SECOND
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF
THE
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - JOSEPH MOSTRALES y ABAD, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R.
No. 184925 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO,* PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ.
Promulgated: June 15, 2011 |
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA,
J.:
This is an appeal from the March 27, 2008
Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00068 which
affirmed with modification the September 9, 2003 Decision[2]
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 213, Mandaluyong City (RTC), in
Criminal Case No. MC-02-587-FC-H.
The records show that on April 18, 2002, the accused
Joseph Mostrales, Diosdado Santos, Ronnie Tan, and ten (10) John Does were
charged with kidnapping for ransom, defined and penalized under Article 267 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7659, in
an Information[3]
which reads :
That on or about the 12th
day of November, 2001, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, being then
private individuals, conspiring and confederating together with @ JOHN-JOHN, @
KUMANDER AGUILA, @ KUMANDER KIDLAT AND TEN (10) JOHN DOES, whose true
identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and mutually helping and
aiding one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
for the purpose of extorting ransom from one MA. ANGELA VINA DEE PINEDA and her
parents, threatening to kill the said MA. ANGELA VINA DEE PINEDA if the desired
amount of money could not be given, kidnap, carry away, detain and deprive the
said MA. ANGELA VINA DEE PINEDA, a minor and a female, of her liberty without
authority of law, against her will and consent, which kidnapping or detention
lasted for more than five (5) days, and with the ransom payment in the total
amount of Eleven Million Pesos (P11,000,000.00), given and delivered to
the accused.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon arraignment on
After
the pre-trial conference held on
The defense, on the other
hand, presented Mostrales, Jaime Cesista (Cesista), Rudy Hombrebueno (Hombrebueno),
and Isagani Nerez (Nerez).
VERSION OF PROSECUTION
The
evidence for the prosecution shows that on
Ma.
Angela and her siblings were aboard a white Hyundai Starex van with plate
number WEA 968 driven by Herminio. Alex, another driver of Dr. Pineda, rode in
the passenger seat. Ma. Angela and her
nanny, Elsie, were seated at the second row of the van, while the three boys
and their nanny, Elgie Bisagas (Elgie), sat at the third row.
On
their way to school, they passed along Paseo de Roxas to
Upon approaching the corner
of Calderon and Pilar Streets, the Revo abruptly stopped. Herminio blew the vans horn, but the Revo
slowly moved backward, prompting him to sound the vans horn again. As he did
so, the Revo continued to move in reverse until it hit the front of the Starex.
Four armed men, dressed in black and
carrying long firearms, alighted from the Revo. Herminio thought that the men were police
officers and that he had just committed a traffic violation. Two of the men
went to Herminios side, while the other two positioned themselves at the right
side of the van near Alex.[5]
The two
men at Herminios side, one of whom was identified as Mostrales, aimed and
poked their guns at the window and demanded that Herminio open the door of the
van. The doors of the van opened, and
the two men standing at the opposite side of the van pointed their guns at
Alex, yanked him outside, forced him to face a nearby wall with his hands up,
and frisked him. The men also took the keys from Herminio, opened the vans
sliding door and attempted to force Ma. Angela out of the van, shouting, Baba,
baba![6]
When Elsie resisted and protectively
held on to Ma. Angela, one of the armed men jabbed Elsie with his gun on the
right side of her torso, grabbed her feet, and pulled her out of the vehicle,
causing her to fall on her back onto the ground. One of the armed men, later
identified as
Herminio,
Alex and Elsie ran after the Revo, shouting for help, saying, Kinidnap yung
kasama naming bata![8]
When they reached the Shell gasoline station on
From
the Mandaluyong Police Headquarters, Herminio and his companions went to the
National Anti-Kidnapping Task Force (NAKTAF) Office in
On that
same day, a man called up the Pineda residence in P100 million in ransom,
but which was eventually negotiated down to P35 million. Dr. Pineda,
however, insisted that he could raise P3 million only. Enraged, Kumander
Kidlat repeatedly cussed and directed profanities against him.[10]
Dr.
Pineda and his ex-wife,[11]
Ma. Aurora, Ma. Angelas mother, agreed to collectively raise P5 million
as ransom money. Kumander Kidlat,
however, adamantly demanded for a higher amount and threatened to kill Ma. Angela
and dump her body in the creek in either the Amorsolo or Valle Verde area. Ma.
On P8 million. Dr. Pineda raised P6 million
while Ma. P2 million. Dr. Pineda personally counted the bills and,
following Kumander Kidlats instructions, arranged the money in a backpack.
