PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
Nos.
140411-13
December 11, 2003
-versus-
AVELINO LATAG Y
DITA
ALIAS "PAUTO,"
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN, J.:
As a rule, the precise
time of the commission of the rape need not be alleged in the
complaint.
Although appellant is guilty of rape, the death penalty imposed by the
trial court should nonetheless be reduced to reclusion perpetua,
because
the Information failed to allege his relationship with the victim.
The Case
For automatic review
before this Court is the May 10, 1999 Decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lipa City (Branch 12) in Criminal
Case No. 0460-97, finding Avelino Latag y Dita guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of rape. The decretal portion of the Decision reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"WHEREFORE,
x x x
"
x x x
"Anent Crim. Case
No.
0460-97, the Court finds Avelino Latag y Dita alias 'Pauto' guilty
beyond
reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of Rape, as defined and
penalized
under Article 335, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic
Act. No. 7659 and sentences him to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH
[and] to pay the costs of this suit. In addition, he is also ordered to
indemnify Stephanie Sarmiento an/or her heirs the sum of P75,000.00, to
pay the amount of P10,000.00, as moral damages, pursuant to Article
2219(3)
of the Civil Code and the sum of P5,000.00, as exemplary damages
pursuant
to Article 2229 of the same Code, in order that this case may serve as
an object lesson to the public — that no uncle may ever again deprive
his
niece of 'the right to grow up and discover the wonder of womanhood in
the normal way.'"[2]
Appellant was charged
with
two counts of rape, one in the criminal Complaint filed by Charen May
L.
Sarmiento and in another, by Stephanie L. Sarmiento. The Complaints,
both
dated June 24, 1997 and docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 0458-97 and
0460-97,
respectively, read as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Criminal
Case
No. 0458-97
"That on or about
the
5th day of April, 1997 in the evening, at Sitio Santol, Barangay
Nangkaan,[3]
Municipality of Mataasnakahoy,[4]
Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie with and have
carnal
knowledge of the said twelve (12) year-old girl, Charen May Sarmiento y
Latag, against her will and consent."[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Criminal Case
No.
0460-97
"That sometime in
the
month of April, 1997, at Sitio Santol, Barangay Nagkaan, Municipality
of
Mataasnakahoy, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and
intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
lie
with and have carnal knowledge of the said ten (10) year-old girl,
Stephanie
Sarmiento y Latag, against her will and consent."[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
During his arraignment
on August 27, 1997,[7]
appellant, with the assistance of his counsel,[8]
pleaded not guilty to both charges. After trial in due course, the
court
a quo rendered the assailed decision.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred The Facts
Version of the
Prosecution
In its Brief, the Office
of the Solicitor General (OSG) presents the prosecution's version of
the
facts in the following manner:chanrobles virtual law library
"Stephanie
L. Sarmiento was born in Manila to the Spouses Virgilio and Babylita
Latag
Sarmiento. Stephanie and her brothers and sisters lived with their
parents
in Paco, Manila until they transferred to Sitio Santol, Brgy. Nangkaan,
Mataas na Kahoy, Batangas in their maternal grandparents' house. In
June
1996, the Spouses Sarmiento left all their children at said house as
Virgilio
had to attend to his occupation as a taxi driver in Manila.
"In April, 1997,
at
nigh[t]time, appellant Avelino Latag raped Stephanie. Stephanie at that
time was only ten (10) years old. On that night of April, 1997,
Stephanie
was sleeping with her brothers and sisters, Charen May (12), Daisy (4),
Regienalyn (3), Jandie (1) and Jenevecher (7), and their Tiya Nancy
(10)
and Tiyo Ronaldo (11) at the second floor of the house. While Stephanie
was sleeping, appellant removed her short pants and panty which roused
her from sleep. After appellant removed his short pants and briefs, he
placed himself on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Stephanie tried
to
resist by removing his penis from her vagina, but when she tried to
remove
it, appellant would box her. She felt pain in her vagina when appellant
succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina. She was not able to
shout
because everytime she would attempt to do so, appellant would slap her.
