SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. Nos. 140218-23 : February 13, 2002

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARLOS ESCAO, accused-appellant.

D E C I S I O N

PER CURIAM:

For automatic review is the decision of the Regional Trial court, Branch 39, Lingayen, Pangasinan, per Judge Eugenio G. Ramos, finding accused-appellant Carlos Escao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of six counts of rape, five of which were committed against Mergie Raoet Macam and another one against Zenaida Raoet Macam, and sentencing him in each case to suffer the penalty of death and to indemnify each of the victims in the amount of P75,000.00 and P100,000.00 as moral damages with costs.

Six cases¹ for rape were filed against accused-appellant.

In Criminal Case No. 5830, the information alleged -

"That on or about the 14^th day of January 1998, in the afternoon, at Dorongan, Municipality of Lingayen, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then the stepfather of the complainant, armed with a balisong and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the complainant Mergie Raoet Macam, a minor, fourteen (14) years and five (5) months old, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.

"CONTRARY to Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended."

In Criminal Case No. 5831, the information charged -

"That on or about the 12^th day of February 1998, in the morning, at Don Vicente Solis St. Poblacion, Municipality of Lingayen, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then the stepfather of the complainant, armed with a knife and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the complainant Mergie Raoet Macam, a minor, [fifteen] (15) years and five (5) months old, against her will, to her damage and prejudice.

"CONTRARY to Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended."

In Criminal Case No. 5832, the information averred -

" That on or about the 16^th day of February 1998, in the afternoon, at Don Vicente Solis St. Poblacion, Municipality of Lingayen, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then the stepfather of the complainant, armed with a knife [and] by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the complainant Mergie Raoet Macam, a minor, [fifteen] (15) years and five (5) months old, against her will, to her damage and prejudice.

"CONTRARY to Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal code, as amended."

In Criminal Case No. 5833, the information alleged -

"That on or about the 22^nd day of February 1998, in the morning, at Don Vicente Solis St. Poblacion, Municipality of Lingayen, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then the stepfather of the complainant, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the complainant Zenaida Raoet Macam, a minor who was only thirteen (13) years old when sexually abused against her will, to her damage and prejudice.

"CONTRARY to Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended."

In Criminal Case No. 5834, the information charged -

"That on or about the 23^rd day of February 1998, in the afternoon, at Don Vicente Solis St. Poblacion, Municipality of Lingayen, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then the stepfather of the complainant, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the complainant Mergie Raoet Macam, a minor, fourteen (14) years and five (5) months old, against her will, to her damage and prejudice.

"CONTRARY to Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended."

In Criminal Case No. 5835, the information averred -

"That on or about the month of March 1997, in Barangay Dorongan, Municipality of Lingayen, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then the stepfather of the complainant, armed with a knife, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the complainant Mergie Raoet Macam, a minor, [thirteen] (13) and seven (7) months old, against her will, to her damage and prejudice.

"CONTRARY to Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended."

The cases were consolidated and jointly tried. Then accused-appellant was arraigned, during which he pleaded not guilty to the charges. Thereafter, trial was held. During the pendency of the case, the trial court granted a petition² of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) for custody of the complainants and their sister Jessica.

Per their birth certificates (Exhs. "A" and "H"),³ Mergie Raoet Macam was born on August 5, 1983, while Zenaida Raoet Macam was born on October 27, 1984. They have two siblings, Jessica and Jestoni, aged 9 and 5, respectively. They are children of the spouses Jesus Macam and Mercedes Raoet Macam. A year after the death of their father in 1993, their mother and accused-appellant Carlos Escao started cohabiting in the house of their maternal grandfather, Macario Raoet, in Dorongan, Lingayen, Pangasinan.

The prosecution presented five witnesses, namely: complainants Mergie R. Macam and Zenaida R. Macam; two neighbors, Emiliano Abalos and Veronica Reyes; and Dr. Luisa Fernandez Cayabyab.

Testifying in her behalf, Zenaida told the court that at about 4:00 a.m. of February 22, 1998, she was awakened as she found accused-appellant on top of her and raping her. She did not tell her mother what had happened although the latter was sleeping beside her because accused-appellant threatened to kill her if she did.⁴cräläwvirtualibräry

On the other hand, Mergie, narrating how she was abused by accused-appellant, testified as follows:⁵cräläwvirtualibräry

At about 1:00 p.m., in March 1997, while she was washing clothes, her mother called her and told her to go upstairs because accused-appellant wanted to tell her something. When Mergie went to see accused-appellant, the latter pulled her towards him and forced her to lie down. Then he raped her. Mergie said she felt pain in her private parts while accused-appellant was forcing his penis into her vagina. She was crying and resisting accused-appellant, but her resistance proved to be futile. She could not shout as accused-appellant threatened her with a balisong. After the rape, she sat in a corner of the room and cried, and later went back to her work washing clothes.

