G.R. No. L-27177. October 23, 1981
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, VS. ROMUALDO CAPILLAS, ANTONIO CAPILLAS AND JULIANITO CAPILLAS, DIEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS.
FERNANDEZ, J.:
This is an automatic review[1]
of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Samar,
Branch IV, promulgated on September
26, 1966 in Criminal Case No. C-1120, entitled “People of the Philippines,
plaintiff versus Romualdo Capillas,
Antonio Capillas, Julianito
Capillas, Felicisimo Genotiva, Thelmo Genotiva and Merlito Pariol, accused”, the dispositive
part of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, accused Romualdo Capillas, Antonio Capillas and Julianito Capillas are hereby
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of robbery with homicide and
physical injuries and sentences them as follows:
“(a) with respect to accused Antonio Capillas and Julianito Capillas there being proven the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling, taking advantage of superior strength, breaking a door as a means to
the commission of the crime and nocturnity without
any mitigating circumstance to offset the same, sentences them to DEATH;
“(b) as to accused Romualdo
Capillas there being proven the aggravating circumstances
of (1) by a band, (2) dwelling, (3) in an uninhabited place, (4) disrespect due
the victim Consorcia Melendres,
being a woman, and (5) nighttime as stated in the information which are
considered to have been proven and admitted as a result of his pleas of guilty
and with only the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty to offset the same,
sentences him also to DEATH;
“(c) all said accused to jointly and severally
indemnify Pablo Amante and the heirs of Consorcia Melendres the sum of
P6,000.00 and the amount of P1,000.00 representing the money and goods taken
from the victim herein, and to pay the costs.
“SO ORDERED.
“Done at Allen, Samar,
on the 26th day of September, 1966.
(SGD) MANUEL R. PAMARAN
J u d g e”[2]
On November
9, 1964, Assistant
Provincial Fiscal Nicolas Galing filed in the Court
of First Instance of Samar an information for robbery
in band with homicide and physical injuries which reads:
“INFORMATION
“The undersigned, Acting 3rd Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Samar, accuses Romualdo Capillas, Antonio Capillas, Julianito Capillas, Felicisimo Genotiva, Thelmo Genotiva and Merlito Pariol, of the crime of
Robbery in Band with Homicide and Physical Injuries, committed as follows:
“that on or about the 25th day of October 1964, in the
evening, in Sitio Lagbañgan,
San Antonio, Samar, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed
accused, Romualdo Capillas,
Antonio Capillas and Julianito
Capillas, conspiring, confederating together and
mutually helping one another with Felicisimo Genotiva, Thelmo Genotiva and Merlito Pariol who are still at large, all armed with pistols and
pointed bolos, with intent of gain and by means of violence against and
intimidation of persons and force upon things did, then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously and forcibly enter the house of Pablo Amante and Consorcia Melendres, husband and wife respectively, by passing thru
the door which was then securely closed, and once thus inside the house, by
means of force, took, stole and carried away with them a trunk containing the
following, to wit:
Cash money in the
amount of. . . .P 600.00
Coins placed in a toy bank. . . . .
. 300.00
Clothes worth. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 100.00
document of the land worth and
assessed at. . . . . . . . . . . . 50.00
TOTAL AMOUNT. . . . . . . . P1050.00
said amount and articles of value all belonging
to Pablo Amante and Consorcia
Melendres, to the damage and prejudice of said
owners in the aforestated amount; that on the
occasion of the said robbery and for the purpose of enabling them to take,
steal and carry away the abovementioned amount and articles of value, herein
accused, in the pursuance of their conspiracy, with evident premeditation and
treachery and taking advantage of their superior strength and number with the
decided purpose to kill, did, then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab one Pablo Amante with a pointed bolo, thereby inflicting upon said
Pablo Amante incised wounds which required medical
attendance for a period of more than 5 days and then and there treacherously
attack, assault, shot and fire at Consorcia Melendres, a woman who was then in the family way for two
months, and as a result of which said Consorcia Melendres, died shortly thereafter.
“That in the commission of the offense, the following
aggravating circumstances were present:
“1. by a band; 2. dwelling; 3. in an uninhabited place; 4.
disrespect, due the victim, Consorcia Melendres, being a woman; and 5. nighttime.