Appellant stayed on top of her for about one (1) minute. While she was
being abused, her grandparents, brothers and sisters, and her aunt and
uncle, were sound asleep. After raping her, appellant went back to the
lower portion of the house where he normally slept. Stephanie was able
to recognize appellant Avelino Latag because of the lighted kerosene
lamp
placed on top of the cabinet at the place she had been sleeping.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"After the
incident,
Stephanie reported the incident to her older sister, Charen May. The
sisters
reported the incident to their maternal grandparents but they did not
believe
the children.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Stephanie and
Charen
May submitted themselves to a medical examination on May 8, 1997 at the
Lipa City District Hospital before Dr. Alex Agato. Upon internal
examination
of Stephanie, Dr. Agato found her vaginal opening inflamed and admitted
the 5th digit of his examining finger, right hand, with difficulty up
to
2 cms. in depth. Dr. Agato also noted that the hymen was absent, which
was not natural, and its absence was due to penetration of an object,
probably
a finger or a penis. Dr. Agato also found that the vaginal opening
could
be seen and not coopted, something unusual for a ten (10) year-old girl
because normally for her age, the vaginal opening can hardly be seen.
Dr.
Agato issued a medico-legal certificate in favor of Stephanie Sarmiento
dated May 8, 1997 and concluded that she was no longer a virgin."[9]
(Citations
omitted.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Version
of
the Defense
On the other hand, the
version of the defense is as follows:chanrobles virtual law library
"Enrique
Latag
averred that Stephanie Sarmiento is his granddaughter, while Avelino
Latag
is his son. Stephanie and her sister Charen Mae arrived in their house
sometime in the month of June and lived with him at Nagkaraan,
Mataasnakahoy,
Batangas for almost one (1) year. He was the one who supported them.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"He came to know
for
the first time that his two (2) sons Yolito and Avelino Latag were
charged
with rape when Avelino was apprehended. Stephanie did not complain to
him
regarding the alleged rape committed by his sons. During the trial of
these
cases, he talked to Stephanie regarding the filing of these cases, but
the latter just kept quiet.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"On the month of
April
1997, his son Avelino lived at the house of his 'kumpare' because he
was
working with the latter's son.cralaw:red
"Avelino Latag
denied
the allegation that he raped Stephanie Sarmiento sometime in the month
of April 1997. He was then living in the house of the 'kumpare' of his
father.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"He claimed that
Stephanie
is his niece, being the daughter of his sister. Stephanie, together
with
her brothers and sisters, arrived in their house at Nagkaan,
Mataasnakahoy,
Batangas in order to reside thereat. There are seven (7) children of
her
sister. When Stephanie and her brothers and sisters lived at Barangay
Nangkaan,
their father likewise lived at the house of his uncle Rogelio Tipan at
Mataas Na Lupa. Whenever his brother-in-law would be scolded by his
uncle,
he would sleep in their house. His brother-in-law was staying in the
house
of his uncle because their house is very small.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"While his nieces
and
nephews were living in their house, he lived at the house of the
'kumpare'
of his father near the lakeshore at [S]itio Santol. He started living
at
the house of the 'kumpare' of his father in February 1996 up to May
1997.
He was then working with his father's 'kumpare' in a construction.
During
the entire period of his stay at the house of his father's 'kumpare',
there
was no occasion that he sleeps in their own house. It was always late
in
the evening when they came from work, so he did not have time to go
home
and sleep in their house.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"His
brother-in-law
had mauled his sister many times. The last time that his sister was
mauled
by his brother-in-law was on April 1997 in their house. He and his
brother
Yolito were then present, so they helped each other in likewise mauling
their brother-in-law."[10]
(Citations
omitted.) Ruling of
the
Trial Court
For insufficiency of
evidence, the trial court acquitted appellant of the rape of Charen
May.
However, it found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of raping
Stephanie.
The lower court held that he had sexually assaulted Stephanie during
one
night in April 1997.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court, after
carefully evaluating and observing the conduct and demeanor of
Stephanie
on the witness stand, found her credible. It gave weight and credence
to
her candid and sincere testimony because, aside from being clear and
positive,
it was devoid of any artificiality and infused with truth and
sincerity.