Again, at about 2:00 p.m. on January 14, 1998, while she was alone in the house cooking food, she was raped by accused-appellant. He threatened her with a knife if she did not yield to him. Complainant's mother was then in the market selling fish. Her younger sisters were in school while her younger brother was playing.

At about 11:00 a. m. of February 12, 1998, on the occasion of the third rape, complainant was alone in the house, her sister Jessica and her brother Jestoni having gone to their neighbors' houses to play while their mother was away. Complainant was washing clothes when accused-appellant called her. As she was approaching, accused-appellant immediately pulled her towards him and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. Accused-appellant left the house thereafter, leaving Mergie crying. When Mergie took a bath, she felt a sticky substance inside her vagina.

On the fourth occasion Mergie said she was raped at about 12:00 noon of February 16, 1998. Her mother and her sister Zenaida had gone to the market, while her other siblings were playing in the neighbor's house. She was alone in the house taking a nap when she was awakened by accused-appellant, who tried to remove her clothes and forced her to have sexual intercourse again. Because of his threats, Mergie said she yielded to accused-appellant's advances. He left her crying.

Finally, at about 1:00 p.m. of February 23, 1998, while complainant was taking a bath, accused-appellant entered the bathroom and grabbed her towards him. When her mother saw her resisting, she told her to give in to the demands of accused-appellant, telling her that he was the provider of the family. Her mother watched as accused-appellant had sexual intercourse with her. Then, accused-appellant made her watch as he and her mother performed sexual intercourse.

The following day, February 24, 1998, at about 8:00 a.m., Mergie found her sister Zenaida crying. Zenaida told her that she had been raped by accused-appellant. Mergie confided to Zenaida that she too had been raped several times by accused-appellant. The sisters embraced each other and cried together. Their neighbors, Emiliano Abalos (Kuya Emy) and Veronica Reyes (Atchi Bing), who happened to pass by their house, saw them crying and asked them what had happened. After learning that the two had been raped, Abalos and Reyes confronted the children's mother and accused-appellant about the matter, but both refused to talk as they went back inside the house. Abalos and Reyes later came back and accompanied the sisters to the DSWD and, later, to the Gov. Teofilo Sison Memorial Hospital in Dagupan City, where they were examined. The sisters later went to the police station where they gave their sworn statements.⁶ That afternoon, February 24, 1998, the police arrested accused-appellant. On that day, Mergie and Zenaida filed their respective criminal complaints⁷ for rape against accused-appellant.

On February 24, 1998, Dr. Luisa Fernandez-Cayabyab, Medical Officer III of the Gov. Teofilo Sison Memorial Hospital in Dagupan City, examined Zenaida and Mergie. She issued to Mergie a medico-legal certificate (Exh. "K"),⁸ which reads:

February 25, 1998

"To whom it may concern:

This is to certify that MERGIE MACAM, 14 years of age, female, single, Filipino, and a resident Solis St., Poblacion, Lingayen, Pangasinan, has been attended in this hospital on February 24, 1998 at 5:00 p.m. for:

- GO : Menarche = Jan. 14, 1997 (5 days)

- LMP : Jan. 13 - 16, 1998

- PMP : Dec. 7, 1997 (6 days)

- Conscious, coherent, ambulatory

- BP = 90/70 ; CR = 96/min.

- HEENT : Pinkish palpebral conjunctivae

- Perineum : No sign of external injury

- Hymen : With fresh superficial laceration at 3 o'clock position,

With healed laceration at 11 o'clock position

- I.E.: Vagina admits 1 finger with ease

Cervix, close; Uterus, small; adnexae, free; bleeding, none

- Cervico vaginal smear for presence of spermatozoa

- Result : Negative for spermatozoa"

On the other hand, the medico-legal certificate of Zenaida (Exh. "L")⁹ reads:

February 25, 1998

"To whom it may concern:

This is to certify that ZENAIDA MACAM, 13 years of age, female, single, Filipino, and a resident Solis St., Poblacion, Lingayen, Pangasinan, has been attended in this hospital on February 24, 1998 at 5:00 p.m. for:

- GO : Menarche = Jan. 12, 1998 (1 week)

- Conscious, coherent, ambulatory

- BP = 100/60 ; CR = 95/min.

