1/24/2017 G.R. No.

112262

TodayisTuesday,January24,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.112262April2,1996

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,plaintiffappellee,
vs.
ARMANDORODRIGUEZCAMATandWILFREDOTANYAGDELROSARIO,accusedappellants.

REGALADO,J.:p

Accusedappellants Armando Rodriguez Camat, alias "Amboy Camat," and Wilfredo Tanyag del Rosario, alias
"Willie," were charged in Criminal Case No. 19841 of the Regional Trial Court of the then Municipality of Makati,
Branch147,withthesocalledspecialcomplexcrimeofrobberywithhomicideandfrustratedhomicidecommittedin
Paraaque,MetroManila.

Theinformationtherefor,fliedonOctober21,1985withtheapprovaloftheProvincialFiscalofRizal,alleges:

That on or about the 1st day of September, 1985, in the Municipality of Paraaque, Metro Manila,
Philippines and a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused,
conspiringandconfederatingtogetherandbothofthemmutuallyhelpingandaidingoneanother,with
intentofgainandwithouttheconsentandagainstthewillofGonzaloPenalverandNelsonSinoy,and
bymeansofforce,threats,violenceandintimidationemployeduponthepersonsofsaidNelsonSinoy
andGonzaloPenalver,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslydivestthesaidGonzalo
Penalver of his one (1) Black leather clutch bag containing plier(s), test valve, longnose and one (1)
Sanwa Electric tester, valued at P150.00, with the total amount of P150.00, to the damage and
prejudiceofthesaidGonzaloPenalver,intheaforementionedamountofP150.00thatontheoccasion
ofthesaidRobbery(HoldUp)immediatelythereafter,theabovenamedaccused,withintenttokill,did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stab said Nelson Sinoy, thereby inflicting upon the
latterseriousandmortalstabwounds,whichdirectlycausedhisdeaththatasafurtherconsequence,
theabovenamedaccused,withintenttokill,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslystab
said Gonzalo Penalver, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious and mortal stab wounds, which
ordinarily would cause the death of said Gonzalo Penalver, thus performing all the acts of execution
whichwouldproducethecrimeofHomicide,asaconsequence,butneverthelessdidnotproduceitby
reasonofcauseoraccidentindependentofthewillofthesaidaccused,thatisduetothetimelyand
ablemedicalassistancerenderedtothesaidGonzaloPenalver,whichpreventedhisdeath.1

Attheirarraignment,appellantspleadednotguiltytothecrimecharged.Afterduehearing,thelowercourtrendered
judgment2onJune19,1987findingbothappellantsguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofrobberywithhomicide
and frustrated homicide, sentencing them to serve the penalty of reclusionperpetua, and ordering them to indemnify the
heirsofNelsonSinoyintheamountofP30,000andGonzaloPenalverinthesumofP10,000.00.

Hence,thisappeal,withappellantsassigningintheirbriefasingleerrorsubmittingthatthecourtgravelyerredin
findingthemguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofrobberywithhomicideandfrustratedhomicide.3

Thefactualfindingsofthecourtaquoaresustainedbytheevidenceonrecord,andwereproducethesame.

About 9:00 o'clock in the evening of September 1, 1985, Nelson Sinoy and Gonzalo Penalver, both
members o the Philippine Marine(s) stationed at Fort Bonifacio, Makati, Paraaque, Metro Manila.
They had just come from Camp Claudio where they attended a birthday party. They were in civilian
clothes.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/apr1996/gr_112262_1996.html 1/6
1/24/2017 G.R. No. 112262
WhilewalkingalongQuirinoAvenue,theynoticedtwopersonstrailingthemclosely,abouttenmeters
away. The place was welllighted. Gonzalo Penalver was carrying a clutch bag, containing a Sanwa
electrictester(Exhibit1).Theycrossedthestreetostensiblytoavoidthetwomenfollowingthem.

