PEOPLE OF THE PHILIP­PINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALEXIO LUPANGO, ALIAS “ALEX”, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

About midnight of January 26, 1970, fire destroyed the house of Teresa
Vda. de Iglesia located at Antonio Regidor Street, Lucban, Quezon, together
with its owner, the old widow.

An investigation by the authorities resulted in the filing of a
criminal complaint,^[1]
against accused Alexio Lupango, for the crime of robbery with homicide.^[2]
At the second stage of the preliminary investigation in the Municipal Court,
accused Alexio Lupango y Ibona admitted his guilt and culpability for the crime
charged against him.^[3]
The Municipal Judge Ruperto Abcede of Lucban, Quezon forwarded the Criminal
Case No. 757 to the Circuit Criminal Court of Quezon, upon finding of a prima
facie case against accused Lupango.^[4]

The corresponding information against the accused was filed with
the Circuit Criminal Court of Quezon, Lucena City, to wit:

“The undersigned, Provincial Fiscal accuses Alexio Lupango,
alias “Alex” of the crime of robbery with homicide, defined and
punished under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
by Republic Act 18, committed as follows:

“That on or about the 26th day of January, 1970, at 12:00
o’clock midnight, more or less, in the Poblacion of the Municipality of Lucban,
Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, Alexio Lupango, alias “Alex”, with
intent to gain and to rob, and taking advantage of the night to better
accomplish his purpose, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously enter the house of one Teresa Vda. de Iglesia, through an opening
not intended for entrance or egress, and once inside, by means of violence
against and intimidation upon persons and force upon things, took, stole and
carried away the following personal properties belonging to said Teresa Vda. de
Iglesia, to wit:

with a total value of Eighteen Thousand Eight
Hundred Eighty One Pesos and Fifty Centavos, more or less to the damage and
prejudice of the said amount of P18,881.50, more or less, Philippine currency.

“That on the occasion of the said robbery, the above named accused,
with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault and strike the said Teresa Vda. de Iglesia with a blunt
instrument, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds on her head and on
the different parts of her body, which caused the instantaneous death of the
said Teresa Vda. de Iglesia.

“That the accused, after killing the victim, burned the house
of the latter in order to con­ceal the effects of the crime of robbery.

“Contrary to law.”^[5]

Upon arraignment on May 7, 1970, the accused Lupango plead­ed not
guilty.^[6]
After trial on the merits, the trial court^[7]
rendered its decision, convicting the accused on September 17, 1970, with the
following dispositive portion:

“In View of All the Foregoing, the Court finds the accused
Alexio Lupango y Ibona guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery
with homicide defined and punished under Article 294, par. 1 of the Revised
Penal Code, with the aggravating circumstan­ces of nighttime purposely sought
to facilitate the commission of the offense and obvious ungratefulness of the
accused to the deceased, without any mitigating circumstance to off­set any of
them.  In obedience to the mandate of the
law the Court hereby sentences the said accused to suffer the extreme penalty
of Death, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Teresa Vda. de Iglesia in the
sum of P12,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of in­solvency both
with the accessories of the law, and to pay the costs.

“Atty. Lualhati Martinez, counsel de oficio is
awarded a professional fee of P500 subject to availability of funds and
auditing requirements.

“Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Provincial
Fiscal of Quezon who is hereby urged to conduct an investigation of the case to
determine the possible participation of Domingo Vasquez and Jesus Vasquez in
the com­mission of the crime and to take such legal action as may be warranted
under the premises.

“The Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to immediately remand
the complete records of this case to the Honorable Supreme Court for automatic
review pursuant to Rule 122, Sec­tion 9, of the Rules of Court, in the manner
and within the period therein prescribed.

