SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 105378 June 27, 1994

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDGAR SADANG, ARNULFO SAYO, and LEODIGARIO ESPINAR, Defendants-Appellants.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.chanrobles virtual law library

Jerry Alejandro for accused-appellant.

KAPUNAN, J.:

Before us is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City, Branch 15, in Criminal Case No. 4697-15 for robbery with rape.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On October 20, 1989, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Laoag City filed an information against Edgar Sadang, Arnulfo Sayo, Leodigario Espinar and Joel Maligsay accusing them of the crime of robbery with rape, defined and penalized under paragraph 2 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The indictment reads:

That on or about September 28, 1989, at night time, in Bgy. 14, Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, all the above-named accused conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, then armed with deadly weapons, to wit: two short firearms, one hand grenade and one balisong knife, with intent of gain and by means of violence and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away the following properties belonging to and owned by EUGENIA GALAPON, MARILYN FERMINA GALAPON, LUCIA GALAPON and DOMINADOR ACOB, to wit:

1. Seven (7) earrings valued at P10,000.00;
2. Two (2) pairs of earrings valued at P3,000.00;
3. Two (2) wristwatches, timex and citizen valued at P5,000.00;
4. One (1) camera valued at P3,000.00;
5. One (1) set Betamax with rewinder valued at P10,000.00;
6. One (1) imported textile valued at P400.00;
7. One (1) unit imported chainsaw valued at P10,000.00;
8. Cash, Philippine currency amounting to P3,000.00;
9. Old coins amounting to P5.00;
10. Assorted jewelries (sic) belonging to Lucia Galapon valued at
P15,000.00;
11. One (1) cal. 30 smith and wesson valued at P8,000.00;
12. One (1) cal. 45 colt pistol valued at P15,000.00;
13. One (1) nike bag valued at P400.00.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

and with a total amount and value of ONE HUNDRED TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FIVE PESOS (P102,805.00), Philippine currency, to the damage and prejudice of said Eugenia Galapon, Marilyn Fermina Galapon, Dominador Acob and Lucia Galapon to the aforesaid sum of P102,805.00; and, that during and on the occasion of the robbery, the accused EDGAR SADANG and ARNULFO SAYO with the employment of force and intimidation took turns in forcibly having sexual intercourse with MARILYN FERMINA GALAPON against the latter's will and consent.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

CONTRARY TO LAW. ¹chanrobles virtual law library

On October 31, 1989, appellants Edgar Sadang, Arnulfo Sayo, and Leodigario Espinar pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. ²Subsequently, accused Joel Maligsay was apprehended, hence, he was accordingly arraigned on June 1, 1990 where he likewise entered a plea of not guilty. ³chanrobles virtual law library

Thereafter, trial ensued with both parties presenting evidence.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In time, the court a quo rendered judgment, the decretal portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered declaring Edgar Sadang, Arnulfo Sayo, Leodigario Espinar and Joel Maligsay guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime of robbery with rape penalized by paragraph 2 of Article 294, in relation to Art. 293, of the Revised Penal Code. They are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify jointly and severally Eugenia Galapon, Marilyn Fermina Galapon, Dominador Acob, and Lucia Galapon in the amount of P92,805.00 representing the value of the unrecovered stolen items. Further, they are also ordered to indemnify jointly and severally Marilyn Fermina Galapon, the rape victim, in the amount of P30,000.00.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Accused Joel Maligsay is sentenced in absentia having escaped from detention during the trial. Let a standing warrant be issued for his arrest.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED. ⁴chanrobles virtual law library

The relevant antecedents are as follows:chanrobles virtual law library

Private complainants Eugenia Galapon, her daughter Marilyn Fermina Galapon, and the latter's common-law husband, Dominador Acob, were caretakers of a house located at Barangay 14, Bacarra, Ilocos Norte.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

At around 6:30 in the evening of September 28, 1989 while the complainants and other members of their family were watching a home movie, four armed men appeared on their front porch (azotea). ⁵Dominador Acob switched on the porch light and saw a gun pointed at him. ⁶He was told not to be afraid because they were members of the NPA and they just wanted to enter the house and to eat for they were hungry. ⁷chanrobles virtual law library

