SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
126025
July 6, 2004
-versus-
JOSELITO
ALMENDRAL
Y ALCASABAS,
Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
TINGA, J.:
In this case of incestuous
rape, the victim claims she was defiled by her own father about forty
(40)
times. Moral justice demands that the father be punished for each and
every
despicable act on his minor daughter, but the law, restricted by the
requirements
of procedure, allows his conviction only for two counts of simple rape.cralaw:red
This is an appeal from
the decision[1]
in Criminal Case No. 9116-B of the Regional Trial Court of San
Pedro,
Laguna, Branch 31, finding appellant Joselito Almendral y Alcasabas
guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and imposing upon him the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and the payment to the complainant, his
daughter
Ma. Jessica Almendral, of the amounts of fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00)
as civil indemnity and one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) as
moral
damages.cralaw:red
The Information that
spawned the Decision states:
That on or
about sometime (sic) 1987, prior and subsequent thereto, in the
Municipality
of Biñan, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, accused Joselito Almendral y Alcasabas, with
lewd
design and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and
there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of said
Maria
Jessica Estrada y Almendral against her will and consent, to her damage
and prejudice.chanrobles virtual law library
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
Appellant pleaded not
guilty
to the charge.[3]
Trial proceeded in accordance with the Rules. The prosecution
presented
two (2) witnesses, namely: Ma. Jessica Almendral, the complaining
witness,
and Diosalinda Alcaraz, sister-in-law of the appellant.chanrobles virtual law library
Maria Jessica Estrada
was born on December 27, 1976 to appellant and his wife,
Emelinda.
The other children born to the couple were Richelle (or Rachel),
Michael,
Joselito and Sarah Jane. They lived in Barrio Tubigan,
Biñan,
Laguna.cralaw:red
Sometime in 1987 when
Jessica was eleven (11) years old and there were no other persons in
the
house, appellant summoned her to the room. He made her sit on the
papag and touched her breast and her “private organ.” As she was
seated, he undressed her. Not knowing what was going on, Jessica
allowed appellant to undress her completely. Then he made her lie
down and placed himself on top of her. He forcibly inserted his
penis
into her “private organ.” At first, he failed to penetrate her
but
he tried to do it again and succeeded. Later, appellant dressed,
told Jessica not to tell her mother about what happened, and left the
house.
It was then that Jessica noticed that her private part was
bloody.
Afraid that appellant might harm her should she tell her mother, she
kept
mum about the incident.[4]
Appellant did the same
sex act to her around twenty (20) more times before she reached the age
of thirteen (13) and twenty (20) more times after that, all in their
house
in Tubigan.[5]
The last time appellant
sexually violated her was in 1992 when she was fifteen (15) years old
and
in third year high school. He was lying down on the bed in the
room
that she shared with her sister Richelle when appellant called her,
“Jessica,
halika.” Jessica was not surprised to find her father in that
room
because that was the only bedroom in the house; her parents slept in
the
sala. They were alone then and when Jessica approached appellant,
he held her breast, made her lie down, and placed himself on top of
her.
Jessica did not resist. She was afraid that should she reveal to
anyone what happened, it would be communicated to other people and
should
he hear of it, appellant would pinpoint her as the source of “bad
talks”
about him.[6]
After her marriage on
June 30, 1994, her husband, Analito Estrada (Anton), asked her “who was
ahead of him” in deflowering her. Jessica told her husband about
the sexual incidents with her father. Later, she revealed the
same
incidents to her aunt, her cousins and some friends. Her mother
learned
that she and her sister Richelle had been raped by their father only
through
a subpoena. Jessica and her mother had a confrontation and her
mother
told Jessica to withdraw the complaint.[7]
Sometime in October
1994, Jessica and Richelle accompanied by their aunt Diosalinda Alcaraz
filed their respective complaints for rape against appellant before the
CIS at Camp Vicente Lim. Richelle had narrated to Jessica that
she
was asleep when their father raped her under threat of a firearm he
carried.
Richelle later withdrew her complaint and asked Jessica to do likewise
through a letter she sent Jessica through their mother.[8]chanrobles virtual law library
Diosalinda Alcaraz,
elder sister of appellant’s wife Emelinda, was in her house on June 1,
1994 when Richelle and Jessica asked for help in reporting to the
authorities
the rapes committed against them by their father. Diosalinda told
Jessica to think first before filing a complaint against appellant. It
took four months before the two decided to report the crimes to the
authorities
and when they did, Diosalinda accompanied them to Camp Vicente Lim
because
Jessica and Richelle asked that their complaints be filed with the
CIS.