“So Ordered.”^[8]

The evidence of the prosecution discloses that the victim, Teresa
Vda. de Iglesia, was burned in a fire that razed her house located at Antonio
Regidor Street, Lucban, Quezon, about midnight of January 26, 1970.^[9]
About three hours later, in the early morning of January 27, 1970, policeman
Macario Permalino of the Lucban Police Force, who previously received
instruction to look for the accused as the missing helper in the burned house
of the victim Teresa Vda. de Iglesia, appre­hended the accused Lupango while
the latter was at Quezon Avenue, Lucban, waiting for a ride to Manila.  The accused at the time he was arrested had
with him a buri bag^[10]
which contained the following articles:

“(1)  One table clock, with trade mark
“Atomic”; (Exhibit “D-1”)

(2)    One lady’s gold wrist watch; (Exhibit
“D-2”)

(3)    One pocket watch, old model, without glass;
(Exhibit “D-3”)

(4)    One hammer; (Exhibit “D-4”)

(5)    Three (3) screw drivers, big and 2 small;
(Exhibit “D-5”)

(6)    One 3 cornered file with handle and wooden
scabard; (Exhibit “D-6”)

(7)    Assorted nails; (Exhibit “D-7”)

(8)    Sixteen (16) pieces of electrical
accessories, radio tubes, flourescent lamp starters, wires and socket; (Exhibit
“D-8”)

(9)    One big red printed towel; (Exhibit
“D-9”)

(10)  One sheet, Ilocano weave, with lettering
“mother” at the middle; (Exhibit “D-10”)

(11)  One rust stained white bush coat; (Exhibit
“D-12”)

(12)  One key; (Exhibit “D-11”)

(13)  One key chain with seven (7) keys and a holder
in the form of a miniature hat; (Exhibit “D-13”)

(14)  One eyelash adjuster or tweezer; (Exhibit
“D-14”)

(15)  One empty plastic bag; (Exhibit
“D-15″)”^[11]

Accused Lupango signed the lists of the above things re­covered
from him.^[12]

When policeman Permalino asked the accused Lupango who owned
those things he was carrying, the latter said they be­longed to him.^[13]

The charred body of the victim Mrs. Teresa Vda. de Iglesia was
recovered from the burned house and autopsied by Dra. Reynalda Nantes Azarcon,
Health Officer of Lucban, Quezon, in the presence of Dr. Ricardo Ibarrola,
N.B.I. Medico Legal Officer, who happened to be there.  Dr. Leandro Abustan, Officer­in-Charge,
Quezon Province, and Dr. Robert Valero, resident physician of the Quezon
Memorial Hospital.^[14]

The Autopsy Report^[15]
on the body of the victim con­tained:

“General Appearance:

“Charred body, composed mostly of soft tissues, visceral
organs and some of skeletal parts.  Face
unrecognizable.  Calvarium was missing,
exposing the remeninges and brain.  The
remaining visceral organs were liver and uterus.  Length of the recovered remains is 39 inches.

“Findings:

“(1)  Fracture
of the anterior cravial fossa right side.

“(2)  Fracture
of the zygomatic bone, left.

“(3)  Hematomas:

(a)  
Subcutaneous hematoma of the maxillary region,
left

(b)  
Subdural hematoma at the cerebral hemisphere,
right and left cerebellar, both massive and generalized.

“Cause of Death:

“Fracture of skull with massive and generalized subdural
hematoma, traumatic in origin.”^[16]

Both Dra. Azarcon and Dr. Ricardo Ibarrola affirmed that the
cause of the death of the victim Teresa Vda. de Iglesia was fracture of skull
with massive and generalized hematoma, traumatic in origin which have been
caused by a blow with the use of a hard blunt instrument.  Both doctors also agree that the deceased was
already dead before her body was burned by the fire in the house.^[17]

Marcelino Iglesia, son of the victim, identified the listed
articles taken from the accused Lupango when the latter was arrested 3 hours
after the fire on his way to Manila.  All
those confiscated articles belonged to the victim and were kept in the burned
house, except the assorted nails,^[18]
the assorted electrical accessories,^[19]
the key chain and holder,^[20]
and the eyelash adjuster.^[21]
The victim was living alone in the burned house at the time of the tragic
incident.  The accused Lupango was
employed by the deceased as helper in the repair of the house since December
1969.  The accused was then living in
another house very near the burned house.^[22]

