G.R. No. L-29980. December 14, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SANTIAGO ANG, MAXIMINIO SUNGCADOS, LEONILO HANGINON, LUIS DE GUZMAN, RICARDO TIBAY AND CESAR ORIAS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
PER CURIAM:
At about twilight of February 18, 1963, nine armed men entered
and robbed the house of Fernando Saraste located at Padada, Davao, shot and killed
the latter, and raped two house keepers residing therein.[1]
After investigation and apprehension of the accused by the local
police authorities at the instance of then Governor Duterte
of Davao,[2]
Criminal Case No. 8317 was filed against Luis de Guzman; Criminal Case No.
8376, against Ricardo Tibay; Criminal Case No. 8629
against Cesar Orias; and Criminal Case No. 8119,
against Santiago Ang, Maximinio
Sungcados, and Leonilo Hanginon, all in the Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch III (Judge Manases
G. Reyes).[3]
Inasmuch as all the above criminal cases arose from the same
incident and involved all of the accused, they were consolidated into one
Criminal Case No. 8119,[4]
the amended information, being:
“The undersigned accuses Santiago Ang,
Maximo Sungcados, Leonilo Hanginon, Luis de Guzman,
Ricardo Tibay, and Cesar Orias
of the crime of Robbery in Band with Homicide and Rape, under Art. 294, in relation to Arts. 295 and 296 of the Revised Penal
Code, committed as follows:
“That on or about February 18, 1963, in the Municipality of Padada, Province of Davao,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the abovementioned
accused, conspiring and confederating together and with John Smith, Peter Smith
and Robert Doe, who are still at large, and helping one another, armed with
firearms and other deadly weapons and in band, entered the house owned and
inhabited by Fernando Saraste and his family by
forcibly breaking the door thereof, and once inside, with intent of gain, and
with violence against and intimidation of the inmates thereof, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take,
steal and carry away the following:
“One (1)
transistor radio,
worth
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 175.00
One (1) duly licensed
Cal. .22, Revolver – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 450.00
Cash
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
10,000.00
valued in the total amount of P10,625.00,
belonging to Fernando Saraste, to his damage and
prejudice in the aforesaid amount; that on the occasion of said robbery, and in
pursuance to said conspiracy, said accused, with intent to kill, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally attack,
assault and shoot Fernando Saraste thereby inflicting
upon him mortal wounds which caused his death, and further, on the same
occasion and likewise in pursuance of said conspiracy, same accused, with lewd
designs and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally have carnal knowledge
of Gloria Nacis and Benigna
Zamora against their will.
“Contrary to law.”[5]
After a protracted trial, the lower court rendered a judgment of
conviction on July 27, 1968,
with dispositive part as follows:
“Considering the seriousness of the crime charged, robbery in
band, with homicide, and with rape, and considering the moral certainty of the
Court that the guilt of the accused has been established, it is the painful and
disagreeable duty of this Court to impose the maximum penalty of Death for each
accused.
“In this time of rampant criminalities when the criminal
elements and the lawless in our midst seem to bid defiance to forces of Peace
and Order and sneeringly mocks the majesty of the law, it is at high time that
we make a determined stand to face this crisis so that our action may serve as
a deterrent to those criminally inclined and so that people may know that our
courts are still there unafraid and determined and will not hesitate to impose
even the supreme penalty when the evidence so warrants.
“Further, the accused are hereby ordered to indemnify the
heirs of the deceased proportionately in the sum of P10,000.00
with no subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
“Accused Luis de Guzman and Santiago Ang
are further ordered to indemnify the two offended parties here victims of the
rape committed, in the amount of P2,000.00 for each of them without pronouncement
as to the acknowledgment of the offspring should there be any, because the law
prohibits such in this case because the character of its origin would have
prevented it on account of the accused being married; and all the accused to
indemnify further the offended party in the sum of P175.00 the value of the
transistor radio; P450.00 the value of the .22 caliber revolver, as well as the
sum of P10,000.00 Philippine Currency which was taken in the commission of this
robbery without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency by reason of the
penalty imposed.