On(e) of them, Wilfredo del Rosario rushed to Nelson Sinoy and kicked the latter. Armando Camat
followeddelRosarioandpulledoutaknifeandstabbedNelsonSinoy.GonzaloPenalverkickedCamat
who in turn stabbed the former, hittinghim at the right rib. When Penalver kicked Camat he became
outbalanced.WilfredodelRosariothengrabbedtheclutchbagfromhim(Penalver).

Realizing they were at the losing end, Sinoy and Penalver ran away. With the aid of somebody who
identifiedhimselfasapoliceman,theywerebroughttotheSanJuandeDiosHospital.

Nelson Sinoy died at the San Juan de Dios Hospital despite the efforts of Dr. Vittorio Pantig to save
him. Dr. Pantig conducted an exploratory lapar(o)tomy on the abdomen of Nelson Sinoy and found
massive bleeding in the abdominal cavity, and partial damage to the kidney, pancreas and the
diaphragm. He tried to control the bleeding but despite blood transfusion, the blood pressure of the
patientwentdowntozero.

GonzaloPenalverwastransferredtotheAFPMedicalCenteronSeptember2,1985afterhiswound
wasalreadysuturedattheSanJuandeDiosHospital.AttheAFPMedicalCenter,Dr.BenedictoMina
tookcareofthepatient.Hegavebloodtransfusiontothepatient.Thepatientwasdischargedfromthe
hospitalonlyonMarch15,1986.4

In traversing the criminal charge, appellants interposed the defense of alibi and denied any participation in the
commissionofthefelony.

Appellant Armando R. Camat claimed that at around 7:00 to 8:30 in the evening of September 1, 1985, he was
alreadyinhishouselocatedatBagongSilangStreet,Baclaran,Paraaquerestingandpreparingtosleepforthe
night.Hetestifiedthathewasatthe"saklaan"workingasacarddealerfrom5:00P.M.to7:00P.M.ofthatdays.5

ThistestimonyofappellantCamatwascorroboratedbyhismotherinlaw,FilomenaMacabangon,whostatedthat
she is certain Camat was at their house at around 7:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. on September 1, 1985 as the said
appellantandhisfamilylivedwithherandherotherchildrenatBagongSilangStreet.6

Forhispart,appellantWilfredoT.delRosariocontendedthatfrom5:00A.M.to7:00P.M.ofSeptember1,1989,he
andhiswifewereattheirstallsellingvegetablesalongasidewalkofQurinoAvenueinBaclaran.Hewenthomeat
7:00o'clockintheeveningandneverlefttheirhouselocatedatSanchezSt.,Baclaran,Paraaquebecausehewas
verytiredthatday.7

MagdalenadelRosario,motherofappellantDelRosariosupportedthestoryofthelatterbytestifyingthatshesaw
her son vending vegetables up to 7:00 P.M. and that he never left the house after 7:00 o'clock in the evening of
September1,1985.8

Bothappellantsclaimthattheydidnotknoweachotherpriortothedateofthecommissionofthecrimeandthat
theymeteachotheronlyaftertheywerearrestedandbroughttothepoliceprecinct.9

Patrolman Odeo Cario, to whom the case was assigned for investigation on September 2, 1985, stated on the
witness stand that appellant Camat orally admitted to him his (Camat's) participation in the killing of the soldier
duringinterrogationatthepoliceprecinct10Inaddition,CamatalsoallegedlygavethenamesofWilfredodelRosarioand
one Roland as his coconspirators in the crime charged, and alluded to appellant Del Rosario as the one who actually
stabbedSinoy.11

Withthisinformation,PatrolmanCarioandanotherpolicemantracedthewhereaboutsofDelRosarioand,when
theyfoundhim,theyinvitedhimforquestioning.Inthepolicestation,appellantDelRosarioallegedlyconfessedto
Patrolman Cario his involvement in the crime and informed the latter that the electric tester could be recovered
fromhisrelatives.12

