Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1993 > May 1993 Decisions > G.R. No. 95756 May 14, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISOLOGO EMPACIS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 95756. May 14, 1993.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CRISOLOGO EMPACIS, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Antonio A. Almirante, Jr. for Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; STANDS IN THE ABSENCE OF IMPROPER MOTIVE TO FALSELY TESTIFY AGAINST THE ACCUSED. — A painstaking review of the record fails to reveal to this Court any error on the part of the Trial Court of sufficient gravity to justify reversal or modification of its verdict. This Court is unable to perceive any reason to doubt the veracity of the testimony of the victim’s widow and son respecting the identity of Romualdo Langomez and Crisologo Empacis as the persons who attacked and killed Fidel Saromines in their effort to make off with the latter’s money amounting to P12,000.00, and the acts individually done by Romualdo and Crisologo in pursuance of their common nefarious objective. Indeed, the narrative of the widow and son is, as already pointed out, confirmed for the most part by the testimony of Crisologo Empacis himself. The latter’s attempt to exculpate himself, by portraying himself as a frustrated protector of Fidel Saromines, cannot be taken at face value, as against the more credible declarations of the victim’s widow and son, specially considering that Crisologo’s credit as a witness has been gravely enfeebled by his having obviously lied to the physician treating him, as regards the cause of his injuries. The Court has been cited to no plausible cause for Fidel’s widow and son to testify falsely against Crisologo if it be true, as the latter insinuates, that either they had not seen the actual killing or, having witnessed it, had seen Crisologo actually try to stop Romualdo from stabbing Fidel. No reason exists, therefore, to disbelieve them.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT AFFECTED BY MINOR DISCREPANCY IN THE TESTIMONY. — The fact that the victim’s son, Peter, had to correct his statement on direct examination that Romualdo Langomez stabbed his father five (5) times, declaring. on cross-examination, that in truth Romualdo stabbed his father only about three times while Crisologo Empacis stabbed the victim once — of which the appellant seeks to make capital — is not sufficient warrant to reject and discard Peter’s evidence. The discrepancy is at best a minor one, not — at all destructive of Peter’s credibility as an unrehearsed witness. This Court agrees that the Trial Court has correctly assessed the credit that should be accorded to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT; RULE. — This Court thus sees no cause to deviate from the established axiom that the factual findings of the Trial Court are accorded the highest respect on appeal, if not indeed regarded as conclusive, absent any persuasive showing that material facts have been overlooked or ignored which might otherwise dictate a different verdict.

4. CRIMINAL LAW; CONSPIRACY; MAY BE INFERRED FROM THE CONCERTED ACTS OF THE ACCUSED IN PURSUIT OF A COMMON OBJECTIVE. — This Court also agrees that conspiracy is adequately proven by the evidence. Langomez and Crisologo Empacis came to Fidel’s storelate at night, acting as bona fide customers. Immediately after finishing their supper, they demanded the delivery to them of Fidel’s money, of which they evidently had prior knowledge, Crisologo lending silent support to his companion’s order for Fidel to turn over the money to them; they helped each other wrest the money away from Fidel and subdue him by deadly knife thrusts: Romualdo stabbing Fidel thrice, Crisologo, once; they had obviously arranged for shots to be fired from outside Fidel’s store as a means of frightening Fidel to submit to their demand; and they fled from the scene, together. They acted in concert, helping and cooperating" with one another (and others) by simultaneous acts, evidently in pursuit of a common objective.

