SECOND DIVISION.
.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
140772
December 10, 2003
-versus-
JOEL PEREZ Y
ADORNADO,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This is an appeal from
the September 27, 1999 Decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 156, in Criminal Case
No. 110511-H, finding appellant Joel Perez y Adornado guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt of murder for killing Agapito Saballero. The trial court imposed
upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay the
heirs
of the said victim the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The accusatory portion
of the Amended Information reads as fellows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On or about
April 25, 1996 in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable
Court, the accused, with intent to kill and with treachery, did then
and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab
one
Agapito Saballero on the chest and abdomen, thereby inflicting the
latter
mortal stab wounds which directly caused his death.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Contrary to law.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Case for
the Prosecution
Isidro Donoga eked out
a living as a shoemaker and repairer, and resided with his wife, his
daughter
and his son-in-law in a rented apartment in No. 112 Adia Compound, Dr.
Sixto Antonio St., Rosario, Pasig City.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On April 25, 1996 at
around 8:00 p.m., Isidro was on his way home from Mariwasa when he
passed
by a group, including his neighbor Agapito Saballero,[3]
Joel Perez and Aurelio Ariete, having a drinking spree near their
rented
apartment. Agapito invited Isidro to join the group. Isidro acceded to
the invitation and ended up drinking with the three.[4]
By the time they had consumed about two-and-a-half round bottles of
gin,
Joel started singing on top of his lungs the song "Si Aida, Si Lorna, o
Si Fe." He was immediately cautioned by Agapito to lower his voice as
the
singing might disturb the neighborhood. Peeved, Joel confronted Agapito.[5]
An altercation ensued. Joel warned Agapito "Babalikan kita. Makita mo,"
(I'll get back at you. You'll see.)[6]
then left in a huff. The group decided to end their drinking spree.[7]
By then, it was past 9:00 p.m.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Isidro advised Agapito
to get inside their house. However, Agapito was still upset about his
argument
with Joel and lingered outside his house. Meanwhile, Isidro went inside
their rented apartment at the second floor of the house, while his wife
prepared his dinner. At around 10:00 p.m. while he was taking his
supper,
Isidro heard somebody shouting "Huwag, Joel Saklolo, may tama ako!"
Isidro
then peeped outside and saw Joel pulling out from Agapito's chest a
bladed
weapon.[8]
Shocked, Isidro and his wife went down to help Agapito. By then, Joel
had
already fled from the scene. The couple woke up some of their neighbors
to help them carry Agapito and bring him to the hospital. Some
neighbors
arrived and brought Agapito to the hospital. On the way, Agapito
expired.[9]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
With the consent of
John Saballero, the son of Agapito,[10]
Dr. Emmanuel Aranas, the Medico-Legal Officer of the PNP, performed an
autopsy on the cadaver of Agapito and incorporated his findings in his
report, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
FINDINGS:
Fairly nourished,
fairly
developed male cadaver, in rigor mortis, with postmortem lividity at
the
dependent portions of the body. Conjunctiva, lips, and nailbeds are
pale.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
TRUNK AND UPPER
EXTREMITIES:
(1) Multiple
abrasions,
right deltoid, measuring 2 by 2 cms, 16 cms from the anterior midline.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2) Stab wound,
left
mammary region, measuring 2.4 by 0.6 cm, 5 cms from the anterior
midline,
12 cms deep, directed posteriorwards, downwards, and to the right, thru
the 4th left intercostal space, piercing the paricardial (sic) sac and
right ventricle.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3) Stab wound,
umbilical
region, measuring 5 by 1.5 cm, bisected by the anterior midline,
directed
posteriorwards, piercing the mesentery and jejunal segment of the small
intestines.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(4) Multiple
abrasions,
left scapular region, measuring 5 by 2 cms, 11 cms from the posterior
midline.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(5) Multiple
abrasions,
right antecubital region, measuring 6 by 3 cms, 5 cms from its midline.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(6) Abrasion,
middle
3rd of the right forearm, measuring 2.5 cms by 0.2 cm, 3 cms lateral to
its anterior midline.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(7) Abrasion, left
elbow,
measuring 5 by 3 cms, 4 cms lateral to its midline. About 1000 ml of
fluid
and clotted blood recovered from the thoracic cavity.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Stomach contains a
glassful
of partially digested food particles and mixed with bloody fluid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CONCLUSION:
Cause of death is
stab
wounds of the chest and abdomen.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dr. Aranas signed
the
Certificate of Death of Agapito.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When apprised of the
stabbing incident, the police investigators, led by SPO1 Mario B.