Acob complied with the request, opened the front door ⁸and four men armed with guns, a hand grenade and a knife entered. ⁹Once inside, the four armed men identified in court as the four accused, searched the house and asked for keys and money. ¹⁰When they were told that the occupants had no money and that the only key they had was the key to the gate, Edgar Sadang and Arnulfo Sayo grabbed Eugenia Galapon and Marilyn Galapon and brought them to the second floor of the house. ¹¹Sadang demanded money from Marilyn, threatening to rape her and kill her common-law husband if she refused. ¹²When she could not give any, she was taken into one of the rooms by Sadang. ¹³There, she was sexually assaulted by Sadang. With a gun pointed at her, he tore open her house dress (duster), ripped off her panty, forced her to lie down on the bed, went on top of her and had sexual intercourse with her forcibly, all the while threatening to kill her if she offered any resistance. ¹⁴While this abuse was going on, Eugenia, Marilyn's mother, was made to stand at the door of the room to witness the rape while she was guarded by Sayo who was armed with a knife. ¹⁵When Sadang finished taking advantage of Marilyn, he went out of the room and took Eugenia away from the door. Sayo, on the other hand, followed suit and raped Marilyn while threatening to kill her if she resisted. ¹⁶chanrobles virtual law library

Thereafter, Sadang and Sayo brought Marilyn and Eugenia to another room to look for valuables. ¹⁷Sadang and Sayo then forcibly opened a wooden trunk ("baul" as is commonly known in local parlance) and an aparador and took the following items, viz.: (a) assorted jewelry; (b) clothing materials; (c) a chainsaw; (d) an electric drill; and (e) two guns, all of which belonged to the family of Lucia Galapon, owner of the house who was abroad at that time. ¹⁸chanrobles virtual law library

Later, Sadang and Sayo brought Eugenia and Marilyn to the groundfloor where the two other armed men, later identified as Joel Maligsay and Leodigario Espinar, were guarding Dominador Acob and the rest of the family. ¹⁹The four malefactors continued to search the house and took nine pairs of earrings, a camera, a home video unit (Betamax) with rewinder, two wristwatches and P3,000.00 in cash, all belonging to Eugenia and Marilyn Galapon and Dominador Acob from a bodega and a medicine cabinet. ²⁰They then assembled the said occupants in the living room and after threatening them with death if they reported the incident to the police authorities, left the house at about 11:00 in the evening. ²¹chanrobles virtual law library

Afraid that the armed men will make good their threat, the victims did not report the incident to the police. ²²Neither did Marilyn Galapon, the rape victim, submit herself for medical examination. ²³chanrobles virtual law library

Two weeks later or on October 16, 1989 to be exact, herein private complainants were asked to go to the Bacarra Police Station to identify a suspect apprehended by the police. ²⁴Said private complainants identified Edgar Sadang as one of the four armed men who robbed them on September 28, 1989 and as the first robber who raped Marilyn. ²⁵Later, they were taken to the PC Headquarters in Camp Juan, Laoag City where they identified another suspect, Arnulfo Sayo, as one of the armed robbers and the second robber who raped Marilyn. ²⁶Said positive identification was done in the investigation room of the said headquarters and in the presence of police investigator, PC Sgt. Monico Dolloog. ²⁷Leodigario Espinar was likewise identified as one of the robbers. On May 10, 1990, Joel Maligsay was apprehended and was later on identified in open court by Eugenia and Marilyn Galapon. ²⁸chanrobles virtual law library

Subsequently, the police authorities recovered the stolen chain saw and electric drill from the house of one Petronilo Espejo of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte who told police investigators that it was Edgar Sadang who offered the items to him for sale. ²⁹chanrobles virtual law library

Based on the foregoing, the court a quo rendered the aforequoted judgment of conviction, hence, the instant appeal.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

However, in a resolution dated January 31, 1993, the trial court resolved to dismiss the appeal of accused-appellant Arnulfo Sayo for failure of his counsel de parte to file his appeal brief within the reglementary period. ³⁰chanrobles virtual law library

On February 3, 1993, accused-appellants Edgar Sadang and Leodigario Espinar filed their joint brief and ascribed to the court below the following errors, to wit:

Ichanrobles virtual law library

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT TO THE INCONSISTENT, UNRELIABLE, UNWORTHY AND INCREDIBLE TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES EUGENIA GALAPON AND MARILYN GALAPON RELATIVE TO THE IMPUGNED INCIDENT.

