FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
132321
January 21, 2002
-versus-
ALFREDO COSCOS
AND
JOHN DOE "ROEL MARCUJOS,"
Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
KAPUNAN,
J.:
This case originated
from an Information filed by Provincial Prosecutor Francisco G. Rivero
against Alfredo Coscos and one John Doe, charging them with the crime
of
Murder, committed as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or about October
31, 1995, in the Municipality of Maco, Province of Davao, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Alfredo
Coscos,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping with one John Doe, who
is
at large, with treachery and evident premeditation, with intent to
kill,
armed with a firearm, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously
attack, assault and shoot one Johnny de la Cruz, thereby inflicting
upon
him wounds which caused his death, and further causing actual, moral
and
compensatory damages to the heirs of the victim.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CONTRARY TO LAW.[1]
Alfredo Coscos was arraigned
on 11 December 1995 and pleaded "Not Guilty" to the accusation.
John
Doe was later on identified as Roel Marcujos and the Information was
accordingly
amended.[2]
However, while a warrant was issued for Marcujos' arrest, he was able
to
evade the authorities, and the trial proceeded against Coscos alone.cralaw:red
Belly de la Cruz, widow
of the victim, testified for the prosecution. She recalled that
on
31 October 1995, at around eight o' clock in the evening, while she was
inside their bedroom and her husband was feeding their rabbits, she
heard
people throwing stones at their dogs. She peeped through a window
and saw Alfredo Coscos, Coscos' son Ricky and Roel Marcujos entering
their
premises.[3]
Coscos, who was holding a kerosene lamp,[4]
shouted "Dong Johnny!" Her husband approached the trio. She next
heard Coscos saying "Tan-awa ang tiil sa akong bata naghubag, tungod
napaakan
sa iro" (Look at the leg of my son, it swells because it was bitten by
your dog).cralaw:red
An altercation ensued
between the victim and Coscos. Suddenly, Belly heard a burst of
gunfire
and saw her husband staggering. She heard two (2) more shots and
saw her husband fell about ten (10) meters away from where she
was.
She also saw Coscos holding a gun.[5]
Fearing that she would also be killed, she decided not to make any
noise.[6]
After Coscos and his companions left, she immediately asked for their
neighbors'
assistance[7]
and brought her husband to the Davao Regional Hospital where he was
pronounced
dead on arrival.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Belly de la Cruz further
testified that her husband, prior to his death,[9]
earned about P15,000.00 per month.[10]
She likewise stated that for his farm animals, her husband earned about
P150,787.79 for a year. To prove her allegation, de la Cruz
submitted
the following documents to the court: (1) a receipt, dated 15 September
1995, showing that from June to August 1995, her husband earned
8,162.25
from copra harvest; (2) a receipt, dated 07 December 1995, showing that
her husband earned P13,820 from copra harvest ending November 1995; and
(3) a letter from the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Tagum,
Davao
showing that the deceased extracted about 5,716 cubic meters of gravel
and sand from his quarry business from 01 January to 31 July 1995.[11]
Finally, the witness
testified that the total expenses she incurred for the wake of her
husband,
as well for the funeral service, memorial park and other expenses,
amounted
to P61,588.75.cralaw:red
Dr. Ricardo Rodaje of
the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Southeastern Mindanao
Regional
Office, who conducted the autopsy examination on the cadaver of Johnny
de la Cruz, testified that the cause of the death was gunshot wounds.[12]
The victim sustained three (3) wounds, found on the neck and on the
head.