“SO ORDERED.”[6]
The injury suffered by the victim Fernando Saraste
as appearing in Medical Certificate[7]
issued by Dr. Vicente T. Florida, Jr., Municipal Health Officer of Padada, Davao,
follows:
“Feb. 19, 1963
“This is to certify that I have autopsied Mr. Fernando Saraste with the following findings:
“Bullet wound penetrating with an entrance at the 8th interspace on the left chest posterior, about 4 inches from
the midline, coursing upward and medially and to the left side to make an exit
at the 3rd interspace, about 2-1/2 inches from the
midline anteriorly and to the left, penetrating the
heart and scraping part of the vertebra.
“Cause of death – Internal hemorrhage.”[8]
The prosecution’s version of the crime is as follows:
Prior to and on February
18, 1963, Fernando Saraste was residing
at Paligue, Padada, Davao. Living with him in his house thereat were his
niece and godchild Benigna Zamora, then 15 years old,[9]
and two other nieces, Gloria Nacis and Cristina Sordilla[10]
who were then 14 and 12 years old, respectively.[11]
Since December 17, 1963,
Fernando Saraste had been the owner and licensed
possessor of a .22 caliber revolver valued at P450.00.[12]
On February 16, 1963,
Fernando Saraste called for his nephew, Eugenio Ramirez, and asked the latter to accompany him to Davao City
the following week as he would deposit in the bank an amount of less than P10,000.00.[13]
At about 4:00 p.m. on February 18, 1963, Nestor Nuñez, a farmer residing at Padada,
Davao, while taking care of his carabao,
saw nine persons sitting on the highway under a mango tree, about 100 meters
from the house of victim Fernando Saraste. When Nestor approached the group, one,
identified later as accused Cesar Orias, stood up and
asked Nestor if he had finished plowing to which the latter answered, “Yet
yet.”[14]
On the same date, at about four in the afternoon, victims Benigna Zamora and Gloria Nacis
were feeding the hogs in the yard near the house of Fernando Saraste, when they saw nine armed men pass by the house
slowly, looking at the house and around the place. Benigna later
identified accused Santiago Ang, Luis de Guzman and
Cesar Orias among the nine. There was also a man with wide forehead and
slanting eyes like that of a chinaman
in the group.[15]
Aside from Benigna, Gloria was also able to identify
out of the nine men accused Cesar Orias, Luis de
Guzman and Santiago Ang.[16]
At about five o’clock
of the same afternoon, while Cristina Sordilla,
another niece of victim Fernando Saraste, was in the
kitchen of the house, together with Benigna Zamora
then cooking, and Gloria Nacis, listening to the
radio, the nine men returned to the vicinity of the house near the kitchen.[17]
The man with wide forehead and slanting eyes (not apprehended)
tried to borrow from Benigna a glass with which to
drink water from. However, no glass was
available.
He subsequently asked for the whereabouts of Faustino Nacis and the victim Fernando Saraste. Benigna answered
him that Faustino Nacis was taking care of the carabao in the coconut grove, while Fernando Saraste was upstairs in the sala
of the house. Suddenly, accused Luis de
Guzman asked for the surrender of the gun of Fernando.[18]
When Cristina Sordilla heard the demand
for the surrender of the gun of Fernando Saraste, she
rushed to the sala and informed Fernando of the
demand. He refused to surrender the gun
and instead rushed to his room followed by Cristina.[19]
Benigna Zamora, who at that moment was
about to go down the house, saw accused Cesar Orias
with a firearm. Accused Luis de Guzman
placed his arm around Benigna’s shoulder and brought
her up the house to the sala. She saw the man with slanting eyes near the
window and she heard a gong sound. Benigna also saw Santiago Ang,
armed and with a flashlight in the sala.[20]
Gloria who was in the sala, heard
footsteps going upstairs and she saw Cesar Orias
armed with a revolver. She also saw Luis
de Guzman, Santiago Ang, and the fellow with slanting
eyes. They were all armed. Because of fear, Gloria jumped out of the
window to escape to the copra dryer, with Santiago Ang
in pursuit.[21]
After Fernando Saraste entered his
room, followed by Cristina Sordilla, he closed the
door to the room and sounded the gong.
