ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-2003 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 129279 March 4, 2003 - ALFREDO M. OUANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1383 March 5, 2003 - PERLITA AVANCENA v. RICARDO P. LIWANAG

  • G.R. No. 127827 March 5, 2003 - ELEUTERIO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131516 March 5, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. RONNIE RULLEPA

  • G.R. No. 131636 March 5, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO INVENCION

  • G.R. No. 138193 March 5, 2003 - OSM SHIPPING PHIL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139906 March 5, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTHONY A. MANGUERA

  • G.R. No. 143464 March 5, 2003 - EMILIO S. YOUNG v. JOHN KENG SENG

  • G.R. No. 149382-149383 March 5, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO B. BODOSO

  • A.C. No. 4921 March 6, 2003 - CARMELITA I. ZAGUIRRE v. ALFREDO CASTILLO

  • A.M. No. P-02-1540 March 6, 2003 - EULOGIO B. GUEVARRA v. VICENTE S. SICAT

  • G.R. No. 134121 March 6, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE. PHIL. v. EDWIN ALCODIA

  • A.C. No. 1558 March 10, 2003 - HONORIO MANALANG, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO F. ANGELES

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1625 March 10, 2003 - JOSELITO S. PASCUAL v. RODOLFO R. BONIFACIO

  • G.R. No. 116652 March 10, 2003 - NINOY AQUINO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138280 March 10, 2003 - LEON REQUIRON v. PATRICIA SINABAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148030 March 10, 2003 - EXECUTIVE LABOR ARBITER RICARDO N. OLAIREZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 5925 March 11, 2003 - RUBY MAE BARNACHEA v. ATTY. EDWIN T. QUIOCHO

  • A.M. No. P-94-1054 March 11, 2003 - EDWIN A. ACEBEDO v. EDDIE P. ARQUERO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1646 March 11, 2003 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. FRANCISCO C. JOVEN

  • G.R. No. 129201 March 11, 2003 - REYNALDO CRISTE UNIDAD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144294 March 11, 2003 - SOLEDAD CHANLIONGCO RAMOS, ET AL. v. TERESITA D. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130325 March 12, 2003 - RAMON T. LIM v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • A.M. No. 02-8-471-RTC March 14, 2003 - RE: JUDICIAL AUDIT REPORT CONDUCTED IN THE RTC, BR. 17, KIDAPAWAN CITY

  • G.R. No. 126028 March 14, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EXPEDITO ALFON

  • G.R. No. 126711 March 14, 2003 - CARLOS SUPER DRUG CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128646 March 14, 2003 - CRISELDA F. JOSE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129306 March 14, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMES M. PATANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133994-95 March 14, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO BACALING

  • G.R. Nos. 140786-88 March 14, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO MAURO

  • G.R. No. 142011 March 14, 2003 - ALFONSO C. CHOA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 145505 March 14, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 149416 March 14, 2003 - CARMELITA V. SANTOS v. SAN MIGUEL CORP.

  • G.R. Nos. 149872-73 March 14, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSDIA S. HAJILI

  • G.R. No. 150843 March 14, 2003 - CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v. SPS DANIEL and MARIA LUISA VAZQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 154499 March 14, 2003 - ALBERTO V. REYES, ET AL. v. RURAL BANK OF SAN MIGUEL

  • A.C. No. 5305 March 17, 2003 - MARCIANO P. BRION, JR. v. FRANCISCO F. BRILLANTES, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1607 March 17, 2003 - ELSIE U. MAMACLAY v. JOEL FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 122150 March 17, 2003 - GEORGE (CULHI) HAMBON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1704 March 18, 2003 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. TOMAS B. NOYNAY

  • G.R. No. 128871 March 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY RUBISO

  • G.R. No. 141530 March 18, 2003 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142749 March 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO C. GAVINO

  • A.C. No. 5162 March 20, 2003 - EMILIANO COURT TOWNHOUSES HOMEOWNERS ASS’N.. v. MICHAEL DIONEDA

  • A.C. No. 4763 March 20, 2003 - GIL Y. GAMILLA, ET AL. v. EDUARDO J. MARIÑO JR.