Garcia,
learned that the victim was Agapito and the suspect was Joel who fled
from
the scene after stabbing Agapito three times with an improvised dagger
at 10:00 p.m. on April 25, 1996. The police investigation was placed in
the police blotter.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Isidro helped out during
the burial of Agapito and failed to give his statement to the police
but
on May 3, 1996, Isidro gave his sworn statement to SPO1 Mario B. Garcia
of the Pasig Police Station.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Shortly thereafter,
an Amended Information[15]
was filed on September 15, 1997. The amendment consisted in the
inclusion
of the allegation of treachery as a qualifying circumstance.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Assisted by his counsel
during arraignment, Joel entered a plea of not guilty.[17]
Trial thereafter ensued.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Case for the
Accused
Joel put up the defense
of denial and alibi. He testified that he was a regular employee of
Hydro
Resources Contractor Corporation as a heavy equipment mechanic for four
(4) years.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On April 25, 1996 at
around 3:00 p.m., his sister, Imelda Perez de Venecia, called him from
work and requested him to travel to Bicol the following day to make a
delivery
of a package to which he agreed. The siblings also agreed that Joel
will
go to her place at No. 749 Old Balara, Quezon City, after office hours
to get the package the following day because of his trip to Bicol.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
From his place of employment,
he proceeded to Adia Compound in Rosario, Pasig City, where he saw the
victim Agapito and Aurelio, one of his co-workers at Hydro Resources
Contractor
Corporation, drinking gin.[20]
He then joined the group and, in the process, inquired from Aurelio
about
the status of his application for a job.[21]
Thereafter, Isidro arrived and joined the drinking spree upon the
invitation
of Agapito. While they were drinking, an argument ensued between
Agapito
and Isidro regarding rentals, as the latter was a tenant of Agapito's
sister.[22]
Joel tried to pacify the two by singing aloud the song "Si Aida, Si
Lorna,
o Si Fe." Isidro and Agapito stopped arguing with each other but
Agapito
told Joel to stop singing. At around 9:00 p.m., Joel bade the group
goodbye
and proceeded to his sister's house in Old Balara, Quezon City. He
boarded
four jeeps one after the other and one tricycle. It took him an hour
before
he arrived at his sister's.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The following day, April
26, 1996, Joel, together with his sister Imelda, went to the
Peñafrancia
Bus Station, confirmed the ticket bought in advance by Imelda, and
changed
Imelda's name to that of his name to enable him to use the ticket.[23]
Upon his arrival in Bicol, his wife gave him a letter from a company he
had applied for work earlier in January, asking him to report for work.
Instead of returning to Manila, Joel decided to accept the offer for
employment,
and stayed in Bicol. Moreover, he tendered his resignation from his
work
in Manila by sending a telegram to his former employer. It was only
when
he was arrested on June 7, 1997 that Joel learned about Agapito's
demise,
and that he was the suspect for his violent death.[24]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Imelda, the sister of
Joel, corroborated his alibi that he went to her house on the night of
April 25, 1996 arriving thereat at around 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.[25]
She confirmed that she, together with her brother, left the house at
around
5:00 a.m. of April 26, 1996 and went to the Peñafrancia Bus
Station
as his brother will travel to Bicol to deliver a package; and that her
brother left for Bicol at around 7:30 a.m.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Joel also presented
Aurelio who corroborated his testimony.[26]
Aurelio testified that he only reported for work for a half-day from
8:00
a.m. to 12:00 noon on April 25, 1996. Thereafter, Aurelio proceeded to
Adia Compound located in Rosario, Pasig City, where he met a certain
Roberto
Rocabo. Thereafter, they proceeded to the office of one Mr. Dela Cruz
located
at the back of Mariwasa and inquired about a machine which they were
trying
to contract. They stayed there until 5:30 p.m., after which, Aurelio
and
Roberto went back at the latter's house. Aurelio hung about infront of
Roberto's house, and there met Agapito who invited Roberto for a drink
which the latter accepted.[27]
They were later joined by Joel and Isidro. At around 9:00 p.m., Joel
bade
them goodbye and left the group. Aurelio also left the drinking spree a
moment later, and slept at Roberto's house. At around 6:00 a.m. the
following
day, April 26, 1996, Aurelio was awakened by a commotion outside, in
the
street, and when he checked the cause, he saw Agapito lying on the
ground.