Dr. Rodaje declared that while he recovered a slug on the victim's
neck,
he could not determine the kind of bullet used as he was not an expert
on the matter.[13]
Dr. Rodaje further testified
that based on the entrance wound on the neck of the victim, he was shot
while either standing or sitting down.[14]
He stated that the muzzle of the gun was a little bit lower than the
entrance
wound; hence, the gun could be at a lower angle in relation to the neck
of the victim.[15]
The second wound, located on the left side of the victim's head, exited
on the right portion of the head, which could mean that the victim was
already lying prostrate when it was inflicted.[16]
The witness also asserted
that the entries of the wound were 5 x 1.3 cm. and 3 x 2.0 cm., which
means
that the assailant used a short firearm.[17]
However, he could not determine which wound was inflicted first.[18]
There was a possibility that both the assailant and the victim were
standing
and that the former was taller than the latter.[19]
Finally, Dr. Rodaje declared that powder burns could not be traced if
the
assailant was wearing gloves when the gun was fired.[20]
The defense presented
a number of witnesses to dispute the allegations of the prosecution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Jacinto Cole testified
that on 31 October 1995, at around eight o' clock in the evening, he
heard
three (3) gunshots.[21]
When he heard a fourth gunshot coming from Ambugan bridge, he left his
house to investigate. Somebody told him that Belly de la Cruz
needed
a vehicle to bring her husband to the hospital.[22]
He went to the house of the de la Cruzes and was told by Belly that
Alfredo
Coscos shot her husband.[23]
He was able to get a tricycle and he helped in bringing the victim to
Davao
Regional Hospital. However, Johnny de la Cruz was declared dead
on
arrival.[24]
In the hospital, he overheard Belly talking with the head nurse and
saying
that she was not certain if it was Alfredo Coscos who shot her husband
although she had a strong suspicion because their dog bit Coscos' son.[25]
Cole, likewise, testified that the victim showed him his .38 caliber
revolver,
which he used to fire during nighttime.[26]
Miguel Travenio, a kagawad
of Barangay Dumlan, Maco, Davao, testified that on 31 October 1995, at
about eight o'clock in the evening, he was in their house when he heard
four (4) gunshots.[27]
However, he did not do anything because nobody reported to him.[28]
Later that night, at around ten o' clock in the evening, Alfredo Coscos
went to his house and reported that an unidentified person wearing a
black
jacket shot Johnny de la Cruz.[29]
He recorded the report in the barangay logbook. Coscos was
wearing
a yellow sleeveless shirt.[30]
Leonel Ballispin and Alfredo Marcujos were in his house when Coscos
arrived.[31]
Travenio further stated that the next morning, he, together with
Barangay
Captain Wilfredo Gonzales and some barangay officials went to the site
of the incident.[32]
Travenio also maintained that the deceased told him that he was a
military
asset.[33]
Leonil Ballispin corroborated
the testimony of Travenio. He stated before the trial court that
he was in the store of Kagawad Travenio when Coscos arrived to report
that
de la Cruz was shot.[34]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Barangay Captain Wilfredo
Gonzales asserted in his testimony that on 31 October 1995, at around
ten
o' clock in the evening, he was awaken by someone who told him that
Johnny
de la Cruz was shot by an unidentified assailant.[35]
He tried to contact the police station through an ICOM radio to report
the incident but he was unable to do so. The following morning,
Miguel
Travenio apprised him of what transpired and he was told that it was
Alfredo
Coscos who reported the shooting.[36]
The testimony of Police
Inspector Leonardo Merced, Chief of Police of Maco, Davao, revealed
that
on 03 November 1995, he requested the PNP Crime Laboratory to examine
Alfredo
Coscos for the presence of powder burns.[37]
The accused tested negative for powder burns.[38]
Judge Mary Anne T. Gonzales-Israel
of the Municipal Trial Court of Maco, Davao was also called to testify
for the defense. She handled the preliminary investigation of the
case and recommended the filing of Information against Alfredo Coscos
and
John Doe. She recalled that sometime in December 1995, she
received
a letter addressed to Belly de la Cruz, which appeared to have been
sent
by a member of the New People's Army (NPA). The sender claimed
responsibility
for the killing of Johnny de la Cruz. The letter was mailed from
Maco, Davao but she could not determine who the sender was.[39]
Atty. Restituto Suelto,
counsel for Alfredo Coscos, also testified that on 14 December 1995,
he,
too, received a letter similar to the one received by Judge
Gonzales-Israel.
