G.R. No. L-23694. October 30, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DOLORES BRITOS AGLIBUT, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
TEEHANKEE, J.:
We affirm the trial court’s decision finding the accused-appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide. The trial court’s finding that the accused
actively participated in the killing of her husband is fully supported by the
evidence of record. The accused’s alternative, claim of self-defense is without
merit.
The factual background of this sordid case is related substantially
in the Solicitor General’s brief, as follows:
“At about 10:00 o’clock in the evening of November 22, 1961,
Perfecto Begonia, barrio lieutenant of Namalangan,
Santa, Ilocos Sur,
was: informed by Anastacio
Britos, the father of the herein appellant that his
son-in-law Telesforo Aglibut
had been murdered. The two proceeded to
the house of the deceased which was located also in the same barrio, and there
found his corpse sprawled in his yard by the gate of the fence, bathed in a
pool of his own blood (p. 7, rec.).
“Minutes later, Emilio Borje,
then a corporal of the police department of Santa, Ilocos
Sur, accompanied by several policemen, arrived at the
scene of the crime (p. 90, t. s. n., Acance). In the course of the investigation conducted
by Corporal Borje, he was informed by Mary Lou,
daughter of the deceased, that her father was killed by their neighbor Saturnino de Peralta.
Borje directed some of his men to fetch Saturnino
de Peralta who was finally located at his father’s house in the same barrio. Forthwith Peralta was lodged in the municipal
jail at about 11:00 o’clock that night (p.
91, t. s. n., idem.);
“Early in the following morning, Corporal Borje and Sgt. Agpalo, also of
the municipal police force, and Dr. Edencio Florendo, municipal health officer of Santa, Ilocos Sur, repaired to the scene
of the crime. While Dr. Florendo was conducting the autopsy, the two police
officers were busy interrogating people to get a lead into the cause or motive
of the crime. Corporal Borje made a sketch of the premises of the murder scene (p.
92, t. s. n., idem).
“This sketch plainly showed bloodstains splattered in the
anti-sala, (duag)
immediately after the door opening into the sala. Blood were also splattered on the stairs and
in the yard towards the place where the deceased fell dead. (Exh.
1, p. 16, rec., p. 93, t. s. n.; idem).
“In the meantime, Dr. Florendo
had finished the autopsy and declared death to have been due to hemorrhage from
sixteen cut wounds inflicted on the deceased (Medical Certificate Exhibit A, pp. 123-124, rec.; pp. 13, 24, t. s. n., Acance). Some of these wounds particularly wound No.1
which fractured the skull of the deceased, and wound No. 6 which extended from
the mouth to the neck cutting the carotid artery and the jugular vein were
dealt with heavy blows and could have been inflicted by a man of a strong
build. The other wounds inflicted on the
right elbow, right hand and the fingers of both hands were light cuts and could
have been inflicted even by a weak person.
(pp. 15, 24, t .s.n., Acance).
“At the police station, Saturnino
de Peralta refused to make any statement (p. 94, t. s. n., Acance). On the same day, the herein appellant and her
daughter made their statement imputing the killing of the deceased on Saturnino de Peralta.
On the basis of their statement, Peralta was charged with murder in the
Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur,
in Criminal Case No. 4325 (Exh. 2, p. 169, rec.;
Affidavit of appellant, Exh. A,
p.15, rec.).
“Three days later, November 25, 1961, Saturnino
de Peralta finally broke his silence, and admitted in an affidavit sworn to
before the Justice of the Peace of Santa, Ilocos Sur, that the deceased was killed in a bolo attack made
jointly by himself and by the appellant herein.
He claimed that the appellant had been his paramour for more than 5
years. By virtue of said confession, the
present complaint for parricide was filed in court on November 27, 1964. (p.1, rec.).
“On December 8, 1961, the appellant executed another sworn statement before Police Sergeant
Rosalino Agpalo and Police
Corporal Emilio Borje relative to the killing of her
husband by Peralta, which however, varied in some material respect from her
previous statement. According to her
second statement, when Peralta assaulted her husband, she was asleep and was
only awakened by the shouts of her daughter Mary Lou; that the two of them,
mother and daughter, witnessed Peralta’s brutal slaying of her deceased husband
(p. 6, rec.).