Prosecution witness Rufino Dealino testified that he went to the
vicinity of the house of the victim when it was burning on the night of January
26, 1970, and from a distance of about 9 meters he saw the accused Lupango,
wearing a red T-shirt, drop to the ground from the eastern portion of the
second floor of the then burning house. 
Lupango went to a small house near the burning building, carrying with
him two bags, one made of pandan and the other of plastic.^[23]

When the accused Lupango was apprehended in the early morning of
January 27, 1970 and brought to the Municipal Building of Lucban for
investigation, he willingly signed a written state­ment^[24]
dated January 28, 1970.  The accused
admitted that he was then working for the victim on various repairs of the
house that was burned.  He was able to
stay, dine, and sleep in that house of the victim.  He stayed in a small house near the residence
of the victim.  On the night of January
26, 1970, the accused was awakened and he saw the house of the victim on
fire.  He entered the house through a
hole but he could not save the victim from the fire.  He admitted having taken the articles he was
carrying at the time of his apprehension from the burning house because they
would be burned anyway.  He was on his
way to Manila when he was arrested because he wanted to deliver those articles
to the daughter of the victim residing in Manila.^[25]

During the arraignment of the accused in the second stage of the
preliminary investigation before the Municipal Judge of Lucban, Quezon, on
February 9, 1970, he voluntarily admitted liability for the criminal charge
against him.^[26]

Municipal Judge Ruperto Abcede of Lucban, Quezon, declared that
the accused Lupango voluntarily admitted that the latter com­mitted the crime
imputed to him.  The accused was asked by
the Municipal Judge if he wanted the service of counsel during the preliminary
investigation and the accused answered in the negative.^[27]

The defense is predicated on the lone testimony of the accused
Alexio Lupango.  He repudiated the
contents of his sworn statement, Exhibit “B” and the confession of
guilt he made before the Municipal Judge of Lucban during the second stage of
the preliminary investigation of the case on February 9, 1970.^[28]
Ac­cused Lupango disowned both acts as not voluntary on his part and induced by
maltreatment and by threats allegedly done by the Chief of Police of Lucban,
Quezon, and five of his policemen.  He
narrated that on the night of February 8, 1970, five lolice­men took him to the
outskirts of the town of Lucban where they took turns in beating the accused in
all parts of his body, except his head, with guns and clubs.  Accused was threatened that if he would not
admit the charge he would be killed by the policemen.^[29]

Accused Lupango admitted that he worked for the victim as
overseer in carpentry work from 1968 to 1970. 
He even took care of the victim when she was sick.  He stayed in a house given to him by Mrs.
Teresa Vda. de Iglesia about 12 meters from her house.  Mrs. Teresa Vda. de Iglesia was then alone in
her house.^[30]
Mrs. de Iglesia was very kind to the accused. 
Some of those who frequented her house included Vicente Engracia,
Domingo Vasquez, and her children.^[31]
On January 26, 1970, Lupango stayed with Mrs. Teresa Vda. de Iglesia until
after they had eaten dinner at about 6:30 p.m., when he went to his house.  About midnight, he heard screams of people
and when he looked out of the window of his house he saw the house of the
victim on fire.  He went inside the house
of the victim to save her.  When he could
not locate her he took her blanket and watch from the cabinet in the sala.  He stayed in the burning house for about 10
minutes and then he proceeded to his house. 
He took the personal belongings of the victim with the intention to
bring them to her daughter in Manila.^[32]
He admitted that early the next morning he was on his way to Manila and when he
was apprehended the personal be­longings found with him as listed in Exhibit
“C” were really in his possession. 
He denied that he killed and robbed the victim.^[33]