The court a quo found it unthinkable that a 10-year-old child would
fabricate
such a serious charge as rape against her own uncle and consequently
expose
herself to the humiliation and embarrassment of a medical examination
and
a public trial.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Discarding the denial
and alibi proffered by appellant, the trial court held that these
defenses
were inherently weak and could not prevail over the positive and
credible
testimony of the victim. Appellant palpably failed to show that it was
physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the
time
of its commission.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, this automatic
review before us.[11]
The Issues
Appellant raises the
following errors for our consideration:chanrobles virtual law library
I
"The trial court
gravely
erred in not considering the Information in Criminal Case No. 0460-97
insufficient
to support a judgment of conviction for failure of the prosecution to
state
the precise date of the commission of the alleged rape, it being an
essential
element of the crime charged.cralaw:red II
"The trial court
gravely
erred in imposing the penalty of death upon accused-appellant despite
failure
of the prosecution to allege in the information the relationship
between
the victim and accused-appellant on the assumption that he is guilty of
the crime charged."[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred The Court's
Ruling
We affirm the conviction
of appellant for the crime of rape, but reduce the penalty to reclusion
perpetua for the failure of the Complaint to allege his relationship
with
the victim.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
First Issue: Date
of Commission
Appellant contends that
Section 6[13]
of Rule 110 of the Rules
of Court requires that the approximate time of the commission of
the
offense must be stated in the complaint or information. According to
him,
this requirement was not followed in the instant case. He contends that
since the sexual act in a crime of rape must be proved to have been
committed
during a precise date and time, the Complaint against him should have
been
considered fatally defective and, thus, void. He further argues that
the
doctrine laid down in United States v. Javier Dichao[14]
applies to this case. In Dichao, we held that the allegation in the
Complaint
regarding the date and time of the rape was too indefinite to give the
accused therein an opportunity to prepare his defense. In such a
situation,
the alibi of the accused would never be able to prosper.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Citing Ilo v. Court
of Appeals,[15]
appellant herein argues further that any evidence presented by the
prosecution
cannot cure this alleged fatal defect, as his right to be informed of
the
nature of the offense charged against him would be jeopardized. As the
accused, his constitutionally protected right to be informed of the
nature
and cause of the accusation against him would be violated.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We find his arguments
bereft of merit. Although the Complaint alleged that the crime was
committed
"sometime in the month of April, 1997," the trial court did not err in
convicting him of rape.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
First,
the precise time or date of the commission of an offense need not be
alleged
in the complaint or information, unless it is an essential element of
the
crime charged.[16]
In rape, it is not.[17]Section 11 of Rule 110 of the Rules
of Court provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Sec. 11.
Date
of the commission of the offense.- It is not necessary to state in the
complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed
except
when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be
alleged
to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date
of its commission."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, People v.
Gianan[18]
explained as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
"It is
settled
that the time of the commission of the rape is not an element thereof,
as this crime is defined in Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The
gravamen
of the crime is the fact of carnal knowledge under any of the
circumstances
enumerated therein, i.e., (1) by using force or intimidation; (2) when
the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) when
the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. In accordance
with
Rule 110, §11, as long as it alleges that the offense was
committed
'at any time as near to the actual date at which the offense was
committed,'
an information is sufficient. x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x
"Indeed, this
Court
has held that the allegations that rapes were committed, 'before and
until
October 15, 1994,' 'sometime in the year 1991 and the days thereafter,'
and 'on or about and sometime in the year 1998' constitute sufficient
compliance
with Rule 110, §11. In any event, even if the information failed
to
allege with certainty the time of the commission of the rapes, the
defect,
if any, was cured by the evidence presented during the trial and any
objections
based on this ground must be deemed waived as a result of
accused-appellant's
failure to object before arraignment. Accused-appellant's remedy was to
move either for a bill of particulars of for the quashal of the
information
on the ground that it does not conform substantially to the prescribed
form."[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The rationale for
Section
6 of Rule 110 of the Rules
of Court is to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the
accusation.[20]
This right has not been violated in the present case. Appellant's
counsel
took an active part in the trial by cross-examining the prosecution
witnesses
and presenting evidence for the defense. It is now too late in the day
for appellant to claim that the Complaint was defective. Furthermore,
the
defense never objected to the presentation of the prosecution evidence
proving that the offense had been committed in April 1997. It has not
been
shown that the testimony of the victim (to the effect that she had been
raped during that month) caught appellant by surprise and thus made it
difficult for him to defend himself properly.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, the Complaint
states all the facts that, with sufficient definiteness and clarity,
would
fully apprise him of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him,
in compliance with his constitutional right to be so informed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Second,
