Republic of the
Supreme Court
First Division
|
RADITO AURELIO y REYES, Petitioner,
- versus - PEOPLE OF THE Respondent. |
G.R. No. 174980
|
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
In resolving this petition for
review on certiorari, we rely on two
legal precepts. First, inconsistencies
in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses that do not relate to the elements
of the offense are too inconsequential to warrant a reversal of the trial
courts judgment of conviction. Second,
the defenses of denial and frame-up must be substantiated with clear and
convincing evidence; otherwise, same cannot prevail over the positive and
credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
Factual
Antecedents
On October 22, 2002, two
Informations charging petitioner Radito Aurelio y Reyes @ Jack (petitioner) with
violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165[1] were
filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
The
Information[2]
charging the petitioner with violation of Section 5,[3] Article
II of R.A. No. 9165 was docketed as Criminal Case No. MC-02-6019-D and contained
the following accusatory allegations:
That on or about the 17th day of October 2002, in the City of
Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, without any lawful authority, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously deliver, distribute, transport or
sell to poseur buyer, P01 Julius B.
Bacero one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.05 gram of white crystalline
substance, which was found positive to the test for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride,
commonly known as shabu, a dangerous drug, for the amount of P100.00
bearing Serial No. HA802877, without the corresponding license and
prescription, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On the other hand, the Information[4] charging
petitioner with violation of Section 11,[5] Article
II of R.A. No. 9165 was docketed as Criminal Case No. MC-02-6020-D and
contained the following accusatory allegations:
That on or about the 17th day of October 2002, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a
place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused, not
having been lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and knowingly have in his
possession, custody and control one (1)
small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.12 gram of
white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, a dangerous drug, without the
corresponding license and prescription, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon motion of the prosecution, the
two cases were consolidated. When petitioner
was arraigned, he entered a plea of not guilty to the charges. Thereafter, pre-trial and trial ensued.
The Version of
the Prosecution
On October 17, 2002, Police Chief
Inspector Bien B. Calag, Jr. (Chief Inspector Calag) of Task Force Magpalakas
of the Philippine National Police instructed SPO2 Julius Bacero (SPO2 Bacero) to
verify a report of rampant selling of shabu
in
SPO2
Bacero, together with PO1 Ronald Jacuba (PO1 Jacuba), then proceeded to the
area to conduct police surveillance. The
informant directed them to the house where the sale of shabu was being conducted. Thereafter, the police officers returned to
the station and reported their findings to Chief Inspector Calag, who immediately
formed a buy-bust team composed of said police officers and members of the Mayors
Action Command. SPO2 Bacero was
designated as the poseur-buyer.
At
around 4:30 in the afternoon that day, the buy-bust team proceeded to the house
of the petitioner. SPO2 Bacero knocked
on the door and petitioner opened it. When SPO2 Bacero said Pare iiskor ako ng piso, petitioner told him to wait and went back
inside the house. Meanwhile, SPO2 Bacero
used his mobile phone to give PO1 Jacuba a ring their pre-arranged signal for
PO1 Jacuba to get closer to the house of petitioner. After three minutes, the petitioner asked SPO2
Bacero to enter and gave him a small sachet containing white crystalline
substance. In exchange, SPO2 Bacero paid
petitioner with marked money.
Thereafter,
PO1 Jacuba arrived and, together with SPO2 Bacero, arrested the petitioner. They apprised him of his constitutional rights
and frisked him. They recovered the marked
money and another plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from petitioner.
The
police officers brought petitioner to the
The Version of
the Petitioner
Petitioner
denied the allegations against him and presented a completely different
scenario. He testified that in the late
afternoon of October 17, 2002, he was watching television in the house of his
neighbor which is about 20 meters from his house. He went out to buy cigarettes, but suddenly
two men grabbed him and told him to proceed to his house. They went to his house and stayed there for 15
minutes until they were joined by three more persons. After that he was taken to an alley and
ordered to board a vehicle that took them to the barangay hall. Ten minutes
later he was brought to the
Petitioner
was then taken to the office of Task Force Magpalakas, located at the lower
level of the P30,000.00 for his liberty. Unable to produce the money, he was charged in
separate criminal informations with allegedly selling and possessing shabu.
Petitioners
long-time neighbor, Julieta Dulia (Julieta) and his sister, Teresita Aurelio (Teresita),
corroborated his testimony.
Ruling of the
Regional Trial Court
On March 2, 2005, the trial court rendered
its Judgment[6]
convicting petitioner for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No.
