Manila
THIRD
DIVISION
PEOPLE
OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 111194
October
9, 1997
-versus-
WILFREDO
G.
TEODORO,
Accused-Appellant.
D
E C I S I
O N
PANGANIBAN,
J.:cralaw:red
A conviction for the special
complex crime of robo con homicidio can be sustained only when
robbery
is proven as conclusively as the killing itself; otherwise, the offense
is only homicide. Furthermore, the findings of a trial court on the
credibility
of witnesses and the weight it gave their testimonies are, as a rule,
accorded
respect, even finality, by appellate courts.
Statement of
the Case
These doctrines are
reiterated as We resolve this appeal from the June 29, 1993 Joint
Decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, Branch 156,[2]
in Criminal Cases Nos. 91327 and 91328 finding appellant guilty of
frustrated
homicide and robbery with homicide. The dispositive portion of the
assailed
Decision reads:
"IN VIEW OF THE
FOREGOING,
the Court finds the accused WILFREDO G. TEODORO guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt of the crime of "robbery with homicide" under Article 294 [1] of
the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences said accused to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua with all its accessory penalties, to
indemnify
the heirs of Eden M. Cabarubias in the amount of P50,000.00; to pay
Margie
M. Ganaban the sum of P20,000.00 as moral damages; to pay the heirs of
Eden M. Cabarubias the further sum of P25,000.00 by way of
reimbursement
of the stolen cash money; all without subsidiary imprisonment in case
of
insolvency and to pay the costs.
"In the service of
his
sentence, the accused shall be credited in full with the period of his
preventive imprisonment.
Pursuant to the
Resolution
dated October 15, 1991 of the Supreme Court En Banc in G. R. No. 92560
entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo C. Cortez", the cash
bail
bond of the accused in Criminal Case No. 91327 entitled "People of the
Philippines vs. Wilfredo G. Teodoro" is hereby ordered cancelled.
"Let a Commitment
Order
be issued for the confinement of the accused at the New Bilibid Prisons
at Muntinlupa, Metro Manila.
"SO ORDERED."
Two Informations,[3]
both dated February 11, 1992, were filed by 2nd Assistant Prosecutor
Alberto
A. Alforte against appellant. In Criminal Case No. 91327 the
Information,
accusing him of robbery with homicide, reads:
"That on or about the
3rd day of February, 1992 in the Municipality of Pasig, Metro Manila,
Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused,
armed with a kitchen knife, conspiring and confederating with one, Vic
Naguit, who is still at large and mutually helping and aiding one
another,
with intent of gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation,
did
then and there willfully and unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and
carry away cash money amounting to P25,000.00 belonging to Eden M.
Cabarubias,
to the damage and prejudice of the owner thereof in the total amount of
P25,000.00; and that by reason and on the occasion of the robbery, the
above-named accused, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously stab said Eden M. Cabarubias on the
different
parts of her body, thereby inflicting upon her mortal wounds which
directly
caused her death.
"Contrary to law."
In Criminal Case No. 91328,
he was charged with frustrated homicide allegedly committed as follows:
"That on or about the
3rd day of February, 1992 in the Municipality of Pasig, Metro Manila,
Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused,
armed with a kitchen knife, conspiring and confederating with one Vic
Naguit
who is still at large and mutually helping and aiding one another, with
intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously
attack, assault and stab one Margie M. Ganaban on her chest, thereby
performing
all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of
homicide,
as a consequence thereof but nevertheless did not produce it by reason
of cause, independent of the will, that is, due to the timely and able
medical attendance rendered to said Margie M. Ganaban which prevented
her
death.
"Contrary to law."
Although the two informations
alleged that Appellant Teodoro confederated with a certain Vic Naguit,
the records do not show whether Naguit was formally charged. Hence,
this
case pertains only to Appellant Teodoro.
Arraigned alone on June
16, 1992, appellant, with the assistance of Counsel de Oficio Fernando
Fernandez of the Public Attorney's Office, pleaded not guilty in both
cases.[4]
In due course, the two cases were tried jointly. Thereafter, the trial
court rendered its now assailed Joint Decision. In view of the penalty
imposed by the trial court, this appeal was filed directly with this
Court.
