PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT
DECISIONS ON-LINE
EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R. Nos. 145523-24 : December 11, 2003
-versus-
EDUARDO RATA Y BAGAMENTO,Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Before this Court for
automatic review is the Decision[1]
dated 2 August 2000 of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Branch 170
("Trial Court"), in Criminal Case Nos. 18752-MN and 18753-MN. The trial
court found Eduardo Rata y Bagamento ("Appellant") guilty of two counts
of qualified rape and sentenced him to suffer the death penalty for each
count of rape and to indemnify the victim.chan
robles virtual law library The Charges
In Criminal Case No.
18752-MN, the Information charged appellant with the crime of rape as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
That on or
about the 23rd day of October, 1997, in the Municipality of Malabon, Metro
Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, being then the father of ANNALIZA RATA y ENSISO,
with lewd design by means of force, violence and intimidation, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously did then and there have sexual intercourse with
said ANNALIZA RATA y ENSISO, who is under 18 years of age against her will
and without her consent.chan
robles virtual law library
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
In Criminal Case No. 18753-MN,
the Information likewise charged appellant with the crime of rape as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
That on or
about the 25th day of December, 1996, in the Municipality of Malabon, Metro
Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, being then the father of ANNALIZA RATA y ENSISO,
with lewd design by means of force, violence and intimidation, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously did then and there have sexual intercourse with
said ANNALIZA RATA y ENSISO, who is under 18 years of age against her will
and without her consent.chan
robles virtual law library
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3] Arraignment
and Plea
When arraigned on 25
June 1998, appellant, with the assistance of his counsel de parte, entered
a plea of not guilty.[4] The Trial
Version of the
Prosecution
The prosecution presented
three witnesses:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(1) complainant
Annaliza Rata ("Annaliza");chan
robles virtual law library
(2) Dr. Tomas Suguitan
of the Medico-Legal Division of the Philippine National Police ("PNP")
Crime Laboratory, who conducted the physical examination on Annaliza; andchan
robles virtual law library
(3) social worker Luz
de Guzman.chan
robles virtual law library
In the People's Brief,
the Solicitor General summarized the prosecution's version of the incident
as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
At around 3:00
a.m. of December 25, 1996, Annaliza Rata was in their house in Letre, Malabon,
Metro Manila with her father, appellant herein, when the latter made her
lie down. Appellant undressed her and thereafter undressed himself. Appellant
subsequently inserted his penis into Annaliza's vagina and made some thrusting
movements. After a while, appellant withdrew himself and ended Annaliza's
horrifying ordeal.
On October 23, 1997,
Annaliza was again ravaged by appellant under the same conditions as the
first rape on December 25, 1996. This time, however, appellant satisfied
his lust a little longer, at the same time threatening Annaliza with death
if ever the latter would report to anyone what had transpired between them.
Unable to bear her painful experience at the hands of her very own father,
Annaliza reported the incidents to her neighbor, Josie, who accompanied
her to the authorities. Her statement to the police led to the institution
of the present charges against appellant (Ibid., pp. 4-5).[5]chan
robles virtual law library
Dr. Tomas Suguitan testified
that he conducted the physical examination on Annaliza and prepared the
corresponding medico-legal report.[6]
The report reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychan
robles virtual law library
FINDINGS:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
GENITAL AND EXTRAGENITAL:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Fairly developed, fairly
nourished and coherent female subject. Breasts are hemispherical with pale
brown areola and nipples from which no secretions could be pressed out.
Abdomen is flat and soft.chan
robles virtual law library
GENITAL:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
There is moderate growth
of pubic hair. Labia majora are full, convex and coaptated with the pinkish
brown labia minora presenting in between. On separating the same disclosed
an elastic, fleshy-type hymen with complete healed laceration at 3 o'clock
and deep healed lacerations at 8 and 10 o'clock positions. External vaginal
orifice offers moderate resistance to the introduction of the examining
index finger. Vaginal canal is narrow with prominent rugosities. Cervix
is firm and closed.chan
robles virtual law library
CONCLUSION:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Subject is in non-virgin
state physically.
There are no external
signs of application of any form of violence.
