private complainant was of the
belief that the accused was a member of the NPA. Hence, as correctly found by
the RTC, “the threats satisfactorily explain the victim’s delay in confiding
her ordeal to her husband, as well as their initial hesitation in reporting the
same to the police authorities. The inclement weather, morever, prevented them
from traveling the rough roads from their upland barangay to the town proper”[25]
to report the rape. Thus, the delay in reporting the rape cannot impair her credibility.
As
to accused’s theory that the private complainant imputed such a crime on him
because he is the president of a rival farmer’s association, we agree with the RTC
in finding such too specious to be believed.[26]
No woman, especially one who is married and was two months pregnant at the
time, would conconct a tale that would tarnish her reputation, bring
humiliation and disgrace to herself and her family, and submit herself to the
rigors, shame, and stigma attendant to the prosecution of rape, unless she is
motivated by her quest to seek justice for the crime committed against her.[27]
The identification of the accused by the private complainant, is thus, entitled
to full faith and credit as there appears no evidence to show that she was
moved by improper motive to falsely testify against him.[28]
In
rebuttal of the charges, the accused interposes the defense of denial and
alibi, relying on the testimonies of Valiente and Climaco to corroborate his
claim that he was elsewhere at the time of the incident. A review of the said testimonies, however, reveals
that they are of insufficient evidentiary value. For alibi to be accorded any
weight, the accused must prove two things, (i) that he was somewhere else when
the crime was committed, and (ii) that he was so far away that it was
physically impossible for him to be present at the scene of the crime, or its
immediate vicinity, at the time of its commission.[29]
Physical impossibility refers not only to the geographical distance between the
place where the accused was and the place where the crime was committed when
the crime transpired; but more importantly, the facility of access between the
two places.[30] The
following portions of their testimonies are telling:
Testimony
of Bienvenido Valiente
FISCAL
ROCAMORA:
Q:
Now, you mentioned that this
distance of four (4) kilometers from the house of Leopoldo Lago to the house of
XXX has a road that one can use?
A: There is a road going to Mantiquil.
Q: And that road is pave? I will withdraw
that question. What vehicles would be able to traverse this road to use the
road?
A: “Habal-habal.”
Q: You are talking about the single
motorcycle for transportation?
A: It is a single motorcycle.
Q:
When you were asked whether there
was a vehicle parked at the place of Leopoldo Lago, you said there was none
because it was still early, are you tring to say that normally there are parked
vehicles in that area?
A: There was.[31]
Testimony
Ronnie Climaco
ATTY.
ZERNA:
Q:
So, on that particular day,
A: Still part of Balastro.
Q: Near your house?
A: A distance.
Q: About how many meters?
A: More or less one (1) kilometer.
Q:
And then in that place [where] you
were staying and waiting for your campanions for work, how far is it from the
house of YYY and XXX?
A: A distance of about one (1) kilometer.[32]
The defense of
alibi, as a rule, is considered with suspicion and is always received with
caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also
because it can be easily fabricated. It cannot prevail over the positive
identification of the accused by a credible eyewitness who has no ill motive to
testify falsely. For such defense to prosper, it must be convincing enough to
preclude any doubt on the physical impossiblity of the presence of the accused
at the locus criminis at the time of
the incident.[33]
Evidence tending to prove that it was physically impossible for the accused to
be at the scene or vicinity of the crime is indispensible.[34]
In this regard,
the accused failed. As the RTC correctly
ruled, “a distance of four (4) or five (5) kilometers, where there is ready
access to motorized transportation, is no deterrent to one who is determined to
commit the crime of rape. The short distance between her house and the place
where the accused claims he was at, taken in conjunction with the availability
and easy access of motorized transport, renders his alibi incredible and belies
his claim that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the
crime.”[35]
Given all of the
foregoing, there is no reason why the testimony of the private complainant
cannot be given full faith and credit. The lone testimony of the private
complainant is sufficient and may be the sole basis for conviction even in the
absence of corroborative testimony of other witnesses.[36]
The accused’s denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the private
complainant. Denial and alibi are self-serving negative evidence which cannot
be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible
witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.[37]
Thus, although the defense’s evidence was found to be weak, the prosecutions’s
evidence clearly stood on its own merit and did not rely on the weakness of the
defense. Therefore, the RTC was correct
in finding that the prosecution indeed proved the accused’s guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
In
addition, although the accused used a gun to facilitate the rape, the RTC was
correct in ruling that the accused is only guilty of simple rape under Article 266-A
of the Revised Penal Code. Where it is not specifically alleged in the Information
that a deadly weapon was used in the commission of rape, the accused can only
be convicted of simple rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal
Code.[38]
As can be gleaned from the Information, such was not alleged and, thus, cannot
be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance of the rape.