TheinvestigationofthecasecentereduponCamatonlyafterthelatterwaspointedtobyavendorwhoallegedly
saw what happened during the night of September 1, 1985. As fate would have it, Camat was arrested by
ParaaquepolicemenonOctober11,1985foractsoflasciviousness,uponthecomplaintofhissisterinlaw.Since
Camat fitted the description given earlier by the eyewitness to the investigating policemen, Patrolman Cario
fetchedthevendortoverifytheidentityofCamat.Atthepolicestation,saidwitnessrecognizedandidentifiedCamat
astheonewhokilledSinoy.Onthewitnessstand,PatrolmanCariorefusedtogivetheidentityoftheanonymous
vendorwitness who was allegedly afraid of the accused, but the policeman promised that he would present said
witnessiforderedtodosobythecourt.13

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/apr1996/gr_112262_1996.html 2/6
1/24/2017 G.R. No. 112262
In support of their lone assignment of error, appellants insist that the trial court cannot rely on the extrajudicial
confession of appellant Camat as a basis for their conviction because such confession was obtained during
custodialinvestigationinviolationoftheirconstitutionalrights.Correlatively,appellantsaverthatthelowercourtalso
erred in making an inference of guilt from the extrajudicial confession of appellant Del Rosario wherein the latter
supposedlygavetotheinvestigatingpolicemanthenameofhisrelativeinpossessionoftheelectrictester.14

TherightsinvokedbyappellantsarepremiseduponSection20,ArticleIVofthe1973Constitution 15theninforce,
andwhichprovided:

Sec.20.Nopersonshallbecompelledtobeawitnessagainsthimself.Anypersonunderinvestigation
for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be
informed of such right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the
free will shall be used against him. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be
inadmissibleinevidence.

The aforequoted provision was interpreted and expounded upon in the case of Morales, Jr. vs. Enrile, et al., 16
whereinthisCourtlaiddowntheproceduretobefollowedincustodialinvestigations,thus:

xxxxxxxxx

7. At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the
reasonforthearrestandhemustbeshownthewarrantofarrest,ifany.Heshallbeinformedofhis
constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement he might make could be
usedagainsthim.Thepersonarrestedshallhavetherighttocommunicatewithhislawyer,arelative,
or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means by telephone if possible or by letter or
messenger.Itshallbethedutyofthearrestingofficertoseetoitthatthisisaccomplished.Nocustodial
investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person
arrested, by any person on his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee
himselforbyanyoneonhisbehalf.Therighttocounselmaybewaivedbutthewaivershallnotbevalid
unless made with the assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure
herein laid down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in
evidence.

xxxxxxxxx

Asinterpretedinthejurisdictionoftheirorigin,theserightsbegintobeavailablewheretheinvestigationisnolonger
ageneralinquiryintoanunsolvedcrimebuthasbegantofocusonaparticularsuspect,thesuspecthasbeentaken
into police custody, and the police carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to eliciting incriminating
statements.17

Areadingofthechallengeddecisionshowsthatthecourtbelowrelieduponappellants'confessionstodisaffirmtheir
credibilityandtoimpugntheirdenialofcomplicityinthecommissionofthefelony.Thisthelowercourtcannotdo
because, absent any showing that appellants were duly advised of the mandatory guarantees under the Bill of
Rights, their confessions made before Patrolman Cario are inadmissible against them and cannot be used in
supportoftheirconviction.

As we have heretofore held, it is now incumbent upon the prosecution to prove during the trial that, prior to
questioning, the confessant was warned of his constitutionally protected rights because the presumption of
regularityofofficialactsduesnotapplyduringincustodyinvestigation. 18Trialcourtsshouldfurtherkeepinmindthat
eveniftheconfessionoftheaccusedisgospeltruth,ifitwasmadewithouttheassistanceofcounsel,itisinadmissiblein
evidenceregardlessoftheabsenceofcoercionorevenifithadbeenvoluntarilygiven.19

As to the implication of Del Rosario in the extrajudicial confession of Camat, no reliance can be placed on the
imputationthereinbecauseitviolatestheruleonresinteraliosactaanddoesnotfallundertheexceptions
thereto,20especiallysinceitwasmadeafterthesupposedhomicidalconspiracy.Anextrajudicialconfessionisbindingonly
upontheconfessantandisnotadmissibleagainsthiscoaccused.Asagainstthelatter,theconfessionishearsay.21

However,evendisregardingtheextrajudicialconfessionsofappellants,thejudgmentofconvictionrenderedbythe
lowercourtstandsandcanbesustained.Worthyofconsiderationisthetrialcourt'sconclusionthat"(a)lthoughthere
is only one (1) eyewitness presented by the prosecution in the person of Gonzalo Penalver, the Court is of the
opinion and so holds that the prosecution has satisfactorily proved the guilt of both accused beyond reasonable
doubt."22

Itiswellsettledthatthetestimonyofasingleeyewitness,iffoundconvincingandtrustworthybythetrialcourt,is
sufficienttosupportafindingofguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt.23Wealsoseenoreasontodeviatefromthetrialcourt's

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/apr1996/gr_112262_1996.html 3/6
1/24/2017 G.R. No. 112262
observation that Penalver's testimony bore the attributes of truth, having been delivered in a candid and straightforward
manner.

We have scrupulously examined the testimony of Penalver and we find the same to be categorical and candid,
untainted by inconsistencies, contradictions or evasions. It creditably chronicles the material details in the
commissionofthecrimesinquestion,andshouldaccordinglybegivenfullcredence.

Itbearsrepeatingthatfindingsofthetrialcourtpertainingtothecredibilityofwitnessesdeservegreatrespectsince
ithadtheopportunitytohearandobservetheirdemeanorastheytestifiedonthewitnessstandand,therefore,it
was in a better position to discern if such witnesses were telling the truth or not based on their deportment with
testifying.24

Additionally,therewasnoevidenceofanyulteriororevilmotiveonthepartofPenalverthatmighthaveledhimto
givefabricatedtestimonyagainstappellants.He,andevenappellantCamat,declaredinopencourtthattheydidnot
knoweachotherbeforethegruesomeincidenthappenedonSeptember1,1985.25Havingnomotivetotestifyfalsely,
hispositivetestimonythattheprincipalwitnessfortheprosecutionwasmovedbyimpropermotive,thepresumptionisthat
hewasnotsomoved,andhistestimonyisentitledtofullfaithandcredit.26

WealsotakenoteofthefactthatprosecutionwitnessPenalverpositivelyidentifiedappellantsasthepersonswho
robbedhimandkilledSinoy.Hecouldnothavebeenmistakeninidentifyingappellantsasthesceneofthecrime
was sufficiently illuminated and he even remembers that appellant Del Rosario was wearing faded camouflage
clothingatthetimeofthe
robbery. 27 Thus, appellants' claim that witness Penalver failed to identify them 28 is without merit. His narration of the
incidentandhisidentificationofthemalefactorsaredirectanddefinite.

Appellants also contend that the failure of the prosecution to present in court the police informer who allegedly
pointedtoappellantCamatinthepoliceprecinctdeprivedthemoftheirconstitutionalrightofconfrontation.29

The right of confrontation is one of the rights of an accused enumerated in Section 19, Article IV of the 1973
Constitution30whichprovidedthat:

Inallcriminalprosecutions,theaccusedshallbepresumedinnocentuntilthecontraryisproved,and
shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of
accusationagainsthim,tohaveaspeedy,impartialandpublictrial,tomeetthewitnessesfacetoface,
andtohavecompulsoryprocesstosecuretheattendanceofwitnessesandtheproductionofevidence
inhisbehalf....

Incasedecidedin1979, 31theaboveprovisionwasinvokedbyanaccusedinclaimingthathisextrajudicialconfessions
madepriortotheeffectivityofthe1973Constitution32wereillegallyobtainedbecausehisconstitutionalrighttocounselwas
disregarded. The Court, citing People vs. Jose, et al., 33 clarified that the phrase "criminal prosecutions" in the said
constitutionalprovisionshallbeinterpretedtomeanproceedingsbeforethetrialcourt,whichinitsmostexpandedconceptis
fromarraignmentuptotherenditionofthedecision.Itwillalsobeobservedthatunderboththe1964RulesofCourt,andthe
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, the right of confrontation is specified as a right of the accused at the trial. 34 We
accordinglyreiteratethatanaccused'sconstitutionalrighttomeetthewitnessesfacetofaceislimitedtoproceedingsbefore
thetrialcourt.Accordingly,appellants'relianceuponthisconstitutionalrightisevidentlymisplacedasthesameisavailableto
himatthetrialandnotduringacustodialinvestigation.

