ENBANC

PEOPLEOFTHE
PHILIPPINES,
PlaintiffAppellee,

versus

JOSELITOA.LOPIT,
AccusedAppellant.

G.R.No.177742

Present:
PUNO,C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARESSANTIAGO,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
CORONA*,

CARPIOMORALES,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICONAZARIO,
VELASCO,JR.,
NACHURA,
REYES
LEONARDODE
CASTRO,
andBRION,JJ.

Promulgated:

December17,2008
xx

DECISION

LEONARDODECASTRO,J.:

[1]
BeforeusonautomaticreviewistheDecision oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)dated
June 30, 2006 in CAG.R. CRH.C. No. 01896 which affirmed, with modifications, the
[2]
decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulanao, Tabuk, Kalinga, Branch 25, in
CriminalCaseNo.852003,findinghereinaccusedappellantguiltybeyondreasonabledoubt
ofthecrimeofQualifiedRapecommittedagainst his own daughter and sentencing him to
suffertheextremepenaltyofdeath.

[3]
Consistent with People v. Cabalquinto, the Court withholds the real name of the
rape victim. Instead, fictitious initials ofAAA are used to represent her. Also, the personal

circumstancesofthevictimoranyotherinformationtendingtoestablishorcompromiseher
identity,aswellasthoseofherimmediatefamilyorhouseholdmembers,isnotdisclosedin
[4]
thisdecision. Inthisregard,themotherisreferredtoasBBB.

[5]
Inthree(3)separateInformations datedSeptember15,2003,accusedappellantwas
chargedwiththree(3)countsofrapecommittedagainsthisown14yearolddaughterAAA
on September 5, 7, and 9, 2003. Except for the dates of the commission of the crime, the
Informationswereidenticallyworded,thus:

CRIM.CASENO.852003
The undersigned accuses [accusedappellant], a detention prisoner at the PNP of
Tabuk, of the crime of RAPE, defined and penalized under Republic Act Numbered 8353,
committedasfollows:

That on or about September 5, 2003 at San Julian, Tabuk, Kalinga, and within the
jurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theaccused,throughforce,threatandintimidation,did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of her daughter
[AAA],whoisaminor,fourteen(14)yearsofage,againstherwill.

[6]
CONTRARYTOLAW.

OnNovember4,2003,accusedappellant,dulyassistedbyAtty.MarcelinoK.Wacas
ofthePublicAttorneysOffice(PAO),enteredapleaofnotguiltyinCriminalCaseNos.85
[7]
2003,862003and872003.

OnNovember10,2003,thePAOlawyerverballymovedtoberelievedascounselfor
accusedappellantandwiththelattersconcurrence,themotionwasgranted.Inhisstead,Atty.
DanielDapegoftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippinesLegalAidPilotProjectwasappointed
[8]
asaccusedappellantscounseldeoficio.

During the pretrial conference held on November 12, 2003, accusedappellant,

assisted by counsel, manifested his desire to pleabargain. In open court, he expressed
willingness to plead guilty in Criminal Case No. 852003, on the condition that the
Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 862003 and 872003 be withdrawn. Victim AAA,
assistedbyhermotherBBBandtheprovincialprosecutor,expressedherconformitythereto.
[9]

Thus,accusedappellantenteredanewpleaofguiltytothecrimeofrapeinCriminal
[10]
CaseNo.852003.
Thiswasdonewiththeassistanceofcounseldeoficio and after the
trialcourtconductedsearchinginquiryintothevoluntarinessandfullcomprehensionofthe
consequencesoftheaccusedappellantsplea.

Thereafter,thetrialcourtcommencedwiththereceptionofevidencetoproveaccused
appellantsguiltanddegreeofculpability.

The prosecution presented the victimAAA and her mother BBB as witnesses, while
accusedappellanttestifiedonhisowndefense.