The letter came from a certain Vergel Montenegro who claimed to be a
member
of the Sparrow Unit of the NPA.[40]
Atty. Suelto claimed that a military intelligence officer informed him
that Vergel Montenegro was indeed a leader of a Sparrow Unit.[41]
The accused, Alfredo
Coscos, declared before the trial court that he was at New Corella,
Davao
in the morning of 31 October 1995. He returned to Dumlan, Maco,
Davao
at around seven o' clock in the evening.[42]
Later, he and his eleven-year old son Ricky went to fetch water from
the
water pump located in the premises of Johnny de la Cruz.[43]
Coscos recalled that
as they were getting water, the de la Cruzes' dogs barked at them,
prompting
him to throw stones at the animals.[44]
Johnny de la Cruz approached them and he explained that he threw stones
at the dogs because his son was bitten earlier that day. He even
asked Johnny to look at the wound but the latter said they would
discuss
the matter the next morning.[45]
As Johnny was about to leave and he was about to pick up the pail of
water,
he heard a gunshot. He saw a person, wearing a black jacket,
pumped
two more gunshots at the victim. The assailant thereafter ran
towards
the creek.[46]
He and his son ran towards their house because they were afraid.
They had dinner and later, he reported what he witnessed to Kagawad
Travenio.[47]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Coscos further testified
that he went to New Visayas the day after the incident.[48]
Upon his return, he learned from his wife that the police were looking
for him. He proceeded to the Maco police station where he was
investigated
and later, arrested.[49]
He was examined for powder burns but tested negative therefor.[50]
The trial court found
for the prosecution and in a decision, dated 05 May 1997, ruled as
follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, the accused is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and
he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
He is further required to pay Belly de la Cruz the following:
1. P50,000 for
the death of Johnny de la Cruz;
2. P50,000.00
for moral damages;
3. P68,588.75
for actual expenses;
4. P180,000.00
for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased and to pay the
cost.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[51]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his appeal before
this Court, Alfredo Coscos faulted the trial court for his conviction
and
asserted that:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDENCE TO THE SOLE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT OF
MRS.
BELLY DE LA CRUZ.cralaw:red
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED ALFREDO COSCOS AS THE PROSECUTION FAILED
TO ESTABLISH HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.cralaw:red
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIME OF MURDER AS THE AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE
OF TREACHERY WAS NOT DULY PROVED.[52]
After a careful review
of the records of this case, the Court finds no reason to reverse the
conviction
of accused-appellant Alfredo Coscos.cralaw:red
As a general rule, the
trial court's evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses is accorded
great respect and finality unless it is shown that it overlooked
certain
facts and circumstances of weight and influence which, if considered,
would
alter the result of the case.[53]
Here, accused-appellant failed to show that the trial court
misinterpreted
or misapprehended the evidence presented before it.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The widow of the deceased
positively identified accused-appellant as the assailant. Thus,
she
testified:
Q
On October 31, 1995 at about 8:00 o'clock in the evening, where were
you?
A
I was inside our bedroom.cralaw:red
Q
How about your husband?
A
He was outside, in the house of the rabbits.cralaw:red
Q
What was he doing there?
A
Feeding the rabbits.cralaw:red
Q
Could you remember of any incident that happened at that time?
A
On that time, I heard Alfredo Coscos calling my husband to look to the
swollen foot of his son.cralaw:red
Q
Before that incident happened, where did Alfredo Coscos come from?
A
He was coming from their house and then went inside our premises.cralaw:red
Q
How large is your fenced premises?
A
It's big. More than 500 square meters.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
How did you know that they are coming?
A
Because of the barking of the dogs.cralaw:red
Q
How many dogs do you have?
A
Four (4), sir.cralaw:red
Q
What did you do when you heard the barking of the dogs?
A
I peeped thru our window to see who were outside.cralaw:red
Q
What did you see?