Cristina heard men going up the house to the sala. These men tried to push the door to the room
open, while Fernando Saraste and Cristina tried to
keep it closed. Fernando Saraste released his hold on the door and rushed to the
window of the bedroom. At the same time
he pulled his revolver from his waist. Cristina
followed Fernando in order to jump out of the window to escape. She was not able to do so, because she saw a
man pointing a pistol at Fernando Saraste from the
window of the sala, so she hid herself behind some
mats inside the bedroom. She heard two
shots from the window of the sala, and the door to
the room was opened. Santiago Ang, Luis de Guzman and Cesar Orias,
all armed, entered the room and ransacked its contents. The man with slanting eyes held Cristina and
told her not to move. He asked Cristina
where the money was hidden. She was
ordered to help in the search for money, otherwise she would be killed. A tampipi
was ransacked and Cristina found two bundles of money (20 and 10 peso bills), a
bundle about two inches thick. The said
man took the money and placed it in his pocket.
Cesar Orias, Luis de Guzman and Santiago Ang were in the sala at that
time. The men continued in their search
and Cristina was told to sit down on a bench in the sala.[22]
On the other hand, Benigna Zamora was
brought to the kitchen by Luis de Guzman, where she was raped at gunpoint. After the rape was consummated, Luis brought Benigna to the sala where she
again saw Cesar Orias, Santiago Ang
and the man with slanting eyes. The
latter took hold of Benigna and asked her to locate
and produce the money. So she helped
look for the money. Later, this man with
slanting eyes forced her to lie down among the scattered things, and there she
was again raped.[23]
When Gloria Nacis jumped out of the
window to escape to the copra dryer, followed by accused Santiago Ang, she was not able to go far because Ang
caught her. She was brought by Ang to the papaya grove. At that time, she saw accused Leonilo Hanginon, also
armed. Accused Ricardo Tibay was holding a firearm in the yard, while Maximo Sungcados, another
accused, was holding a gun.[24]
In the papaya grove, accused Santiago Ang
forced Gloria to sit down and warned her not to shout. Gloria was brought near the toilet, ordered
to remove her panty, and was raped by Santiago Ang. The person with the wide forehead and
slanting eyes also raped her.[25]
Gloria was then returned to the house and asked to help look for
money. She saw things scattered inside
the house.[26]
After Cristina Sordilla was told to sit
on a bench in the sala of the house, Gloria Nacis came from the kitchen followed by the man with
slanting eyes, pointing a gun at Gloria.
Cristina again heard shots from downstairs. Then, Faustino Nacis,
with his two children, arrived from the kitchen accompanied by Santiago Ang. Benigna Zamora came from the kitchen accompanied by the man
with slanting eyes. Cristina, Benigna, Gloria, together with Faustino Nacis
and his two children, were ordered to sit on the bench
and not to run away. The group then
left.[27]
After a while, when things had quieted down, Gloria Sordilla arrived with policemen. Cristina, Benigna,
Gloria Nacis, and the others in the group, saw the
body of Fernando Saraste, with blood on his breast,
lying face up on the ground beneath the window of his room. Fernando’s revolver which he was holding when
he rushed to the window of the room followed by Cristina,
was no longer there. The radio was also
missing.[28]
As a corroborative witness, Narciso
Solis, a farmer residing at Paligue, Padada, Davao,
narrated that at 5:00 p.m. on February 18, 1963 he was in the
vicinity of the house of Fernando Saraste. He saw nine persons and one of the nine asked
Narciso if he had finished plowing and for the
whereabouts of Faustino Nacis. The other eight surrounded the house of Fernando
Saraste. He
heard it when the gong sounded inside the house. He saw Gloria running from the house of
Fernando Saraste, chased by a man who was able to
catch her. The man brought Gloria to the
papaya grove. He heard shots from
the house of Saraste.
He also saw Benigna Zamora with Luis de Guzman
holding a gun at her. He saw four
persons out of the nine enter the house.