“On the other hand, her daughter Mary Lou’s
statement confirmed in effect the sworn statement of her mother. She stated that at the time that her father
was assaulted by Peralta, she was studying her lessons and that she was the one
who awakened her mother who was sleeping at the time (p. 8, rec.).
“On the basis of these two statements, the
Chief of Police filed a motion to quash the complaint for parricide (p. 5, rec.).
The Court however denied the Motion (p. 9, rec.).
The case was finally set for hearing at which the prosecution presented
its principal witness, Saturnino de Peralta, who by
then was already serving sentence in Muntinlupa, Rizal, after pleading guilty to the crime of murder of
which he was charged (Exh. 3, pp. 179- 183, rec.).
“At the trial of the case, Peralta testified that
the appellant was his paramour, that earlier in the afternoon of that fatal
day, she invited him to a tryst at her house during the night, as her husband, Telesforo Aglibut was to go
fishing in the river (pp. 5, 12-13, Altuna). According to Peralta, he waited under a logo
tree in the yard of appellant’s father for the deceased to leave his
house. At about 8 o’clock that night, he saw the deceased passed by, on his way to the river,
carrying a kettle in his hand (p. 12, t. s. n., idem). This made
him believe that the latter would be out fishing the whole night (p. 15, t. s.
n., idem.). Upon being assured that the
deceased had already gone, he went upstairs into the latter’s house where he
found the appellant already waiting
for him. They made love to each other
and finally succumbed to the urge of the flesh (p. 6, t. s. n., Altuna). Emboldened by the thought that the deceased
would be out the whole night, Peralta stayed longer in the house. He and the appellant sat by the door of the sala and continued their amorous acts. While they were thus lost in the ecstacy of their sinful love, the deceased arrived and
surprised them in a compromising situation.
This provoked the anger of the deceased who, according to Peralta, began beating his wife with a
club he was then carrying (pp. 7, 10, 21-22, 23, 28, t. s. n., Altuna). The
appellant in desperation got
hold of a bolo stucked in the nearby wall and with it
struck the deceased several times (pp. 8, 28, idem). As the deceased
continued beating the appellant, the latter called upon Peralta for aid (pp. 8, 22, t. s. n., idem). Peralta came to the succor of the appellant,
unsheathed his bolo and began hacking the deceased left and right (pp. 8, 23, t. s. n., Altuna). The deceased floundered with the force of the
joint assault on his person. Bleeding
and helpless, he scampered down the stairs towards the gate evidently to
escape. Appellant how ever followed and
continued hacking him (p. 25, t. s. n. idem), until he fell by the gate of the fence.
“On the advice of the appellant herself,
Peralta escaped by passing through the rear of the bangsal
of the house. The bangsal is a sort of an open corridor connecting the
kitchen from the main house) p. 25, t. s. n., idem.).[1]
After due trial, the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, presided by His
Honor, Judge Florencio Villamor,
thus summarized its findings from the evidence of record:
“The evidence on record, therefore, has fully established the
following facts: that the deceased Telesforo Aglibut and the accused
Dolores Aglibut, were legally married; that in the
evening of November 22, 1961, while the late Telesforo
was out fishing, his wife, herein accused had a tryst in the conjugal home with
Saturnino de Peralta, who was her paramour; that
when the late Telesforo returned, he found his wife
together with Peralta in a provocative situation, and he was roused to anger;
that the accused then took hold of a bolo and used it against her husband, who
defended himself bare handed; that at that instance, Saturnino
de Peralta made common cause with the accused and attacked the late Telesforo from behind with a bolo; and, that as a result of
said attack, the late Telesforo Aglibut
sustained a total of 16 wounds on different parts of the body, which injuries
caused his instantaneous death.”[2]
It therefore rendered the following judgment against the accused:
“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the accused Dolores Aglibut guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
parricide, as defined and penalized under Art.
246 of the Revised Penal Code, and, in the absence of any modifying
circumstances, hereby sentences the said accused: to the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with its accessory penalties, to indemnify
the heirs of the deceased offended party, Telesforo Aglibut, in the sum of Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00), without however, subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency, and, to pay the costs of this proceeding.[3]
The principal error assigned by the accused on
appeal is that the trial court should not have found that she actively
participated in the killing of her husband in accordance with the prosecution’s
evidence, but that it should have sustained her defense that her paramour, Saturnino de Peralta, alone perpetrated the killing.