A
I saw that our dogs were (being) thrown by (sic) stones.cralaw:red
Q
Who threw the stones?
A
I did not probably identify who threw the stones, what I could see was
only the stones being thrown to my dogs.cralaw:red
Q
And what did you do when the stones were thrown to the dogs?
A
I just peeped and observed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
What did you see?
A
I saw Alfredo Coscos bringing a lamp and a certain Joel Marcujos and
then
followed by his son, Ricky Coscos.cralaw:red
Q
And you said one was bringing a lamp, who was it?
A
Alfredo Coscos.cralaw:red
Q
When you saw them, where were you at that time?
A
I was peeping at the window.cralaw:red
Q
How far is your window from the place where you saw the accused Alfredo
Coscos?
A
Our distance was very close, they went near the door of the house and
the
window is just above the passage or entrance door?
Q
Granting that you are (sic) at the place when you saw these persons,
how
far was it, referring to the place of his court room?
A
This is our bedroom.cralaw:red
Q
How far?
A
From here to the table of madam (referring to stenographer's
table.)
About 2 ½ meters.cralaw:red
Q
You said, somebody was bringing a lamp who was it?
A
Alfredo Coscos, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
What kind of lamp?
A
A kerosene lamp.cralaw:red
Q
And from the lamp he was bringing, what chances of identification do
you
have to identify him?
A
I am very sure because he was my neighbor.cralaw:red
Q
How about the other fellow also, who was it?
A
Roel Marcujos, whom I said when I was investigated by the police as a
certain
familiar face.cralaw:red
Q
At that time, do you know the name of the other fellow?
A
I missed the name of this fellow but this time, I got his name.cralaw:red
Q
What chances of identification could you have if I will show to you
that
Ruel Marcujos?
A
I am very sure that I could identify this person who went inside our
fenced
premises.cralaw:red
Prosecutor:
We are submitting the
motion to amend the information to include Ruel Marcujos as the John
Doe.
We are going to submit that Your Honor.cralaw:red
Court:
How about the one.cralaw:red
Prosecutor:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That is the son, Your
Honor.cralaw:red
Court:
Was the son identified?
Prosecutor:
Yes, Your Honor.cralaw:red
Court:
(to the witness)
Q
How old is Ricky Coscos?
A
Thirteen (13), Your Honor.cralaw:red
Atty. Suelto:
We would like to request
the prosecution to file his amended information in writing so that we
can
have our objection, and we would like to manifest to defer the hearing
of this witness until such time…. (court interrupted)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Court:
What is the pleasure
now of the prosecution?
Prosecutor:
The amended information
does not affect the testimony of this witness. So, we will
continue
the presentation of this witness, we will continue the hearing.cralaw:red
Court:
So, we will proceed.cralaw:red
Prosecutor:
So, we will be
submitting
our amended information.cralaw:red
Atty. Suelto:
This is for the
purposes
of placing it in the records.cralaw:red
Prosecutor:
Q
Mrs. Dela Cruz, you said that Alfredo Coscos and your husband had an
argument,
do you know what was it all about?
A
Yes, sir. Alfredo Coscos told my husband to look at the foot of
his
son which was swollen because of the bite of our dog.cralaw:red
Q
What was your husband's response?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
He told the accused Alfredo Coscos to settle the matter the following
morning.cralaw:red
Q
What did Alfredo Coscos say or do?
A
He did not say anything, after that, I heard gunburst.cralaw:red
Q
Where did (the) gunburst come from?
A
In front of them.cralaw:red
Q
And who was holding the gun?
A
Alfredo Coscos.cralaw:red
Q
How long, was it long or short?
A
A short gun.cralaw:red
Q
Do you remember the kind?
A
I did not.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
How many gunburst?
A
Three (3) gunburst.cralaw:red
Q
And what happened after the gunburst?
A
I saw my husband fell on the ground.cralaw:red
Q
How did he fall?