At this point, Narciso was able to run away.[29]
Found missing after the robbery in the house of Fernando Saraste, were: P10,000.00; a radio valued at P175.00 and a .22 caliber
revolver valued at P450.00.[30]
On February 19, 1963,
the day after the crime was committed, Dr. Vicente Florida,
Municipal Health Officer of Padada, Davao, upon the request of the
Chief of Police of Padada, Davao, conducted an internal
examination of the secretion of the vaginas of victims Benigna
Zamora and Gloria Nacis. They told Dr. Florida
they were raped. No sperm cells were
found on both women, but the doctor found that they were no longer virgins.[31]
As to the apprehension of accused Santiago Ang,
his pointing to his co-accused Leonilo Hanginon and Maximo Sungcados, their alleged verbal confessions, the
identification of the accused from pictures shown to the victims, and the
reenactment of the crime participated in by accused Sungcados,
several police authorities testified, including Sergeant Victor C. Lascuña of the Municipal Police Force of Panabo, Davao; Sergeant Luis Gonzaga of Babak, Davao; Corporal Exequiel Sayson of Padada, Davao; Chief of Police Juanito Maturan of Makilala, Cotabato; and Jacinto Romero, Chief of the Police Affairs
Division, Office of the Governor of Davao.[32]
The defense, consisting of alibi, denial, alleged threat and
intimidation to extract confessions from the accused, and that some of the
prosecution principal witnesses were paid to testify, is as follows:
Delfin Gillado
who claimed to be an overseer of the properties left by Fernando Saraste, from April 1965 to August 1966, stated that the
principal witnesses for the prosecution were paid, including the two victims of
rape.[33]
Santiago Ang claimed that on the
afternoon of February 18, 1963,
he was at his house cooking. He denied
participation in the robbery and the rape of Gloria Nacis. He also denied that he confessed verbally and
pointed to his co-accused Sungcados and Hanginon as co-participants in the crime. He claimed he was maltreated by the
investigating police officers.[34]
The alibi of Santiago Ang was
corroborated by witnesses Lina Espina,
Cresencio Guarin, Gavina Tenebro, Alfredo Salutillo.[35]
Both accused Leonilo Hanginon
and Maximinio Sungcados
denied participation in the crime, claimed they never made any verbal
confession to the investigating police authorities, and that they were
maltreated. They both claimed that in
the afternoon of February 18, 1963,
they were at the store of Gonzalo Mursillos at Guiling, Hagonoy, Davao.[36]
Accused Cesar Orias claimed that at the
time the crime he was accused of occurred on February 18, 1963, he was staying in Iligan City
and he could not be at Padada, Davao. He denied participation in the robbery,
killing of Saraste and the rape of Gloria Nacis and Benigna Zamora.[37]
Accused Luis de Guzman alleged that on February 18, 1963, he was at Davao City,
at about 5:00 p.m., to collect his
pay as laborer in the City Engineer’s Office and it was physically impossible
for him to be at Padada, Davao, when the crime took
place. His alibi was corroborated by
Jeffrey Mojares[38]
and Alfredo Naraval.[39]
The trip from Davao
City to Padada,
Davao is about
two hours.
Accused Ricardo Tibay claimed that on February 18, 1963, he was at Lapanday, ten kilometers from Davao City,
employed in the bodega of Vicente Ang. At about 5:00
p.m. of that date he was working in that place, shelling corn with
a machine.[40]
The theory of the defense, based on the lone testimony of Delfin Gillado, that the
principal prosecution witnesses, including the victims Gloria Nacis and Benigna Zamora, were
paid witnesses, and that no actual rape took place is inherently weak and hardly
deserves credence, not only because of the clearly straightforward and candid
narrations of eyewitnesses to the crime, but also because of the doubtful
sincerity of witness Gillado. Gillado’s testimony
is not without ulterior motive. He has
reason to perjure in his testimony, motivated by vindictiveness, for he was
dismissed as extrajudicial administrator of the properties left by the victim
Fernando Saraste.