“Contrary to law.
“Catarman, Samar, November
9, 1964.
(SGD) NICOLAS GALING
Actg. 3rd Asst. Prov’l Fiscal[3]
Upon arraignment on October
19, 1965, Romualdo Capillas
pleaded guilty to the crime charged in the information. Antonio Capillas
and Julianito Capillas
pleaded not guilty.[4]
The evidence adduced by the prosecution is summarized by the appellee as follows:[5]
“At about 7:00 p.m.,
on October 5, 1964, Pablo Amante, his wife, Consorcia Melendres, and their two children, one aged 5 years and the
other, 3 years, were in the living room of their house situated atop a hill in Lagbangan, Samar
(pp. 3, 4, 23, t.s.n., Cardenas). Amante’s wife was
resting with their 3 year old child, on a hammock tied in their living room,
while Amante was teaching his 5 year old child to
count (pp. 5, 6, t.s.n., Cardenas). As it was already dark, he tied their door
with a rope (pp. 6, 7, t.s.n., Cardenas).
“While in this condition, their door was forcibly broken down
together with the shutters frame, and the rope used for tying (pp. 7, 29, t.s.n., Cardenas), prompting Pablo Amante
to stand up and get himself ready for any needed move (p. 31, t.s.n., Cardenas).
Through the broken door entered Romualdo,
Antonio, and Julianito, all surnamed Capillas, whom Amante has known
for 27 years together with fourth masked man he could not recognize (pp. 7, 8,
27, 29, t.s.n., Cardenas). Upon entry, the group demanded money from Amante and Romualdo told him to
surrender (pp. 31, 32, t.s.n., Cardenas). Then Antonio, who was armed with a short bolo
locally known as ‘Flamingo’, wrestled with him, but Amante
was able to take possession of the bolo (p. 9, t.s.n.,
Cardenas). While Amante
and Antonio were fighting for the possession of the bolo, Romualdo
who was armed with a revolver, shot Amante’s wife
three times while the latter was still in the hammock (pp. 9, 16, 33, 39, t.s.n., Cardenas). Seeing what Romualdo
had done and having gained possession of the ‘Flamingo’ Amante
used the same to stab Romualdo (pp. 9, 34, t.s.n., Cardenas).
“Wounded, Romualdo scampered away
while his companions Julianito, who had with him a
flashlight which he threw away during the melee, and the masked person carried
away with them the family’s trunk containing money and clothings
(pp. 10, 41, 43, 36, t.s.n., Cardenas). Amante then
immediately went to the succor of his wife, and picked up the flashlight which Juanito had thrown away, he beamed the same in the
direction of the fleeing group such that he saw Felicisimo
Genotiva, Thelmo Genotiva and Merlito Pariol on the ground just outside their (Amante’s) house (pp. 10, 11, 42, t.s.n.,
Cardenas).
“Inside the trunk taken by the group were P100.00 in clothing,
a piggy bank containing P300.00 and paper bills in the amount of P600.00 (p.
12, t.s.n., Cardenas).
“After the group had escaped, Amante
with the aid of his father, Abdon Manakod
as well as Sinro David, immediately brought his wife
to the clinic for treatment (pp. 14, 19, 36, t.s.n., Cardenas).
“At the health center of San Antonio where she was brought, Consorcia Melendres, told her
husband that she felt she was going to die (p. 20, t.s.n.,
Cardenas), mentioning Antonio and Romualdo as her
assailants (p. 20, t.s.n., ibid). The Chief of Police of the town Victoriano Pernito, being then
also present propounded questions to the victim which the latter answered.
After all the questions and answers to which the Chief of Police reduced to
writing, the latter asked the victim if she was willing to affix her thumbmark on the declaration, and the victim say yes (pp.
58, 59, t.s.n., Cardenas; see Exhs.
G and G-1, pp. 6, 90, rec.; p. 10, t.s.n., Abata). A few
minutes after affixing her thumbmark on the
instrument the victim expired (p. 61, t.s.n.,
Cardenas; p. 10, t.s.n., Abata).