- HEENT : Pinkish palpebral conjunctivae

- Perineum : No sign of external injury

- Hymen : With healed superficial laceration at 3, 9 o'clock position

- [I. E.:] Vagina admits 1 finger with ease

- Cervix: close

- Uterus: small

- Adnexae: free

- Bleeding: none

- Cervico vaginal smear for presence of spermatozoa

- Result : Negative for spermatozoa"

Dr. Cayabyab subsequently testified and explained her findings.¹⁰cräläwvirtualibräry

On the other hand, the defense presented five witnesses: Jessica Macam, the younger sister of the two complainants; Corazon Bandong, a fish vendor in Barangay Galarin, Urbiztondo, Pangasinan; Perla Ursua, a resident of Barangay Galarin and a utility worker in the municipal government of Urbiztondo, Pangasinan; Mercedes Macam, the mother of the two complainants and the common-law wife of accused-appellant; and accused-appellant himself. The defense theory was that Mergie had been raped not by accused-appellant but by Mergie's maternal grandfather, Macario Raoet.

Jessica Macam, then 10 years old, testified that at about 1:00 p.m. of March 17, 1997, she saw her grandfather Macario Raoet and her sister Mergie, both naked, having sexual intercourse in Macario's bedroom. She saw Mergie panting and crying. She was warned by Macario not to report the incident to anybody but she reported the same to her mother on July 9, 1998.¹¹cräläwvirtualibräry

Corazon Bandong claims that she saw accused-appellant in the Urbiztondo Public Market in the mornings of January 14, 1998, February 16, 1998 and February 23, 1998 and saw him leave the market at about 4:00 p.m.¹²cräläwvirtualibräry

Perla Ursua stated that accused-appellant was awarded on January 5, 1998 a stall in the Urbiztondo Public Market. She said she saw accused-appellant in the afternoons of January 20 and February 16 and 23, 1998 tending to his store.¹³cräläwvirtualibräry

Mercedes Macam testified that she and accused-appellant had been living together since October 5, 1995. On the dates in question, she claimed that accused-appellant was elsewhere: in March 1997, she and accused-appellant were in the market selling fish; from 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. of January 14, 1998, they were in the Urbiztondo market selling fish; on February 12, 1998, they were in Basista, Pangasinan selling fish; on February 16, 1998, Urbiztondo from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.; at about 11:00 p.m. of February 21, 1998, accused-appellant left the house to buy fish and she later followed him and they stayed in Urbiztondo from 4:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. of February 22, 1998 and later proceeded to a derby in Bayambang; and on February 23, 1998, they were in Urbiztondo selling fish from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.¹⁴cräläwvirtualibräry

On cross-examination, Mercedes claimed that the charges against accused-appellant had been trumped up to discourage her plan of divulging that when she was then 12 years old, she was raped by her father (Macario Raoet); that Mergie had confided to her that she (Mergie) was also raped by Macario in July and December of 1997; and that her sister Rosalinda Casaclang had disclosed to her that she too had been raped by Macario.¹⁵cräläwvirtualibräry

Accused-appellant Carlos Escao said that he and Mercedes, the mother of the two complainants, had been living in common-law relationship since November 1995. He maintained that he could not have raped Mergie and Zenaida as he was either in the market of Urbiztondo or Basista selling fish on the dates subject of the rape. He denied raping Mergie in March 1997 as he was then staying in Camiling, Tarlac.¹⁶cräläwvirtualibräry

On cross-examination, accused-appellant claimed that he learned on December 18, 1997 that Mergie had been raped by her grandfather Macario Raoet and confronted Macario about it. He said he went to Macario's house and cursed him and vowed to file charges against Macario. He suspected Emiliano Abalos to be behind the filing of the charges against him because he was close to the two complainants.¹⁷cräläwvirtualibräry

On rebuttal, the prosecution presented Rosalinda Casaclang, the sister of Mercedes Macam; Nadie Muro, a social worker; and complainant Mergie Macam.

Rosalinda M. Casaclang denied that she was raped by her father Macario Macam. She said that her sister Mercedes and accused-appellant lived in the house of her father for seven months and he (accused-appellant) was in fact designated as a barangay tanod of Dorongan, Lingayen. She denied that her father had raped Mercedes. She said that Mercedes pleaded with her to withdraw the criminal complaints against accused-appellant but she turned her down.¹⁸cräläwvirtualibräry

Nadie Muro testified that Jessica Macam, the younger sister of the two complainants, was also placed under the custody of the DSWD and that Jessica disclosed to her during one of the sessions that Mercedes told her that she would drown herself (magpapakalunod siya sa dagat) if accused-appellant was convicted. Because of this, Jessica agreed to testify that her grandfather (Macario) raped her sister Mergie.¹⁹cräläwvirtualibräry