He was replaced by one Alcoba. Gillado showed his
disappointment when he complained to Atty. Reyes several times.[41]
While prosecution witness, Sgt. Lascuña
did admit he signed a receipt for P200,[42]
the amount was never received, for the policemen were made to believe by Gillado, himself, that due to the efforts of the policemen
in the investigation of the crime, the relatives of the victims were willing to
give as Christmas gift and for police uniforms the said amount.[43]
Sgt. Lascuña denied having received any money from Gillado.[44]
The record of this case clearly manifests a basis for the
apprehension and prosecution of accused Santiago Ang,
Maximo Sungcados and Leonilo Hanginon as among those
who perpetrated the crime. In the first
week of March, 1963, victim Benigna Zamora was shown
by Policeman Sayson some 9 to 10 photographs of persons. One[45]
was selected and identified as the picture of a man who participated in the
crime.[46]
On the basis of such identification, Santiago Ang was
arrested. Upon being investigated by
Sgt. Lascuña, Santiago Ang
admitted verbally his participation in the crime and mentioned as his
companions Leonilo Hanginon
and Maximo Sungcados.[47]
When Leonilo Hanginon and Maximo Sungcados were arrested,
they were identified by victim Gloria Nacis.[48]
It is difficult to believe that accused Santiago Ang was maltreated by the police authorities to force him
to confess to the crime. Ang’s oral confession was indeed reduced to writing, but
when he refused to sign the same, he was not forced to do so.[49]
There were no marks or signs of injuries whatsoever on Ang’s
body.[50]
Also significant is the refusal of Ang to be examined
by a doctor although there was a supposed permission from Acting Chief of
Police Bisaya.[51]
The oral confession of accused Ang, Sungcados and Hanginon were
reduced into writing, but for reasons only known to them, they refused to sign
the same.[52]
These oral confessions were established through the testimonies of Sgts. Victor Lascuña and Luis Gonzaga.[53]
Oral confessions are admissible, for it is not necessary that the confession be
in writing.[54]
What is necessary is credible evidence that the oral confession was really
made.
The positive identification of all the accused as participants in
the crime have been made by eyewitnesses Cristina Sordilla,
Benigna Zamora, Gloria Nacis
and Nestor Nuñez.
The narrations of Cristina, Benigna and Gloria
as to what happened in the house of victim Fernando Saraste
in the twilight of February 18, 1963,
clearly coincide with each other and give a vivid picture of the events. They testified in a simple, direct manner,
indicative of sincerity, and strongly manifesting that these witnesses were
telling the truth. There is no known or
shown motive why those witnesses should falsely testify against the
accused. The inconsistencies in the
narrations of Gloria Nacis and Benigna
Zamora on minor details cannot adversely affect their credibility.[55]
Minor inconsistencies on testimonies are indicative that the witnesses were not
coached nor rehearsed.[56]
Witnesses Cristina, Benigna and Gloria
were able to identify the accused because the crime was perpetrated when there
was still day light. In the month of
February, there is still light at five in the afternoon and even up to an hour
late. These witnesses had sufficient
time to identify the accused because the crime took place for about one hour,
and both Benigna and Gloria were raped by persons in
the group.
The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive
identification of the accused by witnesses.[57]
Victims Benigna Zamora and Gloria Nacis
positively identified all the accused.[58]
For alibi as a defense to prosper, it must be clear and
convincing as to preclude the possibility of the presence of the accused at the
scene of the crime, while the evidence as to identification of the accused must
be weak and insufficient.[59]
Accused Ang, Hanginon and Sungcados were not precluded from being present at the
scene of the crime because they were all residents of the barrio of Guihing, Hagonoy, Davao, near and adjacent to Paligue, Padada, Davao, scene of the crime.
As to accused Luis de Guzman’s defense of alibi, the same cannot
prevail over the positive identification made by the victim Benigna
Zamora who recognized and remembered Luis as the person who raped Benigna in the afternoon of February 18, 1963.
Alibi is easy to fabricate and cannot prevail over the positive identification
by a credible witnesses.