“On the next day, October
26, 1964, the body of Consorcia Melendres was autopsied by Dr. Vicente Gutay
assisted by the Public Sanitary Inspector, who found out the cause of death
was severe acute hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wounds (pp. 4, 6, t.s.n., Anguil; pp. 71, 72-75, t.s.n., Cardenas,
Exhs. H and J, K; pp. 3, 91, 95, rec.). Dr. Gutay also
found out that the trajectory of the bullet shows that the assailant must have
been at a higher level than the victim; also, the power burns indicated that
the shots were fired at a distance of more than one meter (p. 7, t.s.n., Anguilo).
“The bolo (Exh. C), the flashlight (Exh. D) empty shells recovered at scene of the crime (Exhs. A, A-1), and slugs, also recovered from the scene of
the crime (Exhs. B, B-1), were all surrendered by
Pablo Amante to the Chief of Police (pp. 15, 16, 17, t.s.n., Cardenas).”
The defense presented the
following version of the incident:[6]
“On October 26, 1964
at around 7:00 o’clock in the
evening, four men entered the house of the spouses Pablo Amante
and Consorcia Melendres
situated at Sitio Lagbangan,
San Antonio, Samar and robbed the same. On the occasion of the robbery, Consorcia Melendres was shot to
death and Pablo Amante suffered physical injuries.
“Romualdo
Capillas, Antonio Capillas
and Julianito Capillas were
all arrested on that same night, and together with three others namely Felicisimo Genotiva, Thelmo Genotiva and Merlito Pariol, who are still at
large, were later on named in the information as the perpetrators of the crime
charged which is robbery in band with homicide and physical injuries. Upon being arrested, Antonio Capillas and Julianito Capillas inquired why they were being brought to the
Municipal building and they were told that they will be informed the following
morning.
“Romualdo Capillas
pleaded guilty, while Antonio Capillas and Julianito Capillas pleaded not
guilty to the offense charged. In his
testimony (t.s.n., p. 20) Romualdo
Capillas confessed that at the time of the commission
of the crime he was in company with Thelmo Genotiva, Felicisimo Genotiva and Merlito Pariol. Furthermore,
he stated that his co-accused, Antonio Capilas and Julianito Capillas were not with
him at the time of the robbery (t.s.n., pp.
27-28). According to him, the two were
included in the information just because Antonio is his younger brother and Julianito is his uncle.
(t.s.n., p. 28)
“The testimonies of Antonio Capillas
and Julianito Capillas,
corroborated by the testimony of Brigido Bobles, a witness for the defense that they were in the
gambling den at Puntahan District, at the Poblacion of San Antonio from 7:00 P.M. up to 9:00 P.M. of
October 25, 1964 was not believed by the Lower court.”
On September 26, 1966, the accused Romuldo Capillas,
Antonio Capillas, and Julianito
Capillas were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of robbery with homicide and physical injuries and not robbery in band
with homicide and physical injuries as there was no evidence to show that there
were more than three (3) armed malefactors who participated in the commission
of the crime.[7]
In their brief, the three accused assign the following errors.[8]
“I
“THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN FINDING THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PROSECUTION AS LOGICAL, PROBABLE
AND CREDIBLE THEREBY CONVICTING APPELLANTS FOR THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
AND PHYSICAL INJURIES.
“II
“THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI OF APPELLANTS ANTONIO CAPILLAS AND JULIANITO CAPILLAS.
“III
“GRANTING THAT THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS ARE GUILTY OF THE
CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE AND PHYSICAL INJURIES, THE LOWER
COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY.”
In support of the first error assigned the counsel for the
defendants cited inconsistencies and improbabilities in Pablo Amante’s testimony.[9] It is contended that the testimony of
Pablo Amante that
he stabbed Romualdo Capillas
was improbable because the latter was armed with a revolver. This contention is devoid of merit. It is possible that Romualdo
Capillas might have thought that Amante
was already being taken care of by one of his companions. Hence, he did not pay attention to Amante anymore.
Moreover, as pointed out by the Solicitor General,[10]
he could have been shocked and distracted by the gravity of the crime he just
committed – shooting a woman in cold blood, that he temporarily lost his
presence of mind. Therefore, he was
completely unaware of the intention of Amante to stab
him and in fact, he did not realize immediately that he was already stabbed by Amante.