A
He was staggering after the two (2) shoots (sic), he fell down on the
ground.cralaw:red
Q
How far?
A
About ten (10) meters.cralaw:red
Q
From the place where you are, looking, about ten (10) meters?
A
Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
What did you do when you heard that gunburst which caused your husband
staggering and falling down on the ground, what did you do?
A
I decided not to make any noise for reason that they also could kill me.cralaw:red
Q
Do you think, they knew that you were there?
Atty. Suelto:
The witness is incompetent,
Your Honor.cralaw:red
Court:
Reform, counsel.cralaw:red
Prosecutor:
Q
When Alfredo Coscos and other persons came to your house, you said you
knew the name of these persons?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
Does he know you?
A
Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
Was your name called?
A
Did not.cralaw:red
Q
Was your name called even after the gunburst?
A
No, sir.cralaw:red
Q
And what happened after your husband fell on the ground, what did they
do?
A
They left the area.cralaw:red
Q
How did they leave the area?
A
Slowly, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
Where was the lamp then?
A
They carried along with them.cralaw:red
Q
Could you say what Alfredo Coscos did with the gun after he shot your
husband?
A
He carried the gun with him.cralaw:red
Q
And what did you do after they left?
A
I tried to carry my husband but he was heavy so I solicited assistance
or help from my neighbors to bring my husband to the hospital.[54]
Accused-appellant faulted
the trial court for giving credence to the testimony of Belly who was
the
only witness to the incident. However, it should be remembered
that
the lone declaration of a sole eyewitness is sufficient to convict if
that
testimony is found to be credible. Credibility does not go with
numbers[55]
and witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered.[56]
The matter of assigning values to declaration on the witness stand is
best
and most competently performed by the trial judge who had the unmatched
opportunity to observe the witnesses and to assess their credibility by
various indicia available but not reflected on the record.[57]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused-appellant's
defense fails to convince this Court. Denial of the accused,
being
inherently weak, cannot prevail in the face of the positive
identification
of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime.[58]
Denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to
merit
credibility.[59]
The defense also raised
the defense that Johnny de la Cruz was killed by the New People's
Army.
This allegation was buttressed by a letter, addressed to Belly de la
Cruz,
purportedly sent by Vergel of the DN Sparrow Unit. The letter was
in the local dialect but as translated[60]
stated as follows:
9 November 1995
For you Mrs. de la Cruz,
We would like to extend
to you the answer to the death of your husband who is Johnny de la Cruz.cralaw:red
We are greatly sorry
to punish him but it is needed because of these following heavy basis:
1) active military
asset
2) land grabbing
3) harassment
of residents
We did everything for
him to realize and change his deeds/acts. We gave him ample time
but he did not value it. It is a big possibility that you were
not
informed about this by your husband because you seldom goes (sic) home.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Don't worry if you will
be included of his acts. You, your children and your relatives
are
not included of the said acts. You know about Revolutionary
Justice.cralaw:red
Again, we are sorry
that it happened unexpectedly. We hope that you understand this.cralaw:red
For the People,
Vergel
DN Sparrow Unit
New People's Army[61]
On this score, the Court
agrees with the trial court that the veracity of the letter could not
be
determined, and it could merely be concoctions used to create doubt on
the mind of the trial judge. The Court notes with interest that
copies
of the letter were allegedly sent by the New People's Army to Judge
Mary
Anne Israel who conducted the preliminary investigation of the case and
also to Atty. Restituto Suelto who was the counsel for
accused-appellant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court also agrees
with the trial court that the crime was attended by treachery.cralaw:red
There is treachery when
the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing
means,
methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specifically
to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the
defense
which the offended party might make.[62]
Its essence lies on the deliberateness and unexpectedness of the
attack,
giving the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist
or to escape.[63]
While it may be true
that the deceased and accused-appellant had an altercation before the
shooting,
the Solicitor General correctly pointed out that there was no evidence
that the confrontation was heated or intense or that accused-appellant
was provoked to shoot the victim. In fact, it would appear that
accused-appellant
already had an ax to grind when he went to the house of the victim, and
he already had a gun with him. The records would also show that
Johnny
de la Cruz was not even facing accused-appellant when he was shot,
suddenly
and unexpectedly. Indeed, there could be treachery if the attack
is frontal, if it is sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no
opportunity
to repel it or defend himself.[64]
Finally, the fact that
accused-appellant tested negative for powder burns does not prove that
he was not the assailant. A finding that the paraffin test
yielded
negative results is not conclusive evidence that an accused had not
fired
a gun.[65]
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, the decision of the trial court, finding
accused-appellant
Alfredo Coscos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder is
AFFIRMED.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman),
Puno, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ.,
concur.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 9.