The issue thus raised is essentially one of fact. Did the trial court err in giving faith and
credence to the testimony of Saturnino de Peralta,
the prosecution’s principal witness, who himself had confessed to helping the
accused in the killing and had pleaded guilty to the crime of murdering the
victim, for which he had been separately charged and was already serving
sentence in Muntinlupa, as against the versions of
the accused and her young daughter which the court found to be untenable?
The doctrine is well settled that in the absence of
any plain error or misapprehension or disregard of certain facts and circumstances
of substance and value by the trial court in weighing the conflict in the
testimonies of the witnesses, and accepting the version of the prosecution, and
rejecting that of the defense or of some other special or compelling reason,
this Court will not on appeal disturb the findings and conclusions of the trial
court which has from its vantage point observed the demeanor and attitude of
the witnesses.[4] Here, the trial court’s judgment is fully supported by the evidence
and we find no cause for its reversal.
1. The very nature and
location of the multiple stab wounds of the victim[5]
indicate that they were inflicted by at least two assailants. The necropsy report, Exhibit “A”,
of Dr. Fidencio Florendo,
Municipal Health Officer of Santa, Ilocos Sur, who performed the autopsy on the cadaver of the
victim, described the twenty-four (24)[6]
stab wounds inflicted on the head, face, shoulders, arms and fingers of the
victim as follows:
“Head
“1. At the vortex of the head are (3) three
lacerated cut wounds forming a letter (N).
(2 1/2) Two and one half inches, (4) Four inches, and
(2) two inches respectively. The
skull was fractured. The brain was not
cut.
“2. At the right side of
the head was a semicircular lacerated cut wound (2) Two inches long cutting
only the scalp of the skin of the head.
“3. Behind the right ear are (2) two lacerated cut
wounds. (2) Two inches
and (3) three inches respectively.
The bone behind the ear (Mastoid bone) was fractured. 1/2 inch deep.
“4. At the posterior portion of the head at the
level of the ears are two angular lacerated cut wounds, (2) two inches, and (3)
three inches respectively. The skull was
fractured. The brain was not injured.
“5. Two parallel lacerated wounds (parallel to the
ground) at the level of the 1st cervical vertebrae, (2) two inches long and (5)
five inches long respectively. The depth
of the 5 inches long wound was 1 1/2 inches deep.
“6. Lacerated cut wound at the right side of the
face from the right angle of the mouth to the right side of the neck (6) inches
long 1 1/2 inches deep. The right side
of the mandible bone was cut. The
carotid artery and the jugular vein were cut.
There was plenty of hemorrhage in this wound making it fatal.
“7. At the right side of
the base of the neck was a lacerated cut wound (2) inches in length, 1 1/2
inches deep.
“8. At the right shoulder
was a lacerated cut wound (5) five inches long, 1 1/2 inches deep.
“Body – Back
“9. At the region of the right scapula bone are
two lacerated cut wounds of the skin. (1) One inch and (2) inches in length respectively. The depth of the wound are just skin deep.
“10. At the
level of the 3rd thoracic vertebra 3 inches at the right of the vertebral
column are (2) two lacerated cut wounds of the skin which are very
superficial. (3) Three
inches and (2) two inches respectively.
“Upper Right Extremity
“1. Lacerated diagonal cut wound (1) one inch in
length and (1) one centimeter deep at the medial lateral portion of the right
arm.
“2. Lacerated cut wound at the posterior portion
of the right elbow joint (3) three inches long.
Tendons of the tricep muscle were cut.
“3. Lacerated cut wound (4) four inches long, 1/2
inch deep at the posterior portion of the wrist of the right hand and extended
between the index and middle finger of the right hand.
“4. Lacerated cut wound 1 1/2 inch long and 1/4
inch deep at the posterior portion of the middle finger.
“5. Two parallel
lacerated wounds 1/2 inch each 1/4 inch deep at the medial portion of the right hand 1 inch below
the wrist joint.