The Facts
Version of the Prosecution
The trial court summarized
the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution, viz.:
"xxx Margie Ganaban,
a housemaid of the deceased Eden Cabarubias, said that accused Teodoro
and his companion, later identified as Vic Naguit, arrived at the house
of Cabarubias in the morning of February 3, 1992. Upon seeing the
accused
at the door, she informed Cabarubias, who was then taking a bath, of
the
accused's presence and she was told to let him in and wait for her.
Ganaban
did as she was told and let the two (2) men into the house and waited
with
them in the sala for Cabarubias to finish her bath. When she was
finished,
Cabarubias went to the sala and talked with the accused while Ganaban
took
her turn in the bathroom. After she finished bathing, Ganaban went to
the
adjacent room with her clothes and it was at the door where she was met
by Teodoro who told her not to shout as he covered her mouth with his
left
hand. Ganaban further stated that "sinandal ako sa pader" by
Teodoro
and she was asked to lie down on a small table where the accused
stabbed
her three (3) times on her upper right chest with a knife which he held
with his right hand. After stabbing her, Teodoro then went to the
garage
from where she heard Cabarubias pleading "Willy, huwag, maawa ka sa
akin." As she pretended to be dead, Ganaban was able to see Teodoro
ransack the room of Cabarubias. Ganaban fainted from her wounds and
after
regaining consciousness, vomited before she was able to crawl out of
the
house and unto the street where the neighbors found her and brought her
to the hospital. At the hospital, Ganaban was able to give a statement
(Exh. "A") to Police Officer Matias about the incident.
"Police Officer
Gagawanan
was monitoring traffic when he was approached by one, Ferdinand Madjos,
who reported a stabbing incident that occurred at the house of Gregorio
Advincula's neighbor. Proceeding to the scene, Gagawanan was able to
talk
to Ganaban who told him that her attacker was a certain "Willy".
Gagawanan
helped load Ganaban on a vehicle that took the latter to the hospital
and
then entered the house where he saw Cabarubias lying on the garage
floor.
Cabarubias was also loaded onto the vehicle so that she could be
brought
to the hospital. Gagawanan executed a statement (Exh. "B") as to the
events
he witnessed.
"Police Officer
Arcigal
of the Pasig Police Station was tasked with the investigation of the
crime
and he learned of the identity of Teodoro when he talked with Ruel
Cabarubias,
father of Eden Cabarubias, about the incident. Afterwards, Arcigal
proceeded
to the house of Teodoro where he talked with the wife who promised to
surrender
the accused. The accused surrendered on February 7, 1992 and it was
from
him that the identity of his companion on the date in question, Vic
Naguit,
was disclosed to the authorities. Arcigal prepared a statement (Exh.
"C")
that narrated the facts with which he was acquainted.
"Dr. Ruperto
Sombilon,
Jr. performed the autopsy on the cadaver of Cabarubias and his findings
showed that of the six (6) stab wounds suffered by the deceased, number
2 proved to be fatal. The findings also revealed that it was very
probable
that the stab wounds were inflicted while the deceased and her attacker
were facing each other. Dr. Sombilon, Jr. also testified as to the
correctness
of Autopsy ReportNo. N-92-312 (Exh. "C") and the Certification of
Identification
of Dead Body (Exh. "D") which were also given in evidence.
"Dr. Agaton
Manimtim
examined Margie Ganaban and listed her wounds in a Medico-Legal
Certificate
(Exh. "E") that he prepared. He also testified to the fact that the
wounds
suffered by Ganaban would have probably taken two (2) weeks to heal at
the time of examination and that she would have died had she not
received
timely medical attention by way of a tube that was inserted to aid her
breathing."
Version of the Defense
The version of the defense
is summarized in the Appellant's Brief dated February 14, 1994, as
follows:
The defense presented
two witnesses. They are the accused WILFREDO TEODORO and PETER BAGTAS.
"WILFREDO TEODORO
testified
that he is engaged in buy and sell of scrap. There is no truth to the
charges
of robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide against him. On
February
3, 1992 at about 7:30 a.m. he was with a friend named VIC NAGUIT and
they
proceeded to the house of EDEN CABARUBIAS at No. 113 Edinburg, Green
Park,
Manggahan, Pasig, Metro Manila. When they arrived at the house the maid
named MARGIE GANABAN opened the gate for them. They were to claim the
amount
of P70,000.00 from EDEN CABARUBIAS a proceed in the buy and sell of
used
car transaction. He and EDEN CABARUBIAS have a transaction at that time
that half of the P70,000.00 he will give it to VIC NAGUIT while the
other
half to EDEN CABARUBIAS. The three of them have (sic)
a conversation at the sala and during the conversation, EDEN CABARUBIAS
and VIC NUGUIT had a misunderstanding as to the model and price of the
car they will buy. EDEN CABARUBIAS began uttering unsavory words to VIC
NUGUIT by saying "mukhang pera". He tried to pacify the two and EDEN
CABARUBIAS
drove out VIC NUGUIT from the sala and followed him outside. He was
left
alone in the sala and stood up with the intention to pacify the two.
Outside
he saw VIC NAGUIT behind EDEN CABARUBIAS holding a knife with a black
handle
and saw EDEN CABARUBIAS bloodied. He was shocked of what he saw and
lost
consciousness. He regained consciousness when VIC NAGUIT pulled him out
of the house. They took a tricycle and went home. During the stabbing
incident,
MARGIE GANABAN was inside the bathroom. She went to take a bath after
serving
them with softdrinks. At home, he asked money from his wife and told
her
that he is a suspect in the death of EDEN CABARUBIAS being the person
known
to her household. He knows the father of EDEN CABARUBIAS named ROBERTO
CABARUBIAS and were together engaged in scrap iron business in 1992. On
February 7, 1992, he proceeded to the house of a policeman friend and a
member of the Pasig Police Station and surrendered to him. To his
knowledge
VIC NAGUIT just arrived from Saudi Arabia and his family was a former
taxi
operator." (TSN, pp. 2-7, March 26, 1993).
PETER BAGTAS testified
that he is a tricycle driver. On February 3, 1992 at about 7:30 a.m. he
was driving a tricycle and has (sic) two
passengers
going to Edinburgh Street, Green Park, Pasig, Metro-Manila. His
passengers
are (sic) Willy Teodoro and Vikvok. On the way,
he
heard his passengers talking about the payment they would receive from
the owner of the house. He does not know the owner of the house that
his
passengers were talking about. After arriving at the place, his
passengers
asked him to wait for them but he replied that he [had] to convey a
student
to school who is (sic) waiting for him. Vikvok
handed
him a P100.00 peso bill for their fare and having the P100.00 peso bill
change[d] but there was none so he proceeded to a nearby gasoline
station
and have (sic) it change(d). He returned to the
house
where his two passengers alighted and he pushed the gate and saw Vikvok
holding a woman by the neck and with a bladed weapon on one hand kept
stabbing
the woman. The woman was bloodied and he saw Willy Teodoro standing by
the door in [a] state of shock just infront of a car. He was shocked of
what he saw and immediately fled from the place.
On cross-examination,
he testified that his two passengers came from San Gabriel Street,
Santolan,
Pasig, Metro-Manila. He did not report the incident to the police
because
he was scared of Vikvok who is a known tough guy in the place and does
(sic) not want to be involved in the case
because
he has a family. (TSN, pp. 2-14, May 7, 1993)
Error Assigned
Appellant assigns the
following error:
The court a quo gravely
erred in finding accused-appellant Wilfredo Teodoro guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide despite the evidence to the
contrary and the testimony of (an) eyewitness (in) his favor.[5]
The Court's
Ruling
The appeal is partly
meritorious.
Credibility of Witnesses
In reviewing the case
at bar, the Court is guided by this well-settled rule:
"xxx (W)hen the
question
is raised as to whether to believe the version of the prosecution or
that
of the defense, the trial court's choice is generally viewed as correct
and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to
conclude
so, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and
deportment
on the witness stand, and the manner in which they gave their
testimonies,
and, therefore, could better discern if such witnesses were telling the
truth; the trial court is thus in the best position to weigh
conflicting
testimonies. Therefore, unless the trial judge plainly overlooked
certain
facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the
result
of the case, his assessment on credibility of witnesses must be
respected."[6]
Poring over the records
of the case, We find that the trial court correctly gave full weight
and
credence to the testimony of Margie Ganaban. Petitioner has not given
Us
sufficient ground and indeed We found none to believe that the
trial
court overlooked or misappreciated any fact that might warrant
appellant's
total exoneration.
Margie Ganaban's clear,
simple and straightforward eyewitness' account established the
following:
that Appellant Teodoro stabbed her; that he then approached Eden
Cabarubias;
that Eden pleaded with appellant, whom she referred to as "Willy," to
spare
her life; that appellant stabbed Eden. The salient portions of
Ganaban's
testimony are as follows:
"Q. When somebody knocked
at the door did you look who was/outside [sic] the door?
"A. Yes, sir. I peeped
but I did not open at once the door.cralaw:red
"Q. Did you talk to
them?
"A. No. sir. I went
inside the room and I told Ate Eden that Willy was there.cralaw:red
"Q. What did your employer
say?
"A. She told me to let
them in.cralaw:red
"Q. Did you let them
in?
"A. Yes, sir.cralaw:red
"Q. What happened next
when they were already inside?
"A. They waited for
Ate Eden and Ate Eden went out of the room and they walked with each
other.cralaw:red
"Q. Did your hear any
of their conversation?
"A. No, sir. I was taking
a bath at that time.cralaw:red
"Q. After you have taken
a bath, do you remember what happened?
"A. Yes, sir.cralaw:red
"Q. Will you narrate
before the Court what happened?
"A. After taking a bath
I brought my clothes inside the room. When I came out of the room Willy
met me at the door of the room.cralaw:red
"Q. What happened next
when Willy met you at the door?
"A. He told me, do not
shout.cralaw:red
"Q. Did he do anything?
"A. When I shout I saw
him holding a knife. He covered my mouth and I was and I quote, "sinandal
ako sa pader" and I was asked to lie down in a small table.cralaw:red
"Q. You said he covered
your mouth? Can you demonstrate before the Court how he covered your
mouth?
"A. Witness demonstrating
with her left hand.cralaw:red
"Q. While he was covering
your mouth with his left hand, did you see if he is holding in his
right
hand?
"A. On his left hand,
sir.cralaw:red
"Q. What you mean he
covered your mouth with his right hand?
"A. His left hand was
covering my mouth, sir.cralaw:red
"Q. And he was holding
on his right hand?
"A. Yes, sir.cralaw:red
"Q. What did he do?
"A. He stabbed me, sir.cralaw:red
"Q. How many times did
he stab you?
"A. Three times, sir.cralaw:red
"Q. Will you state before
the Court where he stabbed you?
"A. Witness pointing
to her upper right chest.cralaw:red
"Q. What other parts
of your body. You said you were stabbed three times?
"A. On the upper right
chest, sir. (Witness pointing to her right upper chest).cralaw:red
"Q. Are you acquainted
with the name of the person who stabbed you?
"A. Yes, sir.cralaw:red
"Q. Will you state before
the Court the name of the person who stabbed you?
"A. Willy, sir.cralaw:red
"Q. If this Willy is
inside the courtroom can you point to him?
"A. Yes, sir.cralaw:red
"Q. Please point to
him?
(Witness pointing to
a person who identified himself as Wilfredo Teodoro, the accused in
this
case)
"Q. After stabbing you
three times do you remember anything else that happened?
"A. Yes, sir.cralaw:red
"Q. What happened next?
"A. He stabbed Ate Eden
who is in the garage and Ate Eden was pleading with him.cralaw:red
"Q. Can you tell before
the Court how Eden was begging. Did she say anything?
"A. She begged to Willy
and saying and I quote, Willy, huwag, maawa ka sa akin. For two times
she
said these words to Willy.cralaw:red
"Q. After Willy stabbed
Eden, what did he do to you?
"A. He told me to lie
down in small table.cralaw:red
"Q. While you were in
the table, did you hear anything else?
"A. Yes, sir.cralaw:red
"Q. And what did you
hear?
"A. I heard them ransacking
the cabinets inside the house.cralaw:red
"Q. Do you recall whether
or not you lost consciousness after you have been stabbed?
"A. Yes, sir.cralaw:red
"Q. When you woke up,
did you know where you were already at the time when you woke up?[sic]
"A. Yes, sir.cralaw:red
"Q. And where were you
when you woke up?