The defendants also argue that it was improbable 1) for Amante to have wrestled away the arms carried by Julianito and Antonio that easily, 2) for the masked person to have merely witnessed the fight and
not have aided his companions and 3) for Amante to have struck Julianito
with a flashlight instead of stabbing him with a bolo.[11]
How Amante was able to obtain the
possession of the flashlight carried by
Juanito was explained during the re-direct
examination[12] as follows:
“Q You
said you were able to wrestle Exh. “D” the
flashlight from Julianito Capillas,
at what precise moment did you wrestle that flashlight from Julianito
Capillas?
“A That
flashlight was thrown away to the door that was destroyed by them.
“Q You
mean when Julianito Capillas
and the masked person were carrying away your trunk that was the time when Julianito throw away that flashlight to the broken shutters
at your door?
“A Yes, sir.
“Q So you did not
wrestle that flashlight from Julianito Capillas?
“A No, sir, because he
was carrying it.
“Q So
how were you able to possess that flashlight, by wrestling it from Julianito Capillas or by picking
it up in your house when they left?
“A I
just picked that flashlight in the house but I know that he was the one who was
carrying that flashlight.
“Q So
your direct testimony is not correct when you said that you wrestled that
flashlight from the possession of Julianito Capillas?
“A I
did not wrestle that flashlight from Julianito Capillas but I know that he was the one carrying that
flashlight.
“Q And you never
grappled with Julianito Capillas?
“A No, sir, we did
not.”
The failure of the masked
person to come to the aid of
Antonio can be explained by the fact that he, like Romualdo
might have thought that Antonio was capable of resisting and fighting Amante. Moreover, it was likely that what was uppermost
in the minds of the robbers, Romualdo and the masked
person included, was to immediately run away and escape with their loot,
rather than stay and maul Amante and thereby risk the
possibility of being caught by persons who will come to the aid of the victims.
It is also contended by
the defendants that the testimony of Pablo Amante
that Antonio Capillas and Julianito
Capillas participated in the commission of the crime
is uncorroborated[13] because the testimony of Menecio
Amante, a witness for the prosecution, which was
intended to corroborate that of Pablo Amante was
disregarded by the lower court for being unsatisfactory,[14] and that the testimony of the Chief of
Police of San Antonio, Samar, Victorino
Pernito to the effect that Consorcia
Melendres made a dying declaration that she was shot
by Romualdo Capillas[15] was impeached by the testimony of defense
witness Melecio Cordova. According to Cordova, Consorcia
Melendres was already dead when the dying declaration
was prepared; that it was Pablo Amante who answered
the questions; and that the Chief of Police held the hand of the deceased woman
and had her thumb pressed on the paper.[16]
The trial court correctly
observed that the credibility of Pablo Amante was
augmented by the dying declaration of Consorcia Melendres, the due execution of which was clearly shown by
the records of the case. Pablo Amante positively declared that there were many people who
witnessed the Chief of Police, Victoriano Pernito take down the declaration of his wife who was then
alive.[17] This testimony was further reinforced by the
declaration of rebuttal witness, Judge Noynay, that
the victim affixed her thumbmark to her dying
declaration when she was still alive.[18]
The defendants are not
correct in alleging that the testimony of the Chief of Police, Victoriano Pernito was impeached
by the testimony of Melecio Cordova. The testimony of Victoriano
Pernito that
Consorcia Melendres was
still alive when she affixed her thumb mark to the dying declaration was more
credible than that of Cordova. It is
difficult to believe that Cordova witnessed the “irregular” taking of
the dying declaration without as much protesting especially because the persons
implicated were related to him by marriage.[19] Moreover, it is quite surprising that
despite the presence of several persons at the time the declaration was taken,
not one of them protested and complained.[20]
During the trial
prosecution witness, Dr. Vicente Gutay, testified
that the victim could not have survived for more than thirty (30) minutes because
“a very important blood vessel, the internal iliac artery has been
hit”.[21] According to the defendants, this testimony
of Dr. Gutay further strengthened the testimony of
Cordova that Consorcia Melendres
was already dead when the dying declaration was taken.[22]
This is without merit. Dr. Gutay did not
categorically state that it was impossible for the victim to have survived for
more than thirty (30) minutes. Hence, it
does not exclude the probability that the victim had survived for more than
thirty (30) minutes. In fact, three persons,
two of whom are without interest to perjure, testified that the victim was
still alive when the dying declaration was thumbmarked
by said victim.[23] It is also significant that the defense
never presented any evidence that thirty (30) minutes had elapsed from the time
the wound was inflicted up to the time that the declaration was taken. What appears on record are mere assumptions
that there were delays in bringing the victim to the dispensary.[24] These assumptions do not establish the fact
that thirty (30) minutes had elapsed from the time the victim was wounded up to
the time she expired.
In defendants’ second
assignment of error, they contend that the lower court erred in not giving credence
to the defense of alibi of defendants Antonio Capillas
and Julianito Capillas. This contention is equally without
merit. For alibi to prosper, it is not
enough to prove that the defendants were somewhere else when the crime was
committed but it must, likewise, be demonstrated that it was physically
impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime either before,
during, or after the time they were at such other place.[25]
Both Antonio and Julianito Capillas testified that
at the time the crime was committed they were at a gambling den located at Puntahan District at the poblacion
of San
Antonio.[26] This gambling den is about two (2)
kilometers from the farm of the Amantes.[27] Hence, it was not physically impossible for Julianito and Antonio to have been at the scene of the crime
at the time of its commission.
The alibi of Antonio and Julianito is
further weakened by the positive identification by Pablo Amante
that they were responsible for the crimes committed in his house.[28]
The trial court correctly appreciated the presence of abuse of
superior strength as an aggravating circumstance. Consorcia Melendres, a pregnant woman was shot in cold blood while
lying down in the hammock.[29]
Clearly, there was a marked difference
of physical strength between Consorcia Melendres and the offenders.[30]
Dwelling aggravated the commission of the special complex crime
of robbery with homicide. Where the
offense committed is robbery with violence or intimidation, dwelling is
aggravating.[31]
The rationale behind this ruling is that this class of robbery could be
committed without the necessity of transgressing the sanctity of the home.[32]
The trial court erred in considering as aggravating circumstances
uninhabited place, nocturnity, breaking of the door,
and disrespect of sex.
Uninhabited place cannot
be considered against the defendants although the house nearest the dwelling of
the Amantes was about two (2) kilometers away. It is not apparent from the records that the defendants selected the
place of the commission of the crime either to better obtain their object
without interference or to secure themselves against detection and punishment.[33]
Nocturnity is aggravating when it is
purposely and deliberately sought by the accused to facilitate the commission
of the crime[34]
or to prevent their being recognized as to ensure unmolested escape.[35]
In the instant case, there is no evidence that the appellant precisely sought
nighttime to facilitate the commission of
the crime and to hide their identities.[36]
Despite the fact that the defendants were known to the victims, no attempt of
disguise was made by them.
To be considered as an aggravating circumstance, breaking the
door must be utilized as a means to the commission of the crime. The defendants did not break the door of the
victims as a means to commit robbery with homicide. Pablo Amante
testified that the appellants first broke the rope which was used to close the
door.[37]
After the rope was broken, the appellants could already have entered the
house. Breaking of the shutters and the
framing of the door to insure the elements of surprise does not aggravate the
commission of the crime. Art. 14,
paragraph 19, of the Revised Penal Code is specific. To be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance, breaking the door must be utilized as a means of the commission
of the crime.
Neither can the aggravating circumstance of disregard of sex can
be considered in this case. Disregard of
the respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex may be
taken in account only in crimes against persons or honor, when in the
commission of the crime there is some insult or disrespect shown to rank, age,
or sex. It is not proper to consider
this aggravating circumstance in crimes against property. Homicide is a mere incident of the robbery,
the latter being the main purpose and object of the criminals.[38]
The trial court correctly found that defendants Romualdo Capillas, Antonio Capillas and Julianito Capillas were guilty of the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide under Art. 294, paragraph one (1) of the Revised Penal
Code.