A policeman arrived at around 7:00 a.m. and investigated the crime
scene.[28]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After trial, the trial
court rendered a decision finding Joel guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of
murder, and imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The
decretal
portion of the decision reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Wherefore,
the Court finds accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua,
to indemnify the heirs of Agapito Aballero (sic) in the amount of
P50,000.00
conformably with existing jurisprudence. Costs against the accused.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[29]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Joel appealed from
the
decision and alleges that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
B.1. The
trial
court erred in giving credence to the supposed lone prosecution
eyewitness,
Isidro Donoga.
B.2. The trial
court
erred in not acquitting the accused because his guilt was not proven
beyond
reasonable doubt.[30]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Anent the first
assigned
error, he asserts that the trial court erred in giving weight to the
testimony
of Isidro, the prosecution's lone eyewitness, despite the
inconsistencies
in his statement to the police investigators[31]
and his testimony during trial.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
First, in
his
sworn statement, Isidro declared that the appellant used an "itak" in
stabbing
Agapito whereas when he testified before the court, he declared that
the
appellant used a "kutsilyo."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Second, when
Isidro
was asked during the trial if he voluntarily gave his sworn statement
to
the police, he answered in the affirmative; but during the preliminary
investigation of the case, he declared that he gave his sworn statement
regarding the case when the policemen arrived in their place.[32]
Third, Isidro declared in his sworn statement that he saw the appellant
stab the victim, but during clarificatory questioning by the public
prosecutor
during trial, he declared that he only saw the extraction by the
appellant
of the knife from the chest of the victim. Moreover, the appellant
avers
that there is no allegation in the Information that the appellant used
any bladed weapon to stab the victim. Isidro's testimony that he heard
shouts for help from Agapito at around 10:00 p.m. of April 25, 1996 was
merely a fragment of his imagination because the stabbing occurred on
April
26, 1996 at around 6:00 a.m. as testified to by Aurelio.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The appeal is without
merit.
The inconsistencies
catalogued by the appellant referred only to peripheral or minor
details
which do not destroy or weaken the credibility of the witness of the
prosecution.[33]
Such inconsistencies are even indicia of honest and unrehearsed
declarations
and responses of witnesses and thus enhanced their credibility.[34]
We note that Isidro sufficiently explained his use of "itak" and
"kutsilyo"
when he was cross-examined by the appellant's counsel:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q In
your statement marked as Exhibit F, I am referring to the statement
given
to the police, there is a question and which I quote: "Nasabi mo nakita
si Joel Perez ang siyang sumaksak kay Agapito, nakita mo rin ba naman
kung
anong klaseng patalim ang ginamit niya?" and your answer was: "Isa pong
matulis na itak po ang pinangsaksak niya kay Agapito." Do you remember
having given this statement?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes,
sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q A while
ago
during the direct examination you were asked what kind of weapon was
used
and you said, at first "kutsilyo" then later on a pointed weapon. Which
is which now?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Because
in
our place a knife is called "Dipang." The "dipang, hindi itak na gaano
yon." Dipang, this is the smallest "itak" in our place, sir.
Q Did I get
it
from you that "itak" and "kutsilyo" are one and the same in your place?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes,
sir.
They are one and the same.[35]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Case law has it that
an affidavit given to the police investigator at the police station is
generally not prepared by the affiant himself but by another person
invariably
by the police investigator who uses his own language. Omissions and
misunderstandings
by the writer usually result. And in case of discrepancy between the
sworn
statement and those made by the affiant on the witness stand, the
latter
deserves full faith and credit.[36]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the apparent inconsistency
of Isidro's testimony during the preliminary investigation that his
sworn
statement to the police investigators on May 3, 1996 was voluntary is
not
enfeebled by the fact that it was given eight days after the crime was
committed when Isidro arrived at the police station to give his
statement.