Likewise, the defense of alibi interposed by accused Cesar Orias and Ricardo Tibay cannot
prevail over their positive identification by Benigna
Zamora, Gloria Nacis and Nestor Nuñez.[60]
The evidence of the prosecution sufficiently show that all of the
accused acting in a concerted manner, together with three other still
unidentified persons, committed robbery in the house of Fernando Saraste at Padada, Davao, in the twilight of February 18, 1963. Four of them entered the house, while the
other five surrounded and guarded the premises, all being armed. During said robbery, victim Fernando Saraste was shot to death, while victims Benigna Zamora and Gloria Nacis
were raped. Conspiracy among the accused
has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy, for if a
community of purpose among the parties to do some criminal act is shown, it is
not necessary that the acts which are charged of or of which evidence has been
given were specifically contemplated by them or included in their design.[61]
While this case was pending automatic review, accused Cesar Orias and Ricardo Tibay filed a
petition for new trial with this Court, on the ground of newly discovered
evidence (the alleged statement of prisoner Quintin Ybañez that it was his group that authored the crime for
which the accused were convicted in this case).[62]
When asked to comment on said petition, the Solicitor General commented that
the alleged statement of prisoner Quintin Ybañez cannot be considered newly discovered evidence, and
that the same is unreliable coming from a death convict who refuses to reduce
the same in writing.[63]
This Court denied the petition for new trial for lack of merit.[64]
This Court was also notified on August 17, 1978, that accused Santiago Ang
died at the New Bilibid Prison
Hospital, Muntinglupa,
Metro Manila, on August 7, 1978.[65]
In the resolution dated September 5,
1978, We resolved to dismiss the case
against Santiago Ang insofar as his criminal liability
is concerned.[66]
The crime committed is robbery with homicide and rape with the
aggravating circumstances of band and dwelling.
The rapes committed on the same occasion are considered an aggravating
circumstance.[67]
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court dated July 24,
1968, being in accordance with law and the evidence, is hereby affirmed, except
as to the penalty of death imposed on accused Santiago Ang
who died on August 7, 1978, and against whom the case was dismissed in so far
as criminal liability is concerned, with costs against the other accused.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Makasiar,
Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion,
Jr., Santos, Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De
Castro, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur.
Barredo, J., votes for life imprisonment,
considering that more than ten years have already lapsed since his conviction
by the Trial Court.
Fernando, C.J., no part.
[1] p. 78, Original Record.
[2] Exhibit “A”.
[3] p. 74, Original Record.
[4] pp. 80-81, Id.
[5] pp. 78-79, Id.
[6] pp. 283-284, Id.
[7]
Exhibit “H”.
[8] p.
28, Exhibits.
[9] p. 97, t.s.n., May 16, 1966.
[10] pp. 97, 98, Id.
[11] p. 140, t.s.n., May 18, 1966; p. 11, t.s.n., May 30, 1966.
[12]
Exhibits “E” and “E-1”, pp. 25-26, Exhibits; pp. 55-59, t.s.n., Oct. 18,
1966.
[13] pp. 15-16, t.s.n., March 23, 1966.
[14] pp. 59-61, t.s.n., March 24, 1966.
[15] pp. 97-100, t.s.n., May 16, 1966.
[16] pp. 141-144, t.s.n., May 18, 1966.
[17]
pp. 12-14, t.s.n., May 30, 1966; p. 100, t.s.n., May 16, 1966; pp. 145-146, t.s.n.,
May 18, 1966.
[18]
pp. 15-16, t.s.n., May 30, 1966; pp. 101-103, t.s.n., May 16, 1966; pp. 145-146, t.s.n.,
May 18, 1966.
[19] pp. 15-16, t.s.n., May 30, 1966.
[20] pp. 103-104, t.s.n., May 16, 1966.
[21] pp. 147-153, t.s.n., May 18, 1966.
[22] pp. 16-25, t.s.n., May 30, 1966.
[23] pp. 105-108, t.s.n., May 16, 1966.
[24] pp. 149-153, t.s.n., May 18, 1966.
[25] pp. 153-154, t.s.n., May 18, 1966.