9165. The dispositive portion of the
Judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, CONSIDERING ALL THE FOREGOING, accused RADITO AURELIO Y REYES
is hereby found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the offenses charged and he
is hereby sentence [sic] to suffer the
straight penalty of twelve (12) years imprisonment for Violation of Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, in Criminal Case No. MC-02-6019-D and he
is likewise, sentence [sic] to suffer the straight penalty of twelve (12) years
imprisonment for Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,
in Criminal Case No. MC-02-6020-D, respectively.
The evidence
recovered from the herein accused is hereby forfeited in favor of the
government to be disposed of in accordance with existing rules.
The Branch Clerk of
Court is hereby ordered to submit the same to that office within fifteen (15)
days from today, the corresponding receipt to be submitted to the undersigned.
SO ORDERED.[7]
Ruling of the
Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed with modification
the Judgment of the trial court by increasing the penalty of imprisonment
imposed on the petitioner in both cases.
The dispositive portion of its June 22, 2006 Decision[8] reads:
WHEREFORE, the assailed
decision of the
(1)
In Criminal Case No. MC-02-0619-D, the penalty is
modified to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of P500,000.00, in accordance
with the first paragraph of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
(2)
In Criminal Case No. MC-02-6020-D, the penalty is
modified to the indeterminate sentence of TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY as
minimum to TWENTY (20) YEARS as maximum and a fine of P300,000.00.
SO ORDERED.[9]
Petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration[10]
but it was denied in the Resolution[11] dated
October 9, 2006.
Thus, this petition.
Assignment of
Errors
The petitioner ascribes upon the CA the
following two-fold errors:
BOTH THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO
THE TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICER JULIUS BACERO AND IN FINDING PETITIONER GUILTY
OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED.
BOTH THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT NO DRUG
BUY-BUST [OPERATION] ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE.[12]
The petitioner contends that the
trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses due to several inconsistencies on material points. According to the petitioner, the trial court
obviously had no basis in relying on the presumption that the police officers
regularly performed their duties in conducting the entrapment operation. In support of his contention, petitioner
quoted at length portions of the stenographic notes.
Our Ruling
The petition is unmeritorious.
Elements for the Prosecution of Illicit
In a prosecution for the illegal
sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
consideration; and, (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is crucial to the prosecution for
illegal sale of dangerous drugs is evidence of the transaction, as well as the
presentation in court of the corpus
delicti. On the other hand, in a
prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, there must be proof
that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to
be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by
law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in
possession of the drug.[13]
In this particular case, the
prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt all the essential elements of
illegal sale and possession of shabu. Petitioner was positively identified by the
prosecution witnesses as the person who sold the shabu presented in court. SPO2 Bacero testified that he purchased and
received the shabu from petitioner
during a legitimate buy-bust operation and that another sachet containing shabu was seized from petitioners
possession after they conducted a lawful search as an incident to a valid
warrantless arrest. The marked money
used in the buy-bust operation was duly presented, and the shabu seized from the petitioner was positively and categorically
identified in open court. It was also
shown that petitioner sold and possessed the shabu without authority, license or prescription.
SPO2
Bacero narrated the details leading to the consummation of the sale of the
illegal drug, the arrest he made, and the recovery of the drugs from the
possession of the petitioner:
Q. Who in
your office actually received the information that somebody is selling shabu
somewhere in
A. Police
Chief Inspector Bien B. Calag, maam.
x x x x
Q. Aside
from informing you that he received an information regarding activities
involving selling shabu along
A. He
instructed us to verify the report.
x x x x
Q. And
what did you do by way of verifying the information?
A. In
compliance with that we directed our secret informant to conduct surveillance
to confirm the report.
x x x x
Q. Mr.
witness you said you dispatched your informant in the place, now after you
dispatched him, what action if any was taken by you?
A. After
45 minutes thereafter, our informant called up and confirmed the information,
maam.
x x x x
Q. And
what did he tell you if any during the call?
x x x x
A.
That it is true that somebody was selling shabu at
x x x x
Q. And
what was the address given to you?
A.
Q. Now,
upon receipt of this information coming from your informant, what did you do,
Mr. witness?
A. At
around quarter to four in the afternoon, we proceeded to
Q. Before
you proceeded to
A. Before
proceeding to the area, I was given by Chief Calag, Jr. a P100 bill as a
buy bust money.
Q. What
did you do upon receipt of the P100 bill?
A. I
placed a marking on the P100 bill, maam.
x x x x
Q. At
quarter to four of October 17, who were with you when you left your office to
proceed to
A. PO1
Jacuba.
Q. And who
else?
A. And
other members of Mayors Action Command.
Q. And how
many were you more or less?
A. We were
five (5) maam.
x x x x
Q. Mr.
witness, at 4:30 in the afternoon of October 17, 2002 where were you?