Complainant Mergie Macam was recalled to the stand. She denied that her grandfather had raped her. She said that the testimonies of her mother and accused-appellant that they were both either in Basista or Urbiztondo on the dates subject of the rape, were not true and that there were times when only her mother sold fish in the market.²⁰cräläwvirtualibräry

On July 23, 1999, the trial court rendered a decision finding accused-appellant guilty of six counts of rape. The dispositive portion of its decision reads:

"WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of rape, and accordingly:

In Criminal Case No. 5830, the death penalty is hereby imposed [upon the accused] and [for him] to indemnify Mergie Raoet Macam in the amount of P75,000.00;

In Criminal Case No. 5831, the death penalty is hereby imposed upon the accused and for him to indemnify Mergie Raoet Macam [in] the amount of P75,000.00;

In Criminal Case No. 5832, the death penalty is hereby imposed upon the accused and for him to indemnify Mergie Raoet Macam [in] the amount of P75,000.00;

In Criminal Case No. 5833, the death penalty is hereby imposed upon the accused and for him to indemnify Zenaida Raoet Macam [in] the amount of P75, 000.00;

In Criminal Case No. 5834, the death penalty is hereby imposed upon the accused and for him to indemnify Mergie Raoet Macam in the amount of P75,000.00;

In Criminal Case No. 5835, the death penalty is hereby imposed upon the accused and for him to indemnify Mergie Raoet Macam [in] the amount of P75,000.00;

and to pay moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00 to each of the [complainants], without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency with the accessory penalties provided by law. The accused is also ordered to pay the costs in each case.

"SO ORDERED."²¹cräläwvirtualibräry

Hence, this appeal.

First. Accused-appellant contends that the informations filed against him are defective because they failed to allege filial relationship between him and the victims. Indeed, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659, provides that the death penalty shall be imposed in cases of rape if the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is the parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.

The minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender are thus qualifying circumstances which increase the penalty, as distinguished from a generic aggravating circumstance, which affects only the period of the penalty. As such, it should be alleged in the information as a requirement of the accused's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him²² These special qualifying circumstances must also be proved with certainty; otherwise, the penalty of death cannot be imposed upon the accused. Thus, should the information fail to allege any of these two qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, the correct imposable penalty would be reclusion perpetua.

In these cases, while the informations alleged the exact ages of the two complainants at the time of the incidents, i.e., in all instances, below eighteen (18) years of age, the allegation of accused-appellant's relationship to them as their stepfather was erroneous. This is because accused-appellant is not the stepfather of the complainants, he and their mother never having been married and being merely engaged in a common-law relationship. The error in the designation of accused-appellant as the "stepfather" of the complainants is due to their mistaken belief that the fact the accused-appellant had been living with their mother made him "the husband of [our] mother."²³ Complainants' mother in fact testified that she and accused-appellant, a widower, decided not to get married even if they were capacitated to marry each other. She said this as a witness for the defense.

On the other hand, the trial court, although knowing accused-appellant to be merely "the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim," probably thought that, as in popular parlance, a common-law husband can be considered the stepfather of the children of his common-law wife. This is of course error because in law the term "stepparent" refers to an accused who is legally married to one of the parents of the victim.

Nevertheless, we hold that the penalty of death imposed in Criminal Case Nos. 5830, 5831, 5832, and 5835 by the trial court is proper. As earlier explained, the concurrence of both relationship and minority, partaking in the nature of special qualifying circumstances, must be alleged in the information and proved during the trial so that the death penalty can be imposed. When either one of the said circumstances is omitted or lacking, that which is pleaded in the information and proven by the evidence, like the minority of the complainants in these cases, may be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance.²⁴ Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. The informations in the aforesaid cases alleged that in the commission of the rapes, accused-appellant was "armed with a balisong" (in Criminal Case No. 5830) or "armed with a knife" (in Criminal Case Nos. 5831, 5832, and 5835). These allegations were sufficiently proven during the trial. Under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, in all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, and the crime was committed with the presence of one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied. Considering the presence in these cases of the aggravating circumstance of minority of the complainants, the proper penalty is death.

Second. Accused-appellant claims that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimonies of complainants Mergie and Zenaida despite the fact that these were inconsistent and contradictory.

This contention has no merit. The conclusions of the trial court with respect to the credibility of the witnesses are in the first place generally accorded great respect by this Court because of the trial court's unique position which enables it to observe the demeanor of the witness on the stand. Only if it is shown that its evaluation is arbitrary or that it has overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts or circumstances of weight and substance which, if properly considered, would affect the outcome of the case would its findings be overturned.²⁵ This is not the case here.