appellant's reliance on Dichao is misplaced. The ruling of the Court
therein
is not applicable to the present case due to differences in the factual
scenarios. In People v. Magbanua,[21]
we ruled:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"x
x
x A careful study of the Dichao case reveals that what was
questioned
therein was an order of the trial court sustaining a demurrer to an
information
on the ground that it failed to substantially conform to the prescribed
form when it did not allege the time of the commission of the offense
with
definiteness. The information therein stated that the sexual
intercourse
occurred '[o]n or about and during the interval between October, 1910,
to August, 1912,' which statement of time the Court described as '
x
x x so indefinite and uncertain that it does not give the accused
the information required by law x x x ' and the ' x
x
x opportunity to prepare his defense x x x ' The lower
court
in allowing the demurrer authorized the dismissal of the case against
the
accused herein. The Court upheld the order of the trial court. x
x x "[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The accused in Dichao
submitted,
within the prescribed time, a Motion to quash the Information. In the
present
case, however, no such motion was ever filed by appellant before the
trial
court. As he never raised any objection to the sufficiency of the
Complaint,
he is thus deemed to have waived whatever formal defect it had.[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
To repeat, the Complaint
alleges that the rape was committed "sometime in the month of April,
1997."
This is a period that displays definiteness and certainty, unlike in
Dichao
in which the time of the commission of the crime, as stated in the
Information,
was too indefinite — "on or about and during the interval between
October,
1910, to August, 1912." Two years was too long an interval that it was
extremely difficult for the accused to plead alibi as a defense. Thus,
the Court was impelled in that case to declare thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"In the
case
before us the statement of the time when the crime is alleged to have
been
committed is so indefinite and uncertain that it does not give the
accused
the information required by law. To allege in an information that the
accused
committed rape on a certain girl between October, 1910, and August,
1912,
is too indefinite to give the accused an opportunity to prepare his
defense,
and that indefiniteness is not cured by setting out the date when a
child
was born as a result of such crime x x x "[24]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Third,
appellant
did not raise before the trial court any objection to the alleged
insufficiency
of the Complaint. Consequently, he is deemed to have waived whatever
objections
he had, and he cannot now seek affirmative relief.[25]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Objections as to matters
of form or substance in the complaint or information cannot be made for
the first time on appeal.[26]
The remedy available, which appellant did not pursue before the RTC,
was
to move either for a bill of particulars[27]
in order to be properly informed of the exact date of the alleged rape;
or for the quashal[28]
of the Complaint on the ground that it did not conform substantially to
the prescribed form.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Second Issue:
Relationship
Appellant contends that
the trial court erred in appreciating his relationship with Stephanie
as
a qualifying circumstance and consequently imposing upon him the death
penalty. Since his being her uncle was not alleged in the Complaint,
the
relationship should not have been used by the trial court to qualify
the
crime.cralaw:red
We agree.cralaw:red
It must be noted that
the rape was committed prior to the effectivity of R.A.
No. 8353, otherwise known as "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997."
Applicable
then is the old provision - Section 11 of R.A.
No. 7659, amending Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code - which states in part:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Se11.
Article
335 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Art. 335. When and
how
rape is committed. —
x x x
The death penalty
shall
also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the
following
attendant circumstances:chanrobles virtual law library
1. when the victim
is
under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent,
ascendant,
stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the
third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent of the
victim."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Indeed, the death
penalty
cannot be imposed upon the perpetrator, if his relationship with the
victim
is not duly alleged in the complaint or information.[29]
"If the offender is merely a relation - not a parent, ascendant,
step-parent,
guardian, or common law spouse of the mother of the victim - the
specific
relationship must be alleged in the information, i.e., that he is 'a
relative
by consanguinity or affinity [as the case may be] within the third
civil
degree.'"[30]
Both minority and actual relationship must be alleged and proved; if
not,
a conviction for rape in its qualified form will be barred.[31]
In the present case, while the minority of the victim was properly
alleged
in the Complaint, her relationship with appellant was not specifically
stated therein.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We are convinced that
appellant raped the complainant. We do not doubt the trial court's
assessment
of the evidence or appellant's culpability for the crime charged.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is doctrinal that
the competence and the credibility of witnesses are best determined by
the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe their
deportment
while testifying.[32]
Likewise, well-settled is the rule that when a woman - more so when she
is a minor - says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is
required
to prove the ravishment.[33]
Binding and conclusive on this Court are the trial court's factual
findings,
absent any arbitrariness or oversight of facts or circumstances of
weight
and substance.[34]
In the present case, the court a quo gave more credence to the positive
testimony of the victim, and we find no reason to set aside its factual
findings.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The victim testified
how appellant had defiled her on that fateful night:chanrobles virtual law library
"Q Will you
please tell us how Avelino Latag raped you?
