7/3/2015

G.R.No.188847

TodayisFriday,July03,2015

Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.188847January31,2011
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,PlaintiffAppellee,
vs.
RUFINOVICENTE,JR.yCRUZ,AccusedAppellant.
DECISION
VELASCO,JR.,J.:
ThisisanappealfromtheApril30,2009DecisionoftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.CRH.C.No.02699
entitledPeopleofthePhilippinesv.RufinoVicente,Jr.yCruz,whichaffirmedtheSeptember7,2006Decisionin
CriminalCaseNo.12474DoftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch151inPasigCity.TheRTCfoundaccused
Rufino Vicente, Jr. (Vicente, Jr.) guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the
ComprehensiveDangerousDrugsActsof2002.
TheFacts
AnInformation1chargedVicente,Jr.asfollows:
That,onoraboutthe31stdayofMay2003,intheMunicipalityofTaguig,MetroManila,Philippines,andwithin
thejurisdictionofthisHonorablecourt,theabovenamedaccused,withoutbeingauthorizedbylaw,did,thenand
there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to another 0.40 grams of white crystalline
substance contained in one (1) heatsealed transparent plastic sachet, which was found positive to test for
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as "shabu," which is a dangerous drug, in consideration of the
amountofPhp500.00,inviolationoftheabovecitedlaw.
Duringhisarraignment,Vicente,Jr.gaveanegativeplea.
VersionoftheProsecution
Atthetrial,theprosecutionpresentedthefollowingwitnesses:PoliceOfficer2(PO2)DarwinM.BoiserandPO2
GeraldMarionR.Lagos,whowerebothpartofthebuybustteamthatapprehendedVicente,Jr.
PO2BoiserandPO2Lagostestifiedastothefollowingeventsthatallegedlytranspired:
On May 31, 2003, at around 8:00 in the evening, an informant arrived at the District AntiIllegal Drugs at the
SouthernPoliceDistrict,FortBonifacio,Taguig,MetroManila.Theinformantreportedthatacertain"Paks"was
pushingshabuonP.MarianoSt.,Ususan,Taguig,MetroManila.2
Actingontheinformationfromtheinformant,PoliceInspector(P/Insp.)RodolfoAnicocheorderedPO2Boiserto
verifythedrugpeddlingactivitiesof"Paks."3
PO2 Boiser proceeded to Ususan accompanied by the informant. Once there, the informant pointed "Paks" to
PO2Boiser.Theywereatadistanceof10meterswhentheybothsaw"Paks"peddlingdrugstoseveralpersons.
After confirming the informants report, they went back to the police station to recount what they had seen to
P/Insp. Anicoche. Thereafter, a team was dispatched to conduct a buybust operation. The buybust team was
composed of P/Insp. Anicoche, PO2 Boiser, PO2 Lagos, PO3 Macario, and Senior Police Officer 2 Millari. PO2
Boiserwasdesignatedastheposeurbuyer.4
ThebuybustteamconductedabriefingwherePO2BoisermarkedaPhP500billwith"JG,"theinitialsofPolice
SuperintendentandDistrictIntelligenceandInvestigationBranchChiefJoseGentiles.Afterwards,theyboardeda
vehicleandheadedtoUsusan,Taguig,arrivingattheareaaroundmidnight.PO2BoiserandPO2Lagoswalked
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_188847_2011.html

1/8

7/3/2015

G.R.No.188847

with the informant to meet "Paks." PO2 Boiser was then introduced to "Paks" as a balikbayan who wanted to
scoresomedrugs.Healsotold"Paks"thathehadbeenreleasedfromrehabandwantedtouseagain."Paks,"
satisfiedthatPO2Boiserwasindeedadruguser,agreedtosellPhP500worthofshabu.Hereachedfromhis
camouflageshortsaplasticsachetandhandedittoPO2Boiser.5
Afterreceivingtheplasticsachetfrom"Paks,"PO2Boiserexamineditunderthelightofalamppost.Seeingthe
prearrangedsignalactedoutbyPO2Boiser,PO2Lagoswenttothesceneandintroducedhimselfasapolice
officerto"Paks."
Thebuybustmoneywasthenseizedfrom"Paks.""Paks"quietlystoodwhilehewasinformedofhisdrugviolation
as well as his constitutional rights. The plastic sachet sold by "Paks" was later turned over by PO2 Boiser to
investigating officer PO3 Delima, who prepared the laboratory request. The plastic sachet was marked "DB1
310503," pertaining to PO2 Boisers initials and the date of the seizure of the drug.6 The following pieces of
documentaryevidencewerealsopresented:
(1) Exhibit "A" Joint Affidavit of Arrest dated June 2, 2003 by PO2 Gerald Marion R. Lagos and PO2
DarwinM.Boiser7
(2)Exhibit"B"RequestforLaboratoryExaminationdatedMay31,2003byPoliceSuperintendentJoseL.
Gentiles, OfficerinCharge, District Intelligence and Investigation Branch, delivered by PO2 Lagos and
receivedbyPO2Imus8and
(3) Exhibit "D" Physical Science Report No. D61603S prepared by Forensic Chemical Officer Richard
AllanB.Mangalip.9
VersionoftheDefense
ThedefenseofferedthetestimoniesofVicente,Jr.andElisaSantos.
AccordingtoElisa,shewasoutsideherhousehavingaconversationwithVicente,Jr.aroundmidnightofMay31,
2003. They both noticed a gray vehicle drive past them. Shortly thereafter, a tricycle stopped in front of them.
Three men alighted and poked a gun at Vicente, Jr., and warned him, "Reden, wag kang kikilos ng masama."
Vicente,Jr.deniedhewasReden.Yetthethreementookhimawayandhithimwithagunandboxedhiminhis
abdomen.Elisafurthertestified,"Tinuhodpoyungharapanniya."Vicente,Jr.attemptedtoshowidentificationto
thethreemenbuttheyignoredhim.ThegrayvehicleearlierspottedbyElisaandVicente,Jr.thenreturnedanda
personinsidesaid,"Hindiiyan."However,someonereplied"Sinaktanniyonasiya,isamananatin."10
On the witness stand, Vicente, Jr. said that he had never been involved in any drugrelated case prior to his
arrest.HeexplainedthathewasbuyingbalutfromwitnessElisawhenthreemenaccostedhimandpokedagun
athim.Theymistakenlythoughthewas"Reden"andbeathimupwhenhesaiditwasacaseofmistakenidentity.
The men turned out to be police officers and he was brought to their office where one of them told him, "Kung
gusto mo magturo ka na lang ng ibang tao." When he did not cooperate, he was again beaten up. Vicente, Jr.
furthertestifiedthathiswifeandbrotherwerenotallowedtovisithim.Heclaimedthathedidnotgetamedical
certificate for his injuries for that reason. PO2 Lagos even warned him not to say anything during the inquest
proceedingsandtotelltheprosecutorthathewouldjustmakehisstatementincourt.11
TheRulingoftheRTC
On September 7, 2006, the RTC pronounced Vicente, Jr. guilty of the crime charged. The RTC stated that the
witnessesfortheprosecutiongavestraightforwardtestimoniesthatclearlyestablishedtheelementsnecessaryfor
theprosecutionofillegalsaleofdrugs.
ThedispositiveportionoftheRTCDecision12reads:
WHEREFORE,inviewofalltheforegoing,judgmentisherebyrenderedfindingtheaccused,RUFINOVICENTE,
JR.,YCRUZ,GUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtforviolationofSection5,1stparagraph,ArticleIIofRA9165as
charged and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of
Php500,000.00.
TheRulingoftheCA
Onappeal,Vicente,Jr.averredthatthetrialcourterred(1)inconvictinghimastheallegedsellerofshabusince
he was not the alleged "Paks" identified by the police informant as the peddler of shabu (2) in convicting him
basedontheweaknessofthedefenseandnotonthestrengthoftheprosecutionsevidenceand(3)infinding
thatthearrestingpoliceofficersregularlyperformedtheirdutiesdespitenoncompliancewithproceduralruleson
drugbuybustoperations.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_188847_2011.html

2/8

7/3/2015

G.R.No.188847

RepresentingthePeople,theOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG)counteredthatalltheelementsintheillegal
sale of drugs were established. Vicente, Jr.s identity as the seller of shabu was established by the credible
testimoniesofPO2BoiserandPO2Lagos.
TheCAaffirmedthefindingsofthetrialcourt,viz:
The said elements of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs (shabu) was clearly established by the
testimony of PO2 Boiser who acted as the poseurbuyer in the standard police buybust operation. PO2 Boiser
was able to chronologically and consistently narrate the factual circumstances that led to the arrest of the
accusedappellant.
Moreso, PO2 Boisers testimony was corroborated on material points by PO2 Lagos who was just more or less
ten (10) meters from the locus criminis and who helped PO2 Boiser in effecting the arrest of the accused
appellant.13
OnMay26,2009,Vicente,Jr.filedhisNoticeofAppealfromtheappellatecourtsDecision.
OnOctober5,2009,thisCourtrequiredthepartiestosubmitsupplementalbriefsiftheysodesired.ThePeople,
throughtheOSG,manifestedthatitwasadoptingitspreviousarguments.Vicente,Jr.filedhisSupplementalBrief
on January 18, 2010. He averred that there was a failure to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seizeddrugbythearrestingofficers.
TheIssue
WhethertheCourtofAppealserredinfindingaccusedappellantguiltybeyondreasonabledoubt
TheRulingofthisCourt
Vicente, Jr. is convinced that Sec. 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 was not
complied with, since the buybust team failed to present a preoperation report and photographs of the seized
items.Heconcludesthatthereisuncertaintyastotheidentityoftheillegaldrugsseized.Hesaysthatduetothe
buybust teams omissions, there is a lingering doubt as to whether the drugs that underwent laboratory
examinationwerethesameitemsallegedlyseizedfromhim.
TheOSG,ontheotherhand,arguesthattheintegrityandevidentiaryvalueoftheseizedshabuwereproperly
preservedbythebuybustteamfromthetimeitwashandedbyVicente,Jr.totheposeurbuyeruptothetimeit
was presented during trial. The OSG adds that prior coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
wasnotrequiredasthebuybustwasconductedonMarch31,2003,whiletheIRRofRA9165tookeffectonlyon
November27,2004.
Weaffirmaccusedsconviction.
AspreviouslyheldbythisCourt,Sec.21ofRA9165neednotbefollowedasanexactscience.Noncompliance
withSec.21doesnotrenderanaccusedsarrestillegalortheitemsseized/confiscatedfromhiminadmissible.14
Noncompliance with the procedural requirements under RA 9165 and its IRR relative to the custody,
photographing, and drugtesting of the apprehended persons is not a serious flaw that can render void the
seizuresandcustodyofdrugsinabuybustoperation.15Wehavethusemphasizedthatwhatisessentialis"the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the
determinationoftheguiltorinnocenceoftheaccused."16
Peoplev.Sultan17explainsfurther:
Infact,theImplementingRulesandRegulationsofRep.ActNo.9165adequatelyreflectsthedesireofthelawto
excusefromtherigidtenorofSection21situationswhereinslightinfractionsinmethodologyarepresentbutthe
integrityandidentityofthespecimenremainsintact.
The following exchange took place during the direct examination of PO2 Boiser and shows the handling of the
seizeddrug:
PROSECUTORDULDULAO
Q:AftertherecoveryofthebuybustmoneyfromaliasPaks,whatelsedidyoudo?
A:Iinformedhimofhisviolationandapprisedhimhisconstitutionalrights.
Q:Whatviolationdidyouinformhim[about]?
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_188847_2011.html

3/8

7/3/2015

G.R.No.188847

A:Thatheviolated[alawby]sellingshabu,sir.
Q:Whatwashisanswerifany?
A:Hekeptsilent,sir.
Q:Howabouttherightsyouinformedhim?Whatarethoserights?
A:Hehastherighttoremainsilentandhehastherighttogethisowncounsel.
xxxx
Q:Afterthat,whatelsedidyoudo?
A:WebroughtPakstoouroffice,sir.
Q: How about the specimen or the shabu which you were able to buy from alias Paks? What did you do to it if
any?
A:Iturneditovertotheinvestigatorandhepreparedacrimelabrequest.
Q:Ifshowntoyouagain,Mr.Witness,thatplasticsachetcontainingshabuwhichaccordingtoyouyouwereable
tobuyfromaliasPaks,wouldyoubeabletoidentifyitandhowcanyouidentifyit?
A:Iplaceamarking,sir.
Q:Whatmarkingdidyouplace?
A:Iplacedtheinitialofmynameandthedateofarrest.
Q:Whatinitialdidyouput?
A:DB,sir.
Q:DBmeaningtheinitialrefersto?
A:Myname,sir.DarwinBoiser.
Q: I am showing to you, Mr. Witness, a heat transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance
whichwasfoundpositivetothetestofshabupreviouslymarkedasExh.C.Willyoupleasegooverthisandtellus
ifthisisthesamespecimen[which]youwereabletobuyfromaliasPaksatthetimeofthebuybustoperation?
A:Yes,sir.Itisthesame.
Q:Whydoyousayso?
A:BecauseitbearsthemarkingwhichIplaced,sir.
Q:Again,whatmarkingareyoureferringto?
A:DB1310503,sir.
INTERPRETER
WitnessisreferringtotheinitialappearinginExh.C.
PROSECUTORDULDULAO:
Q:Whenyouputthemarkingonthisevidence,whathappenednext?
A:WebroughtPakstotheoffice,sir.
Q:Whenyouwerealreadyattheoffice,whathappenedthereat?
A:Iturnedhimovertotheinvestigator.
Q:YouarereferringtoaliasPaks?
A:Yes,sir.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_188847_2011.html

4/8

7/3/2015

G.R.No.188847

Q:Howabouttheevidence?
A:Ialsogaveit,sir.
Q:Whowasyourinvestigatorthen?
A:PO3Delima,sir.
Q:WhatdidDelimadoafterturningovertohimthepersonofaliasPaksandtheevidence?
A:Hepreparedthecrimelabrequest.
Q:Requestforwhat?
A:Forlaboratoryexamination.
Q:Whatwasthesubjectoftheexamination?
A:TheshabuwhichweboughtfromPaks.
Q:Whathappenedtotherequest?
A:Therewasaresult,sir.
Q:Whatwastheresult?
A:It[was]foundpositive[for]methylamphetaminehydrochloride.
Q:HowaboutaliasPaks?Didyoucometoknowhisfullname?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Howdidyoucometoknowit?
A:WhenIaskedhimtosignthebookingsheet,sir.
Q:Whatwashisname?
A:RufinoVicente,sir.
Q:Theaccusedinthiscase?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Ifyouwillseehimagain,wouldyoubeabletoidentifyhim?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Willyoupleasepointtohimifheisinsidethecourtroom?
A:Heisthereseatedinfrontwearingayellowtshirt,sir.
INTERPRETER:
WitnessispointingtoapersoninsidethecourtroomwhomuponbeingaskedansweredbythenameofRufino
Vicente,Jr.18
Additionally, any doubts as to the chain of custody requirement were clarified during the crossexamination of
PO2Boiser:
ATTY.RONATAY
Q: Where did you place the marking of the specimen, at the place where the accused was arrested or at the
policestationwhentherewasalreadyaninvestigation?
A:Attheplacewheretheaccusedwasarrested,maam.19
WeaffirmthetrialcourtsfindingthatPO2Boiserstestimonywascredibleandstraightforward.Asthetrialcourt
explained:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_188847_2011.html

5/8

7/3/2015

G.R.No.188847

The prosecution showed that there was a meeting of the minds between the witness Boiser, poseurbuyer and
theseller,accusedRufinoVicente,Jr.,toselltotheformershabuforPhp500.00.Theactoftheaccusedsellerin
receivingthemoneyanddeliveringthesaidshabuconsummatedthesale.Thestraightforwardtestimoniesofthe
witnessesfortheprosecutionclearlyestablishedtheelements.20
Prosecutionsinvolvingillegaldrugsdependlargelyonthecredibilityofthepoliceofficerswhoconductedthebuy
bust operation.21 Oftrepeated is the rule that in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have
performedtheirdutiesinaregularmanner,unlessthereisevidencetothecontrary.22Absentanyindicationthat
the police officers were illmotivated in testifying against the accused, full credence should be given to their
testimonies.23
ThecrossexaminationofVicente,Jr.shedslightonthematterofillmotive:
FiscalGlennSantos
QMr.witness,butpriortothisincidentdoyouknowthesepoliceofficersBoiser,LagosandMillari?
ANosir.
QSoit[is]safetoassumethatyoudonothaveanymisunderstandingormisgivingwiththesepoliceofficers,Mr.
witness?
ANone,sir.
QDuringtheincidentyousaidthatyouwerewiththe"balut"vendor?
A[Y]es,sir.
QButthe"balut"vendor[was]never[harmed]norarrestedbythesepoliceofficers?
ANosir.
QAndjustlikeyou,youclaimedthatyou[did]notcommitanythingthis"balut"vendordidnotcommitanycrime?
ANone,sir.
QButdespitethatyouwere[singled]outbythesepoliceofficersinarrestingandmaulingyou?
AYes,sir.
QWouldyouknowofanyreasonwhythesepoliceofficerswouldhurtyoufornoapparentreasonorarrestor
[charge]youforsellingshabu?
ANone,sir.24
NoclearandconvincingevidenceexistsintherecordstoshowthatVicente,Jr.sarrestingofficerswereimpelled
bymaliciousorillmotivesinbringinguptrumpedupchargesagainsthim.
Moreover, We take notice of Vicente, Jr.s belated objection to the alleged lapses committed by the buybust
team.Peoplev.Sta.Maria25doesnotsupportthismove:
The law excuses noncompliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse
the police officers involved in the buybust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain
unknown,becauseappellantdidnotquestionduringtrialthesafekeepingoftheitemsseizedfromhim.Indeed,
thepoliceofficersallegedviolationsofSections21and86ofRepublicActNo.9165werenotraisedbeforethe
trialcourtbutwereinsteadraisedforthefirsttimeonappeal.Innoinstancedidappellantleastintimateatthetrial
courtthattherewerelapsesinthesafekeepingofseizeditemsthataffectedtheirintegrityandevidentiaryvalue.
Objectiontoevidencecannotberaisedforthefirsttimeonappealwhenapartydesiresthecourttorejectthe
evidenceoffered,hemustsostateintheformofobjection.Withoutsuchobjectionhecannotraisethequestion
forthefirsttimeonappeal.
TheOSG,however,isincorrectinarguingthatthebuybustwasconductedonMarch31,2003,whiletheIRRof
RA9165tookeffectonlyonNovember27,2004.TheIRRofRA9165wasapprovedonAugust30,2002,andit
becameeffectiveuponitspublicationinthreenewspapersofgeneralcirculationandregistrationwiththeOfficeof
the National Administrative Register. It was published in the national newspaper Today on October 31, 2002 or
beforethebuybustagainstVicente,Jr.occurred.Thus,theIRRofRA9165isapplicabletothecaseofVicente,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_188847_2011.html

6/8

7/3/2015

G.R.No.188847

Jr.Yet,regardlessofthisargumentontheeffectivityofsaidIRR,Vicente,Jr.stillcannotcountonhisacquittal.
EvenwiththeeffectivityoftheIRRduringhisarrest,Weholdthatthechainofcustodyoftheseizeditemwasnot
broken in this case. We are not convinced that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence were
compromised.
AlibiasaDefense
AsVicente,Jr.sfinalargument,hereiteratesthatthecaseagainsthimwasallaframeup.Wefindhisexcuseall
toocommonandpoorlyargued.
Asthetrialcourtnoted:
x x x [T]he accused failed to secure a medical report to support his claim alleging that his relatives were
preventedfromgoingnearhim.Suchexcusedeservesscantconsideration.Also,hissilenceduringtheinquest
proceedingbecauseapolicemansimplyadvisedhimtoishighlysuspect.Finallyhisclaimthathedidnotfileany
action against the policemen who mauled him because of his fear for his life and that of his family is
questionable.26
Vicente, Jr.s testimony was, thus, labeled by the CA as "simply not corroborated by credible and convincing
evidence,"arequirementforthedefenseofframeuptogainmeritincourt.
PenaltyImposed
Vicente,Jr.wassentencedtolifeimprisonmentandthepaymentofaPhP500,000fine. Thisiswithintherange
providedinRA9165forthecrimeofillegalsaleofdrugs:
1 w p h i1

SEC.5.Sale,Trading,Administration,Dispensation,Delivery,DistributionandTransportationofDangerousDrugs
and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give
awaytoanother,distribute,dispatchintransitortransportanydangerousdrug,includinganyandallspeciesof
opiumpoppyregardlessofthequantityandpurityinvolved,orshallactasabrokerinanyofsuchtransactions.
We,thus,affirmthefindingsoftheappellatecourt.
WHEREFORE,theappealisDENIED.TheCADecisioninCAG.R.CRH.C.No.02699findingaccusedappellant
Vicente,Jr.guiltyoftheviolationchargedisAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
Chairperson
TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

JOSECATRALMENDOZA*
AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
beenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
*AdditionalmemberasperraffledatedJanuary26,2011.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_188847_2011.html

7/8

7/3/2015

G.R.No.188847

1CArollo,p.47.
2Id.at48.
3Id.
4Id.TherecordsdonotdivulgethecompletenamesofPO3MacarioandSPO2Millari.
5Id.
6Id.at4849.
7Records,p.103.
8Id.at105.
9Id.at107.
10Id.at168.
11CArollo,p.50.
12Id.at51.PennedbyJudgeFranchitoN.Diamante.
13 Rollo, p. 10. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos and concurred in by

AssociateJusticesMarianoC.DelCastillo(nowamemberofthisCourt)andMarleneGonzalesSison.
14Peoplev.DeLeon,G.R.No.186471,January25,2010,611SCRA118,133.
15Peoplev.Ara,G.R.No.185011,December23,2009,609SCRA304,325.
16Id.
17G.R.No.187737,July5,2010.
18TSN,January20,2004,pp.1822.
19TSN,April26,2004,pp.67.
20CArollo,p.50.
21Peoplev.Villamin,G.R.No.175590,February9,2010,612SCRA91,106.
22Peoplev.Tamayo,G.R.No.187070,February24,2010,613SCRA556,564.
23Peoplev.GumOyen,G.R.No.182231,April16,2009,585SCRA668,678.
24TSN,September12,2005,pp.1516.
25G.R.No.171019,February23,2007,516SCRA621,633634.
26CArollo,p.50.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_188847_2011.html

8/8