5. ID.; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; CRAFT OR FRAUD; APPRECIATED IN CASE AT BAR. — The aggravating circumstance of craft or fraud was properly appreciated against Empacis. He and Romualdo pretended to be bona fide customers of the victim’s store and on this pretext gained entry into the latter’s store and later, into another part of his dwelling. This Court has held stratagems and ruses of this sort to constitute the aggravating circumstance of fraud or craft, e.g.: where the accused — A) pretended to be constabulary soldiers and by that ploy gained entry into the residence of their prey whom they thereafter robbed and killed; b) pretended to be needful of medical treatment, and through this artifice, entered the house of the victim whom they thereupon robbed and killed; c) pretended to be wayfarers who had lost their way and by this means gained entry into a house, in which they then perpetrated the crime of robbery with homicide; d) pretended to be a customer wanting to buy a bottle of wine; e) pretended to be co-passengers of the victim in a public utility vehicle; f) posed as customers wishing to buy cigarettes; and as being thirsty, asking for drink of water.

6. ID.; ID.; NIGHTTIME; FOR APPRECIATION THEREOF, IT MUST BE DELIBERATELY AND PURPOSELY SOUGHT TO FACILITATE, OR THAT IT ACTUALLY FACILITATED, THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME. — The Court also agrees that nighttime was properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance against the accused. To be sure, nighttime is not per se aggravating. It must be shown that nocturnity was deliberately and purposely sought to facilitate, or that it actually facilitated, the commission of the crime. In the case at bar, the lateness of the hour no doubt precluded the presence of other customers who could have deterred the felons, or come to the aid of the victim, All things considered, there is adequate showing that nocturnity was deliberately sought by the robbers and did in reality facilitate the perpetration of the felony.

7. ID.; ID.; SUPERIOR STRENGTH; FOR APPRECIATION THEREOF, ACCUSED MUST PURPOSELY EMPLOY EXCESSIVE FORCE, FORCE OUT OF PROPORTION TO THE MEANS OF DEFENSE AVAILABLE TO THE PERSON ATTACKED. — For the aggravating circumstance of superior strength to be deemed present in a case, it does not suffice to prove superiority in number on the part of the malefactors; it must appear that they purposely employed excessive force, force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. In this case, the evidence shows that Empacis helped his co-accused by also stabbing the victim; he and his companion took advantage of their combined strength and their bladed weapons to overcome their unarmed victim and assure the success of their felonious design to make off with his money.

8. ID.; CIVIL INDEMNITY FOR DEATH; INCREASED TO P 50,000. — The Court a quo sentenced Crisologo Empacis to pay the heirs of Fidel Saromines in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) "by way of death indemnity." Pursuant to prevailing case law, this indemnity must be increased to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). On the other hand, despite the evidence given by Fidel Saromines’ widow establishing the forcible taking from her husband of the amount of P12,000.00 by Crisologo and Romualdo, the Trial Court somehow omitted to require the return of said stolen money, as required by law.


D E C I S I O N


NARVASA, C.J.:


In the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, 1 five men, namely: Crisologo Empacis, Romualdo Langomez, Zacarias Solis, Carlito Antiga, and Bebe Antiga, were indicted for the crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 (1), in relation to Article 296, of the Revised Penal Code. 2 The indictment reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on the 16th day of September, 1986 at 9:00 o’clock in the evening, more or less, in Barangay Kanguha, Municipality of Dumanjug, Province of Cebu . . . (said) accused, all armed with carbines and bladed weapons, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with evident premeditation and intent to kill treacherously attack, assault and use personal violence upon FIDEL SAROMINES by stabbing him. On different parts of his body and as a result of which FIDEL SAROMINES died that on the occasion of the said killing, in pursuance of their conspiracy, . . . (the) accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and by means of violence, with intent to — gain and against the will of FIDEL SAROMINES, TAKE, STEAL AND CARRY AWAY the sum of TWELVE THOUSAND (P12,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, belonging to the latter.

That the crime was committed by a band, all the accused being armed with carbines and bladed weapons (Article 296, RPC).

IN VIOLATION of and contrary to ARTICLE 294 paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code."cralaw virtua1aw library

All the accused, except Romualdo Langomez, were thereafter taken into custody Langomez disappeared, and was never apprehended and brought to trial. 3 In due course, the other accused were arraigned and tried.