They did not want to report to the barangay captain because appellant
was
then the barangay secretary. Because she
helped Jessica and Richelle in lodging the complaints, Emelinda stopped
talking to Diosalinda.[9]chanrobles virtual law library
After the prosecution
had rested its case, the defense presented evidence consisting of the
testimonies
of appellant’s wife Emelinda, his daughter Richelle, Rene Maravillas,
and
appellant himself.chanrobles virtual law library
Emelinda denied that
her husband ever raped their daughters. She believed that the
charges
of rape were prompted by her sister Diosalinda Alcaraz. According
to Emelinda, Diosalinda was mad at her and they did not talk to each
other
because Diosalinda believed that she (Emelinda) caused the demolition
of
Diosalinda’s house, which was erected on Emelinda and appellant’s lot.[10]
Emelinda testified that appellant could not have committed the offenses
because in 1987, appellant had left Biñan, Laguna to work as the
private driver of Mayor Feliciano Bautista of Sta. Barbara,
Pangasinan.
In fact, because he was employed by the mayor for two years, appellant
maintained a savings account with the Rural Bank of Sta. Barbara with
the
last entry therein being dated September 9, 1988. Because of his
job, appellant seldom went home. He would only do so once a month
although there were times when Emelinda herself would go to Sta.
Barbara
to get money.[11]
Emelinda also believed
that Jessica’s husband, Anton Estrada, had encouraged Jessica to file
the
complaint. Anton was allegedly mad at her and appellant because
appellant
confronted him about the story Anton banded around that he was forced
to
marry Jessica. Emelinda even claims that Jessica admitted to her
that the filing of the case was her husband’s decision and she would do
whatever her husband would tell her.[12]
Richelle, testifying
in favor of appellant, admitted that she filed a complaint for rape
against
her father but she did so only because she was mad at him. When
Richelle
saw him detained at Camp Vicente Lim, her conscience bothered
her.
She did not tell the authorities that there was no basis for her
complaint;
neither did she do anything while her father languished at the
detention
center for a year. It was only when she testified in the case
filed
by Jessica that Richelle claimed that there was no truth to her
complaint
against her father.[13]chanrobles virtual law library
Eventually, on February
14, 1995, Richelle filed an affidavit of desistance with respect to her
own case, stating that she filed the complaint for rape because she had
a grudge against her father and after thinking deeply, realized that
filing
the complaint was a mistake. Richelle claimed that since
childhood,
appellant had been cruel to them and Richelle resented him for
this.
When she found out that Jessica had filed the complaint against their
father,
she also filed the same charge against him.[14]
Rene Maravillas testified
that he recommended appellant to his brother-in-law, Mayor Bautista, as
the latter’s personal driver. As the “personal agent” of Mayor
Bautista,
Rene was with appellant from 1986 to 1988 and they would go home to
Biñan,
Laguna once a month.[15]
Testifying in his own
defense, appellant denied Jessica’s allegations of rape.
Appellant
claimed that as a father he loved and took care of his children.
He tried his best to discipline them. However, when Jessica was
about
thirteen years old, she left the house and got hooked on vices such as
taking drugs. To discipline her, appellant would hit and tie her
down. He would discipline all his children but he scolded, hit
and
tied down only Jessica and Richelle who, like Jessica, also learned to
take drugs.[16]
Appellant validated
his wife Emelinda’s testimony as to his whereabouts during the years
that
the crimes were committed, and his wife’s theory that the rape charge
was
instigated by Emelinda’s sister and Jessica’s husband.cralaw:red
Appellant testified
that he was employed as the “personal security aid” of Mayor Feliciano
Bautista of Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan from 1986 to 1988. He would
go home to Biñan, Laguna once a month, and sometimes he would
not
go home at all.[17]
Appellant avers that
there is no truth to Jessica’s claim that appellant raped her around
forty
(40) times. If that were true, then Jessica should have filed the
case against him as early as 1987. Jessica and Richelle filed the
complaints only because they were influenced by other people like
Diosalinda
and Anton. Diosalinda had a grudge against him because his wife
asked
her and her family to vacate the place they were residing. There
was bad blood between appellant and Anton. Appellant objected to
Jessica and Anton’s marriage because the latter was a drug addict but
ultimately
gave his consent because the two had eloped and were living together
for
three days when they asked to be wed. Whenever Anton was drunk,
he
would utter slanderous remarks against appellant and his wife.
Anton
was disrespectful towards appellant and his wife, to the point that
Anton
even boxed Emelinda.[18]chanrobles virtual law library
As stated at the outset,
the trial court found appellant guilty of the charge filed against
him.
Through his counsel, Atty. Jose B. Alvarez, appellant appealed to this
Court. For failure to comply with his duty as counsel for
appellant,
Atty. Alvarez was suspended from the practice of law for five months in
the Resolution of December 4, 2000.[19]
The Court then appointed the Public Attorneys’ Office (PAO) as counsel
de officio of appellant and required the PAO to file appellant’s brief.cralaw:red
In this appeal, appellant
imputes error to the trial court in convicting him based on the
“improbable
and incredible testimony of the private complainant.” Jessica’s
testimony
allegedly shows an inherent lack of credibility on crucial points, and
disturbing improbabilities which cast doubt on the veracity of her
story.
Considering the implausible narration, the appellant believes that his
guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.[20]
The issue of credibility
of the victim-witness is best addressed to the reasonable discretion of
the trial court. As held by the Court a countless number of
times,
it is the trial court which has the unique opportunity to observe the
witness
firsthand and note her demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling
examination.
Hence, on the issue of credibility of witnesses, findings of the trial
court will not be disturbed on appeal unless the lower court
overlooked,
ignored, misapprehended, or misinterpreted certain facts or
circumstances
so material such as to affect the outcome of the case.[21]
In this instance, the trial court said:
x
x x In addition thereto, Ma. Jessica related in a
clear,
straightforward and natural manner how she was raped by accused since
she
was 11 years old. x x x Ma. Jessica
went through all the shame and humiliation of appearing in court in a
public
trial in order to exact justice for the sexual abuse she suffered at
the
hands of her own father, the herein accused. In this regard, her
testimony is entitled to full faith and credit x
x
x.[22]chanrobles virtual law library
There is thus no reason
to deviate from the findings of the trial court on the issue of
credibility
of the victim as a witness.cralaw:red
Appellant contends that
the victim’s testimony that she was raped about forty (40) times is
incredible
because she could not even remember the approximate dates
thereof.
He alleges that the victim divulged her ordeal only after her husband
discovered
that he was not the first man in his wife’s life and charging appellant
with rape was “an easy way out indeed to appease the ire of her husband
who ha(d) violent tendencies.”[23]chanrobles virtual law library
The victim’s failure
to recall the exact dates of the sexual assault she experienced in the
hands of appellant, a failure she frankly admitted in court,[24]
does not necessarily puncture her credibility. Forcible sexual invasion
committed by no less than one’s own father is an agonizing and
distressful
experience that, by human nature, is better left buried in the deepest
recesses of one’s memory. Repeated forty (40) times, the
experience
may only result in the victim’s subconscious effort to erase and blot
out
any details thereof. Thus, in People v. Villar, where the child
victim
claimed that the accused raped her more than a hundred times, the Court
said:
Furthermore, the Court
cannot impose the burden of exactness in the victim’s recollection of
her
harrowing experience more so in the present case where the victim was
an
innocent and tender 9-year old lass when she was first raped. It
is all the more understandable that the victim in the present case may
have been confused as to the exact details of each and every rape
incident,
considering that she claimed she had been sexually ravished for more
than
100 times in a span of one whole year. It is in fact expected
that
such a victim would rather wish and even purposely forget the abhorrent
memories of every single occasion. This being the case, it would
be exacting too much should the Court demand a very accurate, detailed,
and flawless account of the two occasions now subject of her charges
out
of the 100 occasions of forcible intercourse. In People vs.
Sagucio
(277 SCRA 183 [1997], where this Court faced the same issue of alleged
inconsistencies in the victim’s narration, we held that errorless
testimony
cannot be expected especially when a witness is recounting details of a
harrowing experience. A court cannot expect a rape victim to
remember
every detail of the appalling outrage.[25]
Under the circumstances,
it is enough that the victim was able to recount the first and last of
the around forty (40) bestial sexual attacks against her.cralaw:red
The candid admission
of the victim that her husband inquired about the “first man” in her
sexual
life attests to her credibility. It could have indeed been a
factor
that led her to divulge her ordeal to other people. However, the
victim’s refusal to divulge her harrowing sexual experience to anyone
until
her husband inquired about the man who took her virginity is explained
by the victim’s testimony that appellant, who exercised “ascendancy”
over
her, was a cruel man who maltreated her. The claim of
maltreatment
was in fact corroborated by defense witness Richelle.[26]
Clearly, after her marriage, the victim found freedom from such
“ascendancy”
and an ally in her husband.cralaw:red
Hence, assuming that
it was her husband who instigated the filing of the rape charge against
appellant, it certainly strains credulity why the victim would
fabricate
a story against her own father even granting that he was cruel to her,
and agree to expose her ordeal to the public if she really did not want
the truth to come out and justice to prevail. Incestuous sexual
affairs
are generally treated with disdain and stigma, a taboo in this
family-oriented
society that may haunt any family for generations. If it was not
her father who took her virginity, human nature would dictate that she
pinpoint the real culprit as the author of her defilement. Not
even
the most ungrateful and resentful of daughters would even push her own
father to the wall as the fall guy in any crime, unless the accusation
against him was true. In this case, the victim stood by her story
notwithstanding the arduous cross-examination that she underwent.cralaw:red
Jessica was likewise
able to sufficiently explain the long delay in the filing of the rape
charge.
Among the reasons considered sufficient to explain delay are fear of
reprisal,
social humiliation, familial considerations, and economic reasons.[27]
Fear of maltreatment in the hands of appellant, who admitted to hitting
and tying down the victim for the least of offenses, was a compelling
reason
that deterred her from revealing the sexual assaults. Only her
marriage
cut short her inaction. Even after her husband had inquired about
the man who took her virginity, she could not immediately file the
charge.
Taking heed of her aunt’s advice, the victim gave the matter deep
thought.
But once she decided to pursue the case, not even her mother and her
sister
could dissuade her from going through with prosecuting the case against
her father.chanrobles virtual law library
Appellant interposed
the defenses of denial and alibi, claiming that he could not have
committed
the crime because he was employed in Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan between
1986
and 1988. His alibi is supported by a certification[28]
issued by Mayor Bautista that appellant was in his employ as his
official
driver from May 16, 1986 until its issuance on July 18,
1988.
However, assuming the alibi to be true, the defense itself offered
evidence
that such alibi was not impregnable. Appellant admitted that he
would
go home to Biñan at least once a month during the two-year
period.
Noticeably, for the crimes committed between 1988 and 1992, there was
no
defense offered whatsoever; appellant did not lift a finger to rebut
the
prosecution evidence that subsequent to the victim’s having reached the
age of thirteen (13) in 1989, he still used her as a sex object.cralaw:red
It is noteworthy that
appellant’s claim that Jessica was a drug dependent is unsupported by
evidence
other than his own self-serving testimony. Neither his wife nor
daughter
Richelle testified on the alleged drug dependency of Jessica to warrant
giving credence to appellant’s claim thereon.cralaw:red
In this appeal, appellant
further raises for the first time the issue of the sufficiency of the
Information
filed against him. He argues that the trial court erred in
convicting
him under a defective information. He contends that he should not
be convicted on the basis of the Information simply alleging “that on
or
about sometime (sic) 1987, prior and subsequent thereto” because it
does
not specify the circumstances under which the crime was
committed.
The vague Information purportedly left the appellant unable to defend
himself
properly, as he had no opportunity to explain his whereabouts from 1989
to 1992.[29]
He adds that the lack of an allegation of an approximate date or month
or even a single specific date when the rapes were committed sorely
affected
the credibility of the alleged victim.[30]
The Information filed
against an accused is intended to inform him of the accusations against
him in order that he could adequately prepare his defense. It is
thus textbook doctrine that an accused cannot be convicted of an
offense
unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information.[31]
To ensure that the constitutional right of the accused to be informed
of
the nature and cause of the accusation against him is not violated, the
information must state the name of the accused, the designation given
to
the offense by the statute, a statement of the acts or omissions so
complained
of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the
approximate
time and date of the commission of the offense, and
the
place where the offense has been committed.[32]
It must embody the essential elements of the crime charged by setting
forth
the facts and circumstances that have a bearing on the culpability and
liability of the accused so that he can properly prepare for and
undertake
his defense.[33]chanrobles virtual law library
However, it is not necessary
for the information to allege the date and time of the commission of
the
crime with exactitude unless time is an essential ingredient of the
offense.[34]
Failure to specify the exact dates or time when the rapes occurred does
not ipso facto make the information defective on its face. The
date
or time of the commission of the rape is not a material ingredient of
the
said crime[35]
because the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through
force
and intimidation. In fact, the precise time when the rape takes
places
has no substantial bearing on its commission.[36]
As such, the date or time need not be stated with absolute
accuracy.
It is sufficient that the complaint or information states
that
the crime has been committed at any time as near as possible to the
date
of its actual commission.[37]
Moreover, appellant
failed to raise the issue of the defective information before the trial
court through a motion for bill of particulars or motion to quash the
information.
Such failure to object to the allegation in the information as to the
time
of commission of the rapes before appellant pleaded not guilty thereto
amounted to a waiver of the defect in the information. Objections
as to matters of form or substance in the information cannot be made
for
the first time on appeal.[38]
Appellant likewise never
objected to the presentation of evidence by the prosecution to prove
that
the offenses were committed “on or about sometime (sic) 1987, prior and
subsequent thereto.” He cannot now pretend that he was unable to
defend himself in view of the vagueness of the allegation in the
Information
as to when the crimes were committed, as it was shown to the contrary
that
he participated in the trial and was even able to give an alibi in his
defense.cralaw:red
The failure to allege
in the same Information the relationship between appellant and Jessica
is clearly the trial court’s reason in finding him guilty of
simple
rape and imposing on him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. While
Jessica’s minority at the time of the commission of the offenses and
her
relationship to the offender were established by the prosecution beyond
doubt, these qualifying circumstances were not specified in the
Information.
It would certainly be a denial of appellant’s right to be informed of
the
charges against him and to due process if he is charged with simple
rape
but convicted of its qualified form even if the attendant qualifying
circumstances
are not set forth in the Information.chanrobles virtual law library
However, the failure
to plead these circumstances in the Information does not affect its
sufficiency
and validity as to the charge of simple rape, since the Information
alleges
facts which would warrant a conclusion that appellant sexually violated
Jessica with its imputation therein of “carnal knowledge” “by means of
force, violence and intimidation,” the gravamen of the crime of
rape.
Carnal knowledge has a definite meaning in law; it is synonymous with
sexual
intercourse.[39]
There could not have been any mistaking the charge for any other
offense
and hence, the appellant was not deprived of due process by the manner
by which the Information was crafted. An accused may be convicted
of a crime and sentenced to a penalty prescribed therefor so long
as
the facts alleged in the information and proved at the trial
shall
constitute the crime for which he is convicted even though different
from
the crime designated and charted in the said information.[40]
The court can also convict
the accused of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose
on
him the penalty for each and every one of them, especially where the
accused
has waived his objection to the defects in the information.[41]
In People v. Ramon,[42]
the trial court found therein guilty of three counts of simple rape
based
on the imputation in the criminal complaint the commission of the
offenses “on or about the month of May, 1995, and prior thereto.”
This Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for three counts of
rape
despite its finding that the complaint was indeed flawed, as it charged
the accused with more than one count of rape by the bare added phrase
“and
prior thereto.” For the accused’s failure to timely question the
defect through a motion to quash or a bill of particulars, he was
deemed
to have waived his objection to the multiplicity of charges.cralaw:red
Similarly, in People
v. Gianan,[43]
accused contended that the information alleging execution of the crime
“sometime in November 1995, and some occasions prior and/or subsequent
thereto” was defective because it charged more than one offense.
The trial court convicted accused of multiple rape without stating the
number of counts of rape involved. This Court, however,
maintained
that the failure of the accused to question the validity of the
information
is deemed a waiver of his objection and convicted accused of four
counts
of rape and one count of acts of lasciviousness proven by the
prosecution.cralaw:red
In this case, the trial
court found appellant guilty of a single count of simple rape,
penalized
with the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua under Article
335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No.
7659.
