SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - ALEX CONDES Y
GUANZON,
Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R.
No. 187077 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: February 23, 2011 |
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the July
31, 2008 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00926,
which affirmed the July 21, 2003 Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, Calamba City (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 7383-2000-C, finding the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape committed against AAA.[3]
Accused Alex Condes y Guanzon (accused) was charged with the crime of rape in an information[4]
dated
That on
or about
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Version of the Prosecution
The thrust of the prosecution’s
evidence has been summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
in its Brief[5] as
follows:
On the eve[ning] of
After satisfying himself, appellant wiped his
sex organ. Threatening to kill her brothers and sister, he made AAA promise not
to tell anyone about the incident. She kept the unpalatable promise until
“…scanty growth of pubic hair. Labia majora are
full, convex and coapted with pinkish brown labia minora presenting in between.
On separating the same is disclosed an elastic fleshy type hymen with deep-healed
laceration at
Version of the Defense
In his Brief,[6]
the accused denied the charges against him and presented his own version of the
circumstances before and during the alleged incident. Thus:
Rose Catalan is a
lady guard of the Guzent Incorporated in Tiwi, Albay, where the accused used to
work since 1991. She is in-charge of the time records of all the employees in
the said establishment.
On
Alex Condes
vehemently denied the accusation hurled against him. He recalled that in the
morning of
At
Alberto Navarette,
barangay captain of Bitin, in Bay, Laguna, averred that he saw the accused
inside the latter’s house in the morning of
On
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the
herein accused ALEX CONDES Y GUANZON is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as
principal by direct participation of the crime of rape. There being no
modifying circumstances properly alleged in the Information to be appreciated,
the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the indivisible penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA. The accused is hereby ordered to indemnify the victim AAA P50,000.00
as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as
exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.[8]
The records of the case were originally transmitted to
this Court on appeal. Pursuant to People v. Efren Mateo,[9]
the Court issued a resolution[10]
dated
The CA eventually affirmed[11] the guilty verdict on the basis of
AAA’s testimony which it found credible and sufficient to sustain a conviction.
It debunked the defense of alibi of the accused holding that it was not
satisfactorily established and not at all persuasive when pitted against the
positive and convincing identification by the victim.
On
On
From
the Appellant’s Brief of the accused filed with the CA, he prayed for the
reversal and setting aside of the guilty verdict anchored on the following:
ASSIGNMENT OF
ERRORS
I
THE
TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THE MOTIVE BEHIND THE FILING
OF THE INSTANT CASE AGAINST THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
II
THE
COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME
CHARGED ALTHOUGH HIS ACTUAL PARTICIPATION IN THE ALLEGED ACT WAS NOT PROVEN
WITH CERTAINTY.
In
essence, the accused claims that AAA merely concocted the accusation of rape
out of hatred because she resented the hard discipline imposed by him and she
feared that he would punish her once he would learn that she had a boyfriend
and pregnant at that. He tags AAA’s
story of defloration as both preposterous and ridiculous conjured by an overly
imaginative individual anchored on ill motives.
Professing innocence, he insists that he could not
have possibly committed the offense charged as he was pre-occupied and even
left the house on the day of the alleged commission of the sexual assault. He
discredits AAA’s testimony stressing that it would be difficult for him to
commit the crime considering that her siblings and grandmother were staying in
the same house. Thus, he concludes that the evidence for the prosecution failed
to meet that quantum of proof necessary to warrant his conviction.
The OSG,
on the other hand, counters that AAA’s testimony was credible and sufficient to
convict and that the culpability of the accused for the crime of rape was
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court’s Ruling
The appeal must fail.
In the disposition and review of rape
cases, the Court is guided by three settled principles: First, an accusation for rape can be made with facility and it is
difficult to prove but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to
disprove; Second, in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where
only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with extreme caution; and Third, 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.[17] Corollary
to the above principles is the rule that the credibility of the victim is
always the single most important issue in the prosecution of a rape case.[18]
Conviction or acquittal in a rape case more often than not depends almost
entirely on the credibility of the complainant’s testimony because, by the very
nature of this crime, it is usually the victim alone who can testify as to its
occurrence.
In his Brief, the accused put in
issue the credibility of AAA’s testimony contending that she merely fabricated
the accusation to place him behind bars and rid him out of her life forever.
This contention deserves scant consideration.
Time and again, the Court has held that when the decision hinges on the credibility
of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial court's observations
and conclusions deserve great respect and are often accorded finality.