Isidro testified that he was then busy helping the family in the burial
of the victim.[37]
A truth-telling witness is not always expected to give an error-free
testimony,
considering the lapse of time and the treachery of human memory.
Witnesses
are not expected to remember every single detail of an incident with
perfect
or total recall.[38]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Isidro's testimony that
he saw the appellant pull out the bladed weapon from the chest of the
victim
is not inconsistent with his sworn statement to the police that it was
the appellant who stabbed the victim. Even if Isidro did not see the
appellant
stab the victim, there can be no other conclusion that it was the
appellant
who stabbed the victim given the fact that it was the appellant who
pulled
out the knife from the chest of the victim and fled from the scene
thereafter.
Isidro saw no other person at the crime scene. He categorically and
positively
identified the appellant as the assailant of Agapito. He had known the
appellant for about two years before the latter stabbed the victim. He
often saw the appellant at his place of work where Isidro made some
deliveries
of shoes thereat.[39]
He and the appellant never had any misunderstanding, thus no ill motive
can be attributed to Isidro for him to testify against the appellant.
This
Court has held that absent evidence showing any reason for the
prosecution
witness to perjure, the logical conclusion is that no such improper
motive
exists, and his testimony is thus worthy of full faith and credit.[40]
With the positive and straightforward identification by Isidro of the
appellant
as the perpetrator, the latter's defense of alibi must fall.[41]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That the Information
does not describe the weapon used by the appellant either an "itak" or
"kutsilyo" in stabbing the victim is inconsequential. The kind or
nature
of the weapon used in the commission of the crime need not be alleged
in
the complaint or Information. What must be alleged in the Information
or
complaint are those enumerated in Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, viz.:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sec. 6.
Sufficiency
of complaint or Information.- A complaint or information is sufficient
if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense
given
by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the
commission
of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When an offense is
committed
by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint
or information.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Aurelio's testimony
that the stabbing occurred on April 26, 1996 at 6:00 a.m. is belied by
(a) the testimony of Isidro; (b) the request for medico-legal
examination[42]
in which it is stated that the stabbing incident occurred at around
"9:45
p.m. of April 25, 1996 infront of House No. 112-G Dr. Sixto Antonio,
Rosario,
Pasig City;" (c) the spot investigation report[43]
of SPO1 Mario Garcia that the crime was committed "on or about 10:00
p.m.
of 25 April 1996." The police investigator and the chief of police who
prepared the request and the spot investigation report, respectively,
are
disinterested witnesses. Moreover, the entries therein were made by the
police investigator and the chief of police in their official
capacities;
thus, such entries have in their favor the presumption of regularity
and
are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.[44]
It bears stressing that the appellant's witness Aurelio was a close
friend
of his; hence, his testimony must be considered by the court with
extreme
caution. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the appellant
that the prosecution failed to prove treachery. It behooved the
prosecution
to prove that the appellant deliberately and consciously adopted such
means,
method or manner of attack as would deprive the victim of an
opportunity
for self-defense or retaliation.[45]
In this case, Isidro, the prosecution's lone eyewitness, testified as
follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q More or
less,
what time was that when you had that dinner at that time?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Passed (sic)
10:00
o'clock, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q What time was
that
when you took your supper?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A My wife, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q You mean to tell
us
that your wife was also with you while you were taking your supper?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A No, sir. She
was
just with me in the table.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q While eating on
that
said evening of April 25, 1996 which you came around passed (sic) 10:00
o'clock in the evening, do you recall of any unusual incident that
happened
in the vicinity of your house?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And what was
that
unusual incident that took place while you were taking your supper?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A I heard
somebody
shouted: "Huwag, Joel. Saklolo, may tama ako."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q When you heard
this
shout of a person, what was your reaction then?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A When I heard
that,
"dumungaw po ako."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And what did you
find
out, if any, after taking that gesture "dungaw?"chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A I saw Joel
Perez
pulling out from the chest a bladed weapon ("isang patalim"), sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And were there
other
persons aside from Joel Perez there at that time?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A None, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q You claimed that
you
actually saw Joel Perez pulling out a knife, as if as you were claiming
that he had just stabbed somebody?