  • A.C. No. 5246 March 20, 2003 - EDGAR O. PEREA v. RUBEN ALMADRO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1492 March 20, 2003 - RENATO MIGUEL D. GARCIA v. PERSHING T. YARED

  • A.M. No. P-03-1685 March 20, 2003 - MONICA A. VILLASEÑOR v. PATRICIA S.J. DE LEON

  • G.R. No. 115966 March 20, 2003 - JUANA ALMIRA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124611 March 20, 2003 - WENONAH L. MARQUEZ-AZARCON v. CHARITO BUNAGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143275 March 20, 2003 - LAND BANK OF THE PHIL. v. ARLENE DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144156 March 20, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAQUITO ROMERO

  • G.R. No. 145995 March 20, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SATURNINO J. ILUIS

  • G.R. No. 148568 March 20, 2003 - ATLANTIC ERECTORS v. HERBAL COVE REALTY CORPORATION

  • A.C. No. 5081 March 24, 2003 - EMILIANA M. EUSTAQUIO, ET AL. v. ATTY. REX C. RIMORIN

  • G.R. No. 121943 March 24, 2003 - CHINA BANKING CORP. v. SPS. OSCAR and LOLITA ORDINARIO

  • G.R. No. 153881 March 24, 2003 - ELPIDIO G. SORIANO III v. REUBEN S. LISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143867 March 25, 2003 - PLDT v. CITY OF DAVAO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1534 March 26, 2003 - OSCAR S. AQUINO v. RICARDO C. OLIVARES

  • A.M. No. P-98-1275 March 26, 2003 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. EDGARDO A. MABELIN

  • G.R. No. 123076 March 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EVELYN C. PATAYEK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132165 March 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELLY A. SARAP

  • G.R. No. 132761 March 26, 2003 - NORMA ORATE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135682 March 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO B. REYES

  • G.R. No. 137406 March 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO DELADA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 137795 March 26, 2003 - COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN-CALAMBA v. BELEN P. VILLAS

  • G.R. No. 141833 March 26, 2003 - LM POWER ENGINEERING CORP. v. CAPITOL INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION GROUPS INC.

  • G.R. No. 142403 March 26, 2003 - ALEJANDRO GABRIEL, ET AL. v. SPS. PABLO MABANTA AND ESCOLASTICA COLOBONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 145726 March 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERDINAND ANTONIO

  • G.R. No. 150718 March 26, 2003 - BASILIO BORJA, SR. v. SULYAP, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 155618 March 26, 2003 - EDGAR Y. SANTOS v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126029 March 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REY SUNGA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1395 March 28, 2003 - BAIKONG AKANG CAMSA v. AURELIO D. RENDON, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1412 March 28, 2003 - BERNIE G. MIAQUE, ET AL. v. NILO P. PAMONAG

  • A.M. No. P-01-1491 March 28, 2003 - ELEANOR TEODORA MARBAS-VIZCARRA v. PRINCESITO SORIANO

  • A.M. No. P-02-1535 March 28, 2003 - FERNANDO FAJARDO v. RODOLFO V. QUITALIG

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1766 March 28, 2003 - LINDA M. SACMAR v. AGNES REYES-CARPIO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1767 March 28, 2003 - ROSALIA DOCENA-CASPE v. ARNULFO O. BUGTAS

  • G.R. No. 112459 March 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO TUMULAK

  • G.R. Nos. 116224-27 March 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DONATO CARAIG

  • G.R. No. 139455 March 28, 2003 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. PEDRO MARIANO

  • G.R. No. 139907 March 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO BATES

  • G.R. No. 142930 March 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. KAKINGCIO CAÑETE

  • G.R. No. 143704 March 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX MANALLO

  • G.R. No. 152404 March 28, 2003 - RODOLFO ARZAGA, ET AL. v. SALVACION COPIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120135 March 31, 2003 - BANK OF AMERICA NT&SA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  




     
     

    G.R. Nos. 133994-95   March 14, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO BACALING

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. Nos. 133994-95. March 14, 2003.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PEDRO BACALING, Accused-Appellant.