IIchanrobles virtual law library

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT DISREGARDING THE IDENTIFICATION MADE BY THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT EDGAR SADANG AS ONE OF THE PERPETRATORS OF THE CRIME CHARGED.

IIIchanrobles virtual law library

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT MARILYN GALAPON WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY ACCUSED-APPELLANT EDGAR SADANG CONSIDERING THAT SHE DID NOT OFFER ANY TENACIOUS RESISTANCE AND THAT SHE FAILED TO SUBMIT HERSELF FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATION.

IVchanrobles virtual law library

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING EXCULPATORY WEIGHT TO THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI INTERPOSED BY ACCUSED-APPELLANT EDGAR SADANG CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT HIS IDENTIFICATION WAS HIGHLY DUBITABLE.

Vchanrobles virtual law library

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS EDGAR SADANG AND LEODIGARIO ESPINAR OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO HURDLE THE EXACTING TEST OF MORAL CERTAINTY. ³¹chanrobles virtual law library

The appeal fails to persuade.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The guilt of the accused-appellants for the crime of robbery with rape had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

As defined by law, robbery is the taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of violence against, or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything. ³²In the case at bench, the prosecution has sufficiently established the fact that herein private complainants were robbed of valuables by four armed men on that fateful night of September 28, 1989. The testimonies of Marilyn Galapon and Eugenia Galapon are clear on this point.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Marilyn Fermina Galapon testified on direct examination:

Q Now after Arnulfo Sayo had already raped you, what transpired next, if any?chanrobles virtual law library

A We went out of the room and they continued to look for valuables inside our house, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Were they able to take anything inside that room that you mentioned?chanrobles virtual law library

A There were, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q What are those items, if you know?chanrobles virtual law library

A Jewelries (sic) of the owner of the house, chain saw and two guns, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q What else, if any?chanrobles virtual law library

A Betamax, rings, earrings and many more but I can no longer remember the others, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Who among the two was ransacking the "baul"?chanrobles virtual law library

A Sadang was the one who ransacked the "baul" and Sayo the aparador, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q And after that, what transpired next?chanrobles virtual law library

A We went down, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q And what happened downstairs, if you know?chanrobles virtual law library

A They opened our medicine cabinet and there they took nine pairs of earrings, two watches and no more, sir. ³³

On cross examination, the same witness testified:

Q . . . All your aparadors were unlocked, is it not?chanrobles virtual law library

A They were locked, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q And how did they open them?chanrobles virtual law library

A They forcibly opened, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q And in that aparador, that is where the jewelries (sic) were placed?chanrobles virtual law library

A No, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Where?chanrobles virtual law library

A On the wooden trunk, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q So after ransacking upstairs, they also ransacked downstairs?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q But they did not take anything downstairs?chanrobles virtual law library

A Our money amounting to P3,000.00, our two (2) watches and jewelries (sic) including one (1) camera and betamax, sir. ³⁴

Corroborating the foregoing testimony, Eugenia Galapon declared on direct examination:

Q You stated that Sadang searched your aparador and others, can you recall what items was taken by him?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q What are those items that were taken?chanrobles virtual law library

A They took jewelries (sic), clothings, camera, flashlight, Betamax rewinder, chain saw, two watches, and they also took our money, sir, and P5.00 old coin. ³⁵

On cross examination, the same witness testified:

Q Then these four persons who claimed to be NPAs have to force you to bring out your money and jewelries (sic)?chanrobles virtual law library

A They just ransacked the house and got our jewelries (sic) from the medicine cabinet and upstairs, sir. ³⁶

On the fact of rape, Marilyn Fermina Galapon categorically declared:

Q Now when you were already inside the middle room as you have stated with respect to Edgar Sadang, what happened?chanrobles virtual law library

A He tore my duster, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q And thereafter, what transpired?chanrobles virtual law library

A He removed my panty and let me lie down on the bed, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q After . . . he forced you to lie down on the bed, what transpired next?chanrobles virtual law library

A He went on top of me and fucked me, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Why did you not cry for help at that time?chanrobles virtual law library