REMARKS:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Vaginal and peri-urethral
smears are negative for gram-negative diplococci and spermatozoa.
When Dr. Suguitan interviewed
Annaliza, she revealed that appellant sexually molested her from December
25, 1996 up to October 23, 1997.[7]chan
robles virtual law library
Luz de Guzman of the Department
of Social Welfare and Development ("DSWD") narrated that Annaliza was brought
by her stepmother Aida to the DSWD office in Malabon in November 1997.
Annaliza complained that her father sexually abused her. The DSWD subsequently
brought Annaliza to DSWD's Marilac Hills, where she is presently staying.[8]chan
robles virtual law library Version of the Defense
The defense presented
two witnesses:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(1) appellant
himself; and
(2) appellant's stepdaughter
Errol Rata ("Errol").[9]
The Public Attorney summarized
the defense's version as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
ERROL RATA
averred that nothing happened on December 25, 1996 and October 23, 1997,
at around 3:00 in the morning, while he was sleeping in the sala of their
house located at Block 4, Lot 24, Phase 4, Paradise Village, Malabon, Metro
Manila, together with Annaliza and [her] little brother. However, prior
to October 23, 1997, when [s]he just came from school, [s]he saw [her]
stepfather slap Annaliza, because the latter left their house without leaving
anybody to attend to the rice being cooked at that time. As a result of
which, Annaliza left the house and [s]he does not know anymore where she
went. (TSN, February 23, 1999, pp. 2-4).chan
robles virtual law library
EDUARDO RATA vehemently
denied the allegations against him that he raped Annaliza on 25 December
1996, at about 3:00 in the morning. On that very same day and time, he
was with his common-law [w]ife slaughtering chickens and ducks in preparation
for the baptism of their child while Annaliza, Errol and Marde were all
sleeping in their sala. After the baptism held in Malabon Church at 11:00
in the morning, they dined together. However, because his house is small,
his other guests left early. Bonifacio Solera and some of his other visitors
were left behind and started drinking at around 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon
and lasted up to 5:00 o'clock in the early morning of the following day.chan
robles virtual law library
In relation to the second
charge, he claimed that when he went home to have lunch, accidentally,
he smelled the overcooked rice. At that time, Annaliza was nowhere to be
found when he called her. When Annaliza arrived, she told him that she
was just in the neighborhood watching [a] video. Losing control of himself,
he spanked and kicked her. Thereafter, she left their house and never came
back up to the present. (TSN, November 16, 1999, pp. 2-4)[10]chan
robles virtual law library The Trial Court's
Ruling
The trial court rendered
a judgment of conviction on 2 August 2000. The dispositive portion of the
decision reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychan
robles virtual law library
1. In Criminal
Case No. 18752-MN, the Court finds accused Eduardo Rata y Bagamento guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape (Republic Act No. 8353) and
hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of DEATH; to pay Annaliza Rata
the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages
and P35,000.00 as exemplary damages plus the cost of the suit.
2. In Criminal Case
No. 18753-MN, the Court finds accused Eduardo Rata y Bagamento guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised
Penal Code as amended by R.A. 7659 and hereby sentences him to suffer the
penalty of DEATH; to pay Annaliza Rata the amount of P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P35,000.00 as exemplary damages
plus the cost of the suit.chan
robles virtual law library
SO ORDERED.[11]
Hence, this automatic review. The Issues
Appellant seeks the
reversal of his conviction by contending that -
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY
ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME
OF RAPE.
II
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT
APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED
IN IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY UPON HIM INSTEAD OF RECLUSION PERPETUA.[12] The Court's
Ruling
Our review of the evidence
in this case convinces us that appellant is guilty of simple rape and not
of qualified rape in Criminal Case No. 18752-MN. Therefore, while we sustain
the appellant's conviction in Criminal Case No. 18752-MN, we reduce the
penalty imposed by the trial court from death to reclusion perpetua.
Appellant's guilt of
the crime charged has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
We agree with the trial
court that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt appellant's
guilt of the crime of rape in Criminal Case No. 18752-MN.