A. I went
to his house and [knocked].
Q. [Whose house]?
A. The
house of Radito Reyes.
Q. Mr.
witness, at what particular house did you knock x x x when you reached
A. At
x x x x
Q. You
said you knocked at his door at
A. Radito
opened the door.
x x x x
Q. After
he opened the door, what transpired next?
A. I told
him Pare, iiskor ako ng piso which is equivalent to P100.00.
Q. Now Mr.
witness, upon telling him the word iiskor ako ng piso what was the response,
if any, of the person you are talking with?
A. I was
told to wait for a while.
Q. After
he uttered the word for a while, what did he do?
A. He went
inside, maam.
Q. What
about you, where were you when he entered the house?
A. I was
left outside the door.
Q. Now
after he left and you were at the door, what happened next?
A. After a
while x x x he came back.
x x x x
Q. You
said he entered the house and you were left standing outside the house, now
while he was away, what did you do?
A. I
signaled PO1 Jacuba to come nearer.
Q. What
signal, if any, was employed by you in conveying to Jacuba the message?
A. I made
a miss[ed] call to his cellphone.
Q. After
you made a miss[ed] call to PO1 Ronald Jacuba which according to you is a way
of conveying to him that he should come near, what happened next?
A. He got
close to the area.
Q. You
said that the accused went back after three (3) minutes, what transpired between
you and the accused when he returned?
A. He let
me x x x inside.
Q. When he
let you x x x inside, what did you do, did you come [sic] inside?
A. Yes,
maam.
Q. When
you were already inside the house upon invitation of the accused, what
transpired between you and him?
A. He
handed to me a small x x x thing x x x.
Q. Will
you describe to us the small thing which he handed to you?
A. It is a
small thing containing white crystalline substance.
x x x x
Q. Now
this small thing that you are referring to, what is it made of?
A. It is a
small plastic sachet, maam.
Q. And
what is the color of the plastic?
A. White,
maam.
Q. Now
after he handed to you the plastic sachet with white crystalline substance,
what did you do with your money?
A. In
exchange, I handed to him the money. Kaliwaan po.
x x x x
Q. Now
after he handed to you the plastic sachet with white crystalline substance and
in exchange therefor you handed to him this P100 bill which was already marked
as Exhibit D, what happened next?
A. We talked
for a while inside the house, maam.
x x x x
Q. And
after two (2) minutes what transpired next?
A. After
two (2) minutes, Jacuba suddenly arrived.
Q. And
what transpired when Jacuba arrived after two (2) minutes?
A. We
arrested the accused.
Q. By the
way, Mr. witness, before you [made] the arrest, what did you do first?
A. I
introduced myself as a Police Officer.
Q. And
aside from introducing yourself as policeman, what else?
A. I
advised him of his right to remain silent.
x x x x
Q. Now,
what did you do next after you told him that he has the right to remain silent?
A. Thereafter,
as an S.O.P. we made a search upon the body of the accused.
x x x x
Q. And
what was the result, if any, of the search which you made on the accused?
A. We were
able to recover the money from him.
x x x x
Q. What
else was recovered by you from him, if any?
A. We were
likewise able to recover another plastic sachet in his right pocket. In his bulsa de relo.
x x x x
Q. And
what is it that was placed or contained inside the plastic sachet?
A. White
crystalline substance, maam.
Q. Mr.
witness, after you arrested the herein accused what did you do next?
A. We
brought him to our Head Quarters [sic].
x x x x
Q. What
else was endorsed by you, I will withdraw that, your Honor. What about the two (2) plastic sachets, what
did you do with these two (2) plastic sachets upon arrival at the Mandaluyong
Police station?
A. We
likewise, brought the same to the Crime Laboratory . . .
Q. Before
bringing [them] to the Crime Laboratory, did you do anything, on the two (2)
sachets?
A. I
placed markings, your Honor.[14]
PO1 Jacuba corroborated the testimony of SPO2 Bacero on
relevant points. He testified as
follows:
Q. Now,
after you were briefed as to your designated task in this buy-bust operation,
what happened next?
A. [At] or
about 4:00 p.m., we [proceeded] to the area, maam.
Q. Where
did you proceed?
A. To
Q. In what
particular place at M. Vasquez?
A. At
x x x x
Q. When
you reached this place, in the afternoon, at around what time? 4:30 more or
less?
A. More or
less, maam.
x x x x
Q. In
terms of distance, more or less, how far were you from this house with address
at 522 M. Vasquez Street, where [did] you [position] yourself in this
operation? In terms of meters, how far,
approximately?