Aftertrial,thecourtaquorendereditsDecisiononNovember28,2003imposingupon
theaccusedappellantthesupremepenaltyofdeaththus:

Accordingly, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused guilty beyond

reasonabledoubtofthecrimeofrapeattendantthequalifyingandaggravatingcircumstances
of minority and relationship, victim [AAA] being 15 years old and daughter of [accused
appellant] and hereby sentences the said accused the supreme penalty of death and to
indemnifyminorvictimP75,000.00,bywayofcivilindemnity,moraldamagesintheamount
ofP100,000.00andP50,000.00bywayofexemplarydamages,pluscost.

TransmittherecordofthecasetotheOfficeoftheClerkofCourt,SupremeCourtof
thePhilippinesforreview.

[11]
SOORDERED.

TherecordsofthesecaseswereforwardedtothisCourtforautomaticreview,inview
ofthedeathpenaltyimposed.

[12]
In our Resolution
of August 10, 2004, We accepted the appeal and directed the
Chief,JudicialRecordsOffice,tosendnoticestothepartiestofiletheirrespectivebriefsand
totheDirectoroftheBureauofCorrections,toconfirmthedetentionoftheaccusedatthe
[13]
National Penitentiary. Accusedappellant filed his Appellant's Brief
on April 11, 2005,
while the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed its Appellee's
[14]
Brief
onMay31,2005.

[15]
Conformably with this Courts decision in People v. Mateo,
accusedappellants
appealbywayofautomaticreviewwastransferredtotheCAwhereitwasdocketedas CA

G.R.CRH.C.No.01896.

Theprosecution,throughthetestimoniesofthevictim(AAA)andwitness(BBB),the
victimsmother,establishedthefollowingfacts:

[AAA], then fourteen (14) years old having been born on October 2, 1988, is the
daughterofthe[accusedappellant]andBBB,abarangaymidwifetheyweremarriedonMay
10,1986.On September 5, 2003 at around 2:00 in the afternoon, [AAA], a third year high
schoolstudentatTabukNationalHighSchoolwasintheirhousetogetherwithhermentally
retardedsisterCCC.Atthattime,theirmother[BBB]wasinSanJulianElementary School.
Suddenly[AAA]sfather[accusedappellant],afarmer,arriveddrunkandforcedthevictimto
havesexualintercoursewithhim.Shestruggledbuthereffortswereinvainsince[accused
appellant] was strong. [Accusedappellant] removed his pants and pinned the victim on the
bed,pulleddownherpantsandinsertedhispenisintohervagina.[AAA]cried.After doing
the bestial act, [accusedappellant] left but not before threatening [AAA] that he would kill
her,hermotherandsiblingsifshereportedthematter.Asfurthertestifiedbythevictim,she
hadbeensleepingwithherfatheronthecementflooroftheirunfinishedhouseforsometime
andthatherfatherstartedstayingwiththemonlyin2002sincehehadbeenstayinginLaguna
asasoldierinthePhilippineArmy.

Terrified and disgusted by what happened to her, the victim left home on September
10, 2003. She stayed in the house of Rita Carbonel in San Francisco, Tabuk, Kalinga. On
September11,2003,[BBB]camelookingforheranditwasonlythenthatthevictimrevealed
thesexualassaultscommittedbyherfather.Withoutdelay,[BBB]accompaniedherdaughter
tothepoliceheadquarterswherethevictimsstatementwastaken.
[BBB] testified that she and [accusedappellant] were married on May 10, 1986 at
Calanasan,Cagayan.Althoughshedidnotpresentanydocumenttoprovesuchassertionnor
did she expressly and categorically state that [accusedappellant] was the victims father, the
victim repeatedly referred to [accusedappellant] as her father all throughout her testimony.
Theirrelationshipwasneverrefutedbythe[accusedappellant]whoinfactadmittedinopen
courtthat[AAA]wasoneofhisdaughters.

Ontheotherhand,accusedappellanttestifiedonhisownversionoftheeventswhich
transpiredonSeptember5,2003:

For his part, [accusedappellant] testified that on September 5, 2003, he came home
drunk and fell asleep naked on the cemented floor that he was awakened when someone
placedamatandablanketforhim.Hethoughtthathisdaughterwashiswife,sohehadsex
withher. [Accusedappellant] manifested remorse and declared that he pleaded guilty as he
hadnomoneytofighthiscasealsotosecureareductionofthepenaltythatwillbeimposed
onhim.