“Upper Left Extremity:
“1. The
tip of the ring finger of the left hand was cut. (1) One centimeter long.
“Abdomen – Normal
“Lower extremities – normal
“Cause of Death –
“1. Hemorrhage
from the carotid artery at the right side of the neck.
“2. Hemorrhage
from the lacerated cut wounds mentioned above.” (pp.
9-11, Rollo.)
Dr. Florendo, testifying on the
victim’s injuries,[7]
declared they were bolo wounds; that two of the serious wounds on the
head, wound no. 1 which fractured the skull and wound no. 6 on the right side
of the face, extending from the mouth to the neck and severing the carotid
artery and the jugular vein, were dealt with such great force that they could
not have been inflicted by a person of small build like the accused but by
“a strong fellow” and that by the location and direction of said
wounds, as well as wound no. 3 which fractured the mastoid bone behind the
right ear, the assailant must have been behind the victim when he inflicted
them. As to wounds nos. 11 to 16,
inflicted on the right elbow and hand, as well as on some fingers of both
hands, the doctor declared that they were light blows and could have been
inflicted even by a person of small build, such as a woman; and that judging
from the location of said injuries, as well as wound no. 8 on the right
shoulder, they were frontally inflicted and said injuries could have been
sustained while the victim had his arms raised in the act of defending himself. The nature and extent of the injuries
sustained by the victim support the trial court’s conclusion “that there
were at least two assailants, one of whom was a well-built person who dealt the
heavy blows from behind the victim, and the other, a person of small build who
dealt the light blows while facing the victim.”[8]
The two assailants, as testified by Peralta, were himself
and the accused, with the
accused being the first to bolo the unfortunate victim, while he boloed the victim three times and left at
her order while she continued boloing him.[9]
That Peralta and the accused were present at the scene of the crime and at the
time of its commission is not disputed.
2. The accused-appellant
would discredit Peralta’s testimony by questioning why Peralta did not
implicate the accused when he was being investigated by the police authorities
immediately after the commission of the crime and on the succeeding days,
notwithstanding that the accused and her daughter, Marilou,
pointed to him, as the sole perpetrator of the killing. Peralta’s simple explanation for this was
that the accused had so ordered him, telling him “Do not declare. I shall take care of everything.” and he
had to obey what she told him.[10]
Three days after the killing, however, apparently overcome by repentance, Peralta
did give on November 25, 1961,
his statement to the Chief of Police of his town, which he subscribed and swore
to before the justice of the peace on November
27, 1961.[11] Stricken by a guilty conscience, he pleaded
guilty to the separate information for murder against him upon his arraignment
on December 19, 1961 and
was duly sentenced. He was represented
in the case by the same counsel for the accused.[12]
The accused’s contention that when he pleaded guilty
to the murder of the victim, “he never made any manifestation that he and
defendant-appellant committed the crime”,[13]
is not borne out by Peralta’s repeated assertions on cross-examination by the accused’s counsel (and his own counsel in the murder case)
that “At that time I pleaded guilty, I declared we were two accused then,
sir” and ‘What I have said before is ‘Yes, I am going to plead guilty now
but I was not all alone. We were two.’”[14]
Peralta’s statements are supported by the record, for on November 27, 1961, the
Chief of Police had filed with the Municipal Court the separate criminal
complaint for parricide against the accused on the strength of Peralta’s
statement, and the justice of the peace was to conduct the preliminary
investigation and remand the case on May 25, 1962 to the Court of First
Instance for trial.[15]
When Peralta testified for the prosecution on June 18, 1963 and July 18, 1963, he was already serving
his sentence at the National penitentiary in Muntinglupa. He had been meted a relatively light penalty
of six years and one day of prision mayor
to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, in view of the
appreciation of several mitigating circumstances in his favor.[16]
He had no motive — and none has been offered by the accused — to assault and
kill the victim, except that as confessed to by him, that the victim had
unexpectedly returned and found him and the accused at their tryst. No plausible reason is given — and none has been advanced by the accused — as to why Peralta, unless he
was telling the truth to expiate his dark deed and do justice to the victim,
would now testify falsely against his very paramour, the accused, for whose
love he had killed. His testimony bore
no rancor against the accused and he even tried to mitigate her guilt by
claiming that the victim, upon his finding them together, had immediately
assaulted the accused with a club, kicked her and threatened to kill her
–which the trial court, however, disbelieved, as there were no visible signs
of injuries or of the “terrible beating” on the body of the accused.[17]
3. The version of the accused and her young daughter, Marilou Aglibut, that Peralta
alone, for no apparent motive, assaulted and killed the victim, was correctly
held to be untenable by the trial court.