Carnal knowledge requires
the entrance of the male organ at least within the labia of the pudendum
of the female organ. This is an essential element of the crime, which the
prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable
doubt does not require absolute certainty but merely moral certainty on
each element essential to constitute the offense and on the responsibility
of its perpetrator.[13]chan
robles virtual law library
Article 266-A of the
Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 8353,[14]
provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychan
robles virtual law library
Article 266-A.
Rape. When and How Committed. - Rape is committed-chan
robles virtual law library
1) By a man
who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
a) Through
force, threat or intimidation;chan
robles virtual law library x x x
In proving that appellant
had carnal knowledge of her by means of threat or intimidation on 25 December
1996 and 23 October 1997, Annaliza testified as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
FISCAL ALIPOSA
Q At around 3:00 o'clock
in the early morning of December 25, 1996, do you remember any unusual
incident that happened to you?
A I was raped, sir.
Q Will you tell us how
did it happen?
A He made me lie, sir.
Q Who made you lie?
A My father, sir.
Q And after you lie
[sic] down, what did you do next?
A He took off my clothes,
sir.
Q What else?
A He took off my panty,
sir.
Q What happened next
when, he took off your panty?
A He also took off his
clothes, sir.
Q After he took off
his clothes, what happened next?
A He inserted his organ
into my vagina, sir.
Q Will you tell us how
long his penis was in your vagina before removing that penis from your
vagina?
A He made it stay in
my vagina for a long time, sir.
Q Was there any movement
when he inserted his penis to your vagina?
A He was moving, sir.
Q Will you tell us what
was that movement your father did to you?
A (Witness cannot answer.)
Q Was this insertion
of the penis to your vagina repeated?
A Yes, sir.
Q How many times?
A I could not recall,
sir.
COURT
Q When was the last
time that your father had sex with you?
A October 23, Your Honor.
FISCAL ALIPOSA
Q What year?
A 1997, sir.
Q What did he do to
you on October 23, 1997?
A He raped me, sir.
Q How did he rape you?
A He made me lie, sir.
Q After asking you to
lie down, what did you do next?
A He took off my clothes,
sir.
Q What else?
A He took off my panty,
sir.
Q What else happened
after he took off your clothes and panty?
A He raped me, sir.
COURT
Q When you stated your
father raped you, what do you mean?
A (The witness cannot
answer).
FISCAL ALIPOSA
Q That October 23, 1997
incident, how did your father rape you?
A He went on top of
me, sir.
Q When he went on top
of you, was he with clothing or none?
A None, sir.
Q What did he do next
when he went on top of you?
A He inserted his penis
to my organ, sir.
Q How long did his penis
stayed [sic] in your vagina?
A For a long time, sir.
Q Can you still recall
if your father was talking or whispering to while he was having sex with
you?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was he uttering
or whispering to you?
A That I will not tell
what he was doing to anybody otherwise he will kill me, sir.
Q Did you like what
your father did to you?
A No, sir. (Emphasis
added.)[15]
Dr. Suguitan's medico-legal
report and his testimony in open court corroborate Annaliza's claim that
appellant raped her. The medico-legal report states that Annaliza's hymen
has a "complete healed laceration" at the 3 o'clock position and "deep
healed lacerations" at the 8 o'clock and 10 o'clock positions.[16]
Dr. Suguitan testified on the matter as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychan
robles virtual law library
FISCAL ALIPOSA
Q Will you tell us in
layman's language your result?
A The pertinent result
- there is laceration of the hymen at 3:00, 8:00, and 10:00 o'clock position,
sir.
Q Is that the reason
why you concluded subject is in non-virgin state physically?
A Precisely, sir.[17]
There is sufficient foundation
to conclude the existence of the essential element of carnal knowledge
when the physician's findings of penetration corroborate the victim's testimony
that the accused raped her.[18]
The testimony of a young rape victim is credible and deserves full credit,
especially where, as in this case, the facts point to her having been a
victim of sexual assault.[19]chan
robles virtual law library
Appellant's twin defenses
of denial and alibi fail to hold up against Annaliza's testimony. Not a
few persons convicted of rape have attributed the charges brought against
them to family feuds, resentment, or revenge, but such alleged motives
have never swayed the Court from giving full credence to the testimony
of a complainant who remained steadfast throughout her direct and cross-examination.[20]chan
robles virtual law library
Annaliza executed a
sworn statement that describes the 25 December 1996 incident as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
T: Maaari mo
bang liwanagin sa akin kung kailan iyong maraming beses na?