On June 30, 2006, the CA promulgated the herein challenged decision affirming in
mostpartthedecisionofthetrialcourtwithmodificationonlyintheamountoftheawardof
moralandexemplarydamages.Pertinently,theCAdecisionreadsinpart:

Withrespecttothecivilaspectofthecrimes,Wesustaintheawardofcivilindemnityinthe
amount of P75,000.00 since rape was committed in its qualified form. However, the trial
courtsawardofP100,000.00asmoraldamagesandP50,000.00asexemplarydamagesmust

bemodified.Inlinewithexistingjurisprudence,theawardofmoraldamagesshouldbeinthe
amount of P75,000.00, without need of further proof. Likewise, exemplary damages is
reducedtoP25,000.00inlinewithexistingjurisprudence.

A final note: Notwithstanding current moves for the abolition of the death penalty, no
legislationorruleshaveyetbeenpromulgatedrelativetheretoasofthetimeofthewritingof
hisDecision,henceWeareconstrainedtoaffirmthepenaltyimposedbythecourtaquowhich
Wefindtobeconformabletothefactsandexistinglaw.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED

with MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages is reduced to P75,000.00 and
exemplary damages to P25,000.00 or a total of P175,000.00. Let the record of this case be
elevatedtotheHonorableSupremeCourtforreviewpursuanttoRule124,Section13ofthe
RevisedRulesonCriminalProcedureasamendedbyA.M.No.00503SC.

SOORDERED.

On April 23, 2007, the CA forwarded the records of the case to this Court for automatic
[16]
review.

[17]
IntheResolution
datedJune 26, 2007, We required the parties to simultaneously
submittheirrespectivesupplementalbriefs.However,thepartiesfiledseparatemanifestations
statingthattheywerewaivingthefilingofsupplementalbriefsandinsteadoptedtostandby
theirrespectivebriefsfiledwiththeCA.

InhisBrief,accusedappellantallegedthatthetrialcourtgravelyerredinimposingonhim
thesupremepenaltyofdeath.

Beforedelvingintothemainissueofthecase,itisnecessarytodeterminewhetherthe
trial court has satisfied the requirement as mandated by Rule 116 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure,whichprovides:

SEC. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense reception of evidence. When the accused
pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the
voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the
prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may also
presentevidenceonhisbehalf.

Explicitly,whentheaccusedpleadsguiltytoacapitaloffense,thecourtshallconducta
searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his
pleaandrequiretheprosecutiontoprovehisguiltandtheprecisedegreeofhisculpability.
Theaccusedmayalsopresentevidenceonhisbehalf.UndertheforegoingRule,threethings
areenjoineduponthetrialcourtwhenapleaofguiltytoacapitaloffenseisentered:(1)the

court must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness of the plea and the accused's
fullcomprehensionoftheconsequencesthereof(2)thecourtmustrequiretheprosecutionto
presentevidencetoprovetheguiltoftheaccusedandtheprecisedegreeofhisculpability
and (3) the court must ask the accused if he desires to present evidence on his behalf and
[18]
allowhimtodosoifhedesires.

[19]
WeexplainedtherationaleoftheruleinPeoplev.Albert,
thus:

The rationale behind the rule is that courts must proceed with more care where the
possiblepunishmentisinitsseverestformdeathforthereasonthattheexecutionofsucha
sentenceisirrevocableandexperiencehasshownthatinnocentpersonshaveattimespleaded
guilty.The primordial purpose then is to avoid improvident pleas of guilt on the part of an
accusedwhengravecrimesareinvolvedsincehemightbeadmittinghisguiltbeforethecourt
andthusforfeithislifeandlibertywithouthavingfullyunderstoodthemeaning,significance
andconsequencesofhisplea.Moreover,therequirementoftakingfurtherevidencewouldaid
theSupremeCourtonappellatereviewindeterminingtheproprietyorimproprietyoftheplea.