The trial judge has the advantage of observing the witness' deportment and
manner of testifying. Her "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame,
hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full
realization of an oath"[19]
are all useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and
sincerity. The trial judge, therefore, can better determine if witnesses are telling
the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Unless
certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered,
might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected for it
had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while
testifying and detect if they were lying.[20] The rule finds an even more stringent
application where said findings are sustained
by the CA.[21]
In the
case at bench, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the trial
court’s findings and its calibration of private complainant’s credibility.
A meticulous review of the transcript of stenographic
notes would show that AAA narrated in the painstaking and degrading public
trial her unfortunate and painful ordeal in the hands of the accused in a
logical, straightforward, spontaneous, and frank manner. There were no
perceptible artificialities or pretensions that tarnished the veracity of her
testimony. She recounted the tragic experience, unflawed by inconsistencies or
contradictions in its material points and unshaken by the tedious and grueling
cross-examination. Her declaration revealed each and every detail of the
incident and gave no impression whatsoever that her testimony was a mere
fabrication. Had her story been contrived, she would not have been so
consistent throughout her testimony in the face of intense and lengthy
interrogation.
When offended parties are young and
immature girls from
Without hesitation, AAA pointed an accusing finger
against the accused, her stepfather no less, as the person who sexually
assaulted her on that fateful night of
Fiscal Loreto M. Masa
(On Direct Examination)
Q: On
A: In the house, sir.
Q: When you said “in the
house,” are you referring to the house in Bitin?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you recall of any
unusual incident that happened to you on
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Tell us what was that
unusual incident you said you experienced?
A: Alex Condes raped me,
sir.
Q: Where were you raped by
Alex Condes?
A: In our house in the
evening in Bitin.
Q: And
how did he rape you?
A: Because
at that time, my grandmother and my brothers and sisters, except my youngest
sister, were not in the house and I was alone upstairs and was cleaning the
house when he pointed a bolo at me.
Q: In
what portion of your body this bolo was pointed at you?
A: In
my neck, sir.
Q: Where
were you? What portion of the house were you at that time he pointed a bolo in
your neck?
A: Upstairs
sir, he was also there.
Q: What
did the accused tell you when he pointed a bolo at your neck?
A:
He told me not to shout or else he will kill me.
Q: What
did you do when he told you not to shout or else he would kill you?
A: I
just asked him “Papa, bakit po?” and because he was pointing a bolo at me I was
frightened.
Q: And
when you ask her [sic] “Papa, bakit po?” what did he do?
A: Nothing,
sir, he continued.
Q: When
you said he continued, what do you mean? What did he do to you?
A: Because
I was then at the door and was then about to go to the other room when he
pulled me and embraced me.
Q: When
you said he pulled you where were you pulled by the accused?
A: To
the bed, sir.
Q: At
the time you were being pulled and being embraced, what did you do?
A: I
was resisting, sir.
Q: What
happened after you said the accused was pulling you and embracing you and you
were resisting? What happened next?
A: Nothing,
sir. I was not able to do anything because he embraced me.
Q: You
said you were not able to evade him when he was embracing you, what did he do
next to you?
A: He
removed my clothes.
Q:
What did you do when the accused removed your clothes?
A: I
was pushing him.
Q: What
happened when you were pushing him?
A: He
again pointed the bolo and told me not to move or to shout.
Q: What
did he do after he again threatened you?
A: Because
I was very frightened, he forced me to do what he wanted me to do.
Q: Was
the accused able to remove your clothes?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What
clothes?
A: Pajamas,
sir.
Q: How
about the accused?
A: His
sando and shorts, sir
Q: What
was your position at the time you said the accused was able to do it from you?
A: I
was lying down, sir.
Q: Where
were you lying down, on the bed or on the floor?
A: On
the floor, sir.
Q:
How did the accused rape you after removing your clothes?
A: He
was forcing “yung ano nya sa ari ko.”
Q: Was
he able to insert his penis to your private organ?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What
did you feel when your stepfather was able to insert his private organ to
yours?
A: It
was painful, sir.
Q: For
how long was he on top of you?
A: Five
to ten minutes, sir.
Q: What
were you doing at the time your stepfather was doing it to you when he was
inserting his private organ against your will?
A: I
was pushing him.
Q: What
happened after you said you were pushing him?
A: Nothing,
sir.