S: Iyong una po ay noong
ika-25 ng Disyembre 1996, bandang alas 3:00 ng madaling araw, sa kuwarto
bale ng tatay ko.
T: Papaano naman ito
nangyari?
S: Nagkataong wala ang
nanay ko at ang kasama ko lamang ng mga oras na iyon bukod sa tatay ko
ay iyong dalawang kapatid ko na ang idad ay isang katorse na babae at iyong
isa ay apat na taong gulang na lalake. Katabi kong natutulog sa sala ang
mga kapatid ko nang tawagin ako ng tatay ko at papasukin sa kuwarto niya.
Ang akala ko ay basta tawag lang niya ako pero ang nangyari po pilit niya
akong pinahihiga sa sahig ng kuwarto niya pero hindi po ako pumayag at
sinabihan niya ako na papatayin niya ako at inaambaan akong susuntukin
niya kaya sumunod na lamang ako at humiga. Tinanggalan niya ako ng damit
pang-ibaba at pang-itaas. Pati bra tinanggal. Hinalikan niya iyong dalawang
suso ko. Umiiyak ako at nagmamakaawa pero ayaw niyang makinig. Nakuha niyang
maipasok ang ari niya sa ari ko. Nasaktan ako at nag-iiyak lalo. Pagkatapos
po ay nagbihis na ulit siya ng pang-ibaba at pang-itaas niya. Ako po naman
kusang nagbihis na lamang at lumabas ng kuwarto niya. Siya po naman ay
hindi kumikibo. (Emphasis added.)[21]chan
robles virtual law library
This narration from Annaliza's
sworn statement shows that appellant employed violence and intimidation
on her. The use of violence and intimidation is characterized by physical
acts and uttered threats made on the victim.[22]chan
robles virtual law library
Annaliza failed to state
in open court that appellant raped her on 25 December 1996 with the use
of force or intimidation. The prosecutor failed to ask questions regarding
this element. However, Annaliza never declared that appellant did not employ
threat or intimidation on her. There is no contradiction between her testimony
in open court and her sworn statement. Annaliza was merely unable to recite
the exact contents of the sworn statement. In People v. Charmie Servano
Y Gaor ("Servano")[23]
we held that the rule that an affidavit or sworn statement is inferior
to testimony in open court applies only when there are discrepancies and
inconsistencies between the allegations in the sworn statement and those
made in open court. No such conflict or contradiction exists in the instant
case.
Annaliza identified
her sworn statement in open court. The prosecution presented it in open
court as Exhibits "B" and "B-1," while the defense did not interpose any
objections.[24]
Annaliza affirmed in open court that she made the sworn statement to the
police and that the signature on the statement was her signature.[25]In
Servano, we held that a witness' failure to reiterate the contents of her
sworn statement during trial should not affect her credibility and render
the sworn statement useless and insignificant, as long as it is presented
as evidence in open court. The sworn statement and the open court declarations
must be evaluated and examined together to obtain a thorough determination
of the merits of the case. In every case, the court should review, assess
and weigh the totality of the evidence presented by the parties. It should
not confine itself to oral testimony during trial. In the instant case,
Annaliza's sworn statement contained a detailed account of the 25 December
1996 rape incident. It described how Annaliza was made to submit to appellant's
wishes by his use of threats and intimidation.chan
robles virtual law library
However, we find Servano
inapplicable to the present case. In Servano, the complainant identified
her sworn statement and confirmed the truth thereof in open court. In this
case, although Annaliza identified her sworn statement, the prosecutor
failed to make her affirm the truthfulness of its contents. Each and every
charge of rape pertains to a separate crime. The prosecution has the duty
to establish beyond reasonable doubt the elements of rape for each charge.[26]
Annaliza failed to state in open court that appellant raped her on 25 December
1996 with the use of force or intimidation. The prosecutor failed to ask
questions regarding this element.chan
robles virtual law library
We make another point
on the inapplicability of Servano to the present case. In Servano, the
prosecution proved the relationship between complainant and the accused.
Since the accused was the complainant's father, moral ascendancy could
substitute for the requisite "force, threat or intimidation." In the present
case, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt appellant's
relationship with Annaliza. Hence, the principle of substituting force,
threat or intimidation with moral ascendancy does not apply here. For these
reasons, we acquit appellant of the charge in Criminal Case No. 18753-MN.chan
robles virtual law library
During the 23 October
1997 incident, appellant threatened Annaliza that he would kill her if
she told anyone what he was doing to her. This clearly constitutes intimidation.
Intimidation affects the mind of the victim and, being subjective, no hard
and fast rule can determine its presence. Instead, the presence of intimidation
is gleaned from the victim's perception and judgment of her assailant's
actuations considering the circumstances at the time of the commission
of the crime.[27]chan
robles virtual law library Reclusion perpetua
and not death is the correct penalty.
The death penalty imposed
by the trial court upon appellant is not correct. Article 266-B of the
Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 8353, states:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychan
robles virtual law library
Article 266-B.
Penalties.- x x xchan
robles virtual law library
The death penalty shall
also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following
aggravating/qualifying circumstances:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
1) When the
victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity
within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of
the victim; x x xchan
robles virtual law library
To justify the imposition
of the death penalty, the information must specifically allege the qualifying
circumstances of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the
offender. The prosecution must prove the presence of these attendant circumstances.[28]
The prosecution bears the burden of proving all the elements of a crime,
including the qualifying circumstances. Where the prosecution fails to
conjointly allege and prove the qualifying circumstances of minority and
relationship, the accused is liable only for the crime of simple rape.[29]
This is in consonance with the constitutional right of the accused to be
informed of the charges against him.[30]chan
robles virtual law library
The trial court disregarded
appellant's attempts of disowning Annaliza by referring to her as his stepdaughter.[31]
Appellant's claim that Annaliza is his stepdaughter is inconsistent with
his affidavit and contradicted by appellant's own witness, his stepdaughter
Errol. In his affidavit, appellant repeatedly referred to himself as "the
natural father of complainant."[32]
For her part, Errol repeatedly referred to Annaliza as appellant's "flesh
and blood natural daughter."[33]
Errol even identified Annaliza as "the daughter of my stepfather from his
first wife" in open court.[34]chan
robles virtual law library
However, we find that
the evidence presented is not sufficient to dispel doubts about the true
relationship of appellant and Annaliza. Where the life of an appellant
is at stake, the prosecution must adduce more exacting proof to establish
the qualifying circumstances.[35]
The prosecution failed to prove Annaliza's relationship with appellant.
The prosecution could not present a marriage certificate as Annaliza was
an illegitimate child. The prosecution should have presented in evidence
the original copy of Annaliza's birth certificate but it did not. There
is no evidence that said certificate of birth was lost or destroyed or
was unavailable without the fault of the prosecution. The photocopy of
the birth certificate presented contained an alteration and thus its contents
are of doubtful validity. Hence, substitutionary evidence is inadmissible.[36]chan
robles virtual law library
The prosecution alleged
that Annaliza was only 15 years old when appellant raped her on 25 December
1996. Since the prosecution failed to present the original copy of Annaliza's
birth certificate, appellant is liable only for simple rape. Decisions
of this Court relating to the rape of minors invariably state that in order
to justify the imposition of the penalty of death, there must be independent
evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused. A certified true copy
of the certificate of live birth showing the complainant's age or some
other authentic document such as a baptismal certificate or a school record
has been recognized as competent evidence.[37]chan
robles virtual law library
The prosecution failed
to prove that: (1) appellant is indeed Annaliza's father and (2) Annaliza
was under 18 years of age when the crime of rape was committed against
her. Because of the prosecution's failure to prove Annaliza's relationship
with appellant and Annaliza's minority, we cannot hold appellant liable
for qualified rape. Hence, reclusion perpetua, and not death, is the correct
penalty.chan
robles virtual law library
Since the penalty is
reclusion perpetua, the civil indemnity must be reduced from P75,000 to
P50,000. Moral damages of P50,000 must also be awarded in favor of Annaliza,
without need of proof that she suffered from mental, physical, and psychological
trauma. chan
robles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, the Decision
dated 2 August 2000 of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Branch 170,
in Criminal Case Nos. 18752-MN and 18753-MN, is hereby MODIFIED. Appellant
Eduardo Rata y Bagamento is found GUILTY of one count of simple rape in
Criminal Case No. 18752-MN. Appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua and to pay complainant Annaliza Rata P50,000 as civil
indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages.chan
robles virtual law library
With respect to Criminal
Case No. 18753-MN, appellant is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution
to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED.chan
robles virtual law library
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1]
Penned by Judge Benjamin T. Antonio.chan
robles virtual law library
[2]
Rollo, p. 4.chan
robles virtual law library
[3]
Ibid., p. 5.chan
robles virtual law library
[4]
Records, p. 47.chan
robles virtual law library
[5]
Rollo, pp. 67-68.chan
robles virtual law library
[6]
Exh. "A," Records, p. 76.chan
robles virtual law library
[7]
TSN, 26 October 1998, Records, pp. 127-129.
[8]
Ibid., pp. 132-136.chan
robles virtual law library
[9]
Also referred to as "Erolh Rata."chan
robles virtual law library
[10]
Rollo, pp. 34-35.chan
robles virtual law library
[11]
Ibid., p. 15.chan
robles virtual law library
[12]
Rollo, p. 29.chan
robles virtual law library
[13]
People v. Thamsey, 413 Phil. 790 (2001).chan
robles virtual law library
[14]
Effective 22 October 1997.chan
robles virtual law library
[15]
TSN, 23 February 1999, Records, pp. 139-140.chan
robles virtual law library
[16]
Exh. "A," Records, p. 76.chan
robles virtual law library
[17]
TSN, 26 October 1998, Records, p. 128.chan
robles virtual law library
[18]
People v. Managbanag, G.R. No. 140101, 7 December 2001, 371 SCRA 615; People
v. Bation, 364 Phil. 731 (1999).
[19]
See People v. Pine, G.R. No. 133441, 29 November 2000, 346 SCRA 383.
[20]
People v. Itdang, G.R. No. 136393, 18 October 2000, 343 SCRA 624.
[21]
Exh. "B," Records, p. 78-A.chan
robles virtual law library
[22]
People v. Catubig, 416 Phil. 102 (2001); People v. Maglente, 366 Phil.
221 (1999).
[23]
G.R. Nos. 143002-03, 17 July 2003.chan
robles virtual law library
[24]
Records, p. 141.chan
robles virtual law library
[25]
Ibid.chan
robles virtual law library
[26]
People v. Supnad, 414 Phil. 637 (2001).chan
robles virtual law library
[27]
People v. Nogar, G.R. No. 133946, 27 September 2000, 341 SCRA 206.
[28]
People v. Cantos, Sr., 365 Phil. 341 (1999).chan
robles virtual law library
[29]
People v. Flores, 379 Phil. 857 (2000).chan
robles virtual law library
[30]
People v. Bernaldez, 379 Phil. 493 (2000).chan
robles virtual law library
[31]
TSN, 16 November 1999, Records, pp. 155-157.chan
robles virtual law library
[32]
Exh. "3," Records, pp. 121-123.chan
robles virtual law library
[33]
Exh. "1," Records, pp. 116-117.chan
robles virtual law library
[34]
TSN, 19 July 1999, Records, p. 147.chan
robles virtual law library
[35]
People v. Berana, 370 Phil. 696 (1999).chan
robles virtual law library
[36]
People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 142577, 27 December 2002.chan
robles virtual law library
[37]
People v. Viajedor, G.R. No. 148138, 11 April 2003; People v. Pruna, G.R.
No. 138471, 10 October 2002.
chan
robles virtual law library
Back
to Top -
Back
to Main Index -
Back
to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions
-
Back
to Home
|