Sometime in December, 1987, during the trial, Carlito Antiga died from a gunshot wound. 4

The trial eventuated in a verdict of conviction against Crisologo Empacis, and of acquittal as regards Zacarias Solis and Bebe Antiga. The trial Court’s judgment, dated October 24, 1989, made the following final dispositions: 5

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Crisologo Empacis guilty of robbery with homicide as defined and penalized under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, and considering the attendance of the four generic aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nighttime, craft or fraud and superior strength, not offset by any mitigating or extenuating circumstance, hereby sentences the said accused Crisologo Empacis to the supreme penalty of death. In view of the fact, however, that the death penalty has been abolished by Section 19(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, 6 the accused Crisologo Empacis is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua, to suffer the accessory penalties prescribed by law and to pay the heirs of Fidel Saromines the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) by way of death indemnity, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency in view of the principal penalty. He shall also pay the costs of these proceedings.

The accused Crisologo Empacis is hereby immediately ordered arrested and held in the custody of the law pending appeal or review of this decision, should the accused wish to appeal from or take up on review this decision.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

The other two accused Zacarias or Caring Solis and Bebe Antiga are hereby acquitted of the charges against them, their guilt not having been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Let a bench warrant issue against the fifth accused in this case, Romualdo a.k.a. Maldo Langomez so that he can be brought to court to be dealt with accordingly."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Trial Court accorded superior credit to the evidence of the prosecution in so far as it established. Empacis’ direct participation in the felony charged, to wit: the testimony of the widow of the victim, Camila Saromines; of their son, Peter Saromines; and of a neighbor, Balbino Bulak, which the Court found to be corroborated inter alia by the Post Mortem Report dated September 17, 1986 of the Rural Health Physician at Dumanjug, Cebu (Dr. Octavio Ortiz), and even by the testimony of accused Crisologo Empacis himself. 7

Following is the story narrated to the Trial Court by the Government witnesses.

At about 9 o’clock on the night of September 16, 1986, as Fidel Saromines and his wife, Camila, were about to close their small store, located in their house at Kanguha, Dumanjug, Cebu, two men came and asked to buy some sardines and rice. They were Romualdo (or Maldo) Langomez and Crisologo Empacis. Camila served them and they proceeded to make a meal of the rice and sardines.chanrobles law library

After they finished eating, Romualdo told Fidel to sell him cigarettes. As Fidel was handing over the cigarettes, Romualdo announced a "hold-up" and commanded Fidel to give up his money. As it happened, Fidel then had P12,000.00 in his house, wrapped in cellophane. This he started to give to Romualdo but as the latter was taking hold of the packet, Fidel suddenly decided to fight to keep his money. A struggle followed in the, course of which Romualdo stabbed Fidel about three times. Crisologo joined in and with his own knife also stabbed Fidel. At this time, gunshots were heard outside of the house, and a neighbor of the Saromineses, Balbino Bulak, recognized one of those doing the shooting as a certain Carlito Antiga. 8 A voice was heard from below saying, "Stab him!" 9 to which Langomez replied, "I already stabbed (him)." 10

From his little sister’s room, Fidel’s thirteen-year old son, Peter, saw his father fighting for his life with Romualdo and Crisologo Empacis. Heeding his father’s cry, "Peter, help me!" (Suportahe ko, Peter!). Peter took hold of a "pinuti" (a long bolo), and rushed to his father’s defense. He struck out at Crisologo and inflicted two wounds on him, one at the right shoulder, and the other, in the neck, Romualdo and Crisologo jumped out of the house and fled, with the sound of Peter’s defiant shout trailing them, "Come back, if you are brave!"