Lastly, the Court affirms the RTC’s award of P50,000.00
for civil indemnity and P50,000.00 for moral damages to private
complainant, being in accordance with law and jurisprudence. An award of civil
indemnity ex delicto is mandatory
upon a finding of the fact of rape,[39]
and moral damages may be automatically awarded in rape cases without need of
proof of mental and physical suffering.[40]
Additionally, exemplary damages should likewise be awarded
pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code since the special aggravating
circumstance of the use of a deadly weapon attended the commission of the rape.
When a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying
or generic, an award of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages is justified in
accordance with the case of People v. Macapanas.[41]
These damages are intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings, as a
vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an
injured, or as punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.[42]
Although the aggravating circumstance of use of a deadly weapon was not alleged
in the Information, such was proven during the trial, and, thus, exemplary
damages are still due in accordance with the ruling in People v. Guillermo[43],
to wit:
While the use of a deadly weapon is
not one of the generic aggravating circumstances in Article 14 of the RPC,
under Article 266-B thereof, the presence of such circumstance in the
commission of rape increases the penalty, provided that it has been alleged in
the Information and proved during trial. This manifests the legislative intent
to treat the accused who resorts to this particular circumstance as one with
greater perversity and, concomitantly, to address it by imposing a greater
degree of liability. Thus, even if the use of a deadly weapon is not alleged
in the Information but is proven during the trial, it may be appreciated to
justify the award of civil liability, particularly exemplary damages. (Emphasis
ours)
Finally,
in addition to the damages awarded, the accused should also pay interest at the
legal rate of 6% from this date until fully paid.[44]
WHEREFORE,
the P50,000.00 as
indemnity ex-delicto and P50,000.00
as moral damages, the accused is hereby ordered to pay the amount of P30,000.00
as exemplary damages, and interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of
6% from this date until fully paid.
SO
ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
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.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Designated as an
additional member in lieu of Justice Roberto A. Abad, per Special Order No. 905
dated
[1] Rollo, pp.
5-33. Penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz. with Associate Justice
Antonio L. Villamor and Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, concurring.
[2] Records, pp. 109-131.
Penned by Judge Jenny Lind R. Aldecoa-Delorino.
[3] Pursuant to the ruling
of this Court in People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
[4] Records, p. 1.
[5] CA rollo, Counterstatement of Facts,
Appellee’s Brief, pp. 134-137.
[6] Records, RTC
Decision, p. 131.
[7]
[8] People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 188352, September 1, 2010, citing People
v. Ayade, G.R. No. 188561, January 15, 2010, 610 SCRA 246.
[9]
[10] TSN,
[11] People v.
[12] People v. Alcazar, G.R. No. 186494,
[13] People v. Mariano, G.R. No. 168693,
[14] People v. Leonardo, G.R. No. 181036,
[15] People v.
[16] People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 188352, September 1, 2010, citing People
v. Dreu, 389 Phil. 429 (2000).
[17]
[18] People v. Torres, 464 Phil. 971, 977 (2004).
[19] People
v. Jampas, G.R. No. 177766,
[20]
Supra note 13 at 90.
[21] TSN,
[22] People v.
[23] People v. Ortoa, G.R. No.
174484,
[24] People v. De los Reyes, 383 Phil. 801, 813 (2000).
[25] CA rollo, p. 33.
[26]
[27] People v. Leonardo, supra note 14.
[28] People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 186533,
[29] People v. Lasanas, G.R. No. 183829,
[30] People v. Republo, G.R. No. 172962, July
8, 2010, citing People v. Ignas, 458 Phil. 965, 993 (2003).
[31] TSN,
[32] TSN,
[33] Supra
note 8.
[34] People v. Arizobal, 401 Phil. 290
(2000).
[35] CA rollo, p. 34.
[36] Supra
note 18.
[37] People v. Ayade,
G.R. No. 188561,
[38] People v. Siao, 383 Phil. 988, 1025
(2000).
[39] People v. Omar, 383 Phil. 979, 987
(2000).
[40] Supra
note 38 at 1025-1026.
[41] G.R. No. 187049,
[42]
[43] G.R. No. 177138,
[44] People v. Bodoso,
G.R. No. 188129,