It is not enough to inquire as to the voluntariness of the plea the court must explain
fullytotheaccusedthatonceconvicted,hecouldbemetedthedeathpenaltythatdeathisa
singleandindivisiblepenaltyandwillbeimposedregardlessofanymitigatingcircumstance
that may have attended the commission of the felony. Thus, the importance of the courts
obligation cannot be overemphasized, for one cannot dispel the possibility that the accused
mayhavebeenledtobelievethatduetohisvoluntarypleaofguilty,hemaybeimposeda
[20]
lesserpenalty,
whichwaspreciselywhathappenedhere.

Thetrialcourtprofferedthefollowingquestionstoaccusedappellanttodeterminethe
[21]
voluntarinessandfullcomprehensionofhischangeofpleafromnotguiltytoguilty,thus:

COURT

QMr. Lopit y Abulao you have been arraigned yesterday with the Information for Rape in
Criminal Case No. 852003, did you confer with your newly designated counsel de
oficioregardingyourplea?

WITNESS

AYes,YourHonor.
QAfterhavingbeenconfer(sic)withhimthatyouenteredapleaofguiltyfortheInformation
ofRapeyouvoluntarydone(sic)ofyourownperception?
AYes,YourHonor.

QWillyoutellusthereasonwhyyouhavepleadedguiltytotheoffense?
AIhavenomoneytofightmycase,YourHonor.

QIsthatthereasonwhyyouhaveadmittedorbecauseyouarerepentingfortheintentionyou
havecommitted?

AThatistheonlyreason,YourHonor.

QAreyoutellingusthatyoudidnotrapeyourdaughter?
ANo,YourHonor.

QIfyoudidnotrapeyourdaughter,whydidyoupleadguilty?
AAtty.Wagastoldmetoadmitonecaseinordertoreducethepenalty,YourHonor.

Q In fact there are three (3) Criminal Cases for Rape allotted against you involving your
daughter,isthatcorrect?
AYes,YourHonor.

QDidyoubelievethatbeneficialtoyoutoadmitone?
AYes,YourHonor.

QAndthatisthereasonyoupleadedguilty?
AYes,YourHonor.

QIsitnotthereforethelackofmoneythattofightacaseandpromptedyoutopleaofguilty?
AYes,bothYourHonor.

QSoitisthereason?
[22]
AYesYourHonor.

Clearly, Section 3, Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure was not
satisfactorilycompliedwith.Thetrialcourtshouldhavetakenthenecessarymeasurestosee
toitthataccusedappellantreallyandfreelycomprehendedthemeaning,fullsignificanceand
consequences of his plea but it did not. It failed to explain to accusedappellant that the
penalty imposable for the crime attended by the qualifying circumstance of minority and
filiation,asallegedintheInformationagainsthim,isdeath,whetherornothepleadsguilty
and regardless of the presence of other mitigating circumstances. Accusedappellants
justificationthathehadnomoneytodefendhiscaseandhisbeliefthatthepenaltywouldbe
reducedifhepleadedguiltywerenotsufficientreasonsforthetrialcourttoallowachangeof
pleafromnotguiltytooneofguilty.Itwasthedutyofthejudgetoseetoitthattheaccused
didnotlaborunderthismistakenimpression.

Still, the trial courts shortcomings will not necessarily result in accusedappellants
acquittal. The evidence for the prosecution, independently of accusedappellants plea of
guilty, adequately established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt as charged in the
Informations. The testimony of the victim AAA is worthy of belief and enough to convict
accusedappellant. She testified in a candid, straightforward and categorical manner. She
narratedinopencourtthatonSeptember5,2003, she was ravished by her own father. She
recalledthus:

MymotherwenttoSanJuanElementarySchoolat2:oclockhewasforcingmebutI
refused. He was strong and I kicked him and he put my pants down and then he took
[23]
advantageofme.


AAArecountedhowaccusedappellantwasabletoinserthisprivateorganintohersin
the midst of her tears and in full view of her mentally challenged sister who was
[24]
unfortunatelyobliviousoftheirfathersdastardlyact.
Aftersatisfyinghisbestialinstinct,
accusedappellantlefthisdaughterAAAwithathreat:Noagipulongka,patayenkayoamin.
[25]
(Ifyouwillreport,Iwillkillyouall).
Thus, accusedappellants plea of guilty effectively corroborated and substantiated
victimAAAsallegationthataccusedappellantindeedrapedher.

In his Brief, accusedappellant does not question his conviction for raping his own
daughter.HeonlyassailstheimpositionofthedeathpenaltybytheCA. Accusedappellant
contends that while the Information alleged the qualifying circumstances of both his
relationship to the victim and the latters minority, the prosecution failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt these qualifying circumstances. The People through the OSG, while
maintaining that accusedappellants guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, agrees
that accusedappellant should only be convicted of simple rape, as the qualifying
circumstances of the victims minority and her filiation with accusedappellant were not
provenbeyondreasonabledoubt.

Weagree.

Article266oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamendedbyRA7659andfurtheramended
byRA8353,provides:

Art.266A.Rape.Whenandhowcommitted.Rapeiscommitted

1.)Byamanwhoshallhavecarnalknowledgeofawomanunderanyofthefollowing
circumstances:

a)Throughforce,threat,orintimidation
Art.266B.Penalties.Rapeunderparagraph1ofthenextprecedingarticleshallbepunished
byreclusionperpetua.

xxxxxxxxx

Thedeathpenaltyshallalsobeimposedifthecrimeofrapeiscommittedwithanyof
thefollowingaggravating/qualifyingcircumstances:

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,orthecommonlawspouseoftheparentofthevictim

Intheprosecutionofcriminalcases,especiallythoseinvolvingtheextremepenaltyof
death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the
crime with which an accused is charged must be established. Qualifying circumstances or
special qualifying circumstances must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the
crime itself otherwise, there can be no conviction of the crime in its qualified form. As a
qualifyingcircumstanceofthecrimeofrape,theconcurrenceofthevictimsminorityandher
relationship to the accusedappellant must be both alleged and proven beyond reasonable
[26]
doubt.

Here, the Information alleged the concurrence of the victims minority and her
relationshiptoaccusedappellant.However, except for the bare testimony of the victim and
hermotherastotheformersageaswellastheirfiliationtotheaccusedappellant,nobirth
certificateorbaptismalcertificateorschoolrecordandmarriagecontractexistonrecordto
provebeyondreasonabledoubtthevictimsageorherminorityatthetimeofthecommission
[27]
oftheoffense.InPeoplev.Tabanggay,
weheld:

Jurisprudence dictates that when the law specifies certain circumstances that will
qualifyanoffenseandthusattachtoitagreaterdegreeofpenalty,suchcircumstancesmustbe
bothallegedandproveninordertojustifytheimpositionofthegraverpenalty.Recentrulings
of the Court relative to the rape of minors invariably state that in order to justify the
impositionofdeath,theremustbeindependentevidenceprovingtheageofthevictim,other
thanthetestimoniesofprosecutionwitnessesandtheabsenceofdenialbytheaccused.Aduly
certified certificate of live birth accurately showing the complainant's age, or some other
official document or record such as a school record, has been recognized as competent
evidence.
Intheinstantcase,wefindinsufficientthebaretestimonyofprivatecomplainantsand
theirmotherastotheiragesaswellastheirkinshiptotheappellant.xxx[We]cannotagree
withthesolicitorgeneralthatappellantsadmissionofhisrelationshipwithhisvictimswould
suffice. Elementary is the doctrine that the prosecution bears the burden of proving all the
elementsofacrime,includingthequalifyingcircumstances.Insum,thedeathpenaltycannot
beimposed.