A Because a gun was poked on the left side of my head, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q And after that, what transpired next, if any?chanrobles virtual law library

A His companion followed in raping me, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Who?chanrobles virtual law library

A Arnulfo Sayo, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q How did Arnulfo Sayo rape you?chanrobles virtual law library

A The same with Edgar Sadang, he went on top of me and raped me, sir . . . fucked me.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Why did you not call for help that time when Arnulfo Sayo was raping you?chanrobles virtual law library

A Because he was pointing his knife on the left side of my head, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Now after Arnulfo Sayo had already raped you, what transpired next, if any?chanrobles virtual law library

A We went out of the room and they continued to look for valuables inside our house, sir. ³⁷

xxx xxx xxx

Q Now despite of that, you did not make any resistance?chanrobles virtual law library

A I made resistance but because the gun was poked on my head and he said he will kill me, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Now when Edgar Sadang was already on top of you, where was the gun that he used . . . where was the gun Edgar Sadang was holding?chanrobles virtual law library

A It was placed on the bed but he was holding it and pointing the gun at my head, sir. ³⁸

Eugenia Galapon who witnessed the said sexual assault as she was standing at the door of the room while Sadang was raping her daughter testified on direct examination:

Q You said that you were at the door of the room where your daughter was raped?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, Your Honor.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Was the door open?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, Your Honor.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

FISCAL MANUEL:chanrobles virtual law library

Q Kindly explain before this Honorable Court how Edgar Sadang raped your daughter?chanrobles virtual law library

A Edgar Sadang told my daughter that if she does not follow to his likes she will be killed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Why did you not help your daughter when you have seen that Edgar Sadang is raping her?chanrobles virtual law library

A How can I help her if we will talk they will kill us, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Who told you that?chanrobles virtual law library

A Edgar Sadang, sir. ³⁹

On cross examination, the same witness testified:

Q Because you saw your daughter lay in the bed you presumed that she was raped?chanrobles virtual law library

A She was really raped and I really saw her being raped (inlungat).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q You saw she was being raped because the fact is that Edgar Sadang is on top of her?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir, he really went on top of my daughter.

xxx xxx xxx

Q You did not see because the room was very dark at that time, isn't it?chanrobles virtual law library

A No, sir, it was very bright because I was ashamed to look of (sic) them of their push and pull position so I moved my face.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q You mean to say that because you ashame (sic) of their position so you did not see anything?chanrobles virtual law library

A I saw him holding a gun but I cannot remember where was that gun pointed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q You better answer my question. My question is because you (sic) ashame to see your daughter, isn't that when Sadang was on top of your daughter, you turned your head because you cannot bear to look your daughter being raped?chanrobles virtual law library

A No, sir, because when he inserted his penis, I was still looking at them.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q You mean to say that when his penis was inserted, you saw them?chanrobles virtual law library

A I saw them, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q What kind of resistance was your daughter did?chanrobles virtual law library

A My daughter resisted and she even informed Sadang that she has husband but Sadang threatened her to be killed (sic). ⁴⁰

On the crime of rape, appellants insist that the absence of medical examination, the non-presentation of the victim's torn panty in court, and the lack of resistance on the part of the victim, are fatal to the case of the prosecution.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

We do not agree.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The absence of medical findings by a medico-legal officer does not disprove the commission of rape. ⁴¹Medical examination is not an indispensable element in the prosecution of rape; ⁴²neither is the presentation of the victim's torn panty fatal to the prosecution's case. ⁴³The testimonial evidence adduced on behalf of the People was sufficient to establish that the crime of rape had indeed been committed. Furthermore, had Marilyn subjected herself to medical examination, the same would have been fruitless. The sexual assault happened on September 28, 1989 while the identification of the perpetrators was done only on October 16, 1989, a clear 18-day period after the harrowing incident occurred. In fact, had there been no apprehension, the victims would not have complained for fear of their lives. With respect to the lack of tenacious resistance on the part of the victim during the rape, it would suffice to state that the victim was unable to resist because of the threat to her life. Sadang was armed with a gun pointed at the victim's head when he ravished her. ⁴⁴Under Article 335, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman by using force or intimidation. Hence, rape may be committed even if no force is used. Intimidation is sufficient, and this includes the moral kind such as threatening the victim with a gun or knife. ⁴⁵Therefore, when appellant Sadang threatened the victim herein with a gun during the sexual assault, intimidation was present constituting his act as rape.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Appellant in trying to cast doubt on prosecution witness Eugenia Galapon's credibility alleged the following "inconsistencies" and/or "improbabilities" in the latter's testimony, to wit:

