THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARLON BORJA Y MILEDA, JUNEI CAZAR Y CARDONA, AND EDELYN PATALINGHOG Y LEQUIGAN ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
GAERLAN, S.H., J.:
dated 2 December 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch 94, in Criminal Case No. Q-10-167295, wherein the
accused-appellants were pronounced guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Violation of Section 4 (a) of Republic Act No. 9208 (R.A. 9208),
otherwise known as the “Anti Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003,” the
dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
finding accused Marlon Borja Y Mileda, Junei Cazar Y Cardona, also known
as John Cazar and Edelyn Patalinghog Y Lequigan GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 4 (a) R.A. 9208,
otherwise known as the “Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003”, and
each of them is sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT AND
A FINE OF TWO (2) MILLION PESOS and to pay the costs.The period of their incarceration will be deducted in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.”
The information[3] charging the accused-appellants of violation of Section 4 (a) of Republic Act No. 9208, reads:
“That on or between the period October 5 to
October 29, 2010, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating with two (2) other persons, whose true names,
identities and whereabouts have not as yet been ascertained and mutually
helping one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously recruit, transport, harbor, provide, introduce or match for
money for the purpose of prostitution, pornography or sexual
exploitation, the following trafficked persons, namely: APPLE LAMBOJON y
CUZO, MA. GLORIA SILVERIO y IMBAT and ROSEMARIE SERRADOR y OSABEL, 17,
15 and 16 years of age, respectively, all minors, to their prejudice.CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Upon arraignment,[4] accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the violation charged. Pre-trial was conducted and terminated on November 22, 2010.[5] Thereafter, trial proceeded. The prosecution presented eight (8) witnesses, namely: 1) Maria Gloria Imbat y Silverio;[6] 2) Rosemarie Serrador;[7] 3) Apple Lambojon;[8] 4) Mary Cris Gadi;[9] 5) PO3 Veronica Villareal;[10] 6) Eva Serrador;[11] 7) PSI Reynold Macabitas;[12]
and 8) SPO1 Robert Eblahan, whose testimony was dispensed with after
the prosecution and the defense stipulated as to his would be testimony.
The defense presented the three (3) accused-appellants: 1) Marlon
Borja;[13] 2) Edelyn Patalinghog;[14] and 3) Junei Cazar[15] as witnesses.
THE FACTS
The Version of the Prosecution[16]
“On 5 October 2010, at around 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon,
Edelyn Patalinghog, texted Apple Lambojon, who was only sixteen (16)
years old, inquiring from her if she wanted work. The two (2) of them
have known each other through the child of Edelyn, Nonoy, who is a
friend of Apple. Apple asked the nature of the work but Edelyn replied
just to meet her at the bridge of EDSA, Munoz, Quezon City. Upon
arriving at the said location, Apple met Edelyn Patalinghog, Marlon
Borja, and Gilbert Palomar. Edelyn and Gilbert asked Apple if she wanted
a job. Apple again inquired about the nature of the job but Edelyn did
not answer. Edelyn instead told her to bring some friends along. Apple
was enticed because of the offer that she will be given P5,000.00,
clothing, food, shelter. She, along with Edelyn and Gilbert and Marlon,
proceeded to the place of Maria Gloria Silverio.Maria Gloria Silverio, who was then fifteen (15) years old, was
in their house in Bagong Barrio Caloocan City. Thereafter, Apple
appeared in her place together with certain persons whom she knew to be
Edelyn Patalinghog, Gilbert Palomar and Marlon Borja. She was told by
Apple Lambojon if she wanted a job. Maria Gloria inquired about the job,
but Apple did not answer. Edelyn, Gilbert and Marlon only told her that
if she would come with them, she will have five thousand pesos
(P5,000.00). The five (5) of them, Maria Gloria Silverio, Apple
Lambojon, Edelyn Patalinghog, Marlon Borja, and Gilbert Palomar went to
Balintawak, Cloverleaf, Quezon City where they met Rosemarie Serrador,
and Mary Cris Gadi. Mary Cris Gadi and Rosemarie Serrador, were likewise
offered work by Edelyn Patalinghog and Marlon Borja when they met them
after being introduced by Apple Lambojon.Maria Gloria Silverio, Apple Lambojon, Mary Cris Gadi and
Rosemarie Serrador agreed to pursue the work being offered by Edelyn
Patalinghog and Marlon Borja despite not knowing the nature thereof.