Q: And
you said he was able to rape you and inserted his private organ to you, what
did he do next after he was able to insert your private organ to your vagina?
A: He
was pumping me.
Q: When
you said “pump”, will you explain?
A: He
was “kinakadyot ako.”
Q: That
was while he was on top of you?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: After
pumping you, what did he do next?
A: He
was kissing me, sir.
Q: When
he was kissing you, what were you doing?
A: I
was pushing his face, sir.
Q: What
happened next?
A: Because
I cannot do anything he was able to finish.
Q: Why
were you able to say that he was able to finish?
A: Because
when he removed his private organ from my private part, he wiped it.
Q: After
he removed his private organ from your organ what did he do next?
A: He
told me not to complain or else he would kill us.
Q: What
did you feel by his threatening against you and your brothers and sisters that
you would be killed?
A: I
was frightened, sir.
Q: After
threatening you that you and your brothers and sisters would be killed, what
did he do next?
A: So
he told me to go down.
Q: How
about the accused, where was he?
A:
He stayed inside.
Q:
Where was your mother at that time?
A: She
was in
Q:
How about your grandmother, where was she?
A: She
was in the market, sir.
Q: You
said your brothers and sisters were not in your house, where were they?
A: They
were outside the house. I do not know what were they doing outside the house.
Q: You
said you went down, what did you do when you went down?
A: Because
“diring-diri ako” I went inside the bathroom, sir.
Q: What
did you do there?
A: I
took a bath, sir.[24]
The Court is convinced that the accused did employ
threat and intimidation to subjugate AAA’s will and break her resistance. She
categorically stated that he poked a bolo at her neck and threatened to kill
her if she would make a noise and resist his advances. Undoubtedly, fear and
helplessness gripped her. To an innocent girl who was only 14 years old, his
menacing acts engendered in her a well-grounded fear that if she would resist
or not yield to his bestial demands, he would make good his threats. She was obviously cowed into submission by
the real and present threat of physical harm on her person. Obviously, she was silenced to do his bidding. Her
submission was re-enforced by the fact that the accused was her stepfather who
exercised moral ascendancy and influence over her. When a victim is threatened
with bodily injury, as when the rapist is armed with a deadly weapon, such as a
knife or bolo, such constitutes intimidation sufficient to bring the victim to
submission to the lustful desires of the rapist.[25]
In the present case, it appears that
AAA chose to suffer the
Fiscal Masa to Witness:
(Redirect Examination)
Q: You said that you were
not able to report to anybody that you were raped by your stepfather because of
that threat[s] that your brothers and sister will be killed, why did you report
or give statement to the police on
The Fiscal: May I manifest for the record, your Honor that the witness
is crying.
A: Because on December 30,
he was again about to rape me but I resisted so he mauled me and poked a bolo
at me and told me that he will kill my aunt so the following day I went to San
Pablo to my aunt, who is near to me, and told her what happened and what he has
done to me that he mauled me and will kill my aunt.
Q: And what did your aunt in
A: She immediately reported
the incident to Sgt. Manaog.
Q: Do you know what Sgt.
Manaog did after your aunt confided to him what happened to you?
A: He was arrested, sir.
X x x
Atty. Ingente:
Recross, your Honor.
Q: When you told the
incident to your aunt you were also thinking of your brothers and sisters?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And in fact perhaps at
that time you were afraid that your aunt will report the incident to the
police?
A: No, sir because at that
time I was also prepared to report the incident.
Q: But you know that the
accused made threats that he will kill your brothers and sister?
