PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JAIME BELANO Y ASENDIDO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
BARZA, J.:
In three (3) separate but similarly worded (except as to the dates of the alleged commission of the crime) informations,[2] all dated June 18, 2001, appellant Jaime Belano was charged with rape, as follows –
“That sometimes (sic) on January 2001 at Brgy. Sto. Tomas, Municipality of Calauan, Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design thru force, violence and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one AAA, a twelve (12) year old girl (minor), his own niece against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
During arraignment appellant pleaded not guilty to all three (3) charges.[3]
Evidence for the
Prosecution
Testimonial evidence of the prosecution consisted primarily of the testimonies of the victim herself, AAA, and Dr. Teresita Samadi-Denani, who conducted a physical examination on the victim.
Dr. Denani, an obstetrician-gynecologist at the Laguna Provincial Hospital, testified that she conducted a physical examination of AAA on April 23, 2001 upon a request (Exhibit “C”) made by Police Superintendent Rodolfo C. Babera. During her physical examination of AAA, Dr. Denani found old healed hymen lacerations at 3, 6 and 8 o’clock positions on the latter which may have been caused by a previous contact with a sharp, hard object or a medical instrument. She also discovered that AAA was in her 14th week and 6th day of pregnancy based on information given by the victim that she had her last menstrual period in January 2001. Because of the positive result of the pregnancy test conducted on AAA, Dr. Denani concluded that there was sexual contact prior to her examination of the victim.[4]
The second witness for the prosecution is the victim AAA. On May 10, 2002, she testified before the trial court that she was born on May 23, 1988. When asked if she knew accused-appellant, she replied in the affirmative and positively identified the latter in court. According to AAA, accused-appellant is the husband of her aunt (a sister of her father) and that she has been living in a two-storey house owned by her father with accused-appellant in Brgy. Sto. Tomas, Calauan, Laguna, since she was a child.
AAA further testified that the first incident of the alleged rape happened around noon sometime in January 2001 when she was “ginalaw” by accused-appellant in the second floor of their house where the pillows were kept. She narrated that accused-appellant ordered her to undress herself and threatened her that if she refused to do it he would kill her and her family. Out of fear for her family she obliged. Accused-appellant started to kiss her on the lips, on her neck and her whole body including her vagina which she tried to resist but to no avail because her legs were on top of his shoulders and his hands were holding her legs so they would not fall down. She also tried twisting her body to evade his kiss. Accused-appellant managed to force AAA to lay flat on an elevated space were the pillows were kept. Then while she was lying on her back with her legs spread apart, the latter inserted his penis in her vagina in a forward backward motion although she did not know for certain if he was able to successfully insert his sex organ. She felt pain and the following day she noticed blood oozing from her vagina. According to AAA, accused-appellant forced himself on her by placing her legs on his shoulders while there was a long bolo beside her which he had carried from the ground floor of the house to the second floor. Her only companion in the house was her grandmother who was washing clothes at the back of the house but she was some 8 to 10 meters from the door of the house. Her mother was already deceased and her aunt, accused-appellant’s wife, was in Bulacan at that time. AAA also revealed an incident when she was just eight (8) years old where accused-appellant also inserted his penis between her legs, and after inserting the same she felt something sticky that came out in her legs.[5]
On October 9, 2002, AAA was again called to the witness stand to testify on the second incident of the alleged rape which occurred in the afternoon of February 2001. AAA was at home with her grandmother who, at that time, was washing clothes at the back of the house. AAA narrated that she was in the second floor of their house when accused-appellant ordered her to undress and remove her panties. Accused-appellant threatened to kill her family if she will not follow, thus, she obliged out of fear. Accused-appellant then started kissing her lips after she had removed her clothes and underwear. AAA tried to avoid his kisses but failed. Then accused-appellant made her lie down on a table in such a way that her legs were hanging on the table. Accused-appellant stood in front of AAA, raised her legs and inserted his penis. AAA would turn her body to her side so that his penis could not enter her vagina but she was unsuccessful. Accused-appellant was able to insert his penis inside her vagina and he made an up and down movement on her. AAA could not recall how long the act lasted because she was already crying at that time. Thereafter, accused-appellant ordered her to dress up. AAA said she felt fluid inside her vagine after accused-appellant finished raping her. She also recalled that while accused-appellant was raping her he had a bolo with him that he placed beside her and threatened her that if she did not follow his order he would kill her. AAA, however, did not tell her grandmother about the incident for fear that both of them might be killed.[6]