A. Approximately,
thirty (30) meters, maam.
x x x x
Q. Mr.
witness, after you positioned yourself 30 meters away from the house with
address
A. Bacero
went to the house of alias Jack, maam.
Q. How did
you know that he proceeded to the house of alias Jack?
A. He told
us and he likewise told us to wait for his miss[ed] call.
Q. Now,
thereafter, when he told you that he will now proceed to the house of alias
Jack at
A. We were
just on stand-by, maam.
x x x x
Q. Thereafter,
while you were then on stand-by, what took place, if any?
A. After 8
10 minutes, maam, PO1 Bacero made a miss[ed] call.
Q. When
Bacero made a miss[ed] call, what did you do?
A. We
proceeded to the house pointed to us by the asset when we conducted our casing,
maam.
x x x x
Q. When
you proceeded there, what happened?
A. PO1 Bacero
already arrested Jack, maam.
x x x x
Q. What
happened next, Mr. witness, you said after the miss[ed] call you went to this
place where you saw Bacero and Jack, already arrested by Police Officer Bacero,
what happened next?
A. He was
searched, maam, and we apprised him of his rights.
x x x x
Q. You
said that Bacero frisked him and on the later part of the frisking, you were
present?
A. Yes,
maam.
x x x x
Q. And
what was told to you by Bacero?
x x x x
A.
Bacero told me that when he searched the body of that
person, he confiscated a plastic sachet and the buy-bust money.[15]
Police
Inspector De Vera, the Forensic Chemical Officer who examined the confiscated
crystalline substance from the illegal sale, found the same to be positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The examination of the contents of the other sachet
seized from his possession as a result of a lawful search also tested positive
for 0.12 gram of said dangerous drug.
These findings are contained in Chemistry Report No. D-2059-02E.[16]
The Trial Courts Findings on the Credibility of Witnesses are Given Great
Respect.
The
trial court and the CA found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
regarding petitioners illegal sale and possession of shabu to be credible since they are consistent with the documentary
and object evidence submitted by the prosecution. When it comes to the credibility, the trial
courts assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding,
if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of
weight and influence.[17] The trial court is in the best position to
evaluate testimonial evidence properly because it has the full opportunity to
observe directly the witnesses deportment and manner of testifying.[18] This rule finds an even more stringent
application where said findings are affirmed by the appellate court.[19]
The Inconsistencies in the Testimonies of the Prosecution Witnesses are
Trivial.
The
petitioner asserts that the credibility of the prosecution witnesses is
adversely affected by several inconsistencies in their testimonies. These
inaccuracies consist of the following: (a) the information regarding
petitioners illegal sale of shabu was
allegedly received by the superior of SPO2 Bacero but surprisingly, same was not
entered in the police blotter; (b) the participation of SPO2 Bacero in the
test-buy with the petitioner is not clear, because if it is true that the
test-buy yielded positive result, then SPO2 Bacero should have immediately
arrested the petitioner; (c) SPO2 Bacero vacillated in his declaration that he has
personal knowledge regarding petitioners illegal activities; (d) the
testimonies of SPO2 Bacero and PO1 Jacuba regarding the surveillance on the
petitioner contradict each other; (e) the length of time SPO2 Bacero waited for
the petitioner to return with the shabu is
incredulous and cannot be ascertained if it was three minutes or three seconds;
and, (f) the testimonies of said police officers on how the buy-bust money was
recovered also diametrically oppose each other.
After
a thorough review of the inconsistencies mentioned by the petitioner, we find
that they do not relate to the elements of the offenses committed. Rather, they tend to focus on minor and
insignificant matters. These
inconsistencies do not detract from the fact that the prosecutions key witness
who conducted the entrapment, identified the petitioner as the same person who
sold the dangerous drug to him and from whose possession another plastic sachet
containing shabu was recovered.
Inconsistencies
in the testimonies of witnesses that refer to trivial and insignificant details
do not destroy their credibility.[20]
Moreover, minor inconsistencies serve to strengthen rather than diminish the
prosecutions case as they tend to erase any suspicion that the testimonies
have been rehearsed thereby negating any misgiving that the same were perjured.[21]
Testimonies
of witnesses need only to corroborate each other on important and relevant
details concerning the principal occurrence.