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
A Upon peeping,
I
saw Joel Perez still pulling out a knife, a pointed weapon, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q By claiming you
actually
observed this particular incident, from where was Joel Perez pulling
out
this pointed or bladed weapon?
A From Agapito,
sir.[46]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Irrefragably, Isidro
failed to see how the attack started. When he looked out through the
window,
he saw Joel pulling out his knife from the chest of the victim. Isidro
did not see the initial stage of the stabbing and the particulars of
the
attack on the victim.[47]
Treachery cannot thus be appreciated.[48]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The mere fact that
Agapito was unarmed when he was stabbed is not sufficient to prove
treachery.
The settled rule is that treachery cannot be presumed. It must be
proved
by clear and convincing evidence, as the crime itself.[49]
Hence, the appellant is guilty only of homicide and not murder.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The penalty for homicide
is reclusion temporal which has a range of twelve (12) years and one
(1)
day to twenty (20) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
maximum of the imposable penalty shall be taken from the medium period
of reclusion temporal, the range of which is fourteen (14) years, eight
(8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months,
while the minimum of the said penalty shall be taken from the penalty
next
lower in degree which is prision mayor, the range of which is six (6)
years
and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, in any of its periods. There
being
no modifying circumstance in the commission of the crime, the appellant
may be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from ten (10) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months
and
one (1) day of reclusion temporal in its medium period as maximum.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION.
The
appellant Joel Perez y Adornado is found guilty of homicide under
Article
249 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, and there being no mitigating nor
aggravating
circumstance in the commission of the crime, is sentenced to an
indeterminate
penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum,
to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal
in its medium period, as maximum, and to pay the heirs of Agapito
Saballero
the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity. Costs de oficio.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez
and Tinga, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Esperanza Fabon-Victorino.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Records, p. 47.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Also known as "Peping."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
TSN, 5 November 1997, p. 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Exhibit "F."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
TSN, 5 November 1997, p. 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id. at 8-9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id. at 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Exhibit "C."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Exhibit "A."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Exhibit "D."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Records, p. 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id. at 53-55.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Id. at 47-48.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Id. at 57.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
TSN, 29 April 1998, pp. 4, 12, 24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Id. at 17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Id. at 13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Id. at 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Id. at 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
TSN, 28 May 1998, p. 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
TSN, 29 April 1998, p. 18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
TSN, 28 May 1998, p. 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
TSN, 27 August 1998, p. 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Id. at 8-9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Id. at 9-12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Records, p. 241.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Rollo, p. 42.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Exhibit "F."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
Exhibit "1."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
People v. Villadares, 354 SCRA 86 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
People v. Mataro, 354 SCRA 27 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
TSN, 5 November 1997, pp. 12-13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
People v. Herbieto, 269 SCRA 472 (1997).chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law library
[37]
TSN, 5 November 1997, p. 14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
People v. Ebrada, 296 SCRA 353 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
TSN, 5 November 1997, p. 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
People v. Samudio, 353 SCRA 746 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[41]
People v. Llanita, 364 SCRA 505 (2001); People v. Francisco, 363 SCRA
637
(2001); People v Seranilla, 348 SCRA 227 (2000); People v. Palijon, 343
SCRA 486 (2000); People v. Oliver, 303 SCRA 72 (1999); People v.
Reduca,
301 SCRA 516 (1999); People v. Siguin, 299 SCRA 124 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[42]
Exhibit "B."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[43]
Supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[44]
Sections 43 and 44, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[45]
People v. Guzman, 372 SCRA 344 (2001); People v. Mendoza, 369 SCRA 268
(2001); People v. Dumayan, 358 SCRA 26 (2001); People v. Enriquez, 357
SCRA 269 (2001); People v. Jariolne, 331 SCRA 674 (2000); People v.
Jose,
324 SCRA 196 (2000); People v. Mier, 324 SCRA 628 (2000); People v.
Molina,
312 SCRA 130 (1999); People v. Piamonte, 303 SCRA 577 (1999); People v.
Realin, 301 SCRA 495 (1999).
[46]
TSN, 5 November 1997, pp. 8-9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
See People v. Sia, 370 SCRA 123 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[48]
People v. Samudio, suprachanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[49]
People v. Mantes, 368 SCRA 661 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |