7/2/2014

People vs Echegaray : 117472 : June 25, 1996 : Per Curiam : En Banc

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 117472. June 25, 1996]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEO

ECHEGARAY y PILO, accused-appellant.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:

Amidst the endless debates on whether or not the reimposition of the death
penalty is indeed a deterrent as far as the commission of heinous crimes is
concerned and while the attendant details pertaining to the execution of a death
sentence remain as yet another burning issue, we are tasked with providing a clearcut resolution of whether or not the herein accused-appellant deserves to forfeit his
place in human society for the infliction of the primitive and bestial act of incestuous
lust on his own blood.
Before us for automatic review is the judgment of conviction, dated September 7,
1994, for the crime of Rape, rendered after marathon hearing by the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City, Branch 104, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused LEO ECHEGARAY Y PILO
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE as charged in the complaint, aggravated by
the fact that the same was committed by the accused who is the father/stepfather of the
complainant, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH, as provided for under RA.
No. 7659; to pay the complainant Rodessa Echegaray the sum of P50,000.00 as damages, plus
all the accessory penalties provided by law, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
and to pay the costs."[1]
We note, however, that the charge had been formulated in this manner:
"C O M P L A I N T
The undersigned accuses LEO ECHEGARAY Y PILO of the crime of RAPE, committed as
follows:
That on or about the month of April 1994, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused,
by means of force and intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge of the undersigned complainant his daughter, a minor, 10 years of age, all
against her will and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jun1996/117472.htm

1/10

7/2/2014

People vs Echegaray : 117472 : June 25, 1996 : Per Curiam : En Banc

CONTRARY TO LAW."[2]
Upon being arraigned on August 1, 1994, the accused-appellant, assisted by his
counsel de oficio, entered the plea of "not guilty."
These are the pertinent facts of the case as summarized by the Solicitor-General
in his brief:
"This is a case of rape by the father of his ten-year old daughter.
Complainant RODESSA ECHEGARAY is a ten-year old girl and a fifth-grader, born on
September 11, 1983. Rodessa is the eldest of five siblings. She has three brothers aged 6, 5 and
2, respectively, and a 3-month old baby sister. Her parents are Rosalie and Leo Echegaray, the
latter being the accused-appellant himself. The victim lives with her family in a small house located
at No. 199 Fernandez St., Barangay San Antonio, San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City (pp.
5-9, Aug. 9, 1994, TSN).
Sometime in the afternoon of April 1994, while Rodessa was looking after her three brothers in
their house as her mother attended a gambling session in another place, she heard her father, the
accused-appellant in this case, order her brothers to go out of the house (pp. 10-11, ibid.). As
soon as her brothers left, accused-appellant Leo Echegaray approached Rodessa and suddenly
dragged her inside the room (p. 12, ibid). Before she could question the appellant, the latter
immediately removed her panty and made her lie on the floor (p. 13, ibid.). Thereafter, appellant
likewise removed his underwear and immediately placed himself on top of Rodessa.
Subsequently, appellant forcefully inserted his penis into Rodessa's organ causing her to suffer
intense pain (pp. 14-15, ibid.). While appellant was pumping on her, he even uttered: 'Masarap
ba, masarap ba?' and to which Rodessa answered: 'Tama na Papa, masakit' (p. 16, ibid.).
Rodessa's plea proved futile as appellant continued with his act. After satisfying his bestial instinct,
appellant threatened to kill her mother if she would divulge what had happened. Scared that her
mother would be killed by appellant, Rodessa kept to herself the ordeal she suffered. She was
very afraid of appellant because the latter, most of the time, was high on drugs (pp. 17-18, ibid.).
The same sexual assault happened up to the fifth time and this usually took place when her mother
was out of the house (p. 19, ibid.). However, after the fifth time, Rodessa decided to inform her
grandmother, Asuncion Rivera, who in turn told Rosalie, Rodessa's mother. Rodessa and her
mother proceeded to the Barangay Captain where Rodessa confided the sexual assaults she
suffered. Thereafter, Rodessa was brought to the precinct where she executed an affidavit (p. 21,
ibid.). From there, she was accompanied to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for
medical examination (p. 22, ibid.).
Rodessa testified that the said sexual assaults happened only during the time when her mother was
pregnant. Rodessa added that at first, her mother was on her side. However, when appellant was
detained, her mother kept on telling her: 'Kawawa naman ang Tatay mo, nakakulong' (pp. 39-40,
ibid.).
When Rodessa was examined by the medico-legal officer in the person of Dra. Ma. Cristina B.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jun1996/117472.htm

2/10

7/2/2014

People vs Echegaray : 117472 : June 25, 1996 : Per Curiam : En Banc

Preyna,[3] the complainant was described as physically on a non-virgin state, as evidenced by the
presence of laceration of the hymen of said complainant (TSN., Aug. 22,1995, pp. 8-9)."[4]
On the other hand, the accused-appellant's brief presents a different story:
"x x x the defense presented its first witness, Rosalie Echegaray. She asserted that the RAPE
charge against the accused was only the figment of her mother's dirty mind. That her daughter's
complaint was forced upon her by her grandma and the answers in the sworn statement of
Rodessa were coached. That the accusation of RAPE was motivated by Rodessa's
grandmother's greed over the lot situated at the Madrigal Estate-NHA Project, Barangay San
Antonio, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, which her grandmother's paramour, Conrado
Alfonso gave to the accused in order to persuade the latter to admit that Rodessa executed an
affidavit of desistance after it turned out that her complaint of attempted homicide was substituted
with the crime of RAPE at the instance of her mother. That when her mother came to know about
the affidavit of desistance, she placed her granddaughter under the custody of the Barangay
Captain. That her mother was never a real mother to her.
She stated that her complaint against accused was for attempted homicide as her husband poured
alcohol on her body and attempted to burn her. She identified the certification issued by the NHA
and Tag No. 87-0393 (Exh. 2). That the Certification based on the Masterlist (Exh. 3) indicates
that the property is co-owned by accused and Conrado Alfonso. That Rodessa is her daughter
sired by Conrado Alfonso, the latter being the paramour of her mother. That Conrado Alfonso
waived his right and participation over the lot in favor of the accused in consideration of the latter's
accepting the fact that he is the father of Rodessa to simulate the love triangle and to conceal the
nauseating sex orgies from Conrado Alfonso's real Wife.
Accused testified in his behalf and stated that the grandmother of the complainant has a very strong
motive in implicating him to the crime of RAPE since she was interested to become the sole owner
of a property awarded to her live-in partner by the Madrigal Estate-NHA Project. That he could
not have committed the imputed crime because he considers Rodessa as his own daughter. That
he is a painter-contractor and on the date of the alleged commission of the crime, he was painting
the house of one Divina Ang of Barangay Vitalis, Paraaque, Metro Manila (Exh 4). The travel
time between his work place to his residence is three (3) hours considering the condition of traffic.
That the painting contract is evidenced by a document denominated 'Contract of Services' duly
accomplished (see submarkings of Exh. 4). He asserted that he has a big sexual organ which
when used to a girl 11 years old like Rodessa, the said female organ will be 'mawawarak.' That it
is abnormal to report the imputed commission of the crime to the grandmother of the victim.
Accused further stated that her(sic) mother-in-law trumped-up a charge of drug pushing earlier
and he pleaded guilty to a lesser offense of using drugs. The decretal portion of the judgment of
conviction ordering the accused to be confined at the Bicutan Rehabilitation Center irked the
grandmother of Rodessa because it was her wish that accused should be meted the death penalty.
Accused remain steadfast in his testimony perorating the strong motive of Rodessa's grandmother
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jun1996/117472.htm

3/10

7/2/2014

People vs Echegaray : 117472 : June 25, 1996 : Per Curiam : En Banc

in implicating him in this heinous crime because of her greed to become the sole owner of that
piece of property at the National Housing Authority-Madrigal Project, situated at San Francisco
del Monte, Quezon City, notwithstanding rigid cross-examination. He asserted that the imputed
offense is far from his mind considering that he treated Rodessa as his own daughter. He
categorically testified that he was in his painting job site on the date and time of the alleged
commission of the crime.
Mrs. Punzalan was presented as third defense witness. She said that she is the laundry woman
and part time baby sitter of the family of accused. That at one time, she saw Rodessa reading sex
books and the Bulgar newspaper. That while hanging washed clothes on the vacant lot she saw
Rodessa masturbating by tinkering her private parts. The masturbation took sometime.
This sexual fling of Rodessa were corroborated by Silvestra Echegaray, the fourth and last witness
for the defense. She stated that she tried hard to correct the flirting tendency of Rodessa and that
she scolded her when she saw Rodessa viewing an X-rated tape. Rodessa according to her was
fond of going with friends of ill-repute. That (sic) she corroborated the testimony of Mrs Punzalan
by stating that she herself saw Rodessa masturbating inside the room of her house."[5]
In finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
rape, the lower court dismissed the defense of alibi and lent credence to the
straightforward testimony of the ten-year old victim to whom no ill motive to testify
falsely against accused-appellant can be attributed. The lower court likewise
regarded as inconsequential the defense of the accused-appellant that the
extraordinary size of his penis could not have insinuated itself into the victim's vagina
and that the accused is not the real father of the said victim.
The accused-appellant now reiterates his position in his attempt to seek a
reversal of the lower court's verdict through the following assignment of errors:
1. THE LOWER COURT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE SINISTER MOTIVE OF
PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S GRANDMOTHER THAT PRECIPITATED THE
FILING OF THE CHARGE OF RAPE, HENCE IT ERRED IN HOLDING
ACCUSED GUILTY AS CHARGED.
2.

THE COURT BELOW OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT THE HEALED

LACERATIONS AT 3 AND 7 O'CLOCK COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DUE TO
THE PUMPING OF THE PENIS OF ACCUSED TO THE VAGINA OF PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT, HENCE IT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ACCUSED
COMMITTED THE CRIME CHARGED, NOTWITHSTANDING VEHEMENT
DENIAL.

3. THE COURT A QUO WHIMSICALLY IGNORED THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI

THAT ACCUSED WAS IN PARAAQUE ON THE DATE AND TIME OF THE
IMPUTED CRIME HENCE, IT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ALIBI IS NOT
SUSTAINABLE IN THE CASE AT BAR."[6]

Considering that a rape charge, in the light of the reimposition of the death
penalty, requires a thorough and judicious examination of the circumstances relating
thereto, this Court remains guided by the following principles in evaluating evidence in
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jun1996/117472.htm

4/10

7/2/2014

People vs Echegaray : 117472 : June 25, 1996 : Per Curiam : En Banc

cases of this nature: (a) An accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult
to prove but more difficult for the accused though innocent to disprove; (b) In view of
the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are involved, the
testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) The
evidence for the prosecution must stand and fall on its own merits, and cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense."[7]
Anent the first assigned error, no amount of persuasion can convince this Court to
tilt the scales of justice in favor of the accused-appellant notwithstanding that he cries
foul insisting that the rape charge was merely concocted and strongly motivated by
greed over a certain lot situated at the NHA-Madrigal Estate Housing Project,
Barangay San Antonio, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City. The accusedappellant theorizes that prosecution witness Asuncion Rivera, the maternal
grandmother of the victim Rodessa, concocted the charge of rape so that, in the event
that the accused-appellant shall be meted out a death sentence, title to the lot will be
consolidated in her favor. Indeed, the lot in question is co-owned by the accusedappellant and Conrado Alfonso, the live-in partner of Asuncion Rivera, according to
the records of the National Housing Authority (Exh. "3"). The accused-appellant would
want us to believe that the rape charge was fabricated by Asuncion Rivera in order to
eliminate the accused-appellant from being a co-owner. So, the live-in partners would
have the property for their own.[8]
We believe, as did the Solicitor-General, that no grandmother would be so callous
as to instigate her 10-year old granddaughter to file a rape case against her own
father simply on account of her alleged interest over the disputed lot.[9]
It is a well-entrenched jurisprudential rule that the testimony of a rape victim is
credible where she has no motive to testify against the accused.[10]
We find no flaws material enough to discredit the testimony of the ten-year old
Rodessa which the trial court found convincing enough and unrebutted by the
defense. The trial court not surprisingly noted that Rodessa's narration in detail of her
father's monstrous acts had made her cry.[11] Once again, we rule that:
"x x x The testimony of the victim who was only 12 years old at the time of the rape as to the
circumstances of the rape must be given weight for testimony of young and immature rape victims
are credible (People v. Guibao, 217 SCRA 64 [1993]). No woman especially one of tender age,
practically only a girl, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private
parts and thereafter expose herself to a public trial, if she were not motivated solely by the desire
to have the culprit apprehended and punished (People v. Guibao, supra)."[12]
The accused-appellant points out certain inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses in his attempt to bolster his claim that the rape accusation
against him is malicious and baseless. Firstly, Rodessa's testimony that the accusedappellant was already naked when he dragged her inside the room is inconsistent with
her subsequent testimony that the said accused-appellant was still wearing short
pants when she was dragged inside the room. Secondly, Rodessa's sworn statement
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jun1996/117472.htm

5/10

7/2/2014

People vs Echegaray : 117472 : June 25, 1996 : Per Curiam : En Banc

before the police investigator which indicated that, while the accused was executing
pumping acts, he uttered the words "Masarap ba?", differ from her testimony in court
wherein she related that when the accused took out his penis from her vagina, the
accused said "Masarap, tapos na." Thirdly, the victim's grandmother, Asuncion
Rivera, recounted in her sworn statement that it was the accused who went to see her
to apprise her of the rape committed on her granddaughter. However, in her
testimony in court, Asuncion Rivera claimed that she was the one who invited the
accused-appellant to see her in her house so as to tell her a secret.[13] These alleged
discrepancies merely pertain to minor details which in no way pose serious doubt as
to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Whether or not the accused was naked
when he dragged Rodessa inside the room where he sexually assaulted her bears no
significant effect on Rodessa's testimony that she was actually raped by the accusedappellant. Moreover, a conflicting account of whatever words were uttered by the
accused-appellant after he forcefully inserted his penis into Rodessa's private organ
against her will cannot impair the prosecution's evidence as a whole. A determination
of which version earmarks the truth as to how the victim's grandmother learned about
the rape is inconsequential to the judgment of conviction.
As we have pronounced in the case of People v. Jaymalin:[14]
"This Court has stated time and again that minor inconsistencies in the narration of a
witness do not detract from its essential credibility as long as it is on the whole coherent
and intrinsically believable. Inaccuracies may in fact suggest that the witness is telling the
truth and has not been rehearsed as it is not to be expected that he will be able to remember
every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall."
After due deliberation, this Court finds that the trial judge's assessment of the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses deserves our utmost respect in the absence of
arbitrariness.
With respect to the second assigned error, the records of the instant case are
bereft of clear and concrete proof of the accused-appellant's claim as to the size of his
penis and that if that be the fact, it could not have merely caused shallow healed
lacerations at 3:00 and 7:00 o'clock.[15] In his testimony, the accused- appellant stated
that he could not have raped Rodessa because of the size of his penis which could
have ruptured her vagina had he actually done so.[16] This Court gives no probative
value on the accused-appellant's self-serving statement in the light of our ruling in the
case of People v. Melivo, supra,[17] that:
"The vaginal wall and the hymenal membrane are elastic organs capable of varying degrees of
distensibility. The degree of distensibility of the female reproductive organ is normally limited only
by the character and size of the pelvic inlet, other factors being minor. The female reproductive
canal being capable of allowing passage of a regular fetus, there ought to be no difficulty allowing
the entry of objects of much lesser size, including the male reproductive organ, which even in its
largest dimensions, would still be considerably smaller than the full-term fetus.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jun1996/117472.htm

6/10

7/2/2014

People vs Echegaray : 117472 : June 25, 1996 : Per Curiam : En Banc

xxx

xxx

xxx

In the case at bench, the presence of healed lacerations in various parts of the vaginal wall,
though not as extensive as appellant might have expected them to be, indicate traumatic
injury to the area within the period when the incidents were supposed to have occurred."
(At pp. 13-14, Italics supplied)
In rape cases, a broken hymen is not an essential element thereof.[18] A mere
knocking at the doors of the pudenda, so to speak, by the accused's penis suffices to
constitute the crime of rape as full entry into the victim's vagina is not required to
sustain a conviction.[19] In the case, Dr. Freyra, the medico-legal examiner,
categorically testified that the healed lacerations of Rodessa on her vagina were
consistent with the date of the commission of the rape as narrated by the victim to
have taken place in April, 1994.[20]
Lastly, the third assigned error deserves scant consideration. The accusedappellant erroneously argues that the Contract of Services (Exhibit 4) offered as
evidence in support of the accused-appellant's defense of alibi need not be
corroborated because there is no law expressly requiring so.[21] In view of our finding
that the prosecution witnesses have no motive to falsely testify against the accusedappellant, the defense of alibi, in this case, uncorroborated by other witnesses, should
be completely disregarded.[22] More importantly, the defense of alibi which is
inherently weak becomes even weaker in the face of positive identification of the
accused-appellant as perpetrator of the crime of rape by his victim, Rodessa.[23]
The Contract of Services whereby the accused-appellant obligated himself to do
some painting Job at the house of one Divina Ang in Paranaque, Metro Manila, within
25 days from April 4, 1994, is not proof of the whereabouts of the accused-appellant
at the time of the commission of the offense.
The accused-appellant in this case is charged with Statutory Rape on the basis of
the complaint, dated July 14, 1994. The gravamen of the said offense, as stated in
paragraph 3, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, is the carnal knowledge of a
woman below twelve years old.[24] Rodessa positively identified his father accusedappellant, succeeded in consummating his grievous and odious sexual assault on her
is free from any substantial self-contradiction. It is highly inconceivable that it is
rehearsed and fabricated upon instructions from Rodessa's maternal grandmother
Asuncion Rivera as asserted by the accused-appellant. The words of Chief Justice
Enrique M. Fernando, speaking for the Court, more than two decades ago, are
relevant and worth reiterating, thus:
"x x x it is manifest in the decisions of this Court that where the offended parties are young and
immature girls like the victim in this case, (Cited cases omitted) there is marked receptivity on its
part to lend credence to their version of what transpired. It is not to be wondered at. The state,
as parens patria, is under the obligation to minimize the risk of harm to those, who, because of
their minority, are as yet unable to take care of themselves fully. Those of tender years deserve its
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jun1996/117472.htm

7/10

7/2/2014

People vs Echegaray : 117472 : June 25, 1996 : Per Curiam : En Banc

utmost protection. Moreover, the injury in cases of rape is not inflicted on the unfortunate victim
alone. The consternation it causes her family must also be taken into account. It may reflect a
failure to abide by the announced concern in the fundamental law for such institution. There is all
the more reason then for the rigorous application of the penal law with its severe penalty for this
offense, whenever warranted. It has been aptly remarked that with the advance in civilization, the
disruption in public peace and order it represents defies explanation, much more so in view of
what currently appears to be a tendency for sexual permissiveness. Where the prospects of
relationship based on consent are hardly minimal, self-restraint should even be more marked."[25]
Under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 often referred to as the Death Penalty
Law, Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code was amended, to wit:
"The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the
following attendant circumstances:
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.
xxx

xxx

xxx

(Italics supplied)
Apparently, as a last glimpse of hope, the accused-appellant questions the
penalty imposed by the trial court by declaring that he is neither a father, stepfather or
grandfather of Rodessa although he was a confirmed lover of Rodessa's mother.[26]
On direct examination, he admitted that before the charge of rape was filed against
him, he had treated Rodessa as his real daughter and had provided for her food,
clothing, shelter and education.[27] The Court notes that Rodessa uses the surname of
the accused-appellant, not Rivera (her mother's maiden name) nor Alfonso (her
grandmother's live-in partner). Moreover, Rodessa's mother stated during the crossexamination that she, the accused-appellant and her five children, including Rodessa,
had been residing in one house only.[28] At any rate, even if he were not the father,
stepfather or grandfather of Rodessa, this disclaimer cannot save him from the abyss
where perpetrators of heinous crimes ought to be, as mandated by law. Considering
that the accused-appellant is a confirmed lover of Rodessa's mother,[29] he falls
squarely within the aforequoted portion of the Death Penalty Law under the term
"common-law spouse of the parent of the victim."
The fact that the ten-year old Rodessa referred to the accused-appellant as
"Papa" is reason enough to conclude that accused-appellant is either the father or
stepfather of Rodessa. Thus, the act of sexual assault perpetrated by the accused on
his young victim has become all the more repulsive and perverse. The victim's tender
age and the accused-appellant's moral ascendancy and influence over her are factors
which forced Rodessa to succumb to the accused's selfish and bestial craving. The
law has made it inevitable under the circumstances of this case that the accusedhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jun1996/117472.htm

8/10

7/2/2014

People vs Echegaray : 117472 : June 25, 1996 : Per Curiam : En Banc

appellant face the supreme penalty of death.

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City, Branch 104.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno,
Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban, and Torres,
Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Records, p. 53.
[2] Records, p. 1.
[3] The name of the medico-legal officer as per Medico-Legal Report No. M-0980-94 (Exhibit "6") reads

Ma. Cristina B. Freyra.

[4] Rollo, pp. 87-90.
[5] Rollo, pp. 45-48.
[6] Rollo, p. 49.
[7] People v. Apolonio Melivo y Valete, G.R. No. 113029, promulgated on Feb. 8, 1996, citing People

v. Matrimonio, 215 SCRA [1992]; People v. Aldana, 175 SCRA 635 [1989]; People v. Capilitan, 182
SCRA 313 [1990].
[8] TSN., August 30, 1994, p. 13.
[9] Rollo, p. 93.
[10] People v. Matamorosa, 231 SCRA 509, 515 [1994], citing People v. Palicte, 229 SCRA 543

[1994]; and People v. Cabilao, 210 SCRA 326 [1992].

[11] RTC Decision, p. 6; Records, p. 50.
[12] People v. Espinoza, 247 SCRA 66, 72-73 [1995].
[13] Rollo, pp. 53-54.
[14] 214 SCRA 685-690-691 [1992], citing People v. Ansing (196 SCRA 374 [1991]).
[15] Rollo, p. 58.
[16] TSN., August 30, 1994, p. 19.
[17] See note No. 7.
[18] People v. Salinas, 232 SCRA 274, 278-279 [1994]; People v. Madrilano, 227 SCRA 363, [1993].
[19] People v. Abella, 228 SCRA 662, 666 [1993]; People v. Tesimo, 204 SCRA 535, 555-556 [1991];

People v. Castillo, 197 SCRA 657, 662 [1991].

[20] TSN., August 22, 1994, pp. 8-9.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jun1996/117472.htm

9/10

7/2/2014

People vs Echegaray : 117472 : June 25, 1996 : Per Curiam : En Banc

[21] Rollo, p. 65.

[22] People v. Gapasan, 243 SCRA 53, 62 [1995].
[23] People v. Torres, 247 SCRA 212, 217 [1995]; People v. Tayco, 235 SCRA 610, 521 [1995]; People

v. Molina, 213 SCRA 52, 65 [1992].

[24] People v. Samillano, 207 SCRA 50, 53-54 [1992] citing People v. Alegado, 201 SCRA 37 [1991];

People v. Puedan, 196 SCRA 388 [1991]; People v. Mangalinao, 182 SCRA 329 [1990].
[25] People v. Baylon, 57 SCRA 114,120-121 [1974] see also People v. Cabadas, 208 SCRA 787, 794

[1992]; People v. Sulte, 232 SCRA 421, 425 [1994].

[26] Rollo, p. 38.
[27] TSN., August 30, 1994, p. 13, 15-16.
[28] TSN., August 29, 1994, pp. 28-29.
[29] Rollo, p. 50.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jun1996/117472.htm

10/10