AAA also testified of another rape incident that occurred sometime in the afternoon of March 2001. At that time she was alone in their house because her grandmother was in the hospital and her father was in Bulacan. According to AAA, she was in the kitchen when accused-appellant ordered her to remove or lower her shorts below the knee and to sit at the bench, again threatening her that if she did not follow would kill her and her family. When she had done what accused-appellant had ordered, the latter then kissed her on the lips and neck, forced her to lie down on the bench and placed himself on top of her. Then he placed his penis inside her vagina and made an up and down movement on her. She could not move because his thighs were pinning her feet. Thereafter, something came out from accused-appellant’s penis and he wiped it and told her to dress up, and then he left. Before leaving, accused-appellant told her not to disclose what happened to anyone.[7]
AAA furthered that she reported the rape incident only in April 2001 when her aunt noticed that her stomach was getting bigger and asked if she was pregnant. AAA did not know if she was pregnant, thus, she underwent a pregnancy test that same month. When she was found to be positive, her aunt queried her on who the father was. At first AAA was hesitant to reveal the information to her aunt but later on disclosed the same. She told her aunt that accused-appellant was responsible for her being pregnant.[8]
During the clarificatory questioning by the trial court, AAA disclosed that she was about to turn thirteen years old at the time of the rape incident. When she found out that she was pregnant she decided to continue with her pregnancy. She gave birth at the age of thirteen. She said that she could not determine how long the rape that happened in March 2001 lasted because of the pain that she felt inside. She also did not shout for fear that her family might be harmed.[9]
On cross-examination, AAA said that she was raped by accused-appellant in the months of January, February and March 2001 but she could not recall the exact dates of the incident, that she was molested by accused-appellant since she was 8 years old and that she did not tell either her mother or her father about the molestation because she was afraid as accused-appellant would threaten her. She described their house as made of coconut leaves including the walls, and though her grandmother would have heard her if she shouted, she did not do so because accused-appellant told her, “Pag nagsumbong ka at nalaman ng lola mo, papatayin ko kayo pati ang tiya mo.” She also said that during the rape incidents her brother was not at home, her aunt attended a meeting and her cousins, the children of accused-appellant, went to school ahead of her.[10]
On re-direct examination, AAA furthered that after the March 2001 incident, she still saw accused-appellant in their house but she continued to live in their house as if nothing happened because she had no place to go and that it was her aunt Marina Orosco who told her to file a case against accused-appellant when they found out that she was pregnant.[11] Upon questioning by the trial court, AAA testified that she was molested by accused-appellant since she was 8 years old by touching his penis against her thigh. She also said that she had already forgiven accused-appellant but she still wanted justice.[12]
After presentation of its evidence the prosecution filed its formal offer of evidence.[13] The defense then submitted its comment/objection[14] to the prosecution’s formal offer of evidence, manifesting that accused-appellant had no objection to the prosecution’s formal offer of exhibits only as part of the testimony of the witnesses who testified thereto. In view thereof, the trial court admitted the prosecution evidence, Exhibits “A” to “C” and their sub-markings.[15]
Evidence for the
Defense
Testifying for the defense were accused-appellant himself, Jeffred Asendido, Jojo Asendido and Norman Jopia.
On March 10, 2004, the defense presented accused-appellant as witness who testified that during January to March 2001, he was in Liliw, Laguna to plant vegetables with his companions Jeffren Asendido, Jojo Asendido and Norman Jopia. He had been working in Liliw, Laguna, since April of 2000. He stayed in the house of one Fermin Magno and the latter’s wife and three children while he was in Liliw, Laguna. He managed to return to their house in Sto. Tomas, Calauan, Laguna, three times in 2001: once in January, once in February and once in March. According to accused-appellant, he would stay in their house only for a day to remit his salary to his wife. When he returned to their house during those times nobody was in the house. As for AAA, although she was staying in the same house with accused-appellant, she was not there when he got home because she was either in the store or in a candy factory.