(i) Eugenia testified that her daughter Marilyn was wearing a "black dotted with white" duster when molested. The apparel was later presented in court during which, the defense counsel manifested its color to be blue with green, red, white and pink prints. ⁴⁶chanrobles virtual law library

(ii) Eugenia claimed that she was investigated in the morning of October 16, 1989 albeit her sworn statement disclosed that she was investigated at about 1:30 in the afternoon of the same day. ⁴⁷chanrobles virtual law library

(iii) Eugenia said that "she was able to recognize Joel Maligsay as one of the intruders because of the latter's mole at the right cheek. Joel indeed has a mole but it was on the left cheek. ⁴⁸chanrobles virtual law library

(iv) Eugenia averred that the nearest house from the crime scene was 100 meters to the north and that there was no house at the eastern side. On ocular inspection, it was noted that there was a house 14 meters to the east of the crime scene. ⁴⁹chanrobles virtual law library

(v) Eugenia testified that she did not see Sayo rape her daughter although in her sworn statement, she stated that the rape was committed "in front" of her. ⁵⁰chanrobles virtual law library

(vi) Eugenia claimed that a gun was poked at her while Marilyn identified the weapon poked at her mother as nothing but a knife. ⁵¹chanrobles virtual law library

(vii) Eugenia failed to make an outcry while her daughter was being ravished - a circumstance that is contrary to human nature. ⁵²chanrobles virtual law library

(viii) Eugenia's identification of appellants is dubious as such startling occurrence was sufficient to distort her recollection. ⁵³And,chanrobles virtual law library

(ix) Eugenia and her family did not report the incident immediately to the authorities because, in truth, there was nothing to report. ⁵⁴

The inconsistencies referred to by the defense as basis to discredit Eugenia's testimony are de minimus which are not sufficient to blur or cast doubt on her straightforward attestations, and such inconsistencies must
rather be viewed as adding credence and veracity to the spontaneity of her testimony. ⁵⁵The supposedly inconsistent statements given by Eugenia are clearly susceptible of coagmentation as to what actually transpired that
evening. ⁵⁶In the case of People vs. Custodio ⁵⁷citing People vs. Muñoz, ⁵⁸this Court declared that:

The fact that the witness fails to mention a particular detail of an incident, especially when testifying on different occasions, does not per se undermine his credibility. The nature and difference of the proceedings involved and the questions propounded therein as would or would not succeed in eliciting the details desired are only some of the factors to be considered. What is controlling is the consistency of the witness in relating the significant and indispensable components of the principal occurrence. We have held that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the basic aspects of the whys and wherefores of the crime, do not impair their credibility.

The circumstances cited by appellants do not, at all, indicate fabrication and falsehoods. At best, they merely reflect the witness's sincerity, candor, and at times, her illiteracy. Thus, despite the minor inconsistencies in Eugenia's testimony (which we find insignificant and inconsequential to discuss singly), it is believable on the whole as a coherent narration of what transpired that evening. Moreover, assuming arguendo that Eugenia's version must be disregarded, the same would not result in the acquittal of the appellants, the said testimony being merely corroborative of Marilyn's narration.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Finally, the constitutional presumption of innocence vigorously invoked by the appellants cannot be applied in the instant case where the guilt of the accused had been proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is true that the Bill of Rights guarantees that any person accused of a criminal offense is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, ⁵⁹and the quantum of evidence required by law to overcome this presumption, and to justify any criminal conviction is proof beyond reasonable doubt. ⁶⁰However, this is not to say that there should be absolute certainty in every criminal conviction. What the law requires the prosecution to adduce is only that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind ⁶¹or at least, moral certainty that the offense was committed. ⁶²chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED but MODIFIED with respect to the indemnity awarded to Marilyn Galapon. The same should be increased to P50,000.00 in line with recent jurisprudence. Costs against appellants.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Quiason, JJ., concur.