Peter then turned to his wounded father, but found him already dead from his injuries. The post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. Octavio Ortiz, Rural Health Physician, disclosed four (4) stab wounds on the deceased, all in the upper back. Two of these, which penetrated the lungs and heart, were fatal. 11

Crisologo Empacis repaired to the clinic of Dr. Eustaquio Deiparine at the poblacion of Sibonga, Cebu, for treatment of the wounds inflicted on him by Peter, arriving there between 10 and 11 o’clock that same night. The doctor found Crisologo’s wounds — described by him as a" (hacking) wound on the right side of the neck and the right shoulder" — "so serious" as to require further treatment, even after they had been sutured. Dr. Deiparine asked Crisologo how he had come by these wounds. Crisologo said that at around 6 to 7 o’clock that evening, near the Papan Market, he was assaulted without warning by a young man, who injured him with a bolo.

Police officers came to Dr. Deiparine’s clinic the following morning, looking for a man who might have been treated for wounds from a bladed weapon. They were directed to the public market where they came upon Crisologo, taking breakfast. They arrested him and brought him to the Dumanjug INP Station. There, Crisologo was interrogated by the Station Commander, P/Pfc. Rogelio Abrea, and gave a sworn statement.

Crisologo was later brought to Municipal Judge Gerardo Gestopa, before whom he took oath on his affidavit. Before administering the oath, the Judge had a law graduate, one Victor Esguerra, called to assist Crisologo and verify if he had voluntarily executed his sworn statement.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

The three (3) accused all took the witness stand in their defense, 12 and gave stories different from that of the prosecution witnesses.

Empacis confirmed the facts established by the prosecution witnesses, up to a point. He admitted that he and Romualdo Langomez had indeed gone to the store of Fidel Saromines on the night in question, and had there partaken of a meal of sardines and rice. He also acknowledged that after taking their supper, Romualdo Langomez had gone upstairs to buy some cigarettes from Fidel, and it was there that moments later, he saw Romualdo and Fidel grappling with each other. He denies having Joined Romualdo in attacking Fidel. He claims that when he saw Romualdo pull out a knife, he tried to stop Romualdo from using the knife on his adversary; that nonetheless, Romualdo succeeded in stabbing Fidel twice; that a teen-age boy came with a bolo and lashed out at Romualdo but the latter was not hit because he pulled him to one side, and instead it was he (Empacis) who was struck at the right side of the neck; that he then ran away towards his barrio and from there he was brought by his neighbors to the clinic of Dr. Deiparine; that he was arrested by the police the following morning; that while being investigated at the municipal hall of Dumanjug, he told the investigator he wished to avail of the assistance of counsel but his request went unheeded; and that while being interrogated, some policemen were inflicting pain on him by squeezing his injured back in order to force him to admit his participation in the robbery-homicide at Kanguha, Dumanjug. 13

The other two accused, Zacarias Solis and Bebe Antiga, denied any participation whatever in the crime. They were both absolved by the Trial Court, which agreed with them that the prosecution had indeed failed to clearly and positively prove their, complicity in the offense. 14

The Court a quo rejected (quite correctly, it may be said) the sworn statement purportedly executed by Empacis on September 17, 1986, offered by the prosecution, condemning it as "null and void, . . . offensive to Art. III, Section 20, of the New Constitution and the teachings of the Supreme Court . . . ." 15 It ruled however that the other proofs of the prosecution overwhelmingly demonstrated Crisologo Empacis’ guilt of the crime charged, and accordingly entered a judgment of conviction against him. It ruled that Empacis had committed the offense in conspiracy with Romualdo Langomez (who was then and to this day remains at large); that both of them knew Fidel to be in possession of a sizable amount of money at the time, and their concerted acts proved their agreement to rob Fidel and if necessary, kill him, It also ruled that the crime was attended by several aggravating circumstances, i.e., having been perpetrated (a) "in the dwelling of the offended party . . . (the latter not having) given provocation," 16 (b) "in the nighttime" 17 (c) with employment of "craft or fraud" 18 and (d) with advantage being taken of superior strength. 19

From this judgment Empacis has appealed to this Court. His basic thesis is that the evidence of the prosecution does not actually prove his guilt of the felony of which he is accused beyond reasonable doubt.