"A. Also on the place
where I was lying down.[7][Emphasis supplied]
Ganaban's testimony
not only rings true; likewise, it is clearly consistent with the
physical
evidence. We further observe that appellant had not shown that Margie
had
ill motive to testify falsely against him. On the contrary, Margie
herself
was a victim; she would have gained nothing by implicating an innocent
man and exonerating the guilty one.cralaw:red
Appellant Wilfredo Teodoro
would have this Court believe that Margie Ganaban did not and could not
have witnessed the fatal stabbing of Eden Cabarubias. He argues that,
at
the time, Ganaban "lost consciousness while critically wounded and
lying
on top of a small table."[8]
Appellant further denies stabbing Cabarubias on the ground that he had
no motive to do so.[9]
Appellant's arguments
are unpersuasive. Contrary to Teodoro's claim, the foregoing transcript
clearly demonstrates that Margie Ganaban was a competent witness. As
shown
by her testimony, she did not immediately lose consciousness when
stabbed
thrice in the chest by appellant; she was still able to observe the
subsequent
fatal events. Jurisprudence teaches that the serious nature of a
victim's
injuries would not necessarily affect his or her credibility as a
witness,
if such injuries did not cause the immediate loss of his or her ability
to perceive and identify the assailant,[10]
as in this case. In People vs. Amaca, the Court ruled that a declarant
of an ante morten statement who had received two fatal gunshot wounds
at
the back was a competent witness:
xxxThe question as to
whether a certain act could have been done after receiving a given
wound,
according to Wharton and Stilles (Vol. III, Medical Jurisprudence, p.
212),
"is always one that must be decided upon the merits of a particular
case."
They cited a case from Vibert's Precis de Med. Leg., 4th ed., p. 286,
where
a man after being shot in the chest threw a lamp at his adversary. The
lamp started a fire; and to extinguish the fire, the wounded man
fetched
a pail of water from the courtyard. When the fire was extinguished, the
man lay down on bed and died. Vibert performed the autopsy, and found
that
the left ventricle of the heart had been perforated by the revolver's
bullet.
It is evident from the foregoing that Dr. Acosta's assertion that the
victim
of a gunshot wound would immediately lose consciousness, after
infliction
of the wound, may not be true in all cases xxx[11]
Like alibi, Appellant's
self-serving denial of his participation in the killing of Cabarubias
is
weak; it cannot prevail over Ganaban's positive and straightforward
testimony
identifying him as the culprit.[12]
Indeed, this defense rests solely on the shaky foundation that
appellant
allegedly had no motive to kill Cabarubias. It is axiomatic that motive
is not an element of robbery with homicide or frustrated homicide.cralaw:red
In any event, the motive
of appellant to commit the culpable acts can in fact be gleaned from
his
own testimony. He testified that he went to the house of Cabarubias
that
fateful morning to collect half of the amount of P70,000.00 which he
had
allegedly given to the latter in connection with their business of
buying
and selling motor vehicles. He allegedly intended to give said amount
to
Vic Naguit.[13]
This is corroborated by a tricycle driver, Peter Bagtas, the other
defense
witness who testified that he heard Naguit and Teodoro, who were his
passengers,
speak of their intent to collect a sum of money from the deceased
Cabarubias.[14]
Thus, it is not at all farfetched that Teodoro was driven to the deep
end
because of Cabarubias' refusal to hand the money which he was
attempting
to collect.cralaw:red
Furthermore, Appellant's
pretense that he was a harmless bystander who could not stomach
violence,
and that he fainted from the shock of seeing Cabarubias being stabbed
by
Vic Naguit is belied by his own admission in his brief: "[i]f
there
is any liability of appellant, it is only frustrated homicide and the
victim
is MARGIE GANABAN."[15]
Robbery with Homicide?
The Court, however,
disagrees with the conclusion of the trial court that appellant was
guilty
of robbery with homicide. In holding that the killing was attended by
robbery,
the trial court relied on (1) Margie's testimony that she heard the two
men ransack the room of the deceased, and (2) Ruel Cabarubias'
assertion
that there was money in the house.[16]
The trial court reasoned that "it [was] logical to surmise that Teodoro
found the money and [took] it with him when he left."[17]
We disagree. "Our settled
rule is that in order to sustain a conviction for robbery with
homicide,
robbery must be proven as conclusively as the killing itself;
otherwise,
the crime would only be homicide or murder as the case may be."[18]
Margie merely heard both men ransacking Cabarubias' room in search of
the
money; she did not actually see the accused or his companion asport the
same. Furthermore, we find no proof that a sum of money was indeed left
in the deceased's room. In this light, Ruel Cabarubias' testimony
contains
mere inferences and inconclusive recollections of conversations with
the
deceased. While the existence of such amount may be granted, it was not
adequately shown that Eden Cabarubias had that amount in her house at
the
time.[19]
In fact, there is no evidence on hand that appellant took any money.
Even
assuming arguendo that there was money taken from the deceased's
premises,
there is no proof that this amount was taken by Appellant Teodoro.
Prior
to the arrival of the police and the bereaved family, other people had
access to the crime scene who, in the confusion, could possibly have
pocketed
the alleged stolen money. Hence, we find no sufficient evidence to
justify
the lower court's finding that the killing was attended by asportation
of such money.cralaw:red
On the other hand, there
is no dispute that appellant is liable for frustrated homicide. Were it
not for the timely medical attention accorded Ganaban, she would have
died.
At any rate, appellant himself concedes that, if at all, he should be
convicted
only of this offense. Accordingly, appellant may be held liable
only
for the crimes of homicide and frustrated homicide. Since there were no
mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty for homicide,
reclusion
temporal, shall be imposed in its medium period; and the penalty for
frustrated
homicide, one degree lower or prison mayor, shall be imposed in its
medium
period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, appellant should
suffer,
for homicide, prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal,
also in its medium period; and, for frustrated homicide, prision
correccional
in its medium period to prision mayor likewise in its medium period.cralaw:red
Proof of Moral Damages
Moral damages cannot
be awarded in the absence of proof of physical suffering, mental
anguish,
fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral
shock, social humiliation and similar injury.[20]
Put differently, there must be factual basis therefor.[21]
The assailed Decision awarded to the heirs of Eden Cabarubias the sum
of
P20,000.00 as moral damages. We pored over the records; however, we
found
no factual basis for the award.[22]
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the questioned Decision is hereby MODIFIED. Appellant is
found
GUILTY of homicide and frustrated homicide and SENTENCED to an
indeterminate
penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen
(17)
years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for the
first
crime; and four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional,
as
minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
maximum,
for the second. Appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of Eden
Cabarubias
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. The award of P20,000.00 as moral damages
and the further sum of P25,000.00 representing the allegedly stolen
cash
are hereby DELETED. The other portions of the assailed Decision are
AFFIRMED.
Costs de oficio.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Narvasa, C.J.,
Romero, Melo and Francisco, JJ., concur.cralaw:red
_________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
In Criminal Case Nos. 91327-91328; Rollo, pp. 14-22.
[2]
Judge Martin S. Villarama, Jr., presiding.
[3]
Rollo, pp. 2-5.
[4]
Joint Decision, p. 2; Rollo, p. 15.
[5]
Appellant's Brief, p. 1; Rollo, p. 34.
[6]
People vs. Obzunar, G.R. No. 92153, p. 11, December 16, 1996, per
Panganiban,
J.; citing People vs. Alimon, 257 SCRA 658, 669, June 28, 1996.
[7]
TSN, pp. 4-7, July 1, 1992.
[8]
Ibid., p. 11; Rollo, p. 44.
[9]
Ibid.
[10]
People vs. Amaca, G.R. No. 110129, August 12, 1997, per Panganiban, J.
[11]
Ibid., p. 8, supra; citing People vs. Obngayan, 55 SCRA 465, 474,
January
31, 1974, per Antonio, J.
[12]
People vs. Layno, G.R. No. 110833, pp. 16-17, November 21, 1996, per
Panganiban,
J.
[13]
TSN, pp. 2-3, March 26, 1993.
[14]
Ibid., p. 3, May 7, 1993.
[15]
Appellant's Brief, p. 12; Rollo, p. 45.
[16]
See Joint Decision, pp. 7-8; Rollo, pp. 20-21.
[17]
Ibid., p. 7; Rollo, p. 20.
[18]
People vs. Rubio, 257 SCRA 528, 535, June 20, 1996, per Francisco, J.
[19]
See TSN, pp. 1-12, July 8, 1992.
[20]
Article 2217 of the Civil Code.
[21]
People vs. Bienvenido Baydo, G.R. No. 113799, June 17, 1997.
[22]
People vs. Patrolla, Jr., 254 SCRA 467, 477, March 7, 1996. |