There being no mitigating circumstance to offset the aggravating
circumstances of abuse of superior strength and dwelling, the maximum penalty
of DEATH was correctly imposed upon defendants Antonio Capillas
and Julianito Capillas. Likewise, the Death penalty was properly
imposed on defendant Romualdo Capillas. The mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt
is offset by only one aggravating circumstance.
No other mitigating circumstance offsets the other remaining aggravating
circumstance.
However, due to lack of necessary votes, the penalty next lower
in degree is to be imposed.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Samar, Branch IV, in Criminal Case No. C-1120, entitled
“People of the Philippines vs. Romualdo Capillas, Antonio Capillas, and Julianito Capillas” is
affirmed with the modification that the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua and the indemnification is increased from
P6,000.00 to P12,000.00 plus the amount of P1,000.00 representing the goods and
money taken from the victims.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee,
Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, and De Castro, JJ., concur.
Barredo, J., votes with Justice Abad
Santos.
Makasiar, J., nocturnity and uninhabited place should
also support the crime and all the more justify the imposition of the death
penalty.
Aquino, J., concurs
but believes that nocturnity and despoblado
are aggravating.
Abad Santos, J., considering that the appellants have been in death row for over 15 years,
votes for reclusion perpetua.
Melencio-Herrera, J., votes for the imposition of the death penalty.
[1]
Rollo, p. 70.
[2]
CFI Decision, pp. 15-16; Rollo, pp. 67-68.
[3]
Records, pp. 32–33.
[4]
Rollo, p. 43.
[5]
Brief for the Appellee, pp. 1-5; Rollo,
p. 172.
[6]
Brief for the Appellants, pp. 1-2; Rollo, pp. 133-134.
[7]
CFI Decision, Rollo, pp. 53-68; 66.
[8]
Brief for the Defendants-Appellants, pp. 1-2; Rollo,
pp. 131-132.
[9]
Brief for the Defendants-Appellants, pp. 2-7; Rollo,
p. 133.
[10]
Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee,
pp. 5-6; Rollo, p. 172.
[11]
Brief for the Defendants-Appellants, pp. 3-4; Rollo,
p. 133.
[12]
TSN, October
19, 1965, pp. 41-43.
[13]
Brief for the Defendants-Appellants, p.
4; Rollo, p. 133.
[14]
Idem.
[15]
TSN, October 19, 1965, p. 61.
[16]
TSN, September 19, 1966, pp. 51-52.
[17]
TSN, October 19, 1966, p. 20.
[18]
TSN, September 22, 1966, p. 4.
[19]
TSN, September
19, 1966, pp. 58-59.
[20]
Idem.
[21]
TSN, September
19, 1966, p. 11.
[22]
Brief for the Defendants-Appellants, Rollo, p. 131.
[23]
Chief of Police Victoriano Pernito
and Municipal Judge Donato
P. Noynay; pp. 58-62, TSN, October
19, 1965 & p. 4, TSN, September 22, 1966,
respectively.
[24]
TSN, September
19, 1966, p. 12.
[25]
People vs. Angeles, 92 SCRA 432, 448.
[26]
TSN, September 19, 1966, pp. 33, 67.
[27]
CFI Decision, p. 7, Rollo,
p. 59; TSN, p. 48, September 19, 1966.
[28]
People vs. Lucero, 96 SCRA
694, 703.
[29]
TSN, October 19, 1965, pp. 16, 33, 39, 41.
[30]
People vs. Gatcho, G.R. No. L-2725, February 26,
1981; citing U.S.
vs. Devela, et al., 3 Phil. pp. 625, 628-629.
[31]
People vs. Apduhan,
24 SCRA 800, 815.
[32]
Ibid.; People vs. Mongado, 28 SCRA 642.
[33]
People vs. Deguia,
et al., 88 Phil. 520, 526.
[34]
People vs. Matbagon, 60. Phil. 887, 893.
[35]
U.S. vs. Billedo,
32 Phil. 575, 579.
[36]
People vs. Talay, G.R. No. L-24852, EN BANC, November 28, 1980.
[37]
TSN, October 19, 1965, p. 6.
[38]
People vs. Pagal,
79 SCRA 571, 577.