    D E C I S I O N


    AZCUNA, J.:


    Pedro Bacaling appeals to us from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Ozamiz City, Branch 15, in Criminal Cases RTC-1622 and RTC-1623, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, under paragraph 2 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, of raping a mentally retarded woman. 1

    On March 1, 1995, two (2) separate criminal complaints for rape were filed by private complainant Rosenda Sarvida 2 against appellant. 3 The complaints were later amended, with the accusatory portions thereof reading as follows: 4

    Criminal Case No. RTC-1622

    That on or about the 13th day of July, 1994, at about 9:00 to 10:00 o’clock in the morning, more or less, in the City of Ozamiz, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, and by force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, feloniously and unlawfully lie and have carnal knowledge against the will of the undersigned complainant who is a demented/retarded 18 year old, virgin woman.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Criminal Case No. RTC-1623

    That on or about the 9th day of January, 1995, at about 9:00 to 10:00 o’clock in the morning, more or less, after recess time, in the City of Ozamiz, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, and by force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, feloniously and unlawfully lie and have carnal knowledge against the will of the undersigned complainant who is a demented/retarded 18 year old, virgin woman.

    Appellant pleaded not guilty to both criminal complaints. 5 Trial proceeded and, thereafter, on April 13, 1998, the court a quo rendered the aforementioned decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: 6

    WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered [c]onvicting the accused Pedro Bacaling of the crime of rape for having carnal knowledge with Rosenda Sarvida, a retardate, on July 13, 1994 and on January 9, 1995. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA with all the accessory penalties in each of the offense[s] charged.

    The accused is further ordered to pay complainant Rosenda Sarvida actual and [m]oral damages in the amount of P40,000.00; and to pay the [c]osts.

    This is what is now before us for review.

    The prosecution’s version of the facts, as stated in the decision of the trial court, is as follows: 7

    When the offended party, a retarded, was about 10 years old, her mother entrusted her to the custody and care of Sabino Acut, Sr. of Carmen Annex, Ozamiz City for she went to Manila to work as [a] helper in the household of Atty. Sabino Acut, Jr. as evidenced by Exhibit "E" which is couched in the dialect:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    In keeping with the agreement, Rosenda was enrolled at Misamis Annex Elementary School in Carmen Annex, Ozamiz City. Rosenda is a poor and slow learner with childish behavior and could hardly comprehend, hence, she always [flunks] in her class and has been a repeater in her studies several times. Nonetheless, in [the] 1994–1995 school year, she [wa]s already a grade 5 pupil under Mrs. Eudes Kong. She was 18 years old then.

    On January 9, 1995 at about 9:00 o’clock in the morning [school principal] Virgilio Resma conducted [an] oral test on the grade-5 class of Mrs. Eudes Kong. He noticed that Rosenda [wa]s absent [though] he saw her earl[ier] in the morning during the flag ceremony. He called the attention of Mrs. Kong about it and instructed her to see Sabino Acut, Sr. [to ask] if he knew that Rosenda [wa]s cutting classes. Sabino told her that he has no knowledge about it. Resma instructed Mrs. Kong to bring Rosenda to his office in the afternoon. In his office, Resma confronted Rosenda [on] why she was cutting her classes. Rosenda answered that Pedro Bacaling brought her to a hotel in Ozamiz City and they entered in[to] a beautiful room [where] Pedro Bacaling raped her; that Pedro Bacaling has a gun. He is a security guard of the security agency managed by Sabino Acut, Sr. Resma [then] called for the PTA president kagawad Edith Revilla for assistance. Upon further co[n]frontation, Rosenda revealed that she ha[d] been raped several times by Pedro Bacaling inside the abandoned bathroom located at the side of the house of Sabino Acut, Sr. in Carmen Annex, Ozamiz City. She revealed that Pedro Bacaling used to fetch her in school during recess and brought her to Cebuana Lodge and had sexual intercourse with her.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The trial court likewise presented appellant’s version of the facts, as follows: 8