Appellant's apprehension that the unidentified witness may be someone who is harboring ill motives against
appellantCamatwillnotsubvertthecaseoftheprosecution.Itistheprerogativeofeachpartytochooseitsown
witnessesinaccordancewithitsownassessmentoftheevidenceitneedstoproveitscase. 35Ifappellantsfeltthat
thevendormighthaveagrudgeagainstCamat,therewasnothingtopreventthemfromdeterminingthatfactonthewitness
standbycallingsaidvendorviacompulsoryprocessavailabletothembothundertheConstitutionandtheRulesofCourt.

We agree with the lower court in discarding the stories of appellants which were designed to provide them their
respectivealibiscoetaneouswiththecommissionoftheoffense.Timeandagain,wehaveheldthatalibiisoneof
theweakestdefensesthatcanberesortedtobyanaccused,notonlybecauseitisinherentlyweakandunrealiable
butalsobecauseitiseasyoffabricationswithoutmuchopportunityforcheckingorrebuttingit. 36Foradefenseof
alibitoprosper,wehaverepeatedlystressed,itmustnotonlybeshownthattheaccusedwasnotatthesceneofthecrimeat
thetimeofitscommissionbutalsothatitwasphysicallyimpossibleforhimtohavebeenatthescenceofthecrimeatthat
time.37

Appellants,fromtheirowntestimonyincourt,werepresentnotonlyinthesamemunicipalitybutinthesamedistrict
wherethecrimewascommitted.WetakejudicialnoticeofthefactthatBagongSilangandSanchezStreetsarejust
afewmetersawayfromQurinoAvenueand,therefore,itwasnotimpossibleforthemtobepresentatthesceneof
thecrimeatthetimeitwasperpetrated.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/apr1996/gr_112262_1996.html 4/6
1/24/2017 G.R. No. 112262
Also, alibi becomes less plausible as a defense when it is mainly established by the accused himself and his
immediaterelativeswho,inthepresentcase,arerespectivelyappellants'motherandmotherinlaw,becausethey
would naturally be expected to make statements in his favor. 38 Furthermore, the positive identification of the
malefactorsmadebywitnessPenalvernegatesappellants'submissionsontheirrespectivealibis.39

Regardingthedesignationoftheoffenseforwhichappellantswereconvictedbasedonthecriminalchargeinthe
information,thepresentjurisprudentialruleisthatappellantsshouldhavebeenindictedonlyforthespecialcomplex
crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. There is no crime of robbery with
homicideandfrustratedhomicide.Theterm"homicide"inparagraph1,Article294oftheRevisedPenalCodeisto
be understood in its generic sense, absorbing not only the act which results in death but also all other acts
producinganythingshortofdeath,assumingthatdeathoccursbyreasonorontheoccasionoftherobbery,andis
designatedassuchregardlessofthenumberofhomicidesandphysicalinjuriescommitted. 40Hence,thefrustrated
homicideaspectofthepresentchargeisdeemedmergedinthespecialcomplexcrimeofrobberywithdefinedandpenalized
underthelaw.*

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATIONS that appellants are
declaredguiltyofthecrimeofrobberywithhomicide,andthecivilindemnityforthedeathofNelsonSinoyishereby
increasedtoP50,000.00inconsonancewiththepresentjurisprudentialpolicy.

SOORDERED.

Romero,PunoandMendoza,JJ.,concur.

Torres,Jr.,J.,isonleave.

Footnotes

1OriginalRecord,1.

2PerJudgeTeofiloL.Guadiz,Jr.