Lupango’s wife and four children used to live with him at Lucban,
Quezon, in the house provided for them by the victim.  About 15 days before the incident of January
26, 1970, his family went to Manila to reside at Roxas District in Quezon City,
bringing with them all their belongings.^[34]

The master key of the house found in the possession of the
accused Lupango when he was arrested was allegedly given to him by Mrs. Teresa
Vda. de Iglesia on January 22, 1970, for him to repair the door leading to the
sala from downstairs.^[35]
Lupango knew that there were three children of the victim residing at Lucban,
Quezon, but he decided to deliver the things he took from the burning house to
the daughter of the victim in Manila.  He
did not tell the other children of the victim about those things he took
although he saw them during the fire.^[36]
Neither did the accused tell the children of the victim that he was leaving for
Manila immediately after the fire.^[37]

The crucial issue to determine in this case is whether or not the
accused Lupango voluntarily executed his sworn state­ment, Exhibit
“B”, and freely admitted his guilt and culpability of the crime
charged against him during the second stage of the preliminary investigation
before the Municipal Judge of Lucban, Quezon on February 9, 1970, the
proceedings of which were recorded in Exhibit “A”.^[38]
The unsupported allegation of the accused that he was subjected to torture and
threats by the Chief of Police of Lucban and five policemen to force him to
admit and confess to the crime charged is very difficult to accept as
credible.  The alleged maltreatment was
supposed to have been done on the night of February 8, 1970, and according to
the accused it was severely done with the use of guns and clubs by five
policemen.  Yet, the very next day, the
accused confessed to the crime before the Municipal Judge of Lucban and signed
his recorded ad­mission.  The accused
then did not show any physical signs of injury arising from the alleged
maltreatment.  During the said pre­liminary
investigation, the accused did not inform the Municipal Judge of the alleged
maltreatment and threat supposedly done by the policemen.  Never was there any evidence presented to
show physical injuries suffered by the accused arising from the supposed
maltreatment.  Both the Municipal Judge
and the Chief of Police of Lucban testified as to the regularity of the
proceedings during the preliminary investigation and that no maltreatment nor
threats were imposed on the accused to compel him to admit his guilt.^[39]
There is no showing that both witnesses had any evil motive, bias, or reason to
testify falsely against the accused.  Besides, both these witnesses were in the
performance of their duties on those matters that they testified to, and the
presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties stands strongly in
their favor, thereby enhancing their credibility as witnesses.

We find it difficult to disregard the extrajudicial con­fession
of the accused^[40]
just because the accused repudiated it during the trial, upon confrontation
with overwhelming evidence that said confession was voluntarily done, in the
absence of sufficient convincing proof to the contrary.^[41]
The credibi­lity of the accused on the alleged maltreatment and threats stands
nil and this Court has no other recourse but to consider said defense as
completely bereft of basis and truth.

The corpus delicti of the offense charged is
sufficiently established.  The medical
report and the testimonies of Drs. Reynalda Azarcon and Ricardo Ibarrola more
than sufficiently establish that the victim died not because of the fire but be­cause
of the fracture of her skull which could have been caused by a hard blunt
instrument, and she was already dead before she was burned in the fire.  The accused admitted his presence in the
house of the victim during the fire and he admitted, taking personal belongings
of the victim which were taken from him after his apprehension.^[42]
The accused had access to the house of the victim because he admitted having in
his possession the master key to the house even before the incident of January
26, 1970.

The lame explanation of the accused that during the height of the
fire he took personal belongings of the victim to save them from destruction
and to deliver them to the daughter of the victim residing in Manila deserves
insignificant considera­tion.  If it were
true that the accused entered the house of the victim during the fire to save
her and he stayed within the house for only ten minutes, he would not have had
sufficient time to think of saving those minor personal belongings of the
victim just for the purpose of delivering them to the victim’s daughter in
Manila.  Besides, his natural reaction
would have been to give those allegedly saved personal belongings to the
children of the victim residing in Lucban, or at least notify them of such
fact.  He admittedly had the opportunity
to do so, and yet he did not.  Instead,
he was trying to escape to Manila with those personal belongings taken from the
victim concealed with him when he was apprehended.