A painstaking review of the record fails to reveal to this Court any error on the part of the Trial Court of sufficient gravity to justify reversal or modification of its verdict. This Court is unable to perceive any reason to doubt the veracity of the testimony of the victim’s widow and son respecting the identity of Romualdo Langomez and Crisologo Empacis as the persons who attacked and killed Fidel Saromines in their effort to make off with the latter’s money amounting to P12,000.00, and the acts individually done by Romualdo and Crisologo in pursuance of their common nefarious objective. Indeed, the narrative of the widow and son is, as already pointed out, confirmed for the most part by the testimony of Crisologo Empacis himself. The latter’s attempt to exculpate himself, by portraying himself as a frustrated protector of Fidel Saromines, cannot be taken at face value, as against the more credible declarations of the victim’s widow and son, specially considering that Crisologo’s credit as a witness has been gravely enfeebled by his having obviously lied to the physician treating him, as regards the cause of his injuries. 20

The Court has been cited to no plausible cause for Fidel’s widow and son to testify falsely against Crisologo if it be true, as the latter insinuates, that either they had not seen the actual killing or, having witnessed it, had seen Crisologo actually try to stop Romualdo from stabbing Fidel. No reason exists, therefore, to disbelieve them. 21 The fact that the victim’s son, Peter, had to correct his statement on direct examination that Romualdo Langomez stabbed his father five (5) times, declaring. on cross-examination, that in truth Romualdo stabbed his father only about three times while Crisologo Empacis stabbed the victim once — of which the appellant seeks to make capital — is not sufficient warrant to reject and discard Peter’s evidence. The discrepancy is at best a minor one, not — at all destructive of Peter’s credibility as an unrehearsed witness. This Court agrees that the Trial Court has correctly assessed the credit that should be accorded to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.cralawnad

This Court also agrees that conspiracy is adequately proven by the evidence. Langomez and Crisologo Empacis came to Fidel’s storelate at night, acting as bona fide customers. Immediately after finishing their supper, they demanded the delivery to them of Fidel’s money, of which they evidently had prior knowledge, Crisologo lending silent support to his companion’s order for Fidel to turn over the money to them; they helped each other wrest the money away from Fidel and subdue him by deadly knife thrusts: Romualdo stabbing Fidel thrice, Crisologo, once; they had obviously arranged for shots to be fired from outside Fidel’s store as a means of frightening Fidel to submit to their demand; and they fled from the scene, together. They acted in concert, helping and cooperating" with one another (and others) by simultaneous acts, evidently in pursuit of a common objective. 22

The aggravating circumstance of craft or fraud 23 was properly appreciated against Empacis. He and Romualdo pretended to be bona fide customers of the victim’s store and on this pretext gained entry into the latter’s store and later, into another part of his dwelling. This Court has held stratagems and ruses of this sort to constitute the aggravating circumstance of fraud or craft, e.g.: where the accused —

a) pretended to be constabulary soldiers and by that ploy gained entry into the residence of their prey whom they thereafter robbed and killed; 24

b) pretended to be needful of medical treatment, and through this artifice, entered the house of the victim whom they thereupon robbed and killed;25cralaw:red

c) pretended to be wayfarers who had lost their way and by this means gained entry into a house, in which they then perpetrated the crime of robbery with homicide; 26

d) pretended to be a customer wanting to buy a bottle of wine; 27

e) pretended to be co-passengers of the victim in a public utility vehicle; 28

f) posed as customers wishing to buy cigarettes; and as being thirsty, asking for drink of water. 29

The Court also agrees that nighttime was properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance against the accused. To be sure, nighttime is not per se aggravating. 30 It must be shown that nocturnity was deliberately and purposely sought to facilitate, or that it actually facilitated, the commission of the crime. 31 In the case at bar, the lateness of the hour no doubt precluded the presence of other customers who could have deterred the felons, or come to the aid of the victim, All things considered, there is adequate showing that nocturnity was deliberately sought by the robbers and did in reality facilitate the perpetration of the felony.