On the
morning of
At
As instructed, Ma. Aurora
and Antonio waited in the car until a man in a white shirt and jeans approached
Ma.
Notwithstanding the payoff,
the kidnappers did not release Ma. Angela. Two days later, on P35 million.
For a week, the Pinedas were
not allowed to speak with their daughter. The family, thus, sought the
assistance of Teresita Ang See (Ang See), who introduced them to NAKTAF
operatives.
Under the direction of Col.
Allan Purisima, Ma. P35 million to P3
million. Dr. Pineda raised P2 million while Ma. P1 million.
Following Kumander Kidlats instructions, Ma.
In the meantime, Ana, Ma. Angelas
private nurse from birth until she was six years old, testified that she spoke
with Ma. P3 million ransom money.
Thereafter, Ana and Major Arumin
of the NAKTAF left the Pineda residence in P3 million ransom
money and Anas phone, she and Major Arumin drove back to
On
VERSION OF THE ACCUSED
Mostrales denied having
participated in Ma. Angelas abduction and claimed that at the time she was
kidnapped and immediately prior thereto, he was at his hometown in Barangay
Lauren, Umingan, Pangasinan. To vouch for his character, he drew on his having
served as a member of the Philippine Marines from
The accused related that
on
He recalled that on
He further testified
that in April 2002, he underwent surgery after having been injured in a
vehicular accident in Mambungan,
Cesista, a farmer and allegedly a barangay tanod in
Barangay Lauren, Umingan, Pangasinan, testified that he was a good friend of
the Mostrales family and had known the accused since the latter was in
elementary school. They were neighbors in Barangay Lauren, his house being
situated approximately five meters away from the Mostrales residence. He also claimed
that he saw Mostrales from
Hombrebueno, a tricycle
driver and a member of the Civilian Volunteer Organization of Barangay Lauren,
testified that Mostrales was his childhood friend and neighbor, and that he had
known him since he was in grade school. Hombrebueno
recalled that he saw the accused sometime in the morning of
RULING OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
In its Decision dated
WHEREFORE,
the prosecution having successfully proved beyond per adventure of doubt the
guilt of the accused JOSEPH MOSTRALES Y ABAD for Violation of Article 267 of
the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act 7659, he is hereby sentenced
to suffer the penalty of DEATH, the intent or purpose of kidnapping being to
extort ransom in addition to the justifying circumstances that said kidnapping
had lasted for more than three (3) days and that the person kidnapped is a
minor while the accused is neither the parents, female, nor public officer.
Further, said accused
JOSEPH MOSTRALES Y ABAD is hereby ordered to pay the private complainants the
following amount:
1.
ELEVEN
MILLION PESOS (P11,000,000.00), Philippine Currency; representing the
unrecovered ransom money;
2.
TWO
MILLION PESOS (P2,000,000.00) Philippine currency, for and as moral
damages to enable the injured parties to obtain means, diversion or amusements
that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering they have undergone by reason
of the accuseds culpable action;
3.
TWO
HUNDRED [SIXTY] EIGHT THOUSAND, NINETY THREE PESOS AND THIRTY SEVEN CENTAVOS (P268,093.37)
as compensatory damages representing the actual pecuniary loss suffered by the
private complainants from transportation, security, hospital, telephone and
safe houses expenses.
The Branch Clerk of
Court is hereby directed to transmit the entire records of this case pursuant
to the provisions of Section 10, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
SO ORDERED.[16]
RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
The CA agreed with the RTC and found the
arguments of the accused to be without merit. In its
WHEREFORE, the decision dated
September 29 [9], 2003 in Criminal Case No. MC-02-587-FC-H of the RTC, Branch
213, Mandaluyong City, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant
is sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and is
ordered to pay to private complainant and her parents the amounts of P11,198,642.84
as actual damages, P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00
as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.[17]
Hence, this appeal.
Before this Court, the accused adopts the
arguments contained in his Appellants Brief[18]
filed before the CA as his supplemental brief, as all the arguments pertinent
to his defense have already been adequately raised therein. In his brief, he presented the following:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
I.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT
GIVING CREDENCE TO ACCUSED-APPELLANTS ALIBI; and
II.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM WHEN THE LATTERS
GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
The Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG) likewise adopts the issues raised in its Brief
for the Appellee[19]
where it argued that the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable
doubt and, accordingly, recommended that the appealed decision, being in
conformity with the law and the evidence presented, be affirmed in toto.
RULING OF THE COURT
The Court agrees with the findings of the CA and
affirms its decision with the sole modification that the amount of moral
damages awarded be increased to P200,000.00 in light of recent
jurisprudence.