[2]
Records, at 79.
[3]
TSN, 19 January 1996, at 9-11.
[4]
Ibid., at 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Ibid., at 14-16.
[6]
Ibid., at 16.
[7]
Ibid., at 17.
[8]
Ibid., at 19.
[9]
The victim died at age 43, TSN, 19 January 1996, at 25.
[10]
TSN, 19 January 1996, at 24.
[11]
Records, at 55. Since quarry fee was about P50.00 per ten (10)
cubic
meters, the deceased earned about P28,580.00 for the period.
[12]
TSN, 06 March 1996, at 8.
[13]
Ibid., at 13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Ibid., at 15.
[15]
Ibid., at 15-16.
[16]
Ibid., at 17.
[17]
Ibid., at 20.
[18]
Ibid., at 22.
[19]
Ibid., at 26.
[20]
Ibid., at 27-28.
[21]
TSN, 29 July 1996, at 17-18 and 32.
[22]
Ibid., at 19.
[23]
Ibid., at 20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Ibid., at 21-27.
[25]
Ibid., at 28.
[26]
Ibid, at 14-15.
[27]
TSN, 11 September 1996, at 16.
[28]
Ibid.
[29]
Id., at 17-18
[30]
Id., at 22.
[31]
Id., at 20.
[32]
Id., at 47.
[33]
Id., at 9.
[34]
TSN, 10 Oct. 1996, at 7-8.
[35]
TSN, 09 October 1996, at 37-38.
[36]
Ibid., at 38-39.
[37]
TSN, 09 Ocotber 1996, at 10-11.
[38]
Ibid., at 15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
TSN, 26 June 1996, at 8-15.
[40]
Ibid., at 17-18.
[41]
Ibid., at 26.
[42]
TSN, 05 November 1996, at 8.
[43]
Ibid., at 9-10.
[44]
Ibid., at 11.
[45]
Ibid., at 11-13.
[46]
Ibid., at 13-14.
[47]
Ibid., at 15-16.
[48]
Ibid., at 19.
[49]
Ibid., at 19-21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[50]
Ibid., at 22-24.
[51]
Rollo, at 37.
[52]
Rollo, pp. 80-81.
[53]
People vs. Caratay, 316 SCRA 251 (1999); People vs. Lopez, 302 SCRA 669
(1999).
[54]
TSN, 19 January 1996 at 9-17.
[55]
People vs. Hayahay, 279 SCRA 567 (1997).
[56]
Marco vs. Court of Appeals, 273 SCRA 276 (1997).
[57]
People vs. Barellano, 319 SCRA 567 (1999).
[58]
People vs. Andaya, 306 SCRA 202 (1999); People vs. Macahia, 307 SCRA
404
(1999).
[59]
People vs. Acuno, 313 SCRA 667 (1999).
[60]
By Niza P. Tacandong, Court Interpreter III.
[61]
Records, at 127.
[62]
People vs. Mangahas, 311 SCRA 342 (1999); People vs. Gaballo, 316 SCRA
881 (1999).
[63]
People vs. Pinca, 318 SCRA 270 (1999).
[64]
People vs. Feloteo, 290 SCRA 627 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[65]
People vs. Abrera, 283 SCRA 1 (1997). |