Thereafter, they proceeded to Cubao, Quezon City and boarded a Dagupan
bus going to Tuguegarao, Cagayan. It was later on that they came to know
that the place of their supposed work is Maddela Province of Quirino.
Upon reaching Cordon, Isabela, they were introduced to a certain Junei
Cazar who paid Marlon Borja their fare. Thereafter, they boarded a red
van of Junei Cazar and proceeded to Maddela, Quirino. Upon arriving
thereat at around 2:00 o’clock in the morning, they proceeded to the
house of a certain Abet, the wife of Junei Cazar. They were given food
to eat and were instructed to have some rest. On the second day after
their arrival, they started working at the “Abet’s Videoke Bar”. At
first, they worked as waitress (“serbidora”). However, on the second day
of their work, they were instructed to entertain guests. The customers
would put their arms around them, kissed (sic) them, touched (sic) their
private parts and required (sic) them to drink beer from which they had
commission in the amount of fifty pesos (P50.00) (“Itini-table po kami,
kami po ay umiinom ng beer at ang customer na umaakbay samin inaakbayan
po ako. Nanghihipo po sila”) Sometimes, their guests would invite them
out to have sex, but they did not accede to such request (“gagalawin
kami”, “Kakantutin po”). They stayed at the said house and worked at
Abet’s Videoke Bar for two (2) weeks. Thereafter, Maria Gloria Silverio
and Rosemarie Serrador were transferred to Elmar Videoke Bar, also in
Maddela, where they were made to perform the same task as that in Abet’s
Videoke Bar. They wanted to leave the place but they do not know what
bus to ride and they do not have money to spare for fare.On October 18, 2010, Mary Cris Gadi told Apple that she will
escape. She asked permission from Abet to go to the market to buy
slippers. She was permitted to, but she will have a companion. While her
companion was busy doing errands, she asked that she will just buy
something in the drug store but she ran and did not return to the
Videoke Bar. Mary Cris boarded a vehicle going to Santiago, Isabela. On
that night, she boarded a Baliwag Transit. A couple asked her why she
was alone and Mary Cris replied that she “escaped”. The couple
accompanied her to the bus terminal where she slept.On October 20, 2010, Mary Cris went back to their house in
Balintawak, Quezon City and told her ordeals to her sister. Mary Cris
likewise told her ordeal to Ena Serador, mother of Maria Gloria Serrador
and told her that she worked with her daughter in Madella, Quirino in a
Videoke Bar.Mary Cris and Enah Serrador went first to the Barangay of
Balintawak, Quezon City and from there, she was accompanied to the DSWD,
Quezon City. At the DSWD, they were told that they cannot rescue her
companions. They were referred to “Bitag”, or “Tulfo”. At the office of
Bitag, she was told that her case will be referred to the NBI. Mary
Cris, accompanied by Enah Serrador and Oscar Serrador, went to the NBI.
Mary Cris was told at the NBI that they cannot rescue them due to the
location of the place.Mary Cris then proceeded to the CIDG on October 29, 2010. At the
CIDG, the statement of Mary Cris was taken by PO3 Veronica Villareal.
After the statement of Mary Cris was taken, Colonel Fajardo and Senior
Inspector Macabitas planned to rescue the friends of Mary Cris in
Maddela, Quirino, namely, Apple, Rosemarie, and Ria (the latter being
Gloria Silverio). PO3 Villareal was given the authorization to conduct
rescue operations in Maddela, Quirino. She coordinated with the CIDG in
Quirino Province and after surveying the area, she coordinated with the
local police officers of Maddela, Quirino.On October 30, 2010, Captain Macabitas, with PO3 Villareal with
the assistance of Maddela Police Personnel, proceeded to Abet Videoke
Bar and Elmar Videoke Bar simultaneously and conducted the operation.
Apple Lambojon, Rosemarie Serrador, and Maria Gloria Silverio were
rescued. Marlon Borja and Junei Cazar were apprehended and brought to
the nearest police station in Maddela, Quirino. At around 9:30 o’clock
in the evening, they proceeded to Manila. While on their way to Quezon
City, PO3 Villareal convinced Apple to text Edelyn Patalinghog to meet
her. Apple met Edelyn at Jollibee Sangandaan, Quezon City. PO3 Villareal
alighted from their vehicle, pretended to be a bystander and
immediately effected the arrest on Edelyn Patalinghog. Thereafter,
Apple, Rosemarie and Maria Gloria were brought to Camp Crame, Quezon
City along with Junei Cazar, and Marlon Borja.Upon arriving at Camp Crame, Quezon City, PO3 Villareal prepared
the operational procedures such as booking of the three (3) arrested
persons, the medico legal or physical examination of the arrested
persons and the minors and prepared the papers for inquest.SPO1 Robert Eblahan conducted the investigation and he prepared the inquest referral.
The affidavits of Apple Lambojon, Rosemarie Serrador and Maria
Gloria Silverio were prepared. Thereafter PO3 Villareal prepared her
Joint Affidavit of Arrest which she and Inspector Macabitas signed.On October 31, 2010, Junei Cazar, Marlon Borja and Edelyn
Patalinghog were subjected to inquest for Violation of Republic Act No.
9208, otherwise known as the “Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003”
before the City Prosecutor’s Office of Quezon City.”
Version of the Defense[17]
“Edelyn Patalinghog, along with her husband Gilbert Palomar,
works at the carinderia of her mother-in-law. She knew the complainants
because they were friends with her son. She saw the complainants at the
bridge in Munoz waiting for their “sugar daddy.” She always tells them
not to stay at that bridge. On 5 October 2010, the complainants went to
her home looking for her son, because they were going to Isabela for
work and they wanted to bring her son along. However, her son did not
want to, and instead Gilbert offered to go with them to Isabela. He
returned immediately after. The complainants communicated by text
message to Edelyn, telling her that they had reached Isabela and that
their employer was kind and they were fine. She was not informed about
what they did for a living.Marlon Borja, an acquaintance of Gilbert Palomar, who sees the
latter whenever Marlon is staying in Munoz, is employed by Junei Cazar
who raises chickens. When the private complainants arrived at Maddela on
6 October 2010, Marlon at that time was feeding Cazar’s chickens. The
complainants told Marlon that they were at Maddela for a vacation. He
remembers seeing them always happy and always going out. Junei Cazar, a
farmer and fisherman who also raised poultry and pigs, was, on 29
October 2010, at Jones, Isabela because his brother had died. He arrived
back at Maddela on 30 October 2010 and had a massage by Marlon. The
door was forced open by the police that afternoon, who asked where Cazar
and Abet was. When they could not find Abet, Marlon and Cazar were told
to come with the policemen. They were unable to do anything because
they were handcuffed. At the police station, they were being asked to
pay Forty Thousand (P40,000.00) pesos. Elmar, who was also arrested that
day, was able to give money. Thereafter, he was released. Marlon and
Cazar, however, were unable to give any money, and so they were brought
to Camp Crame. Along the way, Edelyn was arrested. It was during this
time that Edelyn first met Marlon and Cazar.All of them deny the charges. Marlon was told by Apple that they
really had no intention to bring them to jail, but Apple and the other
complainants were threatened by the policemen to file charges against
Marlon and Cazar or else, they themselves will be detained along with
their parents.”
On 2 December 2011, the court a quo rendered a decision
finding the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Section 4 (a) R.A. 9208, otherwise known as the “Anti
Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003,” and each of them is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of two (2) million
pesos and to pay the costs.
Unsatisfied with the decision of the court a quo, the accused-appellants instituted the instant appeal reiterating their innocence based on the following assignment of error:[18]
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED WHEN THEIR GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
THIS COURT’S RULING
The appeal is devoid of merit.
The trial court did not find credible the bare denials of the
accused-appellants over the candid, positive and convincing testimony of
private complainants Maria Gloria Silverio, Rosemarie Serrador, and
Apple Lambojon, as well as, the testimony of prosecution witness Mary
Cris Gadi. A perusal of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes of the
proceedings convinces Us that no reversible error was committed by the
trial court when this case was decided.
Section 3(a) of Republic
Act No. 9208 (RA 9208), otherwise known as the Anti-Trafficking in
Persons Act of 2003, defines Trafficking in Persons, as follows:
Trafficking in Persons – refers to the recruitment,
transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or
without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national
borders by means of threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion,
abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking
advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or
receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person
having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which
includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others
or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services,
slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs. x x x
Further, Section 4 thereof enumerates the prohibited acts of Trafficking in Persons, one of which is:
(a) To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, provide, or receive
a person by any means, including those done under the pretext of
domestic or overseas employment or training or apprenticeship, for the
purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor,
slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage.
Furthermore, the crime of Trafficking in Persons is qualified when
committed by a syndicate, as provided in Section 6(c) of RA 9208:
Section 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. – The following are considered as qualified trafficking:
(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large
scale. Trafficking is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a
group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one
another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against
three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.
Section 10(c) thereof also provides for the penalty for qualified trafficking:
(c) Any person found guilty of qualified trafficking under
Section 6 shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of
not less than Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00) but not more than Five
million pesos (P5,000,000.00).
Noteworthy is the fact that the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act
was passed on 26 May 2003, designed to criminalize the act of
trafficking in persons for prostitution, sexual exploitation, forced
labor and slavery, among others.
The application of the
particular legislation on this case is proper. The circumstances
surrounding this case squarely fall within the offense of trafficking of
persons under Section 4 (a) of R.A. 9208. The following testimonies of
the witnesses attest to accused-appellants’ engagement in human
trafficking activities:
Private Complainant Apple Lambojon testified that –
Q: You said a while ago that Edelyn Patalinghog texted you, what was the exact word or phrase she texted you?
A: I asked her “ano yong sinasabi n’ya” and she answered
“basta importante ito, basta pumunta ka nalang dito” and at around 3:00
o’clock on that day, I went to Munoz, ma’am.Q: Where exactly in Munoz?
A: EDSA at the bridge (tulay), ma’am.
Q: Upon arriving the bridge (tulay) of Munoz, whom did you meet there?
A: Edelyn Patalinghog, Gilbert Palomar and Marlon Borja, ma’am.[19]
xxx
Q: When you went at Munoz according to you, you saw Gilbert
Palomar, Edelyn Patalinghog and Marlon Borja, what did they say to you
when you saw them?A: They asked me if I want to have a job, ma’am.
Q: Who specifically asked you?
A: Edelyn Patalinghog and Gilbert Palomar, ma’am.
Q: What about Marlon Borja, did he say anything to you?
A: He did not say anything, ma’am.
Q: After that when the three (3) accused or after talking to them what happened next?
A: Edelyn Patalinghog told me to bring with me some friends of mine, ma’am.
Q: Did you ask Edelyn Patalinghog what will be your job?
A: She said nothing and all that she said is that it’s near, ma’am.
Q: Did you accede to her offer for you to come with her to have work?
A: I was enticed because she told me that she will give me Php 5,000.00, clothing, food and shelter, ma’am.
Q: After that what happened next?
A: We went to fetch Maria Gloria Silverio, ma’am.[20]
Private complainant Maria Gloria Silverio:
Q: When these three persons allegedly told you that “basta
sumama lang kayo magkakatrabaho kayo”, who was with you when they told
you that?A: Apple Lambojon, Rosemarie Serrador and Mary Cris Gadi.
Q: And could you tell us when these three persons told you that you will have work once you go with them?
A: October 5, 2010, ma’am.
Q: And to whom did they tell this to you or to your barkada, am I correct?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: And did you accede to their offer to you for work?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: Despite the fact that they did not tell you what work you will do, am I correct?
A: Yes, ma’am, “dahil po gusto ko pong may maibigay na pera sa magulang ko po.”[21]
xxx
Q: And you said you left at 4:00 o’clock, what kind of transportation if you can recall did you use in leaving?
A: Dagupan Bus, ma’am.
Q: And where is that Dagupan Bus bound for?
A: Tuguegarao, ma’am.
Q: And did you in fact ride on that bus with your companions?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: Who were with you on board on that bus? Can you please mention their names?
A: Apple Lambojon, Rosemarie Serrador, Mary Cris Gadi, Edelyn Patalinghog, Marlon Borja and Gilbert Palomar.
Q: And do you recall what happened next when you proceeded, where you proceeded, what province?
A: Madela, Isabela.
Q: What happened next?
A: We went to the house of Abet, the wife of Junei Cazar.[22]
xxx
Q: When did you start working according to you at Abet’s Videoke Bar?
A: On the second day after we arrived, we started working.
Q: And what was your work inside that Abet’s videoke bar?
A: At first, we acted as a “serbidora”, and on the second day,
that was the time when we started working and we already earned because
of the lady’s drink.Q: Let me be clarified, Madam Witness. You said “kumita na po
kami”, do you mean to say that before you were served lady’s drink,
before that you were not earning any salary?A: “Wala pa po.”
Q: Why is that?
A: Because we are still going to pay for the fare that we have.
COURT:
Who told you that you will have to pay your fare?A: Junei Cazar and his wife.
Fiscal:
You said after two days, you started earning money, why? What did you do to earn money?A: To drink lady’s drink and if you drink which is Php120.00, Php50.00 will be ours.
Q: What do you call that which was given to you?
A: “Pag-uminom po kami ng bote, pag naubos namin iyon, may Php50.00 po kami.
Q: In question and I quote in no. 11, “ano ang ginagawa ninyo
at nang customer ninyo kapag tinetable kayo?, and your answer was “kami
po ay umiinom ng beer at ang customer na umaakbay sa amin”, question no.
11, and the last sentence was “at minsan ay inaalok kaming maitake out
pero hindi po kami pumapayag, mag-aalok din minsan ng bar fine para mas
malaki daw ang kita”. What is that bar fine that you mentioned in your
salaysay, madam witness? May I be allowed to show, your honor, to the
witness question no. 11? What do you understand by bar fine?A: “Na gagalawin kami.”
Q: You said “gagalawin kayo”?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: Did you in fact allow yourself… what do you mean by “gagalawin”?
A: “Kakantutin po.”[23]
It can be gleaned from the foregoing excerpts that the
accused-appellants committed acts in violation of Section 4(a) of R.A.
9208. Trafficking in Persons under Sections 3 (a) and 4 thereof are not
only limited to transportation of victims, but also include the act of
recruitment of victims for trafficking.[24]
In the present case, the minor victims were recruited and transported
to another place in order to work as prostitutes. In fact, they were not
informed beforehand of the nature of their work. Through the
machinations employed by Accused-Appellants, the minor victims were
enticed by the prospect of earning a considerable sum of money that may
augment their respective families’ income. They were persuaded and lured
by the offer of free clothing, food, and shelter. It was only on their
second day of work did they realize that they are being employed as
prostitutes.
Notably, the testimony of Mary Cris Gadi reveals
that she was forced to go with Accused-Appellants together with the
other minor victims to Maddela, Quirino, to work at Abet’s Videoke Bar.
Prosecution Witness Mary Cris Gadi testified that –
Q: Can you relay to us the circumstance how you and your companions were brought to Madela, Quirino?
A: Evelyn Patalinghog and Apple went to our residence.
Q: And then?
A: They talked to me.
Q: What happened next?
A: They asked me if I want a job.
Q: What was your answer?
A: My sister did not agree at once and she asked them where will be that job and they told us, it’s just near.
Q: Do you recall who was with you when Evelyn Patalinghog and Apple went with you in your house?
A: My elder sister-Rosemarie and my cousin.
Q: When Evelyn Patalinghog asked you to go with her, did you in fact go with her?
A: I was forced.
Q: How did she force you?
A: She told me to dress up at once because we are in a hurry.
Q: And from your house, where did you proceed?
A: We first went to Balintawak bridge and Marlon Borja and Gilbert Palomar were there.[25]
Mary Cris Gadi, although not named as complainant herself, is
nevertheless subjected to the same sexual exploitation employed on the
three minor complainants. Because of her resolve to escape and report
the crime to the proper authorities, the police operatives were able to
conduct a successful rescue operation. Thus, she is considered by the
trial court as the most essential prosecution witness.
It is
worthy to note that the prosecution presented the private complainants
themselves, who are all minors, as witnesses. A child witness is any
person who at the time of giving testimony is below the age of eighteen
(18) years.[26] It is settled
that a child, regardless of age, can be a competent witness if he can
perceive and, in perceiving, can make known his perception to others and
that he is capable of relating truthfully the facts for which he is
examined.[27] Moreover, it is
settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child-victims are given full
weight and credit, especially if they are clear, straightforward,
credible and truthful.
Accused-appellants’ bare-faced defense of
denial cannot surmount the positive and affirmative testimony offered by
the prosecution. It is well-settled that positive declarations of a
prosecution witness prevail over the bare denials of an accused. A
defense of denial which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving, deserving no
weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over
convincing, straightforward and probable testimony on affirmative
matters. Denial is an inherently weak defense which must be supported by
strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[28]
In the case of alibi, it is elementary case law that the requirements
of time and place be strictly complied with by the defense, meaning that
the accused must not only show that he was somewhere else but that it
was also physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the
crime at the time it was committed.[29]
This the defense utterly failed to do. The record is bereft of the
proof required to establish the accused-appellants’ alibi. Junei Cazar
and Marlon Borja were arrested near the place of Abet’s Videoke Bar in
Madela, Quirino, the place where the three (3) minor complainants were
rescued. Thus, it was not physically impossible for them to be at the
scene of the crime when the continuing offense of trafficking of persons
is being perpetrated on the three (3) private complainants.
Furthermore, with respect to Edelyn Patalinghog, the private
complainants were in unison in positively identifying her as the person
who recruited and lured them to work.
Hence, the prosecution has convincingly proven the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed 2 December 2011 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 94, is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Salazar-Fernando, (Acting Chairperson) and Bruselas, Jr., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 50-59.
[2] Rollo, pp. 347-365
[3] Records, p. 1.
[4] Records, p. 175.
[5] Records, pp. 184-187.
[6] TSN, 13 December 2010, pp. 3-55.
[7] TSN, 7 January 2011, pp. 3-25; 14 January, pp. 2-27.
[8] TSN, 21 January 2011, pp. 2-43.
[9] TSN, 28 January 2011, pp. 2011, pp. 2-23; 4 February 2011, pp. 2-21.
[10] TSN, 4 February 2011, pp. 22-34; 22 February 2011, pp. 2-49.
[11] TSN, 18 February 2011, pp. 2-11; 4 March 2011, pp. 2-20.
[12] TSN, 4 March 2011, pp. 20-34; 11 March 2011, pp. 2-35.
[13] TSN, 27 May 2011, pp. 3-21; 3 June 2011, pp. 2-39.
[14] TSN, 8 July 2011, pp. 2-23.
[15] TSN, 29 July 2011, pp. 2-29; 2 September 2011, pp. 2-16.
[16] Rollo, pp. 95-99.
[17] Rollo, pp. 56-57.
[18] Rollo p. 57.
[19] TSN, 21 January 2011, pp. 10-11.
[20] Ibid, pp. 11-12.
[21] TSN, 13 December 2010, p. 18.
[22] Ibid, pp. 21-22.
[23] Id., pp. 24-46.
[24] People vs. Hadja Jarma Lalli, G.R. No. 195419, October 12, 2011.
[25] TSN, 28 January 2011, pp. 5-6.
[26] Section 4, Rule on Examination of Child Witness (A.M. No. 004-07-SC)
[27] People vs. Pruna, G.R. No. 138471, 10 October 2002.
[28] People v. Tuazon, G.R. No. 175783, September 3, 2007; citing People v. Vargas, 327 Phil. 387, 397 (1996); People v. Gonzales, 417 Phil. 342, 353 (2001); and People v. Hivela, 373 Phil. 600, 605 (1999).
[29] People v. Flores, G.R. No. 98069, January 27, 1993.