All the elements of kidnapping under Article 267 of the Revised Penal
Code were proven in this case.
Article
267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659,[20] provides:
Art.
267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
- Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other
manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death:
1. If
the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days.
2. If
it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
3. If
any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person
kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made.
4. If
the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is
any of the parents, female or a public officer.
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping
or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim
or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were
present in the commission of the offense.
When the victim is killed or dies as a
consequence of the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or
dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed.
In
this case, the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of kidnapping:
(1) The offender is a private individual;
not either of the parents of the victim or a public officer who has a duty
under the law to detain a person;
(2) He
kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his
liberty;
(3) The
act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and
(4)
In the commission of the offense,
any of the following circumstances is present:
(a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for
more than three days;
(b) it
is committed by simulating public authority;
(c) any
serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained
or threats to kill him are made or
(d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female or a
public official.[21]
[Emphases supplied]
The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation
of the victims liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the
accused to effect the same. Moreover, if the victim is
a minor, or the victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of
extorting ransom, the duration of his detention becomes inconsequential. Ransom
here means money, price or consideration paid or demanded for the redemption of
a captured person that will release him from captivity.[22]
As the CA correctly stated, although the accused
testified that he was a member of the Philippine Marines on
Positive Identification
of the Accused
Mostrales was positively identified by two prosecution
witnesses, Herminio and Alex, as one of the four men who abducted Ma. Angela on
Q- As a family driver, you said, what is the
nature of your duties?
A- Fetching their child, Angela Pineda, from
home to her school, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q- On
A- I drove her to school.
Q- When you said you drove her to school, [to]
what school are you referring to?
A- Tabernacle of Faith, sir,
Q- What vehicle did you use then?
A- A Starex Van, color white, with Plate No.
WEA 968.
Q- And who were with you, if any?
A- With me is another driver, Alex Afable
COURT:
Q- What is the first name of Afable?
A- Alex Afable, your honor, together with
Angela Pineda, her Yaya, Elsie Bisagas, and three (3) adopted male children of
Dr. Pineda.
xxx xxx xxx
Q- What happened along the way while you
were along
A- In
Q- What happened when you were along
A- We were tailing a Revo red car, when we
approached the corners of Calderon and Pilar Streets, said car stopped.
Q- Do you know the plate number of that
Toyota Revo vehicle?
A- Yes, sir.
Q- What?
A- WES 277.
Q- What happened next, if any, when the Revo
stopped in front of you, at the corner of
A- When the Revo stopped, because we are in
a hurry, because we are chasing the time (sic), I blew my horn and after
that, instead of them moving forward, they slowly moved backward.
Q- So, what did you do?
A- So, what I did is that I blew my horn
again, sir.
Q- What happened after you blew your horn
for the second time?
A- While I was blowing my again (sic)
horn, we were bumped backward by the said vehicle and the front of the car was
hit, sir.
Q- What else happened?
A- After having bumped our car, the four
(4) suspects got off from the said vehicle.
Q- These four (4) suspects, who alighted
from the car, were they holding anything or none at all?
A- They were armed with long firearms, sir.
Q- What followed next after they alighted
with long firearms, the four (4) suspects?
A- After they alighted with long firearms,
they ran towards us, the two (2) suspects went to my position and the other two
(2) positioned themselves at the right side, near Alex.
Q- Those two (2) persons that positioned
themselves near you, what did they do, if any, when they were near you?
A- They tinumbok their gun at the
drivers window of the car on my side.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. PAMARAN
Q- What
followed next?
A- What happened next is that the door at
Alexs side suddenly opened.
Q- And what followed thereafter?
A- Thereafter, the suspects pointed the gun
to (sic) Alex, brought him to the wall and frisked him.
xxx xxx xxx
COURT:
Q- What followed next, after Alex was told
to face the wall with hands up?
A- One of the suspects had already opened
(the) sliding door, the passengers door of the van.
Q- And then, what followed?
A- Thereafter, they attempted forcibly to
take away Angela Pineda but they cannot because she was embraced by her Yaya,
namely Elsie Bisagas.
xxx xxx xxx
Q- What
happened when Elsie was embracing Pineda?
A- Because of the difficulty of taking away
Angela Pineda, one of the suspects hit Elsie with the point of a gun to her
right side.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. PAMARAN
Q- What followed next, when the suspect
thrust the end of his rifle or his long firearm on the side of Elsie?
A- Since they cannot get Angela, what the
suspect d[id], they took the feet of Elsie and pulled her outside.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. PAMARAN:
Q- After Elsie was pulled outside of the
vehicle, what happened next to Elsie?