Accused-appellant further testified that he was in a candy factory in Calauan when the police arrested him for charges he never knew about. He also knew of no motive why he was accused of these charges. He likewise did not know that AAA had given birth. He said that when the police arrested him, they invited him to go with them at the police station. When they got to the police station he was not informed of the charges against him. At the prosecutor’s office, it was only AAA who was investigated and he was not instructed to submit a counter-affidavit either. He was shocked to learn that AAA filed the charges against him.[16]
On cross-examination, accused-appellant said that he had been staying and living in Liliw-Laguna since April 2000 until 2001. However, he could not give the exact address of where he was staying in Liliw, Laguna, because he did not know. When asked if during the one-year period of his stay in Liliw he stayed with Fermin Magno, accused-appellant said he did not stay with the latter. After reaching Magno’s house, accused-appellant and his companions would immediately proceed to the mountain to work there. They also slept in the mountain. Although he had been in the house of Magno several times, he could not recall how long he stayed there. He also did not know the names of Magno’s wife and children as well as their ages. He said Magno had many neighbors but he never knew a single neighbor because he did not talk to them. When asked about the mountain where he was working, accused-appellant said he did not know the actual name of that mountain. Neither did he know the owner of the farm on which he planted the vegetables. He said that he did not know the farm owner’s name because he was a hired worker of Magno. He also never got to know the owners of the land adjoining the farm where he was working, and while he saw other people working in the adjacent lot, he did not know them.[17]
Accused-appellant furthered that he had no misunderstanding or quarrel whatsoever with AAA, thus, he did not know of any reason why the latter would impute a serious crime on him. He said he did not file a counter-affidavit because he did not receive any order to do so. As for his witnesses, accused-appellant stated that Jeffred Asendido is his son, Jojo Asendido is his brother and Norman Jopia is his nephew. Jeffred, Jojo and Norman knew he was arrested but did not volunteer any information to refute AAA’s claim when the charges were first filed in the Municipal Court of Calauan, Laguna.[18]
During the clarificatory questions by the trial court, accused-appellant testified that Liliw is about 20 kilometers from Calauan and will take about one and a half hours ride by jeepney or bus. It is also not difficult to get a ride from Calauan to Liliw. He said that he chose the months of January, February and March 2001 to go to Liliw because those were the months best to plant and that even after March 2001, he continued to work in Liliw.[19]
Jeffred Asendido, the second witness for the defense, testified that from January to March of 2001, he was in Liliw, Laguna, with Norman Jopia and Jojo Asendido to work as grasscutter and to plant tomatoes. During that time they stayed at the house of Fermin Magno. He went back to his home in Brgy. Sto. Tomas, Calauan, Laguna, after March 2001. During his three-month stay in Liliw, he did not know of any neighbors in the said place because they were staying in the mountain. When asked if he knew AAA, Jeffred affirmed that he knew her because she was his cousin. When he went to Liliw in January 2001, AAA was still residing in their house in Brgy. Sto. Tomas, Calauan, Laguna, but when he returned after March 2001, she was no longer there because she was taken by his aunt.[20]
On cross-examination, Jeffred said that he did not know the name of the place they were staying at in Liliw, Laguna. Neither did he or his companions bother to ask for the exact address. He also did not know the names of Magno’s wife and children. Jeffred furthered that Magno had two houses in Liliw, one in the mountain and another one in the “bayan,” thus he never stayed in the same house with Magno’s family. However, he did not know the name of the mountain. He did not also bother to ask for its name and neither did Magno tell them of the name of the mountain.[21]
Upon further cross-examination, Jeffred said that Magno is his cousin, and despite their relations and having encountered the latter’s wife because she had been with them in the mountain, he still could not recall the name of Magno’s wife. He also could not recall when they harvested the tomatoes that they planted. When he came to know that his father, accused-appellant, was arrested for the charge of raping AAA, he did not bother to go to the authorities to give a statement of his father’s whereabouts from January to March 2001. Jeffred said that he did not know of any reason why AAA filed charges against his father.[22]