It is very clear that on February 9, 1970, Municipal Judge
Ruperto Abcede of Lucban, Quezon, conducted a second stage of the preliminary
investigation.  The accused answered in
the affirmative when asked if he wanted the preliminary investigation to be con­ducted.  The municipal judge asked the accused if he
wished to be assisted by counsel and the accused answered in the negative.  In the presence of many persons in court, the
municipal judge directed the clerk-stenographer to translate the complaint to
the accused in Tagalog.  After the
accused was informed of the nature of the charge against him, he was asked if
he was admitting the same and the accused replied in the affirmative.^[43]

The whole proceedings was recorded (Exhibit “A”) and
herein reproduced: –

“ARRAIGNMENT

“Hukom
– Kayo ay si Alexio Lupango y Ebona alias Alex ang taong nasasakdal sa kayong
ito?

Alexio Lupango – Opo.

“Hukom
– Tumindig kayo at babasahin sa inyo ng clerk ang demanda na iniharap laban sa
inyo na isasalin sa wikang Tagalog na sa pagkaalam ko ay inyong maiintindihan
upang malaman ninyo ang uri ng kasalanan o krimen na ipinararatang sa inyo.

Alexio
Lupangco – Opo.  (Tumindig ang acusado at
isinalin ng Clerk of Court ang demanda sa wikang Tagalog sa nasasakdal at
nadinig ng nasasakdal ang salin ng Clerk of Court).

“Hukom
– Naiintindihan ba ninyo na sa sakdal na isi­nalin sa inyo sa wikang Tagalog ng
Clerk of Court na kayo ay isinasakdal sa kasalanang pagnanakaw at pagpatay sa
yumaong Teresa Vda. de Iglesia?

Alexio Lupango – Opo.

“Hukom
– Inaamin ba ninyo ang kasalanang ipinarara­tang sa inyo sa naulit na demanda
na ang kahulugan ay, tinatanggap ba ninyo na totoo ang ipinararatang laban sa
inyo na pagnana­kaw at pagpatay sa nasawing Teresa Vda. de Iglesia, at nalaan
naman ninyong tanggapin ang kaparusahang itinatadhana ng batas sa gayong
kasalanan?

Alexio Lupango – Opo.

“Hukom
– Meron ba sa inyong namilit, o nanakot, o nang-ulok upang kayo ay magbigay ng
inyong isinagot dito o nang inyong pag-amin sa kasalanang ipinararatang sa
inyo?

Alexio
Lupango – Kusang loob pong inaamin ang kasa­lanan ko at walang pumilit, nanakot
o umulok sa akin na aminin ko ang kasalan ko.

“Hukom
– Sinusumpaan ba ninyo na pawang katutuhanan ang inyong mga isinagot sa lahat
ng tanong ng Hukom sa actong ito?

Alexia Lupango – Opo.

“Hukom
– Laan naman kayong lumagda sa paahan nito bilang patotoo sa inyong mga katugonan
sa mga tanong ng Hukom?

Alexio Lupango – Opo.

(LAGDA) ALEXIO LUPANGO y IBONA

“PINANUMPAAN at NILAGDAAN sa harap ko ngayong ika-­9 ng
Febrero, 1970 dito sa Lucban, Quezon.

(LAGDA)
RUPERTO ABCEDE

Hukom
Municipal”^[44]

It is likewise crystal clear, that the aforementioned admission
of guilt was done voluntarily, sans any pretended and alleged
maltreatment before a Municipal Judge to whom the accused never com­plained of
any force nor threats employed to exact said admission.^[45]

There is no doubt about the result of the autopsy report that the
victim did not die from burning but from fracture of the skull caused by a blow
of a hard, blunt instrument.^[46]

The victim was killed before the fire.  A very strong circumstantial evidence exists
by virtue of the admission of the appellant that he entered the building during
the fire, that he or one of his companions hit the victim on the occasion of
the robbery.

The statement Exhibit “B”,^[47]
executed by appellant on January 28, 1970, speaks of so many details in the
employer-employee relation­ship between the victim and the appellant that could
not have been known to the police investigators during that time, thus
enhancing the voluntariness in its execution and the veracity of its contents.  Appellant stated that he and Domingo Vasquez
were together on January 26, 1970, date of the crime.  They were painting the roof of the house of
the victim.  Appellant admitted he
entered the house of the victim during the fire on the excuse that he wanted to
save the old woman.  He admitted having
taken the things he had with him when he was arrested because anyway they would
be burned.  Even the master key was taken
by him.  The hammer taken from appellant
when he was arrested was the property of the victim.

Appellant admitted in Exhibit “B”,^[48]
his sworn statement taken on January 28, 1970, two days after the incident of
January 26, 1970, that he entered the house of the victim during the fire,
thus:

xxx                    xxx                    xxx

“25.
T –     Noong bandang alas doce (12:00
p.m.) ano ang namasdan mo sa bahay ng Teresa noong Enero 26, 1970?

S –     Nakita ko na nag-apoy na ang kwarto ng
Teresa at kinalalagyan ng Poon.

“26.
T –     Nang makita mong nagaapoy ang
bahay ng Teresa ano ang ginawa mo?

S –     Pumunta po ako sa bahay nila (Teresa
Iglesia).

“27. T –     Saan ka dumaan?

S
–    Doon po sa kobeta ako dumaan sa
pagpasok ng bahay, sa butas ng kobeta at ako ay nagtuloy sa kusina, tuloy ako
sa komidor at tinawag ko ang Lola Teresa, may sumagot po na aso, pagkatapos ay
malaki na ang apoy ay kinuha ko ang table clock sa salas sa mesa, yoon pocket
watch at wrist watch sa kabinet sa komidor, yoon komot sa kabinet din, ang
twalya ay sa bintana ng komidor nakasabit sa bandang kusina.

“28. T –     Bakit mo namn kinuha ang mga iyan?

S –     Kinuha ko dahil masusonog din.”^[49]

There is no error in the observation of the trial court that
certain admissions made by the accused seriously strained “his pro­testation
of innocence”.  Fifteen days before
the fire, at about 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. the family of the accused left their house
in Lucban for Manila bringing practically all their belongings.  All the clothing of the accused was brought
to Manila.  The master key of the doors
in the house of the victim was in the possession of the accused until he was
apprehended.  When the accused left his
house immediately after the fire, to go to Manila, he never bade farewell to
the six other persons who were staying with him in the same house.  By letter dated February 20, 1970^[50]
the accused requested Marcelino Iglesia, son of victim, to visit him in the
provincial jail.  When Marcelino Iglesia
visited him, the accused told Marcelino that during the fire, two persons,
Domingo Vasquez and Jesus Vasquez, were inside the burning house.  In the letter^[51]
written by the accused to his wife while he was in jail, he re­quested his wife
to contact Domingo Vasquez to get money that could be utilized by the accused
for his expenses in the trial of the case.

On the consideration of the two aggravating circumstances of
nighttime and obvious ungratefulness cited against the accused, We find no
error because it was proven that the offense was committed at about midnight,
the darkness of which was purposely sought to facilitate both the commission of
the crime and the criminal’s escape from its scene.  The ungratefulness of the accused to the
victim is very obvious.  He admitted he
was living in the house of the victim. 
He was employed by the victim as overseer and in charge of carpentry
work.  He had free access to the house of
the victim who was very kind to him, his family, and who helped him solve his
problems.  He paid all the kindness shown
him by the victim by committing the most heinous of crimes against his
benefactor.  No mitigating cir­cumstances
were alleged nor proven.

The voluntary confession of the accused, the existence of proven corpuz
delicit, the unsuccessfully assailed credibility of the wit­nesses for the
prosecution, point unerringly to the very manifest guilt of the accused beyond
moral certainty.

WHEREFORE, the decision of conviction of the accused dated
September 17, 1970, being in accordance with law and evidence, is hereby
AFFIRMED in toto.  However, for
lack of the necessary number of votes for the imposition of the death penalty,
the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
with costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De
Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Fernando, C.J., concur in the
result.

Barredo, J., votes for reclusion
perpetua only.

Aquino, J., see concurring and
dissenting opinion.

---

^[1]
Criminal Case No. 757 of the Municipal Court of Lucban, Quezon.

^[2]
pp. 1-2, Original Record, Criminal Case CCC-30-Quezon (70), Circuit Criminal
Court of Quezon, Lucena City.

^[3]
p. 25, Original Record, Id.

^[4]
p. 31, Id.

^[5]
pp. 39-40, Id.

^[6]
pp. 55, Id.

^[7]
Circuit Criminal Court of Quezon City, IX, Lucena City, Judge Conrado M.
Molina.

^[8]
pp. 145-147, Original Record, CCC-IX-30-Quezon (70)

^[9]
pp. 4-6, t.s.n., July 15, 1970, Exh. “H”, p. 7, Id.

^[10]
Exhibit “B”.

^[11]
pp. 10-16, t.s.n., June 23, 1970.

^[12]
Exhibit “C”.

^[13]
p. 17, t.s.n., June 23, 1970.

^[14]
p. 26, t.s.n., June 24, 1970.

^[15]
Exhibit “I”.

^[16]
Exh. “I”, p. 6, Original Record, CCC-IX-30-Quezon (70).

^[17]
pp. 24-33, t.s.n., June 24, 1970; pp. 2-9, t.s.n., July 24, 1970.

^[18]
Exhibit “D-7”.

^[19]
Exhibit “D-8”.

^[20]
Exhibit “D-13”.

^[21]
Exhibit “D-14”.

^[22]
pp. 8-23, t.s.n., June 24, 1970.

^[23]
pp. 3-14, t.s.n., July 15, 1970.

^[24]
Exhibit “B”.

^[25]
pp. 9-13, Original Record, CCC-IX-30, Quezon (70).

^[26]
Exhibit “A”, p. 25, Original Record, CCC-IX-30-Quezon (70).

^[27]
pp. 3-9, t.s.n., June 23, 1970.

^[28]
Exhibit “A”.

^[29]
pp. 12-15, 24-29, t.s.n., July 31, 1970.

^[30]
pp. 3-4, t.s.n., July 31, 1970.

^[31]
p. 4, Id.

^[32]
pp. 7-9, Id.

^[33]
pp. 10-12, Id.

^[34]
pp. 16-17, Id.

^[35]
pp, 18-19, Id.

^[36]
pp. 19-20, Id.

^[37] p.
21, Id.

^[38]
p. 25, Original Record, CCC-IX-30-Quezon (70).

^[39]
pp. 3-9, t.s.n., June 23, 1970; pp. 2-23, t.s.n., August 25, 1970.

^[40]
Exhibit “A”.

^[41]
People vs. Dorado, 30 SCRA 53, 57-58.

^[42]
pp. 8-12, t.s.n., July 31, 1970.

^[43]
p. 4, Decision, CCC-IX-30-Quezon.

^[44]
p. 25, Original Record CCC IX-30-Quezon.

^[45]
pp. 14-15, Decision, CCC-IX-30-Quezon.

^[46]
p. 19, Decision, CCC-IX-30-Quezon

^[47]
p. 9, Original Record, CCC-IX-30-Quezon.

^[48]
p. 9, Original Record.

^[49]
p. 10, Original Record.

^[50]
Exhibit “L”.

^[51]
Exhibit “K”.

---

170

6 pt
6 pt
0
3

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}