A He raped me in
the
evening of April 1997, sir.cralaw:red
Q In what exact
place
in your house were you raped by Avelino Latag?
A At the place
where
he was lying down, sir.cralaw:red
x x x
Q Now, you said
that
you were raped by this Avelino Latag, will you please tell the court
how
he did it to you?
A He undressed me,
thereafter
he also removed his clothes, after that he inserted his private organ
to
my private organ, sir.cralaw:red
Q By the way who
undressed
you?
A Avelino Latag,
sir.cralaw:red
x x x
Q After removing
your
short and panty and after Avelino Latag also removed his short and
brief
what else did he do, if any?
A He inserted his
private
organ into my private organ, sir.cralaw:red
Q Will you please
tell
the Honorable Court the position of Avelino Latag in relation to you
when
he inserted his private organ into your private organ?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A He laid me down
and
he also lied down, sir.cralaw:red
Q Where was he,
was
he on top of you while inserting his private part to your private part?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q What were you
doing
while he was on top of you and inserting his private part into your
vagina?
A I was removing
it
and whenever I was removing it he boxed me, sir.cralaw:red
Q You said that
you
were removing something whenever you removed it you were being boxed by
Avelino Latag, what was that something that you were removing?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A His private
organ
which was inserted into my private organ, sir.cralaw:red
x x x
Q How did you come
to
know that it was inserted into your private part?
A Because I felt
pain,
sir.cralaw:red
Q What was the
cause
of that pain?
A The inside of my
vagina
was painful, sir.cralaw:red
Q Why was it
painful?
A I felt pain
because
he inserted his private organ into my private organ, sir.cralaw:red
Q How long did
Avelino
Latag stay on top of you and inserted his private part into your
private
part?
A Only one (1)
minute,
sir.cralaw:red
Q Did you not
shout
when he stayed on top of you and inserted his private part into your
private
part?
A No, sir.cralaw:red
Q Why?
A Whenever I
shout[ed]
he slapped me, sir."[35] Civil
Liability
We likewise modify the
civil liability imposed by the RTC upon appellant. In line with
prevailing
jurisprudence, the amount of P75,000 indemnity ex delicto should be
reduced
to P50,000[36]
because he is guilty only of simple, not qualified, rape. The amount of
P75,000 is awarded as indemnity ex delicto only if the crime of rape is
qualified by any of the circumstances under which the death penalty is
authorized by applicable laws.[37]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On other hand, the award
of P10,000 as moral damages should be increased to P50,000.[38]
Likewise, the increase of the amount of exemplary damages from P5,000
to
P25,000[39]
is proper, even if the relationship of appellant with the victim was
not
alleged in the Complaint. Since the prosecution was able to give,
during
the trial, ample proof of their relationship, this civil liability has
sufficient basis.[40]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the May 10,
1999 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lipa City, Branch
12,
finding appellant guilty of qualified rape, is MODIFIED. He is found
GUILTY
of SIMPLE RAPE only and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion
perpetua. Furthermore, he is ordered to pay the victim indemnity ex
delicto
of P50,000, moral damages of P50,000 and exemplary damages of P25,000.
No pronouncement as to costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Vitug, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1]
Rollo, pp. 19–36. Written by Judge Vicente F. Landicho.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
RTC Decision, pp. 17–18; rollo, pp. 35–36. In that Decision, his
brother
Yolito Latag was found guilty of attempted rape.
[3]
Sometimes spelled in the records as "Nagkaan."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Sometimes spelled in the records as "Mataas na Kahoy."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Rollo, p. 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id., p. 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
See Order dated August 27, 1997; records, Vol. I, p. 17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Atty. Ernesto M. Vergara.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Appellee's Brief, pp. 7–10; rollo, pp. 131–134. Signed by Solicitor
General
Simeon V. Marcelo, Assistant Solicitor General Mariano M. Martinez and
Associate Solicitor Noe L. Espenilla Jr.
[10]
Appellant's Brief, pp. 5–7; rollo, pp. 69–71. Signed by Atty. Elpidio
C.
Bacuyag of the Public Attorney's Office (PAO).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
This case was deemed submitted for decision on September 9, 2002, upon
receipt by this Court of appellant's Reply Brief signed by Attys.
Amelia
C. Garchitorena and Elpidio C. Bacuyag of PAO. Appellant's Brief was
received
by this Court on April 20, 2001, while appellee's Brief was filed on
March
5, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Appellant's Brief, pp. 1–2; rollo, pp. 65–66. Original in upper case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
"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.
"When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them
shall
be included in the complaint or information."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
27 Phil. 421, March 30, 1914.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
108 Phil. 938, July 26, 1960.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
People v. Alvero, 386 Phil. 181, 191–192, April 5, 2000; People v.
Bernaldez,
294 SCRA 317, 327, August 17, 1998; People v. Quiñones, 222 SCRA
249, 254, May 18, 1993.
[17]
People v. Elpedes, 350 SCRA 716, January 31, 2001; People v. Marquez,
347
SCRA 510, December 8, 2000; People v. Alicante, 388 Phil. 233, May 31,
2000; People v. Magbanua, 377 Phil. 750, December 3, 1999; People v.
Quiñones,
supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
340 SCRA 477, September 15, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Id., pp. 486–487, per Mendoza, J.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
People v. Razonable, 386 Phil. 771, April 12, 2000.
[21]
377 Phil. 750, December 3, 1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
People v. Magbanua, supra, p. 731, per Kapunan, J.
[23]
People v. Razonable, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
United States v. Javier Dichao, supra, p. 426, per Moreland, J.
[25]
People v. Elpedes, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Id.; People v. Marquez, supra; People v. Razonable, supra.
[27]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
People v. Gianan, supra; People v. Razonable, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
People v. Daganio, 374 SCRA 365, January 23, 2002; People v. Dizon, 419
Phil. 703, October 17, 2001; People v. Labayne, 357 SCRA 184, April 20,
2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
People v. Esperas, GR No. 128109, November 18, 2003, pp. 22–23, per
Panganiban,
J.; citing People v. Esperanza, GR Nos. 139217-24, June 27, 2003, p.
16,
per Davide, CJ.
[31]
People v. Labayne, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
People v. Esperas, supra; People v. Gomez, 419 Phil. 732, October 17,
2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
People v. Balas, 372 SCRA 80, December 11, 2001; People v. Manayan, 368
SCRA 300, October 25, 2001; People v. Tagaylo, 345 SCRA 284, November
20,
2000.
[34]
People v. Obordo, 382 SCRA 98, May 9, 2002; People v. Bertulfo, 381
SCRA
762, May 7, 2002; People v. Sanchez, 375 SCRA 355, January 31, 2002;
People
v. Abella, 339 SCRA 129, August 28, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
TSN, November 4, 1997, pp. 14–21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
People v. Esperas, supra; People v. Garcia, 341 SCRA 502, September 29,
2000; People v. Antonio, 333 SCRA 201, June 8, 2000; People v. Rafales,
379 Phil. 981, January 21, 2000.
[37]
People v. Canonigo, 337 SCRA 310, August 4, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
People v. Esperas, supra; People v. Baldosa, 381 SCRA 712, May 7, 2002;
People v. Arofo, 380 SCRA 663, April 11, 2002; People v. Dumanon, 348
SCRA
461, December 18, 2000.
[39]
People v. Esperas, supra; People v. Villanueva, GR Nos. 146464-67,
November
15, 2002; People v. Barcelon Jr., GR No. 144308, September 24, 2002;
People
v. Rodavia, 376 SCRA 320, February 6, 2002; People v. Francisco, 351
SCRA
351, February 7, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
People v. Lachica, 382 SCRA 162, May 9, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Back
to Top - Back
to Main Index - Back
to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions
- Back
to Home
|