The third witness for the defense was Jojo Asendido, brother of accused-appellant. He testified that in the months of January to March of 2001, he was working as a labor contractor in a tomato farm in Liliw, Laguna, with accused-appellant, Fermin Magno, Jeffred Asendido and Norman Jopia. At the time of his direct testimony February 13, 2008, Jojo said that he could no longer recall the name of the owner of the farm they were working at. Jojo further testified that during the period that they were working in Liliw they had a place to stay there. He and his four companions stayed in one house in Liliw. However, he did not know if accused-appellant ever went back to his house in Sto. Tomas, Calauan, Laguna, during their stay in Liliw. He said Liliw was very far from Sto. Tomas, Calauan, Laguna, that they had to take three rides going to Liliw from Sto. Tomas, Calauan, Laguna.[23]
On cross-examination, Jojo testified that he was with accused-appellant from January to March 2001. He said that prior to January 2001, he was also living in Sto. Tomas, Calauan, Laguna, but in a different house from that of accused-appellant. He had never heard of any news about his brother having raped AAA. Neither did he have any knowledge that AAA was pregnant. Jojo further testified that during those times that he and accused-appellant were together in Liliw there was not a single day that they were apart. They were always together even in sleeping.[24] He also said that there was no instance that accused-appellant went home to Sto. Tomas, Calauan, Laguna; that even if Jojo was already asleep he knew accused-appellant could not have left for Sto. Tomas, Calauan, Laguna, because there was no more transportation in the mountain. Nevertheless, Jojo admitted that he was not sure whether or not his brother had in fact left Liliw.[25]
As for Norman Jopia, his presentation as witness for the defense was later dispensed with upon stipulation by both the defense and prosecution that his testimony would be merely corroborative to the testimonies of the first three defense witnesses. The defense also manifested that it had no documentary evidence to offer.
On December 6, 2012, the trial court issued the appealed judgment finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt on three (3) counts of rape. The dispositive portion of the judgment reads as follows –
“WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered finding the accused JAIME BELANO Y ASENDIDO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of RAPE on three (3) counts falling under paragraph 1, subparagraph a, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 8353 and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA for each count of rape , as imposed under Article 266-B of the same Code, as amended.
Accused is, likewise, ORDERED to PAY private complainant the amount of Php50,000.00 as moral damages, Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity and Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape.
SO ORDERED.“
Hence, the instant appeal. Accused-appellant submits the following assignment of errors for the Court’s consideration:
Assigned Errors
- The trial court gravely erred in giving credence to the prosecution’s higly improbable and inconsistent version.
- The trial court erred in finding that the guilt of the accused-appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Art. 266-A, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, describes the commission of the crime of rape as follows:
Article 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. — Rape is committed —
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present;
xxx xxx xxx.
Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal Code specifically provides that rape may be committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat or intimidation.[26]
The Court finds no convincing reason to overturn the findings of the trial court.
It is settled in jurisprudence that in a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[27] The prosecution duly proved the commission of rape by accused-appellant on AAA.
That accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of the victim has been clearly established by AAA’s straightforward testimony that during the subject incidents that she was with accused-appellant in January, February and March 2001, accused-appellant inserted his penis in AAA’s vagina. This is consistent with the findings (Exhibit “B”)[28] of Dr. Denani that AAA suffered hymenal lacerations at 3, 6 and 8 o’clock positions. When the victim’s testimony of her violation is corroborated by the physician’s findings of penetration, then there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge.[29] Moreover, the fact that AAA became pregnant after the first incident of rape in January 2001 further bolsters the victim’s claim.
Clearly, accused-appellant employed threat and intimidation in the commission of the horrific act. As an element of rape, force, threat or intimidation need not be irresistible, but just enough to bring about the desired result.[30] The testimony of AAA is clear at this point:
Q: You mentioned that you were “ginalaw” by the uncle where your pillows were kept. Can you tell us how your uncle did that to you? A: He first asked me to undress myself then he also undressed and insert (sic) his penis to (sic) my vagina and he will lay on top of me, sir. Q: Who actually removed your dress? A: He asked me to remove my dress, if I could not do it, he threatened me that he will kill us all, sir. Q: On that particular time that he threatened you, what did you do when he threatened you that he will kill you? A: I followed him because I’m afraid that “madamay ang family ko,” sir.[31] xxx xxx xxx Q: Now, you said you were ordered to remove your dress and panty, did you follow his order? A: Yes, sir. Q: Why? A: Because I was afraid, sir. Q: When was it when the accused told you that you and your family will be killed? A: The moment he will rape me, sir. Q: You mean to say, even before you were ordered to remove your panty, the accused already threatened you that he will harm you? A: Yes, sir.[32] xxx xxx xxx Q: After he ordered you to lower your short (sic), below the knee and to sit at the bench, did you follow his order? A: Yes, sir. Q: Why did you follow his order? A: Because he wanted to kill us, sir. Q: Did he threaten you also on that same date on March 2001 before he raped you? A: Yes, sir.[33] xxx xxx xxx
We cannot fault AAA in succumbing to the threats and intimidation employed by accused-appellant on her. Considering her tender age and the moral ascendancy of accused-appellant over the victim (being the husband of her aunt), AAA was utterly helpless against accused-appellant. It is also noteworthy that during the rape in January and February 2001, accused-appellant was armed with a bolo, and though he did not brandish it in front of AAA, the presence of the bolo was enough to frighten the victim.
That the claim of the defense that the three incidents of rape committed under almost similar circumstances was unnatural and illogical is unavailing. Lust is no respecter of time or place, and rape defies constraints of time and space.[34] It must be remembered that both accused-appellant and the victim reside in the same house. Hence, it is not surprising that there will be similar circumstances.
The fact that AAA could not recall the exact dates of the rape is inconsequential. Considering AAA’s very tender youth and the internal turmoil the accused-appellant caused her by his unremitting abuses, it would not be fair to expect AAA to remember the exact dates when each of these other rapes occurred.[35] Nonetheless, the precise date or time of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime of rape.[36]
As to the alleged inconsistency in the testimony of AAA that she was raped in the room on the second floor of their house and but it turned out that the house had no room on the second floor, the same miserably fails to destroy the credibility of AAA. Such inconsistency is immaterial in nature. In People vs. Carlos Alhambra,[37] the Supreme Court held –
“
Anent the supposed inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA, suffice it to say that ‘[d]iscrepancies referring only to minor details and collateral matters — not to the central fact of the crime — do not affect the veracity or detract from the essential credibility of witnesses’ declarations, as long as these are coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole. For a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as a basis for acquittal, it must establish beyond doubt the innocence of the appellant for the crime charged. It cannot be overemphasized that the credibility of a rape victim is not diminished, let alone impaired, by minor inconsistencies in her testimony.'”
Jurisprudence is replete with cases where the Court ruled that questions on the credibility of witnesses should best be addressed to the trial court because of its unique position to observe that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses’ deportment on the stand while testifying which is denied to the appellate courts. The trial judge has the advantage of actually examining both real and testimonial evidence including the demeanor of the witnesses. Hence, the judge’s assessment of the witnesses’ testimonies and findings of fact are accorded great respect on appeal. In the absence of any substantial reason to justify the reversal of the trial court’s assessment and conclusion, as when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former’s findings.[38] The trial court found AAA’s testimony credible. We find no reason why this Court should depart from the trial court’s assessment of AAA’s credibility.