    On his part, the accused claims that he met Rosenda sometime in 1992 in the house of Sabino Acut, Sr. in Annex, Ozamiz City. Sabino introduced her to him as his helper. He frequents the house of Sabino because Sabino is the manager of the security agency where he is working as a security guard. He noticed that Rosenda seem[ed] to like him. One time, Rosenda said to him, "Nong, you are ‘Guapo’." He courted Rosenda and they became sweethearts. One day, when he and Rosenda were having a conversation inside the abandoned bathroom located at the side of the house of Sabino, they were able to consummate sexual intercourse in a standing position. Surprisingly, his penis easily penetrate[d] into the vagina of Rosenda. He asked Rosenda why her [v]agina is loose and Rosenda [c]onfessed that her landlord, Sabino Acut, Sr. was the first man to have sexual intercourse with her. With that information he entertain[ed] no fear anymore of his affair with Rosenda. Thereafter, their love tryst in the bathroom were repeated not only on[ce] but many times. Rosenda told him that their affairs [were] already known by Sabino and Sabino became more strict in her movement. Rosenda suggested to him to fetch her in school and that they will go to Cebuana Lodge. On January 9, 1995, he went to Misamis Annex Elementary School where Rosenda [wa]s studying to fetch her. Rosenda told him that at recess time she will first go home to change her uniform. She instructed him to wait for her at Medina College. After a while Rosenda arrived at Medina College. He let Rosenda ride a tricycle and he r[ode] his bicycle following Rosenda to Cebuana Lodge. They [c]hecked-in at the counter. After which, the room boy ushered them to a vacant room. They went inside and l[aid] on the bed and had sexual intercourse. He fingered and did oral sex. Both of them enjoy[ed]. He asserted that Rosenda freely consented and voluntarily submitted her body to him. He did not employ force nor intimidate Rosenda to submit to the sexual act. They are lovers, he claims. He denied the July 13, 1994 charges.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    As aforestated, the trial court convicted appellant of rape under paragraph 2 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, i.e., having carnal knowledge of a woman who is deprived of reason. Under this type of rape, the elements necessary for conviction are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman is deprived of reason. 9 In accordance with the foregoing, we proceed to ascertain whether the prosecution was able to establish the presence of these two elements for each charge of rape.

    The term "woman deprived of reason" includes one suffering from mental retardation. 10

    To prove the victim’s mental retardation, the prosecution presented Dr. Mario Rafael Estrella, resident physician and in-charge of the Psychiatric Department of Mayor Hilarion A. Ramiro General Hospital of Ozamiz City. 11 In his testimony, Dr. Estrella described the mental condition of the victim: 12

    x       x       x


    Q: After you have conducted all these examination[s], what have you or what is your finding [of] her?

    A: I found out that the intellect of the patient is somewhat low, as far as my observation of the result of the examination. I considered [her] as a mentally retarded patient.

    x       x       x


    The victim’s case was also referred to the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) in Mandaluyong City to determine the severity of her mental retardation. After conducting a thorough examination, the NCMH submitted two reports on her mental condition. 13 Both these reports concluded that the victim is suffering from "Mental Retardation, Moderate," and characterized her as having poor social awareness but with fair motor development. 14

    The findings of Dr. Estrella and the conclusions stated in the two reports were neither disputed nor challenged by appellant. Neither did appellant adduce any evidence on his behalf regarding the mental condition of the victim.chanrob1es virtual law library

    In addition, the trial court judge also observed the mental retardation of the victim, which he noted down in his decision: 15

    The Court has observed the complainant in the witness stand and the manner she answers the question propounded by the prosecutor and the counsel for the defense shows that she is suffering from mental weakness. Her behavior as a mental retardate is so obvious that it does not need a man of science to detect that she is mentally handicapped.

    x       x       x


    Under paragraph 2 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the Supreme Court held that a woman need not be proven as completely insane or deprived of reason for sexual intercourse to constitute the crime of rape. The term "deprived of reason" has been construed to include those suffering from mental abnormality or deficiency; or some form of mental retardation; the feeble minded but coherent; and even those suffering from mental abnormality or deficiency of reason. (People v. Guerrero, 242 SCRA 606).

    For purposes of determining the mental capacity of a person, we held that the personal observation of the trial judge suffices even in the absence of an expert opinion. 16 In the case at bar, the observation of the trial court judge becomes more persuasive given the supporting expert opinions. This observation, taken together with the evidence presented by the prosecution, indubitably confirms the mental retardation of the victim.

    The next issue that needs to be resolved is whether the element of carnal knowledge of the victim, alleged to have occurred on July 13, 1994 and on January 6, 1995, has been established by the prosecution.