A: Yes, sir but I was then
ready because I was thinking then that may be he was threatening me because he
want to rape me so I decided to file a complaint. And I was also thinking that
how would he kill his own children?[26]
AAA’s failure to immediately report to
anyone what she had suffered in the hands of her stepfather does not vitiate
the integrity of her claim. Apparently, the
accused succeeded in instilling fear upon her young mind when he threatened to kill
her and her siblings should she say a word about the incident. Thus, paralyzed
by the fear that he would make good his threats, she remained silent and only broke
it when he tried to repeat the sexual assault. The subsequent attack brought her
silence to the breaking point and forced her to come out in the open to prevent
and avoid further assaults. Delay in reporting an incident of rape is not an
indication of a fabricated charge. Neither does it necessarily cast doubt on
the credibility of the complainant.[27]
Any insinuation of ill motive on the
part of AAA in the filing of the rape case against her stepfather does not
merit any consideration. It is highly improbable that she would concoct a
sordid tale of sexual abuse against the accused, whom she called “Papa,” simply
because she was reproved or censured for her irresponsible ways and was afraid
that he would punish her for getting pregnant by her boyfriend. Parental
punishment is not enough reason for a young girl to falsely accuse her stepfather
of a crime so grave as rape. Reverence and respect for the elders are two values
deeply ingrained in Filipino children.[28]
Granting AAA indeed resented his
stepfather, the Court does not necessarily cast doubt on AAA’s credibility as
witness. Motives, such as those arising from family feuds, resentment, or
revenge, have not prevented the Court from giving, if proper, full credence to
the testimony of minor complainants[29] who remained steadfast throughout their direct
and cross-examination.[30]
After all, ill motive is never an essential element of a crime. It becomes
irrelevant and of no significance where there are affirmative, nay, categorical
declarations towards the culpability of the accused for the felony. Well-entrenched is the doctrine which is founded on reason
and experience that when the victim testifies that she has been raped, and her
testimony is credible, such testimony may be the sole basis of conviction.[31]
In this case, there could not have been a more powerful testament to the
truth than her public outpouring of her unspoken grief.
In an attempt at exculpation, the
accused claims that it is difficult to commit the crime of rape inasmuch as
AAA’s siblings and grandmother were staying in the same house at Barangay
Bitin,
The argument fails.
According to AAA, her siblings were
all outside the house while her grandmother was doing an errand in the market
when the accused molested her. Granting arguendo that there were other people
in the house when the rape was committed, rapists are not deterred from
committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby or the members of
the family.[32] Lust,
being a very powerful human urge, is, to borrow from People v. Virgilio Bernabe,[33] “no
respecter of time and place.” Rape can be committed in even the unlikeliest
places and circumstances and by the most unlikely persons.[34]
The beast in a man bears no respect for time and place, driving him to commit
rape anywhere - even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the
roadsides, in school premises, in a house where there are other occupants, in
the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping, and even in
places which to many would appear unlikely and high risk venues for its
commission. Besides, there is no rule that rape can be committed only in
seclusion.[35]
In stark contrast to AAA’s firm
declaration, the defenses of denial and alibi invoked by the accused rest on
shaky grounds. The accused insists that “the accusation is a lie”[36]
and claims that “I did not do that.”[37]
He avers that he could not have committed the offense because he was
preoccupied and was not in their house at Barangay Bitin, Bay, Laguna on the
date and time the alleged rape was perpetrated.
Judicial experience has taught this
Court that denial and alibi are the common defenses in rape cases. Denial is an
intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of
non-culpability to merit credibility.[38] It is a negative self-serving assertion that
deserves no weight in law if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence.
The barefaced denial of the charge by the accused cannot prevail over the
positive and forthright identification of him as the perpetrator of the
dastardly act.
Alibi, on the other hand, is the weakest
of all defenses for it can be easily contrived. For alibi to prosper, it is not
enough for the accused to prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was
committed; he must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for
him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[39]
In this case, not a shred of evidence was adduced by the accused to
substantiate his alibi.
A perusal of his own testimony discloses that he
arrived at their house at Barangay Bitin, Bay, Laguna at past 9:00 o’clock in
the morning; that he had visitors who came to attend their town fiesta and they
had a drinking spree; that after his visitors and AAA left at past 12:00 o’clock
noon, he took a slumber; that he woke up at around 7:00 o’clock in the evening and
asked AAA and her grandmother to prepare his things as he would return to
Manila; and that he left for Manila at 3:30 o’clock in the morning of February
15, 1999.[40] From
the foregoing, it is clear that he was at home in the evening of
Finally, the Court sustains
the two courts below in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua on
the accused. The
applicable provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No.
8353 (effective
Article 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;
xxx
Article 266-B. Penalties. - Rape
under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua.
Whenever the rape is committed with the
use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion
perpetua to death.
xxx
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.
The Information in Criminal Case No.
7383-2000-C specifically alleged that AAA was 14 years old at the time of the
commission of the rape. In proving her minority, the prosecution presented a birth certificate[42]
issued by the Office of City Civil Registrar of San Pablo City showing that she
was born on
The twin requisites of
minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender being special
qualifying circumstances, which increase the penalty as opposed to a generic
aggravating circumstance which only affects the period of the penalty, should
be alleged in the information because of the right of the accused to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[44]
The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
which took effect on
The Court notes, however, that
the Information also alleged that the accused committed the rape “while conveniently armed
with a bolo through force, violence and intimidation.” The prosecution was able
to prove during trial his use of a deadly weapon and threatening words which
caused the victim to submit to his will for fear for her life and personal
safety.