Since there was no showing of any improper motive on the part of the victim to testify falsely against the accused or to falsely implicate him in the commission of the crime, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence. The Supreme Court has in many cases held that no young Filipina would publicly admit that she had been criminally abused and ravished, unless it is the truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor.[39]
Lastly, We agree with the trial court that accused-appellant’s defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. Alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused as in this case. It is also axiomatic that positive testimony prevails over negative testimony.[40] The defense of denial has been invariably viewed by the Supreme Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for rape. In order to prosper, the defense of denial must be proved with strong and convincing evidence. Alas, accused-appellant presented no such evidence in this case.[41] In the case at bar, accused-appellant’s testimony as well as the testimony of his witnesses were all corrugated with inconsistencies that run counter to human experience, making such testimonies doubtful. Case in point is the defense witnesses’, accused-appellant included, failure to recall the name of the mountain or the farm that they were working at. Curiously, none of them can also recall the names of the family members of Fermin Magno. The defense witnesses’ “selective amnesia” puts their credibility highly in question. Moreover, accused-appellant failed to prove (1) the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime and (2) his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense. Accused-appellant is rightfully convicted of three counts of rape.
WHEREFORE, finding the appeal to be bereft of merit, the same is hereby DENIED. The appealed decision of the RTC is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Abdulwahid, (Chairperson), and Cruz, JJ., concur.
[1] Original Records of RTC Crim. Case No. 8580-2001-C, pp. 520-532.
[2] Original Records of RTC Crim. Case No. 8580-2001-C, p. 25.
Original Records of RTC Crim. Case No. 8581-2001-C, p. 1.
Original Records of RTC Crim. Case No. 8582-2001-C, p. 1.
[3] Original Records of RTC Crim. Case No. 8580-2001-C, p. 35.
[4] Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) dated April 19, 2002.
[5] TSN dated May 10, 2002, pp. 3-16.
[6] TSN dated October 9, 2002, pp. 3-9.
[7] TSN dated October 9, 2002, pp. 9-13.
[8] TSN dated October 9, 2002, pp. 13-14.
[9] TSN dated October 9, 2002, pp. 15-17.
[10] TSN dated November 7, 2002, pp. 2-6.
[11] TSN dated November 7, 2002, pp. 7-8.
[12] TSN dated November 7, 2002, pp. 9-10.
[13] Original Records of RTC Crim. Case No. 8580-2001-C, pp. 162-163.
[14] Original Records of RTC Crim. Case No. 8580-2001-C, p. 164.
[15] Original Records of RTC Crim. Case No. 8580-2001-C, p. 165.
[16] TSN dated March 10, 2004, pp. 3-5.
[17] TSN dated March 10, 2004, pp. 7-10.
[18] TSN dated March 10, 2004, pp. 11-12.
[19] TSN dated March 10, 2004, pp. 13-15.
[20] TSN dated April 28, 2004, pp. 2-6.
[21] TSN dated April 28, 2004, pp. 7-9.
[22] TSN dated April 28, 2004, pp. 10-14.
[23] TSN dated February 13, 2008, pp. 3-6.
[24] TSN dated February 13, 2008, pp. 6-9.
[25] TSN dated February 13, 2008, p. 12-13.
[26] People of the Philippines vs. Jonas Guillen, G.R. No. 191756, November 25, 2013.
[27] People of the Philippines vs. Alejandro Viojela, G.R. No. 177140, October 17, 2012.
[28] Original Records of RTC Crim. Case No. 8580-2001-C, p. 17.
[29] People of the Philippines vs. Radby Estoya, G.R. No. 200531, December 5, 2012.
[30] Poeple of the Philippines vs. Natalio Hilarion, G.R. No. 201105, November 25, 2013.
[31] TSN dated May 10, 2002, p. 7.
[32] TSN dated October 9, 2002, pp. 4-5.
[33] TSN dated October 9, 2002, p. 11.
[34] People of the Philippines vs. Bernabe Pareja, G.R. No. 202122, January 15, 2014.
[35] People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Closa, G.R. No. 211049, August 6, 2014.
[36] Ibid.
[37] G.R. No. 207774, June 30, 2014.
[38] People of the Philippines vs. Floro Buban Barcela, G.R. No. 208760, April 23, 2014.
[39] Supra, note 29.
[40] People of the Philippines vs. Rolando Las Piñas, et al., G.R. No. 191723, July 23, 2014.
[41] People of the Philippines vs. Renato Besmonte, G.R. No. 196228, June 4, 2014.