For the aggravating circumstance of superior strength to be deemed present in a case, it does not suffice to prove superiority in number on the part of the malefactors; 32 it must appear that they purposely employed excessive force, force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. 33 In this case, the evidence shows that Empacis helped his co-accused by also stabbing the victim; he and his companion took advantage of their combined strength and their bladed weapons to overcome their unarmed victim and assure the success of their felonious design to make off with his money.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

That the crime was "committed in the dwelling of the offended party, . . . the latter . . . not (having) given provocation," was also correctly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. 34

This Court thus sees no cause to deviate from the established axiom that the factual findings of the Trial Court are accorded the highest respect on appeal, if not indeed regarded as conclusive, absent any persuasive showing that material facts have been overlooked or ignored which might otherwise dictate a different verdict. 35

The Court a quo sentenced Crisologo Empacis to pay the heirs of Fidel Saromines in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) "by way of death indemnity." Pursuant to prevailing case law, 36 this indemnity must be increased to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). On the other hand, despite the evidence given by Fidel Saromines’ widow establishing the forcible taking from her husband of the amount of P12,000.00 by Crisologo and Romualdo, 37 the Trial Court somehow omitted to require the return of said stolen money, as required by law. 38

WHEREFORE, with the modification that the indemnity for death payable to the heirs of Saromines is increased to P50,000.00 and restitution of the amount of P12,000,00 shall be made by the accused, jointly and severally, the Decision of the Trial Court subject of this appeal is hereby AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Regalado and Nocon, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Branch 14.

2. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. CBU-9567.

3. Rollo, 22.

4. Original record, p. 262.

5. Rollo, pp. 31-32.

6. Emphasis supplied. "The italicized is incorrect. The cited constitutional provision did not "abolish" the death penalty. It simply declared that it shall NOT be imposed "unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it."cralaw virtua1aw library

7. Rollo, pp. 22-27.

8. Carlito died during the trial, SEE p. 2, supra, and footnote 8 infra.

9. TSN, Aug. 10, 1987, p. 18 .

10. Id., p. 19.

11. Id., pp. 22-24; Original record, p. 6.

12. As aforestated, the fourth, Carlito Antigua, died a violent death during the trial and the fifth suspect, Romualdo Langomez, has remained, and to this day remains, at large.

13. Rollo, pp. 24-25

14. Id., p. 26.

15. The Trial Court cited People v. Pascual, 109 SCRA 197; Morales v. Enrile, 121 SCRA 538; People v. Galit, 135 SCRA 465; People v. Duhan, 142 SCRA 100; People v. Opida, 142 SCRA 295.

16. Par. 3, ART. 14, Revised Penal Code.

17. Par. 6. id.

18. Par. 14. id.

19. Par. 15, id.

20. SEE footnote 9 and related text, supra.

21. SEE Peo. v. Dimaano, June 15, 1992, citing Peo. v. Gonzales, 182 SCRA 393 (1990).

22. SEE Peo. v. Benitez, 202 SCRA 478; Peo. v. Penones, 200 SCRA 624; Peo. v. Palino, 183 SCRA 680; Peo. v. Alitao, 194 SCRA 120.