A- She fell on the street.
Q- What was her position when she fell on
the street?
A- She fell on the ground on her back.
Q- And then what followed next?
A- After that, the suspect immediately went
inside of the vehicle and took away Angela.
Q- How did they take Angela?
A- With his single hand, he put his arm
around her.
Q- And then after putting the arm around
her, what did they do?
A- They run (sic) Angela inside
their vehicle.
Q- Where was their vehicle then?
A- In front of our vehicle.
Q- What followed next after they rushed Angela
to their vehicle?
A- All of them boarded their vehicle, they
proceeded to
xxx xxx xxx
Q- And
how about you, what did you do?
A- And then, I immediately alighted from
our vehicle and run (sic) after them and shouted for help, kinidnap
yung kasama naming bata.
Q- How about your other companions, what
did they do?
A- They ran after me, Elsie Bisagas and
Alex Afable, but I ran first.
xxx xxx xxx
Q- Do you know the accused or do you know
any of the accused or any of the suspects?
A- Yes, sir.
Q- If any of the suspects, as you remember,
is in court, will you point him out?
A- Yes, sir.
Q- Please do so.
A- (sic) There he is, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
INTERPRETER:
The witness pointed to the person
seated at the third row and identified himself as Joseph Abad Mostrales.
xxx xxx xxx
(Emphases
supplied.)[23]
Alex similarly identified the accused as one of
Angelas abductors and corroborated Herminios testimony:
Q: What
did you notice in the T.V. News?
A: I saw one of the kidnappers of the
daughter of Dr. Pineda, sir.
Q: Is that one of the kidnappers (sic) that
you saw in court now?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Please point to him, if any? (sic)
COURT:
Q: Where is he sitting?
A: Second row, Your Honor.
xxx xxx xxx
INTERPRETER;
Witness is pointing to a person
[i]nside the court room [who] when asked to identify himself answered to the
name of JOSEPH MOSTRALES Y ABAD.
ATTY. PAMARAN:
Why did you say that the person you
pointed at was one of the kidnappers?
A: Because I saw him when he alighted
[f]rom the Revo car, sir.
Q: In that particular happening of the
incident, do you know if he perform[ed] anything?
A: I dont know what he did but I [s]aw him
when he went to the left [s]ide of the Starex Van, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Now, may I ask you again why you
remember or why are you sure that he was one of the kidnappers?
A: Because I actually saw him and [c]annot
forget his face, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
(Emphasis supplied.)[24]
There
was no doubt in the identification of the accused by Herminio and Alex. Both
witnesses positively identified him in their testimony and pointed at him in
the court room. Herminio was even able
to identify him from a photograph shown to him at the NAKTAF headquarters and
described his physical appearance to the NAKTAF operatives in his sworn
statement even before the photos were shown to him.
The accuseds defense of alibi is not credible.
As the CA emphatically stated, the
defense of alibi may not be successfully invoked where the identity of the
assailant has been established by the witnesses.[25] Alibi
and denial are inherently weak defenses[26]
and should be received with caution, because they can be easily fabricated,[27]
and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and
positively ascertained the identity of the accused.[28]
The
positive identification of the accused, when categorical and consistent, and
without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying,
should prevail over the alibi and denial of the accused, whose testimony is
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence.[29]
For
alibi to succeed as a defense, the accused must establish by clear and
convincing evidence, first, his presence at another place at the time of
the perpetration of the offense, and second, the physical impossibility
of his presence at the scene of the crime.[30] The concept of physical impossibility refers
not only to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime
transpired and the place where it was committed, but also to the facility of
access between the two places.[31] The
excuse must be so airtight that it would admit of no exception.[32]
Where there is the least chance
for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.[33]
In the case at bench, the accused
failed to sufficiently prove that it was physically impossible for him to have
been present at the place where the crime was committed. The accused himself
testified that if traffic was light, it would only take three to four hours to
commute from Umingan, Pangasinan to
The accused clearly
failed to convincingly establish that he was in another place at the time of Ma.
Angelas kidnapping. Both the RTC and the CA found the testimony of prosecution
witnesses, Herminio and Alex, to be more credible than those of Cesista and
Hombrebueno. Well-settled is the rule that the findings of
the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are
entitled to the highest respect. Having seen and heard the witnesses and having
observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court is deemed to
have been in a better position to weigh the evidence.[34]As
the accused has failed to show that the trial court misappreciated any of the
facts before it, there is no reason to deviate from the established doctrine.