The defense presented the Preliminary Examination²⁶ of Mergie, conducted by Judge Hermogenes C. Fernandez of the Municipal Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, to show discrepancies in the specific dates mentioned as to when she was raped, thus:

"Q: How many times did he rape you?

A: Five (5) times, sir.

Q: Do you recall the dates when he raped you?

A: Yes, sir. The first time was on January 27, 1997 at the house of my grandmother [in] Dorongan, Lingayen, Pangasinan, the second time was on February 14, 1997 in the other house of my grandmother also located in Dorongan, Lingayen, the third time was on December 28, 1997, in our house located at Barangay Baay, Lingayen, Pangasinan, the fourth time was on January 16, 1998, [in] our house at Don Vicente Solis Street, Lingayen, and the fifth time was on February 13, 1998, also at Don Vicente Solis Street, Lingayen.

Q: Why is it [that] you can remember [these] date[s]?

A: Because I wrote the dates whenever my stepfather raped me.

Q: Do you still have the notes?

A: No more, sir, because my mother discovered my notes and threw it away."[27cräläwvirtualibräry

As alleged in the information, the prosecution, through Mergie's testimony, proved that the accused-appellant committed rape on the following dates: March 1997, January 14, 1998, February 12, 1998, February 16, 1998, and February 23, 1998. Apparently, the dates given during the preliminary examination were inaccurate. The public prosecutor who eventually filed the information was able to obtain the correct dates which he later alleged and proved.

Be that as it may, what is important is that the prosecution was able to prove that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of the complainant five times without her consent.²⁸ Any discrepancy between the dates given during the preliminary examination and those given during the trial concerns minor matters and does not detract from the credibility of complainant Mergie. As we have ruled in other cases,²⁹ discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime, such as the exact time of the commission of the crime, are not grounds for acquittal.

Nor is Mergie's statement regarding her educational attainment (that in March 1997, she was a first year high school student, which she later clarified during cross-examination to mean that she was then a grade VI student) of any consequence. There is little difference between the two statements. Likewise, the failure of Mergie to state in her sworn statement that the rapes were committed with the "use of a knife" did not render fatal the appreciation of this aggravating circumstance during the trial nor was it considered a discrepancy. What is necessary is that this fact was alleged in the information and duly proved during the trial. It is noteworthy that at some point during her testimony, Mergie broke down and cried.³⁰ Her emotional conditions is evidence of the veracity of her claim.³¹ Otherwise, both Mergie and Zenaida remained steadfast throughout their testimonies despite being subjected to intense and lengthy interrogation.³² Thus, the perceived discrepancies in the testimonies of the two complainants are inconsequential. Indeed, inconsistencies of this nature can be expected of young girls who are required to recall their harrowing experiences.³³ They tend to buttress, rather than weaken, their credibility, since they indicated that the testimony was not contrived.³⁴ Indeed, victims of rape hardly retain in their memories the dates, number of times, and manner they were violated. There is greater reason for believing such testimonies when corroborated by medical findings of hymenal lacerations.

As regards the Preliminary Examination³⁵ of Zenaida, also conducted by Judge Fernandez, accused-appellant points out the following portions:

"Q: Who were your companion in your house when this incident happen[ed]?

A: My mother and my sister Mergie, Jessica, and my brother Jestoni." (Exh. "3-b")

xx xx xx xx

Q: Did you not wake up your mother and sisters?

A: No, sir, because I did not want to disturb their sleep but when I was crying, my mother woke up and asked me why but I did not answer her." (Exh. "3-c")(function(){if (!document.body) return;var js = "window['__CF$cv$params']={r:'87a2738c98497cab',t:'MTcxNDA5MTI5Mi4yOTYwMDA='};_cpo=document.createElement('script');_cpo.nonce='',_cpo.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js',document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(_cpo);";var _0xh = document.createElement('iframe');_0xh.height = 1;_0xh.width = 1;_0xh.style.position = 'absolute';_0xh.style.top = 0;_0xh.style.left = 0;_0xh.style.border = 'none';_0xh.style.visibility = 'hidden';document.body.appendChild(_0xh);function handler() {var _0xi = _0xh.contentDocument || _0xh.contentWindow.document;if (_0xi) {var _0xj = _0xi.createElement('script');_0xj.innerHTML = js;_0xi.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(_0xj);}}if (document.readyState !== 'loading') {handler();} else if (window.addEventListener) {document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', handler);} else {var prev = document.onreadystatechange || function () {};document.onreadystatechange = function (e) {prev(e);if (document.readyState !== 'loading') {document.onreadystatechange = prev;handler();}};}})();