Besides, it is to be expected that the testimony of witnesses regarding
the same incident may be inconsistent in some aspects because different persons
may have different impressions or recollection of the same incident.[22]
The
testimonies of the petitioners witnesses cannot be given more weight than the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Teresita is the sister of the
petitioner while Julieta has been his neighbor for the past 10 years. Thus, their testimonies are necessarily
suspect, considering they are petitioners sibling and friend respectively. The
testimonies of Julieta and Teresita even contradict each other as Teresita
declared that five malefactors entered their home while Julieta stated that
only two men went with petitioner inside his house. This inconsistency further
diminishes the credibility of petitioners witnesses.[23]
To
rebut the prosecutions overwhelming evidence, the petitioner asserts the
defenses of denial and frame-up. He
denies selling shabu to SPO2 Bacero and
possessing a sachet that contained the same drug during the purported entrapment. He insists that the shabu was planted by the police officers and that they attempted to
extort money from him in exchange for his freedom.
We
view with disfavor the defenses of denial and frame-up. Like the defense of alibi, said defenses can
easily be concocted and are common and standard defenses employed in
prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drug Act.[24] For
these defenses to prosper there must be clear and convincing evidence.[25] In this case, petitioner failed to adduce
sufficient proof in support of his defenses. There is simply no evidence to bolster his
defenses other than his self-serving assertions. Moreover, we note that the petitioner did not
file any complaint for frame-up or extortion against the buy-bust team. Such inaction belies his claim of frame-up and
that the police officers were extorting money from him. His allegations therefore are simply
implausible.
In
the absence of evidence of any ill-motive on the part of the police officers
who apprehended the petitioner, the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty prevails.[26] The
presumption that official duty has been regularly performed was not overcome
since there was no proof showing that SPO2 Bacero and PO1 Jacuba were impelled
by improper motive.[27] There is, therefore, no basis to suspect the
veracity of their testimonies.[28]
In
view of the foregoing circumstances, a reversal of the trial courts judgment,
as affirmed by the CA, is unwarranted.
The inconsistencies that may be found in the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses are too insignificant to negate the fact that the
petitioner indeed committed the offenses for which he was convicted. Moreover,
the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses cannot be
overturned by the petitioners defenses of denial and frame-up, which we frown
upon in the absence of clear and convincing evidence.
The Proper
Penalty
Having been duly established by the
prosecutions evidence that petitioner violated Sections 5 and 11, Article II
of R.A. No. 9165, we shall now ascertain the correctness of the penalties
imposed on him.
Under Section 5, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165, the penalty prescribed for unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of its quantity and purity, is life imprisonment
to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P1 million. There being no circumstance which would
aggravate petitioners criminal liability, the CA therefore correctly imposed the
penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 in Criminal Case
No. MC-02-6019-D.
Under Section 11(3), Article II of R.A.
No. 9165, on the other hand, the penalty prescribed for illegal possession of
less than five grams of shabu or
methamphetamine hydrochloride is imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1)
day to twenty (20) years, plus a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00.
The petitioner was charged with and
found guilty of illegal possession of 0.12 gram of shabu in Criminal Case No. MC-02-6020-D. Hence, the CA correctly imposed the indeterminate
prison term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to twenty (20)
years as maximum and a fine of P300,000.00 in Criminal Case No.
MC-02-6020-D.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR No. 29279 that affirmed with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Mandaluyong, Branch 213, finding petitioner Radito Aurelio y Reyes
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of
Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case
Nos. MC-02-6019-D and MC-02-6020-D, respectively, and its Resolution denying
the motion for reconsideration, are AFFIRMED.
SO
ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate
Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate
Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified 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 Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
[2] Records
of Criminal Case No. MC-02-6019-D, p. 7.
[3]
[4] Records
of Criminal Case No. MC-02-6020, p. 1.
[5] Possession
of Dangerous Drugs.
[6] Rollo, pp. 33-46; penned by Judge Amalia
F. Dy.
[7]
[8] CA
rollo, pp. 117-127; penned by
Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and concurred in by Associate Justices
Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente.
[9]
[10]
[11] Rollo, pp. 67-68.
[12]
[13] People v. Hajili, 447 Phil. 283, 295
(2003).
[14] TSN,
August 6, 2003, pp. 7-26.
[15] TSN,
September 29, 2004, pp. 11-27.
[16] Records
of Criminal Case No. MC-02-6020-D, p. 12.
[17] People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July
28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 444.
[18]
[19]
[20] People v. Mationg, 407 Phil. 771, 787
(2001).
[21] People v. Garcia, 424 Phil. 158, 184-185
(2002).
[22] People v. Sy Bing Yok, 368 Phil. 326,
336 (1999).
[23] People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876,
June 27, 2008, 556 SCRA 421, 444.
[24] People v. Lazaro, G.R. No. 186418,
October 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 250, 269.
[25]
[26] People v. Naquita, supra note 17 at 454.
[27]
[28] People v. Macatingag, G.R. No. 181037,
January 19, 2009, 576 SCRA 354, 366.