23. Par. 14, ART. 14. RPC.

24. Peo. v. Saquing, 30 SCRA 961 [SEE Aquino, the Revised Penal Code, 1988 ed., Vol. I, p. 374.

25. Peo. v. Casalme, 101 Phil. 1249.

26. Peo. v. Saulog, 74 Phil. 527.

27. Peo. v. Bundal, 3 Phil. 89.

28. Peo. v. Vallente, 144 SCRA 495.

29. Peo. v. Napili, 85 Phil. 521.

30. Peo. v. Serante, 152 SCRA 570.

31. Peo. v. Palon, 127 SCRA 529, 539 (1984), citing Peo v. Garcia, 94 SCRA 14.

32. Peo. v. Maloloy-on, 189 SCRA 250 [1988].

33. Peo v. Carpio, 191 SCRA 108 [1990] citing Peo v. Cabato, 160 SCRA 101.

34. Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, 1976 ed. Vol. 1, p. 289, citing Valdez, 64 Phil. 860; Pinca, 114 Phil. 498.

35. SEE, e.g., Peo. v. Bravo, 180 SCRA 694, 699-700 (1989), Peo. v. Alitao, 194 SCRA 120, 126-127 (1991) Peo. v. Manantan, 196 SCRA 128, 131 (1991); Peo. v. Tugbo, 196 SCRA 133, 137 (1991).

36. SEE, e.g., Peo. v. Soriano, 196 SCRA 123: Peo. v. Sison, 189 SCRA 643 Peo. v. Sazon, 189 SCRA 700; Peo. v. Baguio, 196 SCRA 459.

37. TSN, May 29, 1987, pp. 9-12, 17.

38. ART. 104, Revised Penal Code; SEE Aquino, Revised Penal Code [Anno.], 1987 ed., p. 842.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1993 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 88167 May 3, 1993 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. TEODORO P. REGINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98442 May 4, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO FEROLINO

  • G.R. No. 103313 May 5, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO VERGARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104404 May 6, 1993 - SPOUSES TIU PECK, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97169 May 10, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO KEMPIS

  • G.R. No. 101798 May 10, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 94469 May 11, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN VILLA

  • G.R. No. 94569 May 11, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE P. TANILON

  • G.R. No. 94754 May 11, 1993 - U-SING BUTTON AND BUCKLE INDUSTRY, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96251 May 11, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL C. NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. 96795 May 11, 1993 - ANTONIO M. CORRAL v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97189 May 11, 1993 - JISSCOR INDEPENDENT UNION v. RUBEN TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97788 May 11, 1993 - TEOFILA DE LUNA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 100225-26 May 11, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL N. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100480 May 11, 1993 - BLANCA CONSUELO ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95125 May 12, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO PAGSANJAN

  • G.R. No. 95890 May 12, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO PRECIOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97239 May 12, 1993 - INTERNATIONAL RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97838 May 12, 1993 - LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98242 May 12, 1993 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILS., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101315 May 12, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL L. DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 85867 May 13, 1993 - E. RAZON. INC. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

  • G.R. No. 98709 May 13, 1993 - MAGDALENA LLENARES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102970 May 13, 1993 - LUZAN SIA v. COURT OF APPEAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104405 May 13, 1993 - LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 94994-95 May 14, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LILIBETH P. CACO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95756 May 14, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISOLOGO EMPACIS

  • G.R. Nos. 102361-62 May 14, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDY FRONDA

  • A.M. No. CA-91-3-P May 17, 1993 - ANSBERTO P. PAREDES v. FRANCISCO S. PADUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79021 May 17, 1993 - ROMEO S. CHUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85434 May 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERFECTO CRISOSTOMO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93199 May 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLAS AGUARINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94761 May 17, 1993 - MAERSK LINE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94977 May 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERTO YUMANG

  • G.R. No. 97218 May 17, 1993 - PROVIDENT SAVINGS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98382 May 17, 1993 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101124 May 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARMELINA C. TABAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101426 May 17, 1993 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102539 May 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE ARGUELLES

  • G.R. No. 103125 May 17, 1993 - PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103805 May 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO KYAMKO

  • G.R. No. 73875 May 18, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSELITO AGBULOS

  • G.R. No. 73907 May 18, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUENAVENTURA ARUTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75906 May 18, 1993 - AMERICAN EXPRESS PHIL. LOCAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79089 May 18, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO BONDOY