However, the Information charges the appellant with more than one count
of rape, with its allegation that the acts were committed “on or about
sometime (sic) 1987, prior and subsequent thereto,” which the
prosecution
was able to prove by presenting evidence of the first and the last
incidents
of rape committed by appellant against Jessica.chanrobles virtual law library
Appellant therefore
should have been found guilty for two counts, each act of rape being
considered
separate and distinct from one another. The penalty to be imposed
on appellant should thus be reclusion perpetua for each of the two (2)
counts of rape.chanrobles virtual law library
The indemnity to be
paid by appellant to the offended party should likewise be modified to
fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) for each count. Moral damages of
fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) for each count should be awarded without
need
of showing that the rape victim suffered the trauma of mental,
physical,
and psychological suffering constituting the basis thereof, most
especially where the prosecution was able to prove two counts of
rape.
Exemplary damages of twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) for each
count
of rape should similarly be awarded to deter fathers with perverse
tendencies
and aberrant sexual behaviors from sexually abusing their daughters.[44]chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31 is
MODIFIED.
Appellant Joselito Almendral is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
two counts of simple rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion
perpetua and to pay Ma. Jessica Almendral civil indemnity of fifty
thousand
pesos (P50,000.00), moral damages of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00),
and exemplary damages of twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00), for
each
count of rape.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.
Puno, J., (Chairman),
Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]Penned
by Judge Stella Cabuco-Andres and promulgated on March 18, 1996; Rollo,
pp. 149-154.
[2]Rollo,
p. 9.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]Records,
p. 19.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]TSN,
May 23, 1995, pp. 6-7, 9-13.
[5]Ibid,
p. 25; June 5, 1995, pp. 3-4.
[6]TSN,
May 23, 1995, pp. 14, 17-21.
[7]Ibid,
pp. 22-23.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]Id.
at 24; June 5, 1995, pp. 9-12.
[9]TSN,
July 4, 1995, pp. 3-12.
[10]TSN,
August 21, 1995, p. 4.
[11]Id.
pp. 5-10.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]Id.
pp. 14-16.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]TSN,
September 26, 1995, pp. 3-7.
[14]Id.
at 7-8, 12-14.chanrobles virtual law library
[15]TSN,
December 6, 1995, pp. 4-7.
[16]TSN,
February 5, 1996, pp. 3-4.
[17]Id.
at 4-6.chanrobles virtual law library
[18]Id.
at 6-7.chanrobles virtual law library
[19]Rollo,
pp. 120-122.chanrobles virtual law library
[20]Appellant’s
Brief, Rollo, pp. 134, 140-146.chanrobles virtual law library
[21]People
v. Awing, G.R. Nos. 133919-20, February 19, 2001, 352 SCRA 188, 204.
[22]RTC
Decision, Rollo, pp. 148-149.
[23]Appellant’s
Brief, Rollo, pp. 142-143.
[24]TSN,
June 5, 1995, p. 6.chanrobles virtual law library
[25]379
Phil. 417, 428 (2000).
[26]TSN,
September 26, 1995, p. 13.
[27]People
v. Awing, supra at 203.
[28]Exhibit
“1,” RTC Records, p. 141.
[29]Appellant’s
Brief, Rollo, p. 146.
[30]Reply
Brief, Rollo, p. 212.chanrobles virtual law library
[31]People
v. Pambid, 384 Phil. 702, 730 (2000) citing People v. Manalili, 355
Phil.
652 (1998).
[32]People
v. Quitlong, 354 Phil. 372, 388 (1998) citing Secs. 6 and 8, Rule 110
of
the Rules of Court.
[33]Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[34]People
v. Santos, 390 Phil. 150, 161 (2000).chanrobles virtual law library
[35]People
v. Dimapilis, G.R. Nos. 128619-21, December 17, 1998, 300 SCRA
279.
[36]People
v. Bugarin, G.R. Nos. 110817-22, June 13, 1997, 273 SCRA 384.
[37]People
v. Magbanua, 377 Phil. 750, 763 (1999).chanrobles virtual law library
[38]People
v. Razonable, 386 Phil. 771, 780 (2000).chanrobles virtual law library
[39]6
Words and Phrases 271 citing State v. Croteau, 184 A.2d 683, 684, 158
Me.
360.
[40]People
v. Demecillo, G.R. No. 83186, June 4, 1990, 186 SCRA 161, 173.chanrobles virtual law library
[41]People
v. Ramon, G.R. No. 130407, December 15, 1999, 320 SCRA 775, 783.
[42]Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[43]G.R.
Nos. 135288-93, September 15, 2000, 340 SCRA 477.
[44]People
v. Docena, 379 Phil. 903, 918 (2000).
chan
robles virtual law library |