Thereisnoshowingthatthevictimsbirthcertificateandaccusedappellantsmarriage
contractwerelostordestroyedorwereunavailablewithouttheprosecutionsfault.Therefore,
the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged special qualifying
circumstance of minority attended the commission of the crime of rape. Hence, accused
appellant should be convicted only of simple rape. Simple rape is punishable by a single
indivisiblepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.Article63oftheRevisedPenalCodeprovidesthat
inallcasesinwhichthelawprescribesasingleindivisiblepenalty,itshallbeappliedbythe
courtsregardlessofanymitigatingoraggravatingcircumstancesthatmayhaveattendedthe
commissionofthedeed.

Accordingly, the imposed indemnity and moral damages should be reduced to

[28]
(P50,000.00)pursuanttoourrulinginPeoplev.Gonzales,
thatuponafindingofthefact
ofrape,theawardofcivilindemnityexdelictoismandatory.Ifthedeathpenaltyisimposed,
the indemnity should be P75,000.00 otherwise, the victim is entitled to P50,000.00. An
additional P50,000.00 should be awarded as moral damages. Moral damages are
automaticallygrantedinrapecaseswithoutneedoffurtherproofotherthanthecommission
of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries
entitlinghertosuchanaward.

Finally, the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is in order.

Exemplary damages may be awarded in criminal cases as part of civil liability if the crime
was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Relationship as an alternative
circumstance under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code is considered aggravating in the
crime of rape. In this case, victim AAA was raped by her own father. Accusedappellant
admitted the allegation of such relationship in his direct testimony. Hence, complainant is
entitled to the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in order to deter
fatherswithperversetendenciesandaberrantsexualbehaviorfrompreyingupontheiryoung
[29]
daughters.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated June 30, 2006 of the CA is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION in that accusedappellant is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
SIMPLE RAPE and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusionperpetua and to pay the
victim AAA, indemnity ex delicto of P50,000.00, moral damages of P50,000.00 and
exemplarydamagesofP25,000.00.Nopronouncementastocosts.

SOORDERED.

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJustice

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice

(OnOfficialLeave)

RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice

DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice

ADOLFOS.AZCUNA
AssociateJustice

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice

RUBENT.REYES
AssociateJustice

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,Icertifythattheconclusionsinthe
abovedecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourt.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
*OnOfficialLeave.
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Portia AlioHormachuelos with Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and Associate Justice
SantiagoJavierRanadaconcurringrollo,pp.314.
[2]
PennedbyJudgeMilnarT.LammawinCArollo,pp.1019.
[3]
G.R.No.167693,September19,2006,502SCRA419.
[4]
Peoplev.Guillermo,G.R.No.173787,April23,2007,521SCRA597,599.
[5]
Supranote2at1112.
[6]
CArollo,p.5.
[7]
RTCRecord,p.18.
[8]
Id.at21.
[9]
TSN,datedNovember12,2003,pp.38.
[10]
RTCRecord,p.25.
[11]
CARecord,p.19.
[12]
Id.at23.
[13]
Id.at3849.
[14]
Id.at6677.
[15]
G.R.Nos.14767887,July7,2004,433SCRA640,657658.
[16]
Rollo,p.1.
[17]
Id.at17.
[18]
Peoplev.Murillo,G.R.No.134583,July14,2004,434SCRA342,349.
[19]
Peoplev.Albert,G.R.No.114001,December11,1995,251SCRA136,145146.
[20]
Peoplev.Ibaez,G.R.Nos.13392324,July30,2003,407SCRA406,415416.
[21]
TSN,datedNovember13,2003,pp.45.
[22]
TSN,datedNovember13,2003,pp.45.
[23]
TSN,datedNovember12,2003,p.14.
[24]
Id.at15.
[25]
Id.at16.
[26]
Peoplev.Ramos,G.R.No.142577,December27,2002,394SCRA452,469.
[27]
G.R.No.130504,June29,2000,334SCRA575,600601.
[28]
G.R.No.140676,July31,2002,385SCRA573,587588.
[29]
Peoplev.Viajedor,G.R.No.148138,April11,2003,401SCRA312,331.