3Appellants'Brief,1Rollo,40.

4OriginalRecord,215216.

5TSN,February6,1987,4February10,1987,23.

6Ibid.,id.,2.

7Ibid.,March11,1987,23.

8Ibid.,March31,1987,2&3.

9Ibid.,February6,1987,4March11,1987,2.

10Ibid.,May9,1986,78.

11Ibid.,id.,34.

12ExhibitBTSN,September30,1986,2.

13TSN,May9,1986,23,57September30,1986,34.

14Appellants'Brief,12,14Rollo,51,53.

15SimilarprovisionsarefoundinSecs.12and17,Art.III,1987Constitution.

16G.R.No.61016,April26,1983,121SCRA538decidedlyjointlywithMoncupa,Jr.vs.Enrile,etal.,G.R.
No.61107.

17Escobedovs.Illinois,378U.S.478(1964).

18Peoplevs.Tolentino,G.R.No.50103,November24,1986,145SCRA597.

19Peoplevs.Pineda,G.R.No.72400,January15,1988,157SCRA71.

20Secs.2831,Rule130,RulesofCourt.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/apr1996/gr_112262_1996.html 5/6
1/24/2017 G.R. No. 112262
21Peoplevs.Pamon,G.R.No.102005,January25,1993,217SCRA501seealsoPeoplevs.Ferry,etal.,
66Phil.310(1938).

22OriginalRecord,213.

23Peoplevs.Catubig,etal.,G.R.No.71626,March22,1991,195SCRA505Peoplevs.Lazo,etal.,G.R.
No.75367,June19,1991,198SCRA274.

24Peoplevs.SanGabriel,G.R.No.110103,August4,1994,235SCRA80Peoplevs.Bongadillo,G.R.No.
96687,July20,1994,234SCRA233Peoplevs.Ornoza,etal.,G.R.No.56283,June22,1987,151SCRA
495.

25TSN,April23,1986,9February6,1987,4.

26Peoplevs.Calope,etal.,G.R.No.97284,January21,1994,229SCRA413Peoplevs.Belibet,etal.,
G.R.No.91260,July25,1991,199SCRA587.

27ExhibitsA,A1.

28Appellants'Brief,15Rollo,54.

29Appellants'Brief,13Rollo,52.

30ReproducedverbatiminSec.14(2),Art.III,1987Constitution.

31Peoplevs.Corachea,L30101,July16,1979,91SCRA422.

32Therighttocounselduringcustodialinvestigationwasnotyetavailablethen,perMagtotovs.Manguera,
etc.,etal.(L3720102,March3,1975,63SCRA4)andcompanioncases.

33L28232,February6,1971.

34Sec.1(f),Rule115.

35Peoplevs.Llabres,G.R.Nos.7429496,August4,1993,225SCRA86.

36Peoplevs.Silong,etal.,G.R.No.110830,May23,1994,232SCRA487.

37 People vs. Silong, et al., supra People vs. Saguban, G.R. No. 96287, April 25, 1994, 231 SCRA 744
Peoplevs.Peralta,G.R.No.67702,January18,1991,193SCRA9.

38 People vs. Paglinawan, G.R. No. 107804, June 28, 1994, 233 SCRA 494 People vs. Sabellano, G.R.
Nos.9393233,June5,1991,198SCRA196Peoplevs.Solis,etal.,G.R.No.93629,March18,1991,195
SCRA405.

39SeePeoplevs.Calope,etal.,supraPeoplevs.Barte,G.R.No.103211,February28,1994,230SCRA
401Peoplevs.Paglinawan,supra.

40Peoplevs.Servillon,G.R.No.92154,September12,1994,236SCRA385Peoplevs.Dimaano,etal.,
G.R.No.95231,June15,1992,209SCRA819Peoplevs.Repuela,etal.,G.R.No.85178,March15,1990,
183SCRA244.

*Thewriterofthisopinionreserveshisviewsonthismatterforexpostulationwhenthepropercasecomes
beforetheCourtfordeliberation.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/apr1996/gr_112262_1996.html 6/6