Juxtaposing the testimonies offered by the prosecution
witnesses and the defense witnesses, the latters recollection appears
unreliable and tailor-made for the accused. This clearly militates against
their credibility. Testimonial evidence should not only be given by a credible
witness; it should also be credible, reasonable and in accord with human
experience. As
the CA observed:
x x x Defense witness Jaime [Cesista], on the other hand,
merely mentioned in passing that he saw accused-appellant at 6:00 A.M. on
November 12, 2001 and in the afternoon of the same date. He did not say what
made him distinctly remember seeing accused-appellant during those hours,
considering that he also claimed to have seen accused-appellant everyday from
The Court gives less
probative weight to a defense of alibi when it is corroborated by friends and
relatives, as in this case, where both corroborating witnesses are close
friends of the accused. One can easily fabricate an alibi and ask friends and
relatives to corroborate it.[36]
Thus, the prosecution having
established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused, his conviction
must be upheld.
The modification of the sentence from
death to reclusion perpetua is affirmed.
The
Court also affirms the downgrading of the sentence from death to reclusion
perpetua in light of the passage of R.A. No. 9346, An Act Prohibiting
the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines, the pertinent provisions
of which provide:
SECTION 1. The imposition of the penalty
of death is hereby prohibited. Accordingly, Republic Act No. Eight Thousand One
Hundred Seventy-Seven (R.A. No. 8177), otherwise known as the Act Designating
Death by Lethal Injection is hereby repealed. Republic Act No. Seven Thousand
Six Hundred Fifty-Nine (R.A. No. 7659), otherwise known as the Death Penalty
Law, and all other laws, executive orders and decrees, insofar as they impose
the death penalty are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.
SEC. 2. In lieu of the death penalty,
the following shall be imposed.
(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the
Revised Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the
law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the
Revised Penal Code.
SEC. 3. Person convicted of offenses punished
with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion
perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No.
4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
x x x
The award of moral damages is modified
in light of recent jurisprudence.
Lastly,
on the matter of damages, the CA reduced the award of P2 million granted
by the RTC as moral damages to P100,000.00, citing the 2004 case of People
v. Castillo[37] and the 2007 case of People
v. Rodrigo.[38] More recent cases,[39] however, dictate that moral damages in the
amount of P200,000.00 be awarded. The award of P100,000.00 as
exemplary damages is sustained.
WHEREFORE,
the P200,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO 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
Courts 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 Chairpersons
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 Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Designated as acting member of the Second Division per Special
Order No. 1006 dated
[1] Rollo,
pp. 3-30. Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with
Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo,
concurring.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 34-71.
[3]
[4] Rollo, p. 4.
[5]
[6]
[7] Rollo, pp.
6-7.
[8]
[9] Id. at 7.
[10]
[11] Both Dr. Pineda and Ma.
[12] Rollo, p. 9.
[13]
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] CA rollo, p. 71.
[17] Rollo, p. 29.
[18] CA rollo, pp. 98-115.
[19]
[20] An Act To
Impose The Death Penalty On Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending For That Purpose
The Revised Penal Laws, As Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, And For Other
Purposes.
[21] People v.
Bringas, G.R. No. 189093,
[22] Id., citing People
v. Jatulan, G.R. No. 171653, April 24, 2007, 522 SCRA 174, 187.
[23] Rollo,
pp. 20-23, citing TSN,
[24]
[25]
[26] People v. Ebet, G.R. No. 181635,
[27] People v. Tamolon and Cabagan, G.R. No. 180169, February 27, 2009, 580 SCRA 384,
395, citing People v. Penaso, 383 Phil. 200, 210 (2000).
[28] People v. Ebet, supra note 26.
[29] Rollo,
p. 25, citing People v. Abes, 465 Phil. 165, 185
(2004).
[30]
[31] People v.
Salcedo, G.R. No. 178272,
[32] People v.
Bracamonte, 327 Phil. 160, 162 (1996).
[33] People v.
Salcedo, supra note 31, citing People
v. Felipe Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 168173, December 24, 2008,
575 SCRA 412, 439.
[34] People v. Sally, G.R. No. 191254, October 13, 2010, citing People v. Ofemiano, G.R. No. 187155, February 1, 2010, 611 SCRA 250, 256.
[35] Rollo, pp.
25-26.
[36] People v.
Salcedo, supra note 31, citing People v Sumalinog, Jr.,
466 Phil. 637, 651 (2004).
[37] G.R. No. 132895,
[38] G.R. No. 173022,
[39] People v. Pepino, G.R. No. 183479,