    With regard to the July 13, 1994 rape charge, the victim testified that, on that day, appellant fetched her in school during recess time, brought her to La Cebuana Lodge and then raped her. 17 Her testimony was corroborated by her teacher, Eudes Kong, who said that she saw appellant in school on July 13, 1994. 18

    Appellant, for his part, denied having sexual intercourse with the victim in La Cebuana Lodge on July 13, 1994. 19 However, the trial court found his denial unsubstantiated and upheld the testimony of the victim. 20 On this point, we must agree with the trial court. The bare denial of appellant cannot overcome the categorical testimony of the victim. A denial, when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative and self-serving testimony, which deserves no greater evidentiary value than the testimony of a credible witness on affirmative matters. 21 On the other hand, a mental retardate may qualify as a competent witness and the testimony of the victim alone, if credible, is sufficient to support a conviction. 22 Thus, under the circumstances, we sustain the trial court’s finding that appellant had carnal knowledge of the victim on July 13, 1994.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    As to the January 9, 1995 rape charge, the victim also testified that on January 9, 1995, she was again fetched by appellant in school and was brought to La Cebuana Lodge where she was raped. 23 This time, appellant admitted that he had sexual intercourse with the victim on that day and at that place. 24

    Appellant, however, claims that their sexual intercourse was consensual because he and the victim were lovers. 25 In fact, appellant asserts that they have had sexual intercourse several times in an abandoned bathroom just beside the house where the victim was staying. 26

    The allegation that appellant and the victim were sweethearts is not a plausible defense. In previously decided rape cases involving mental retardates, other accused have tried to use this defense, but to no avail. 27 We ruled therein that the fact that the victim is a mental retardate makes this defense untenable. In the victim’s deficient state of mind, she could not have induced her assailant to nurse a desire to have her for a sweetheart, nor could she have possessed the capacity to understand the meaning of such a relationship. Consequently, being without any exculpating defense, appellant’s admission of having sexual intercourse with the victim proves, without question, his guilt under the January 9, 1995 charge.

    We now go into the correctness of the damages awarded. We agree with the observation of the Solicitor General that, based on current jurisprudence, the award of damages should be increased. It has been our practice outrightly to award P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for victims of rape. 28 Aside from this, we also ruled on the automatic award of P50,000.00 as moral damages without specific proof of mental, physical and psychological trauma, which are already presumed from the fact of rape. 29 Considering that appellant is found guilty on two counts of rape, we should award to the victim P100,000.00 as civil indemnity and P100,000.00 as moral damages.

    WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of Regional Trial Court of Ozamiz City in Criminal Cases RTC-1622 and RTC-1623 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant is ordered to pay the victim P100,000.00 as civil indemnity and P100,000.00 as moral damages. Costs de oficio.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug and Carpio, JJ., concur.

    Ynares-Santiago, J., is on leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 29–40.

    2. Rosenda Sarvida was assisted by her guardian, Sabino Acut, Sr.

    3. Id., pp. 11–12 & 15–16.

    4. Id., pp. 13–14 & 17–18.

    5. Records, p. 33.

    6. Rollo, p. 40.

    7. Id., pp. 30–31.

    8. Id., p. 38.

    9. People v. Tan, 187 SCRA 385 (1990).

    10. People v. Almacin, 303 SCRA 399 (1999).

    11. Rollo, p. 30.

    12. TSN, February 23, 1996, pp. 10–11.

    13. Exhibits "N" and "O," Records, pp. 156–159.

    14. Ibid.

    15. Rollo, p. 39.

    16. People v. Dumanon, 348 SCRA 461 (2000).

    17. TSN, March 22, 1996, pp. 6–12.

    18. Id., p. 5.

    19. TSN, November 11, 1996, p. 28.

    20. Rollo, p. 39.

    21. People v. Cajara, 341 SCRA 192 (2000).

    22. People v. Lagarto, 326 SCRA 693 (2000); People v. Lubong, 332 SCRA 672 (2000).

    23. TSN, March 22, 1996, pp. 13–17.

    24. TSN, November 18, 1996, pp. 22–28.

    25. TSN, December 16, 1996, p. 8.

    26. TSN, December 16, 1996, p. 9.

    27. People v. delos Santos, G.R. No. 141128, August 30, 2001; People v. Goles, 192 SCRA 663 (1990); People v. Asturias, 134 SCRA 405 (1985); People v. Gallano, 108 SCRA 405 (1981).

    28. People v. Esperida, G.R. Nos. 139637-38, January 22, 2003.

    29. People v. Ochea, G.R. Nos. 146452-53, December 10, 2002.

    G.R. Nos. 133994-95   March 14, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO BACALING




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED