EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
142467
June 10, 2003
-versus-
EX - MAYOR RENATO
REYES
(DECEASED),
PEPITO
FAMILIARA,
JR. (DECEASED),ABELARDO DE CASTRO,
PORFERIO ESGUERRA
AND
NICASIO LUSAYA
(ACQUITTED),
Accused.
ABELARDO DE
CASTRO
AND PORFERIO ESGUERRA,
Appellants.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This is murder. Prudencio
Lineses, while reading a bible at home in the evening of 1 October
1995,
was mercilessly gunned down. The assassins were initially unknown
and remained scot-free until a person arrested four (4) months later in
connection with another murder case executed an extrajudicial
confession
admitting responsibility for the murder of Prudencio Lineses and
disclosing
his co-participants in the killing. Witnesses surfaced soon after
and several persons were eventually apprehended and charged with murder
with the use of an illegally possessed firearm.
Of the five (5) accused
mentioned in the Information, namely, Ex-Mayor Renato Reyes, Pepito
Familiara,
Jr., Abelardo de Castro, Porferio Esguerra and Nicasio Lusaya, only
Abelardo
de Castro and Porferio Esguerra were convicted of murder with the
aggravating
circumstance of dwelling. Both were sentenced to death.[1]
Their case is now on automatic review with this Court.cralaw:red
The factual details:
At about 7 o’clock in the evening of 1 October 1995, Gerardo Lineses,
son
of Prudencio Lineses and barangay captain of San Isidro, was reading
some
comic magazines in his room when he heard someone say "magandang gabi,
kapitan."[2]
He peered out the window and through the light cast by a Coleman lamp[3]
from their sala and the improvised lamps (gasera)[4]
in their kitchen, Gerardo saw Abelardo de Castro, a known bodyguard of
their mayor, about two (2) meters from their door and about five (5)
meters
from him. The door was open. Abelardo was facing the door and a
foot-long
firearm was slung on his shoulder.cralaw:red
Soon after, Gerardo
heard successive gunshots from inside the house. He peered out
the
window again and saw Abelardo running away with another person.
Gerardo
then rushed to the sala and saw the bloodied and lifeless body of his
father.
Thinking that he was the assailants’ real target and that they might
soon
return for him, Gerardo fled through the back door and hid in the house
of a friend.cralaw:red
Laila Grabi Lineses,
Prudencio’s daughter-in-law, who was in her house some five (5) meters
away at about 7 o’clock that evening, also heard the footsteps of a man
(yabag ng tao).[5]
She looked out of the window and saw Abelardo de Castro and a companion
walking along the side of her father-in-law’s house heading towards the
main door. She moved to another window and saw Abelardo’s
companion
enter Prudencio’s house while Abelardo stood outside about three (3)
meters
from the door[6]
and about four (4) meters from her house.[7]
Abelardo was armed with a firearm about a foot-long slung by a strap on
his shoulder.chanrobles virtual law library
When they were already
near the entrance of the house, Abelardo’s companion shot several times
her father-in-law who was seated in the sala. As the sala was
well-lighted,
she saw her father-in-law collapse and soon enough he was covered with
blood. After shooting Prudencio, the two (2) assailants hurriedly
left the crime scene.cralaw:red
Laila proceeded to her
father-in-law’s house but immediately returned to her own after
ascertaining
that Prudencio was no longer breathing and that Gerardo was not in the
house. Laila then took her children to the house of a neighbor
for
safety and proceeded to look for help.cralaw:red
On 2 October 1995, Dr.
Edgardo Hernandez, then the Municipal Health Officer of Bongabong,
autopsied
the remains of Prudencio Lineses. In his Report,[8]
Dr. Hernandez stated that the victim died of hemorrhage due to multiple
gunshot wounds three (3) of which were fatal. He found no
contusions,
abrasions or slugs on the body. Dr. Hernandez opined that the
assailant
was near his victim when he shot him because of the presence of
tattooing
on all the wounds.[9]
Neither Gerardo nor
Laila revealed to the police what they had witnessed as they feared for
their lives. The day after Prudencio’s funeral, or on 12 October
1995, Gerardo left for San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, where his paternal
aunts lived. He later left for Manila but returned to Bongabong
on
21 January 1996. In the meantime, Laila and family sold their
house
in Bongabong and moved to Batangas City.cralaw:red
On 30 January 1996,
Pepito Familiara, Jr., who was arrested for the murder of Manuel
Bataycan
in Crim. Case No. 5468, executed an extrajudicial confession[10]
implicating Mayor Renato U. Reyes, Abelardo de Castro, Nicasio Lusaya
and
Porferio (Gil) Esguerra in the killing. In the same confession,
Familiara
said that they were also the same group that liquidated Prudencio
Lineses
on the night of 1 October 1995 upon instruction of Mayor Reyes.
The
following day, Familiara executed another extrajudicial confession[11]
narrating in detail the circumstances surrounding the killing of
Prudencio
Lineses.cralaw:red
On 2 February 1996 Laila
Lineses, followed by Gerardo Lineses on 5 February 1996, executed sworn
statements in the office of Prosecutor Cesar Enriquez in Pinamalayan,
Oriental
Mindoro, on what they knew about the killing of Prudencio Lineses.cralaw:red
On 20 May 1997 an Information[12]
for Murder with Use of Illegally Possessed Firearm was filed against
Mayor
Renato U. Reyes, Pepito Familiara, Jr., Abelardo de Castro, Nicasio
Lusaya
and Porferio (Gil) Esguerra. On 4 July 1997 a warrant for their
arrest
was issued. On 5 July 1997, Renato U. Reyes and Nicasio R. Lusaya
voluntarily surrendered to the Criminal Investigation Division,
NCR-CIO,
Criminal Intelligence Group. By then, all the accused were
accounted
for as some of them were already detained in connection with Crim. Case
No. 5468.cralaw:red
The case was raffled
to the Regional Trial Court, Br. 42, with Judge Manuel C. Luna, Jr.
presiding.
Through a Manifestation dated 29 July 1997, the private prosecutor
questioned
the authority of Judge Luna to try the case in view of SC Circ. No.
104-96
designating Br. 41 to try and decide heinous crimes. Thus, the
case
was forwarded to Br. 41 presided by Judge Normelito J. Ballocanag, who
in turn, recused himself as one of the accused, Renato U. Reyes, had
filed
an administrative case against him before the Office of the Ombudsman,
although it was later dismissed. On 20 January 1998 the Court
designated
Judge Antonio M. Rosales of RTC-Br. 43, Roxas, Oriental Mindoro, to try
and decide the case at the RTC-Br. 41 of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro.chanrobles virtual law library
On 27 October 1997 the
accused were arraigned. Before accused Esguerra was asked to
enter
his plea his name was corrected from "Gil" to "Porferio."
On 24 March 1998 the
trial court allowed accused Renato U. Reyes and Nicasio Lusaya to post
bail. But bail was denied their co-accused, appellants herein
Abelardo
de Castro and Porferio Esguerra.cralaw:red
On 2 January 1998 Pepito
Familiara, Jr. died at the Provincial Jail in Calapan City, while
Renato
U. Reyes was killed in an ambush in Barangay Mabuhay, Socorro, Oriental
Mindoro, on 17 April 1999.cralaw:red
The remaining accused
interposed alibi. Nicasio Lusaya who had been working for Renato
Reyes as a driver claimed he was at the beach house of his employer in
Barangay Aplaya the whole day of 1 October 1995; at 7 o’clock in the
evening
he was watching television at the terrace with Abelardo de Castro,
Dionisia
"Doty" Rodriguez, a certain Christy and other persons in the
neighborhood.
Abelardo de Castro corroborated Lusaya’s testimony. He further
declared
that he did not know Porferio (Gil) Esguerra and only met him during
the
trial of this case.cralaw:red
Porferio Esguerra claimed
that on 1 October 1995 he was in Calatagan, Batangas, and
went
fishing in the sea between Batangas and Mindoro with three (3) Visayan
companions. He denied knowing his co-accused. To support
their
alibi, the accused presented Romeo E. Lahermeonaga,[13]
the municipal engineer of Bongabong; Major Oliver Capisanan, Chief of
Police
of Bongabong; Angelita Ganton, wife of Prudencio’s grandson Felix; and
Dionisia Rodriguez, a former househelp of Renato Reyes.cralaw:red
Engineer Lahermeonaga
testified that from Barangay Aplaya to San Isidro is about eight (8)
kilometers
and would take thirty (30) to forty (40) minutes to travel through
rough
roads using a private vehicle. The gist of Major Capisanan’s
testimony
was that he saw Abelardo de Castro and Nicasio Lusaya at Mayor Reyes’
beach
house about 7:10 in the evening of 1 October 1995. Major
Capisanan
claimed that when he investigated the crime scene that evening, Laila
Lineses
told him that she did not witness the shooting as she was already in
bed
and about to sleep.cralaw:red
Angelita Ganton who
was in Prudencio’s house when the crime occurred testified that she saw
Pepito Familiara, Jr. shoot Prudencio. She also said that Pepito
was the lover of Laila and that Pepito killed Prudencio after the
latter
revealed their illicit relationship to Laila’s husband.cralaw:red
Dionisia Rodriguez confirmed
the presence of Nicasio and Abelardo at the beach house at the time of
the shooting and the affair between Pepito and Laila.cralaw:red
Relying on the eyewitness
accounts of Gerardo and Laila, the trial court found Abelardo de Castro
and Porferio Esguerra guilty of murder with the aggravating
circumstance
of dwelling, hence the death penalty. They were ordered to
solidarily
pay the heirs of the victim Prudencio Lineses P50,000.00 as
compensatory
damages for the loss of life of the victim; P59,500.00 in actual
damages;
P100,000.00 in moral damages; and P50,000.00 in exemplary damages in
view
of the presence of an aggravating circumstance. Their co-accused
Nicasio Lusaya was acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove
his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.chanrobles virtual law library
In this automatic review,
accused-appellants Abelardo de Castro and Porferio Esguerra claim that
the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt as
their identities were not established with certainty. They
argue that the trial court gravely erred in giving credit to the
testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses Gerardo Lineses and Laila Lineses.
They
asseverate that material inconsistencies scattered all over Gerardo’s
and
Laila’s testimonies indicate that neither of these witnesses actually
saw
the killing. They insist that Gerardo was out of the house at the
time of the shooting and only came home the following morning.
Laila,
on the other hand, was preparing for bed and never saw the assailants.cralaw:red
We affirm the conviction
of accused-appellants for murder.cralaw:red
This Court has held
often enough that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of
witnesses are entitled to full faith and credit since it had the
distinct
advantage of observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while
testifying on the stand. Such findings will not be disturbed on
appeal
in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked,
misunderstood
or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that
would otherwise affect the result of the case.[14]
An evaluation of the records show that no such error can be attributed
to the lower court in this case. At any rate, the inconsistencies
appear to be minor or inconsequential which, rather than weaken the
witness’s
credibility, strengthen it as they erase the suspicion of a rehearsed
testimony.[15]
Accused-appellants assert
that it was "highly uncertain" for anyone to see the culprits with such
clarity that night with merely the light of a Coleman lamp coming from
the victim’s window as illumination. They proffer that the
detailed description of Abelardo’s clothes and gun and yet the
inability
of the witnesses to even remember the clothing of Abelardo’s companion
render their allegations doubtful.cralaw:red
The contention is unconvincing.
This Court has repeatedly held that the illumination of wicklamps,
flashlights,
headlights from cars, lights from lamp posts, even moonlight or
starlight
is sufficient to allow identification of persons.[16]
The light coming from Prudencio’s house was sufficient to enable the
witnesses
to recognize accused-appellants especially since Gerardo testified that
their house was lighted not only by a lamp in their sala but also by
improvised
lamps in their kitchen. The light cast by these lamps which
passed
through the windows and their door reached up to the gate of the fence
surrounding Prudencio’s house.[17]
Accused-appellants stood only a few meters away from Prudencio’s house
and the witnesses.cralaw:red
Gerardo and Laila’s
recognition of Abelardo was unequivocal because of their familiarity
with
Abelardo who was a long time resident of their barangay and who also
served
as its barangay captain. This familiarity and the fact that
Abelardo
calmly waited outside thereby affording the witnesses more opportunity
to observe him, accounted for the greater attention received by
Abelardo
and the consequent disparity between the witnesses’ description of him
and his companion. That the witnesses failed to notice his
companion’s
garments however should not detract from the fact that Laila recognized
that companion to be accused-appellant Porferio Esguerra and positively
identified him in court.cralaw:red
Accused-appellants capitalize
on the variance between the statement made by Gerardo during
cross-examination
and that made during the direct examination. They point out that
Gerardo
later testified that he heard the words "magandang gabi po,
kapitan"
instead of "magandang gabi, kapitan." They also disparage as "off
tangent and beyond the dictates of human nature" his hasty flight from
their house. They claim that Gerardo should have stayed awhile to
rush his father to the hospital if he was still alive and not merely
presumed
him dead. Moreover, Gerardo supposedly testified that the door of
their house was not visible from his window.chanrobles virtual law library
When confronted by the
discrepancies in his statements, Gerardo corrected himself and
reaffirmed
that what he really heard was "magandang gabi, kapitan."[18]
The mistake is conceivable since he testified to an event which had
occurred
years prior to the trial and witnesses cannot be expected to recall
with
precision every detail surrounding the crime.cralaw:red
As for Gerardo’s immediate
retreat, this Court has repeatedly observed that different people react
differently to a given stimulus or type of situation and there is no
standard
form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange,
startling
or frightful experience.[19]
The assailants addressed Prudencio as "kapitan" before ending the poor
man’s life. Considering Gerardo was the incumbent barangay
captain
at that time, he was justified in thinking that he was the real target
and the assailants just mistook his father for him. It is
completely
understandable that Gerardo’s reaction was to panic and hide himself
after
seeing his father bleeding and bullet-ridden. Craven and callous
as it may seem to accused-appellants, we certainly cannot deny Gerardo
the basic instinct of self-preservation.cralaw:red
Also manifest from the
records and contrary to the allegations of accused-appellants, Gerardo
clearly declared upon inquiry by the judge that the door of Prudencio’s
house was visible from his window.[20]
Accused-appellants are
also critical of Gerardo’s failure to give a cartographic sketch of the
suspects and of Laila’s neglect to state in her sworn statement that
she
saw Porferio shoot Prudencio several times.cralaw:red
Cartographic sketches
are resorted to in order to aid law enforcers in the culprit’s
apprehension
when his identity is unknown. Circumstances show that there was
no
necessity for it. Gerardo was well-acquainted with
accused-appellant
Abelardo de Castro and categorically identified him as one of the
persons
he saw the night his father was shot. As for the gunman,
Gerardo
averred that he only saw him running away from the house and was unable
to see his face. During the trial he could only give the build
and
approximate height of the gunman.cralaw:red
With regard to the supposed
deficiency in Laila’s sworn statement, we have frequently observed that
a sworn statement or an affidavit does not purport to be a complete
compendium
of the details of the event narrated by the affiant.[21]
Being taken ex parte, a sworn statement is almost always
incomplete
and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestion or for want of
suggestions and inquiries.[22]
While her sworn statement may have been scanty on details, Laila
testified
sufficiently on relevant matters on the stand. She
testified
that she not only saw Abelardo and his companion, whom she later
identified
in court as the accused-appellant Porferio Esguerra, walking towards
Prudencio’s
house; she also recounted seeing Porferio enter Prudencio’s house and
fire
successive shots at Prudencio.[23]
Accused-appellants express
disbelief at Laila’s revelation that she heard footfalls for which
reason
she peeked through her window in the evening of 1 October 1995.
Accused-appellants
likewise question why, unlike Gerardo, Laila never heard the greeting
made
by the assailants or met Gerardo in the sala of the Prudencio’s house
when
both claimed to have checked on the victim after the shooting.chanrobles virtual law library
Their skepticism is
baseless. It is quite typical in barrios for the arrival of
visitors
to attract the attention of residents. Particularly if the visit
is made in the evening when people are normally in their homes, such
visit
is guaranteed to stir the curiosity of the next-door-neighbor as it did
in Laila’s case.cralaw:red
The trial court accurately
pointed out that the chances of Gerardo and Laila meeting were totally
dependent on the exact time each of them went to Prudencio’s sala after
the shooting and how long he or she stayed there. Gerardo
testified
that he did not tarry as he promptly left through the backdoor after
viewing
his father’s remains in the sala while Laila related that she stayed in
her house for about five (5) minutes after she heard the gunshots
before
proceeding to Prudencio’s sala. Taking into account the delay, it
was not surprising that Laila never encountered Gerardo in the vicinity
of Prudencio’s house after the shooting.cralaw:red
In the same manner,
Laila’s chance of hearing the assailant’s salutation is contingent on
her
proximity to the assailant and the volume of his voice. It
is not unlikely that Gerardo was closer to the assailant who spoke and
consequently was the one who overheard him.cralaw:red
Accused-appellants assail
the four (4)-month delay of Gerardo and Laila in divulging their
knowledge
of the identities of the assailants. The argument is
unavailing.