  • G.R. No. 80078 May 18, 1993 - ATOK FINANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92504 May 18, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WELLI QUIÑONES

  • G.R. No. 95755 May 18, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE A. COLOMA

  • G.R. No. 97175 May 18, 1993 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98318 May 18, 1993 - HALILI INN, INCORPORATED v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100311 May 18, 1993 - JUANITO LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103219 May 18, 1993 - PETER PAUL PHILIPPINES CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-710-RTJ May 21, 1993 - FILOMENO R. NEGADO v. MANUEL E. AUTAJAY

  • A.M. No. 92-1-030-RTC May 21, 1993 - LOLITA HERNANDEZ LOY v. WILLIAM BADEN

  • G.R. No. L-46717 May 21, 1993 - ANTONIO BANZAGALES, ET AL. v. SPS. HERMINIA GALMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87667 May 21, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO S. QUETUA

  • G.R. No. 90257 May 21, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR CERVANTES

  • G.R. No. 92847 May 21, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CATALINO L. QUIMING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93947 May 21, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN ABIERA

  • G.R. No. 97028 May 21, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALICIA B. GAOAT

  • G.R. Nos. 98425-26 May 21, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO AGUILAR

  • G.R. No. 101831 May 21, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO A. BALIDIATA

  • G.R. Nos. 103442-45 May 21, 1993 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104285-86 May 21, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR R. ANGELES

  • G.R. No. 89252 May 24, 1993 - RAUL SESBREÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91436 May 24, 1993 - METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. QUILTS & ALL, INC.

  • G.R. No. 95775 May 24, 1993 - DANILO RABINO, ET AL. v. ADORA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97141-42 May 24, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCILO M. BERNARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97427 May 24, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO P. CRISOSTOMO

  • G.R. No. 100232 May 24, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO ALIB

  • G.R. No. 105907 May 24, 1993 - FELICIANO V. AGBANLOG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76951 May 25, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO MAESTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100525 May 25, 1993 - SOCORRO ABELLA SORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 101804-07 May 25, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIMON RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105360 May 25, 1993 - PEDRO P. PECSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74189 May 26, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO V. ENRILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97203 May 26, 1993 - ISIDRO CARIÑO, ET AL. v. IGNACIO M. CAPULONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98043 May 26, 1993 - BAGUIO COLLEGES FOUNDATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102314 May 26, 1993 - LEA O. CAMUS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90342 May 27, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARIO C. MACASLING, JR.

  • G.R. No. 99327 May 27, 1993 - ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY, ET AL. v. IGNACIO M. CAPULONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 101189-90 May 27, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT S. SAN ANDRES

  • G.R. No. 101847 May 27, 1993 - LOURDES NAVARRO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104754 May 27, 1993 - GERMAN P. ZAGADA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 52080 May 28, 1993 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93722 May 28, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO M. GONZALES

  • G.R. No. 99054-56 May 28, 1993 - ERLINDA O. MEDINA, ET AL. v. CONSOLIDATED BROADCASTING SYSTEM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100771 May 28, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO PAMINTUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101310 May 28, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO A. BAY

  • G.R. No. 101522 May 28, 1993 - LEONARDO MARIANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102949-51 May 28, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS LAGNAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102996 May 28, 1993 - TOP MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103554 May 28, 1993 - TEODORO CANEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61154 May 31, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEGUNDINO "GODING" JOTOY

  • G.R. No. 94703 May 31, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO OLIQUINO

  • G.R. No. 96497 May 31, 1993 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100682 May 31, 1993 - GIL TAPALLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100947 May 31, 1993 - PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101005 May 31, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO G. CORPUZ

  • G.R. No. 101641 May 31, 1991

    VENANCIO DIOLA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105756 May 31, 1993 - SPS. LORETO CLARAVALL, ET AL. v. FLORENIO E. TIERRA, ET AL.