[26] p. 154, t.s.n., May 18, 1966.
[27]
pp. 26-29, t.s.n., May 30, 1966; pp. 109-110, t.s.n., May 16, 1966; pp. 155-156, t.s.n.,
May 18, 1966.
[28]
pp. 29-31, t.s.n., May 30, 1966; pp. 111-112, t.s.n., May 16, 1966; pp. 157-158, t.s.n.,
May 18, 1966.
[29] pp. 75-83, t.s.n., March 24, 1966.
[30]
pp. 24, 25, 27, 28, t.s.n., March 23, 1966; pp. 26-27,
t.s.n., Oct. 18, 1966; Exhibit “E”.
[31] pp. 37-40, t.s.n., January 19, 1966.
[32]
pp. 3-32, t.s.n., May 5, 1965; pp. 7-34, January 19, 1966;
pp. 2-12, t.s.n., March 23, 1966; pp. 58-85, t.s.n., Jan. 22, 1966; pp. 86-104, t.s.n.,
Oct. 19, 1966; pp. 252-258, t.s.n., March 26, 1968.
[33] pp. 68-90, t.s.n., June 17, 1966.
[34] pp. 95-109, t.s.n., January 19, 1966.
[35]
pp. 105-117, t.s.n., May 3, 1967; pp. 120-126, t.s.n., May 3, 1967; pp. 127-130, t.s.n.,
June 13, 1967; pp. 130-132, t.s.n., June 13, 1967;
pp. 133-141, t.s.n., June 14, 1967.
[36] pp. 122-135, t.s.n., January 19, 1966; pp. 136-144, t.s.n., January 19, 1966.
[37] pp. 186-194, t.s.n., Oct. 24, 1967.
[38]
pp. 154-174, t.s.n., March 13, 1968; pp. 174-178, t.s.n., March 14, 1968; pp. 178-192, t.s.n.,
March 14, 1968.
[39] pp. 230-238, t.s.n., March 25, 1968.
[40] pp. 212-221, t.s.n., March 18, 1968; pp. 239-248, t.s.n., March 25, 1968.
[41] pp. 84, 85, t.s.n., January 19, 1966.
[42] Exhibit “2”.
[43] pp. 260, 261, t.s.n., March 26, 1968.
[44] pp. 260, 261, t.s.n., March 26, 1978.
[45]
Exhibit “F” – Picture of Santiago
Ang.
[46] p. 116, t.s.n., May 16, 1966.
[47] p. 6, t.s.n., May 5, 1965.
[48] pp. 7-9, t.s.n., May 5, 1965.
[49] p. 18, t.s.n., January 19, 1966.
[50] p. 100, t.s.n., July 18, 1967.
[51] pp. 92-93, t.s.n., July 18, 1967.
[52] p. 18, t.s.n., January 19, 1966.
[53] pp. 11-12, t.s.n., January 19, 1966.
[54] People vs. Macaso, 86 Phil. 272.
[55] People vs. Otto, et al., 49 SCRA 306.
[56] People vs. Paz, 14 SCRA 132.
[57] People vs. Casillas, 30 SCRA 352;
People vs. Salip, 30 SCRA 389; People vs.
Marquez, 30 SCRA 442.
[58] p. 100, t.s.n., May 16, 1966; pp. 144-152, t.s.n., May 18, 1966.
[59] People vs. Alcantara, 33 SCRA 813.
[60]
pp. 59-61, t.s.n., March 24, 1966; pp. 99-100, t.s.n., May 16, 1966; pp. 147-149, 149-153, t.s.n., May 18, 1966.
[61] People vs. Carbonel, 48 Phil. 868,
citing Underhill’s Criminal Evidence, p. 795, par. 491.
[62]
p. 315, rollo.
[63]
p. 323, rollo.
[64] p. 325, Id.
[65] pp. 438-439, Id.
[66] Resolution En Banc in G.R. No. L-29980, People
vs. Santiago Ang, et al., enclosed as last
page of rollo.
[67]
People vs. Bacsa, 104 Phil. 136, and cases
therein cited.