When the accused commits
rape with the use of a deadly weapon, the penalty is the range of two
indivisible penalties of reclusion
perpetua to death. In this connection, Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that when the law prescribes a penalty composed of
two indivisible penalties and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating
circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be
applied.
The Court also sustains the monetary
awards granted by the RTC and the CA in favor of AAA, except for the exemplary
damages which is increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 in line
with our ruling in People v. Gilbert
Castro[46] and
earlier cases.
Civil indemnity, which is actually in
the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the finding of
the fact of rape.[47]
Moral damages in rape cases should be awarded without need of showing that the
victim suffered trauma, with mental, physical, and psychological sufferings
constituting the basis thereof. These are too obvious to still require their
recital by the victim at the trial.[48]
The award of exemplary damages is
likewise called for because the rape was committed with the use of a deadly
weapon. In People v. Silverio Montemayor,[49]
the Court has stated that “exemplary damages are justified under Article 2230
of the Civil Code if there is an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or
qualifying. Since the qualifying circumstance of the use of a deadly
weapon was present in the commission of the rapes subject of these cases,
exemplary damages x x x may be awarded to the offended party in each case.”
WHEREFORE, the P25,000.00
to P30,000.00.
SO
ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
NACHURA DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ROBERTO A.
ABAD
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, Second 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.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] CA rollo, pp. 92-103. Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario with Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, concurring.
[2] Records, pp. 313-320. Penned by Judge Jesus A. Santiago.
[3] Per this Court’s Resolution dated 19 September 2006 in A.M. No. 04-11-09-SC, as well as our ruling in People v. Cabalquinto (G.R. No. 167693, 19 September 2006, 502 SCRA 419), pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262 or the “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004” and its implementing rules, the real name of the victims and their immediate family members other than the accused are to be withheld and fictitious initials are to be used instead. Likewise, the exact addresses of the victims are to be deleted.
[4] Records, p. 61.
[5] CA rollo, pp. 73-85.
[6]
[7] Records, p. 318.
[8]
[9] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[10] CA rollo, p. 28.
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Rollo, p. 19.
[15]
[16]
[17] People
v. Herminigildo Salle Sobusa, G.R. No. 181083,
[18]
People v. Enrique Ceballos, Jr., G.R.No.169642,
[19] People
v. Grande, G.R. No. 170476,
[20] People
v. Wenceslao Espino, Jr., G.R. No. 176742,
[21] People
v. Boisan Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019,
[22] People
v. Jaime Antonio, G.R. No. 157269,
[23] People
v. Domingo Araojo, G.R. No. 185203,
[24] TSN
dated
[25] People v. Capt. Marcial Llanto, 443 Phil. 580, 597 (2003).
[26] TSN
dated
[27] People
v. Adriano Leonardo, G.R. No. 181036,
[28] People v. Castro Geraban, 410 Phil. 450, 461 (2001).
[29] People v. Martin Alejo, 458 Phil. 461, 476 (2003).
[30] People v. Eduardo Rata, 463 Phil. 619, 631 (2003).
[31] People v. Melanio Bolatete, 363 Phil. 336, 357-358 (1999).
[32] People v. Jerry Cantuba, 440 Phil. 557, 565 (2002).
[33] 421 Phil. 805, 812 (2001).
[34] People
v. Adelado Anguac, G.R. No. 176744,
[35] People
v. Cristino Cañada, G.R. No. 175317,
[36] TSN
dated
[37] TSN
dated
[38] People
v. Alvin Abulon, G.R. No. 174473,
[39]
People v. Jesus Paragas Cruz, G.R. No. 186129,
[40] TSN
dated
[41] People
v. Catalino Mingming, G.R. No. 174195,
[42] Records, p. 87.
[43] TSN
dated
[44] People v. Benjamin Lim, 371 Phil. 468, 489 (1999).
[45] People v. Levi Sumarago, 466 Phil. 956, 980 (2004).
[46] G.R. No. 188901,
[47] People v. Salustiano Callos, 424 Phil. 506, 516 (2002).
[48] People v. Medardo Crespo, G.R. No.
180500,
[49] 444 Phil. 169, 190 (2003).