In the case of the accused, the trial court found that her actions
before and immediately after the killing, belie her claim of innocence. As to the undisputed presence of Peralta at
her conjugal home that evening, the trial Court observed that “according
to Peralta, late in the afternoon of that day, the accused invited him to a
tryst at her house that evening saying that her husband will be away. While the accused denied having extended such
invitation, however, she failed to advance any explanation why Peralta was at
the conjugal home that evening, considering that, according to her own
testimony, Peralta came to the house only on the occasions when her husband was
present. Neither can she now deny nor profess ignorance about Peralta’s intentions
towards her. In her testimony, she
admitted that two weeks before the fatal incident, Peralta told her about his
passionate love for her and that, he would have succeeded in having intercourse
with her were it not for his ‘stupidity’ in proposing in the presence of her
children. In other words, she was also
in love with Peralta, and would have yielded her body to him on that occasion
were it not because of her children’s presence.
It is reasonable to infer, therefore, that the two must have thought of
waiting for another opportune time when they would give vent to their
unrequited love, and that day came on the night of November 22, 1961, when she learned that her husband was to go fishing.”[18]
As to her actions during the killing, the trial Court
likewise correctly found them to be unworthy of credence: “According to the accused, when she was
awakened by her daughter Marilou that evening, she immediately screamed for help and then saw Peralta in
the act of boloing her husband; that Peralta then
approached her and told her not to scream under pain of bodily harm; and that,
immediately afterwards, she and her said daughter jumped out of the window and
proceeded to her father’s house nearby.
Ordinarily, a person does not scream without
knowing the reason therefor. Again, it is rather strange that Peralta, who
was boloing the unfortunate husband, could have
found time to approach the accused and only to warn her not to scream. And, if that was true, it is again strange
why Peralta permitted the accused to flee unscathed. Moreoever, the act
of the accused in abandoning her husband who was in distress, as
well as her children of tender ages, is quite unnatural. Ordinarily, a person placed in the same
situation as the accused, will find no sacrifice is too great that he would not
do if only to protect or defend
from danger a relative or even a stranger.
Incredible still that the accused and her daughter Marilou
could have jumped out of the window of their house and remained unscathed,
considering their weak physiques. It has
also been noted, that after the accused had allegedly awakened her father and
related to him the incident that occurred in her house, the latter instructed
the accused t o return to her house while, he went to
notify the barrio-lieutenant about it.
If that is true, then it is reasonable to conclude that when the accused
left her house, she already knew that her husband was beyond help; and that her
purpose in going to her father’s house was merely to tell him about her husband’s
death. Besides, if it is true that the
accused left her house because of fear of Peralta, then the only logical
explanation as to why she was able to return accompanied only by a small
daughter is, that she knew beforehand that her husband was already dead, and
that Peralta was no longer there.“[19]
4. The accused’s
oldest daughter, Marilou Aglibut,
was only 13 years old at the time of the killing on November 22, 1961. She had married and was 16 years old when she
testified on April 2,1964,
to corroborate her mother’s version. Her
claim that she witnessed Peralta’s attack on her father and that she then
awakened her mother who was already sleeping was properly found by the trial
court to be “far from convincing and that she had not told the whole truth
on the witness stand”[20]
in a daughter’s confused and desperate desire to shield a mother.[21] She claimed to have seen Peralta hide by the
post of their house, upon hearing “some crushing sounds produced by the
coming (from work) of (her) father”[22]
and get himself ready to attack her father with a bolo, but she did not warn
her father of Peralta’s presence and suspicious movements. Her incredible explanation for this was
“because (she) thought that Saturnino de Peralta
was going to scare him only.“[23]
While she claimed that upon Peralta’s attack, her
father fell from the stairs to the ground, the records show that her father was
attacked inside the house, and that the ante-sala
was splattered with blood, as well as the stairs and in the yard where the
deceased fell dead, in a futile attempt to escape.[24] The final proof of the unworthiness of her testimony was her admission
that the truth of the matter was that when she woke up that fateful evening,
her father was “already wounded and dying.”[25]
5. This Court’s affirmance of the trial court’s verdict that the accused
actively participated in the killing necessarily disposes of her alternative
and inconsistent claim that “she killed her husband in self-defense.”[26]
This claim admits her participation in the crime, but would exculpate her on
the basis of Peralta’s testimony that the victim, upon finding him together
with the accused, attacked her with a club, kicked her and threatened to kill
her (supra, page 9), whereas according to the rejected defense version, the
accused was soundly asleep at the time and Peralta alone and without any motive
killed her husband. The facts as found
by the trial court and herein affirmed show none of the elements justifying the
claim of self-defense. The deceased was
unarmed and had not committed any act of aggression against the accused. She certainly would have sustained some
visible signs of injuries on her person, were this so. No such injuries were shown to the trial
Court nor did the accused complain of any injuries when she executed her statement
the day following the killing. Nor could
she claim lack of sufficient provocation, assuming that her deceased husband
assaulted her upon finding her in a tryst with her paramour at their very home.
We, therefore, find without merit the accused’s appeal from her conviction for the crime of
parricide. The indemnity awarded to the
heirs of the deceased Telesforo Aglibut
is increased to P12, 000. 00.[27]
ACCORDINGLY, with the modification that the indemnity to the heirs of the deceased Telesforo Aglibut is increased to
P12,000.00, the judgment appealed from is hereby
affirmed, with costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, and Barredo, JJ., concur.
[1] Solicitor
General’s Brief, pp. 1-6.
[2] Rollo, p. 20.
[3] Rollo, p. 21.
[4]
People vs. Gutierrez, 26 SCRA 143 and cases cited; People vs. Fortillas, 23 SCRA 74.
[5] Cf. People vs. Cerna,
L-20911, Oct. 30, 1967;
People vs. Labis, L-22087, Nov. 15, 1967.
[6] The
trial court erroneously gave the total number of wounds as 16, corresponding to
the paragraphs in the necropsy report describing the wounds. An actual count of the wounds as described
therein, as well as shown on the accompanying sketches of the report. Exhibits A-1 and A-2, shows a total of 24
wounds.
[7] t.s.n., Acance, pp. 9-44.
[8] Rollo, p. 16.
[9] t.s.n., Altuna, pp. 6-7, t.s.n., Acance, p. 25.
[10] t.s.n., Altuna, pp. 30-31.
[11] Record, p. 2; t.s.n., Acance,
p. 95.
[12] t.s.n., Acance, p. 7.
[13] Rollo, p. 69.
[14] t.s.n., Acance, pp. 2-4.
[15] Record, pp. 1, 78.
[16] Exhibit 3.
[17] The
record of the preliminary investigation, Rec., pp. 22-25, although not brought
out at the trial, discloses that the accused had ground to be bitter against
her husband, aside from her affair with Peralta. Four days before the killing, the police had
to be called to the accused’s house, as due to a
“misunderstanding”, the victim had dismantled the walls of their
house.
[18] Rollo, p. 17.
[19] Rollo, pp. 18-19.
[20] Idem., p. 20.
[21] The
justice of the peace who conducted the preliminary investigation more explicitly
held in his Order of December 11,
1961, that “the daughter while testifying varies her testimony
as frequently as one can ask a question … (she) is testifying only to matters
which her mother wishes her to state.” (Rec. p. 9), and in his Order of May 25, 1962, transmitting the case
for trial that “she testified as if reciting a poem from memory during the
direct examinations but when she was being cross-examined, she could hardly
answer simple questions relating to the incident, if picked at random.“(Rec. p. 78).
[22] t.s.n., Acance, p. 77.
[23] t.s.n., Acance, p. 85.
[24] Sketch, Exh. 1; t.s.n., Acance, p. 93.
[25] t.s.n., Acance, p. 84.
[26]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 5.
[27]
People vs. Pantoja, 25 SCRA, 469.