It is an established rule that failure to reveal the identities of the
perpetrators of a crime does not affect, much less impair, the
credibility
of witnesses, more so if such delay has been adequately explained.[24]
The silence from both
Gerardo and Laila during the investigation and even long after is more
than excused by their apprehension and distrust of the police.
They
knew of Abelardo’s connection with the incumbent mayor who had
supervision
over the police in their town. Gerardo had reason to believe that
the mayor had some involvement in the assault and that the gunmen were
after him. Gerardo was one of eight (8) barangay captains in
their
municipality who filed a case against Mayor Renato U. Reyes before the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan for the mayor’s refusal to release the
Internal
Revenue Allocation for their barangays. The complaint resulted in the
mayor’s
suspension.cralaw:red
Fearing that they would
suffer the same fate as Prudencio if they disclosed what they knew,
Gerardo
and Laila decided that it was wiser to remain silent about the incident
and leave Barangay San Isidro. They only found the courage to
reveal
what they saw when they heard that the culprits were already behind
bars.cralaw:red
In an attempt to show
that Laila perjured, accused-appellants submitted a photograph showing
her seated with Pepito Familiara, Jr. behind her. They contend
that
this belies Laila’s assertion that she did not know Pepito Familiara,
Jr.
until she saw him in court. chanrobles virtual law library
We disagree. We
observe that the photograph shows Laila seated on a chair and playing a
guitar. A man, identified to be Pepito Familiara, Jr., stood
behind
her. While the presence of both persons in the same picture may
imply
the possibility, it certainly does not prove that they were in fact
acquainted.
The picture was taken in the beach resort of Mayor Reyes where Laila
frequently
attended meetings when she was a member of the DSWD and also when she
was
a barangay treasurer on the invitation of Abelardo, then the incumbent
barangay captain. The picture does not demonstrate any
interaction
among the persons in the picture. Laila appeared in the
foreground
of the picture and there is no hint that she was even aware of
anyone
behind her. Laila also admitted that she was the woman in the
photograph
but denied that she knew that a picture was being taken of her.cralaw:red
The trial court correctly
found accused-appellants Abelardo de Castro and Porferio Esguerra
guilty
of murder. Treachery was proved to have attended the crime.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an
aggressor
on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to
defend
himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor,
and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.[25]
The attack came as the victim was spending a quiet evening in his
home.
He had no inkling of the coming onslaught nor any chance to protect
himself
or to retreat as in fact the aggressor even greeted him good evening
before
firing at him. The manner by which the killing was executed and
the
viciousness of the assault left no dispute that it was deliberately
adopted
to ensure the accomplishment of the crime.cralaw:red
We agree with the trial
court that Abelardo and Porferio acted in concert. Both men,
armed
with guns, sought out Prudencio’s house in the dead of night.
While
Abelardo stationed himself outside the door, Porferio discharged the
task
of killing Prudencio. When that was accomplished, both men left hastily
together. These circumstances establish conspiracy and make them
both equally liable for Prudencio’s death.cralaw:red
We notice that accused-appellants
were tried under an Information denominated as one for murder with the
use of illegally possessed firearm but their conviction was for murder
with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling.cralaw:red
Under PD 1866 as amended
by RA 8294, if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an
unlicensed
firearm , such use of an unlicensed firearm is considered as an
aggravating
circumstance which if appreciated warrants the imposition of the death
penalty.[26]
However the accusatory portion of the Information merely mentions that
the crime was committed with the use of a firearm but neglected to
state
that the same was illegally possessed or unlicensed. Thus, the
trial
court’s non-appreciation of said circumstance was proper.chanrobles virtual law library
But the trial court
mistakenly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of dwelling against
accused-appellants to raise the penalty to death because the same was
also
not alleged in the Information. The Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure
which took effect on 1 December 2000 requires that aggravating
circumstances
must be alleged in the information or complaint, otherwise, they cannot
be properly appreciated.[27]
Being favorable to the accused, this procedural rule must be given
retroactive
application. Thus, for want of an aggravating circumstance,
the penalty imposable for murder can only be reclusion perpetua.cralaw:red
With respect to their
civil liability, the award of P50,000.00 in civil indemnity is proper
and
in conformity with current jurisprudence. The heirs of the victim
are entitled to moral damages but the sum of P100,000.00 awarded by the
trial court should be reduced to P50,000.00. The purpose for the
grant of such an award is not to enrich the heirs of the victim but to
compensate them for injuries to their feelings.[28]
Actual damages of P59,500.00
must be disallowed. To justify an award of actual damages, there
must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss. Credence
can
only be given to those that are supported by receipts and appear to
have
been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake and burial
of
the victim. We note that the victim’s daughter, Agnes
Zalamea-Lineses,
who testified to prove the civil liability of the accused-appellants,
only
gave a list of the expenses incurred by the heirs in connection with
the
wake and burial of the victim but no actual receipt was ever
presented.
In lieu of actual damages, temperate damages may be awarded since it
cannot
be denied that the victim’s heirs suffered pecuniary loss the amount of
which cannot be proved with certainty. An award of P20,000.00
should
be adequate.cralaw:red
Exemplary damages may
also be awarded in criminal cases where the crime was committed with
one
or more aggravating circumstances.[29]
However, in view of our earlier finding that the circumstance of
dwelling
cannot be appreciated, the award by the trial court of P50,000.00 for
exemplary
damages must be removed.chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, the assailed
Decision of the court a quo finding accused-appellants ABELARDO DE
CASTRO
and PORFERIO ESGUERRA Guilty of Murder is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION
that the death sentence imposed by the court a quo is reduced to
reclusion
perpetua. Accused-appellants are further ordered jointly and
severally
to pay the heirs of Prudencio Lineses P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity,
P50,000.00 for moral damages and P20,000.00 for temperate
damages.
The awards for actual and exemplary damages are deleted for lack of
factual
and legal basis.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna,
JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Decision penned by Judge Antonio M. Rosales, RTC-Br. 41, Pinamalayan,
Oriental
Mindoro, prom. 5 November 1999.
[2]
TSN, 26 February 1998, p. 36.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Also referred to as an "alladin lamp" in the tsn.
[4]
Decision, p. 20.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Id. at 5.
[6]
TSN, 30 July 1998, p. 26.
[7]
TSN, 20 June 1998, p. 14.
[8]
Records, p. 336.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
TSN, 26 February 1998, p. 17.
[10]
Records, p. 10.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
Id. at 11.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
Id. at 1.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Also spelled "Romeo E. L. Meonada" in the Decision.
[14]
People v. Albior, G.R. No. 115079, 19 February 2001, 352 SCRA 35.
[15]
People v. Velasquez, G.R. Nos. 132635 and 143872-75, 21 February 2001,
352 SCRA 455.
[16]
People v. Villaruel, G.R. No. 105006, 4 September 1996, 261 SCRA 386;
People
v. Sabalones, G.R. No. 123485, 31 August 1998, 294 SCRA 751; People v.
Belo, G.R. No. 109148, 4 December 1998, 299 SCRA 654.chanrobles virtual law library
[17]
TSN, 26 February 1998, p. 47.
[18]
Id. at 58.chanrobles virtual law library
[19]
People v. Espresso, G.R. No. 117749, 1 December 2000, 346 SCRA 617.
[20]
TSN, 25 February 1998, p. 33.chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
People v. Lising, G.R. Nos. 106210-11, 30 January 1998, 285 SCRA 595;
People
v. Jamboree, G.R. No. 117576, 18 September 1997, 279 SCRA 290.
[22]
People v. Bumidang, G.R. No. 130630, 4 December 2000, 346 SCRA 807.
[23]
TSN, 26 June 1998, p. 6.chanrobles virtual law library
[24]
People v. Paraiso, G.R. No. 127840, 29 November 1999, 319 SCRA 422;
People
v. Arlalejo, G.R. No. 127841, 16 June 2000, 333 SCRA 604; People v.
Preciados,
G.R. No. 122934, 5 January 2001, 349 SCRA 1.chanrobles virtual law library
[25]
People v. Vermudez, G.R. No. 119464, 28 January 1999, 302 SCRA 276.
[26]
People v. Bergante, G.R. Nos. 120369-70, 27 February 1998, 286 SCRA 629.
[27]
Section 9, Rule 110.chanrobles virtual law library
[28]
People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 128362, 16 January 2001, 349 SCRA 124;
People
v. Valdez, G.R. No. 128105, 24 January 2001, 350 SCRA 189; People v.
Ronas,
G.R. Nos. 128088 and 146639, 31 January 2001, 350 SCRA 663.chanrobles virtual law library
[29]
People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 118649, 9 March 1998, 287 SCRA 229. |