PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JESSIE CANQUE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
PEREZ, J.:
For Criminal Case No. 2008-072:
“On 01 August 2007, at Purok 4, Lanise, Claveria, Misamis Oriental, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused through force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with fifteen-year (15) old AAA,[2] against her will and her consent to her damage and prejudice.
AAA is found to have mental retardation. The qualifying aggravating circumstance in No. 10 Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, that is when the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the offense is attendant.
Contrary to and in violation of Article 266-A Paragraph 1 in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 8353.”[3]
For Criminal Case No. 2008-073:
“Sometime in 2006 up to July 31, 2007, at Purok 4, Lanise, Claveria, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused knowing fully well the minority and the mental disability of AAA did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with fifteen-year (15) old AAA, by inserting his finger(s) and penis into her vagina, sucking her breasts, kissing and touching the different parts of her body against her will and without her consent, and which act debases, degrades and demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of AAA as a child as a human being and is prejudicial to the child’s development.
The victim is found to have mental retardation.
Contrary to and in violation of Section 5 paragraph b of RA 7610.”[4]
During arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded “not guilty” to both accusations. A joint trial ensued.
The Facts
The prosecution presented four (4) witnesses, which include the minor private complainant AAA, her mother BBB, Dr. Jamilla B. Watamama, the physician who examined AAA, and Estela S. Ferrarez, the psychologist who evaluated her mental state.
AAA averred that accused-appellant Jessie Canque (Jessie) had sexually molested her on several occasions. She positively declared that when he abused her, Jessie took off her clothes, bra, short pants and panty, and inserted his penis in her vagina. He would then make a push-and-pull movement, and after he ejaculated, he would spread it on her body specifically on her breast. Jessie would also squeeze her breast, strike her head with the use of a wood, and often slap her face and pull her hair. He would drag her into the dirty kitchen, and would twist her arm, box her back, and bite her several times. Jessie would bring with him a bolo and would poke the tip thereof to her vagina, and threatened to kill her if she tells anybody what he did to her. AAA claims that she felt pain after Jessie inserted his penis in her vagina the first time he did it to her. After that first incident, she tried to evade him but Jessie would pursue her. AAA also averred that Jessie inserted his forefinger in her vagina.[5]
AAA confirmed that she reported the incident to the school principal whom she referred to as Mrs. Villanueva and to her teacher named Mrs. Helen Humuwad. She further averred that Jessie first molested her in a farm, and the second incident took place in their house, specifically in their room at around 10:00 o’clock in the morning. Similar incidents happened in the afternoon and in the evening, and Jessie would not stop until her sibling arrived home. AAA was afraid to reveal to her father, mother and sibling what Jessie had been doing to her because of Jessie’s threats that he will kill her.[6]
AAA’s mother (BBB) claims that her daughter is a mental retardate. AAA cannot cope with her lessons so much so that she kept repeating the Grade 1 curriculum and had to go back to Grade 2 three times. BBB had AAA examined by Psychiatrist Marlou Sustiguer who informed her that her daughter is a mental retardate.[7]
BBB averred that she first met Jessie sometime in 1997, as he was then residing in a lot owned by her parents-in-law. Jessie left, but came back in 2004 with his father who bought the land from the parents-in-law of BBB and eventually lived thereon. The said land was just near their house. Later on, Jessie’s father left and Jessie was left alone. Hence, sometime in 2005, Jessie asked permission from BBB if he could stay in their house, which she acceded to. BBB also had to tend their farm at Libona, Bukidnon, so the persons left in their house were her husband, Jessie, AAA, a 20-year old son, and three (3) other daughters aged 24, 18 and 16.[8]
Sometime in 2007, after her birthday, AAA revealed to her teacher what Jessie did to her. The teacher relayed to BBB the information she got from AAA. Eventually, AAA confessed to her and told her, “Ma, what I told my teacher is true that Jessie Canque did bad things to me.” AAA told her she was afraid because Jessie threatened to kill her if she reveals it to her mother. AAA also told her that when Jessie was done molesting her, he would place a bolo on her neck, wipe the semen that he ejaculated from her neck and all over her body, and that Jessie would molest her every time there is no person in their house. After hearing these from AAA, BBB went to the police station to report the incident, the DSWD to seek assistance, and the provincial hospital for AAA’s medical examination.[9]
Dr. Jamilla B. Watamama (Dr. Watamama), the physician who conducted the medical examination on AAA on 14 August 2007, testified on her findings per Living Case Report. The genital examination findings show: GENITALIA-TANNER 4; INTROITUS – OLD HEALED HYMENAL LACERATION AT 6 O’CLOCK POSITION. She explains that the laceration was already healed as it was there for a month, and that at the time of her examination, she had not seen any fresh laceration. She also described the position of the laceration located at 6 o’clock position at the lower part of the hymen. She opined that the laceration was probably caused by a foreign object, thru jogging or masturbation or possibly thru self-infliction by careless movement.[10]
During her interview with AAA, AAA relayed to her that the rape incident happened at around 10:00 A.M., and that it began from the year 2006 until AAA saw Dr. Watamama in August 2007. AAA also revealed to her that Jessie poked his bolo in between her thigh and threatened her.[11]
Dr. Watamama also opined that AAA is a special child. AAA’s mental intelligence is far from being normal for her age. At her age of fifteen (15) years when examined, AAA’s intelligence level is only that of a grade 1 student as in fact she had a hard time talking to her. Dr. Watamama clarified that her basis for assessing that AAA is a special child was not only AAA’s demeanor but also her mental and physical state thru the MSA. She observed that AAA was able to understand simple questions and that she knew the name of the accused without anybody coaching her.[12]
Estela S. Ferrarez (Ferrarez), the psychologist who evaluated the mental state of AAA testified on her findings as per Psychological Evaluation Report. AAA’s psychological test skill one result shows: “infantile regression which classified her at the level of a five year old mental functioning.”[13] Ferrarez explains that this means that even though AAA is already sixteen (16) years old, her mental state is still that of a four (4) or five (5) years old. Ferrarez explains that their (mental retardate) mental state as children would make them aware of dates and time but they are not particular of specific dates. AAA may not be specific of the date but she could recall and connect incidents. Ferrarez testified that AAA specifically mentioned the sexual abuse and mentioned the name “Jessie.” She did not ask AAA what exactly happened but as she understood it, it was against AAA’s will that her clothes were removed. Ferrarez added that AAA can manage herself like taking a bath, but does not know how to get food. She manifests difficulty in speech, but she is consistent.[14]
On the one hand, the evidence for the defense include the testimonies of accused-appellant, his mother Marietta Canque, and a neighbor Edgar Sandigan.
Accused-appellant Jessie Canque admitted that he knew AAA since she is the granddaughter of the owner of the land located at Lanisi, Claveria, Misamis Oriental, that he and his father tilled. Jessie likewise admitted that he has been to Claveria where he was born and where he spent his elementary and high school days. He left Claveria after he had a misunderstanding with his father. The last time he went to Claveria was in March 2006.[15]
Jessie raises the defense of alibi. He also countered that all the allegations in the Information are mere fabrications, and that AAA was given money by her mother to pin him down. Jessie testified that he was at San Simon, Pagatpat, Cagayan de Oro City, the second week of July to 15 August 2007. He worked in a “Tuba-tuba” plantation of the Philippine National Oil Company or TRICOP where he took charge of the workers, the fertilizers, equipments, including the collection of the salaries of employees who worked thereat on a “pakyaw” basis. He worked from 6:00 in the morning to 6:00 in the afternoon at the plantation, and sleeps in the area where they had a tent. The place is a kilometer away from the highway with no public utility vehicles.[16] The only means of transportation from Pagatpat Elementary school to his area of work at San Simon is “habal-habal” (motorcycle for hire), and in the absence thereof, one has to walk.[17]
Jessie further alleged that he never left San Simon, Pagatpat on 1 August 2007 as he was then working and even slept that evening in their tent.[18] During the entire period from the second week of July to second week of August 2007, Jessie saw his wife only once and that was when he went home in the afternoon of 2 August 2007 to Sihayon, Tagoloan, where he proceeded after he got his salary from the office in Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City.[19] Jessie recounted that from March to November 2006, he was residing at Sihayon, Tagoloan; from 6 November 2006 to 10 January 2007, he attended to his wife who allegedly gave birth to their son at the Northern Mindanao Medical Center (NMMC); and from 2 February 2007 until August 2007, he was at Budiongan, Gingoog City, the place of his parents-in-law since the latter wanted to see their grandson.[20]
Marietta Canque (Marietta) averred that Jessie lived in their house in Sihayon, Sta. Cruz, Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental throughout the year 2006, and has never changed residence in the years 2006 and 2007. Jessie lived with them together with her daughter, her grandson and Jessie’s wife. She added though that sometime in the month of July of 2006, she worked at Macasandig, Cagayan de Oro, and would only go home to Sihayon every weekend.[21]
During cross-examination, Marietta admitted that they bought a 4-hectare land at Lanisi, where BBB was their caretaker and trusted hand in charge of laborers working at their land. In 2004, her husband planted the land with tomatoes and took care of it. Her husband would often go to their farm in the morning and be back at Sihayon in the afternoon using a motorcycle. In the year 2005, their children would go with her husband to Lanisi, Claveria and back to Minsakoba. She could not estimate the distance from Lanisi to Minsakoba, but merely gave the information that the fare from Lanisi to Minsakoba was only P35.00. Marietta also clarified that Jessie went with his father to Lanisi from 2004 to 2007. It was only in March 2006 that Jessie stayed in Sihayon and never left for Claveria.[22]
Edgar Sandigan (Sandigan), a neighbor and a co-worker of Jessie for three weeks testified that from mid July to August 2007, he worked with Jessie, planting seedlings for the TRICOP (Tribal Communities Association of the Philippines). Jessie was their “leadman” who was responsible for the materials to be used as seedlings. It was Jessie who followed up the issuance of seedling from Pagatpat and also decides what they are going to do, and the one who decides and/or recommends who will be hired. Sandigan also presented a voucher evidencing the payment for the labor they rendered on 31 July and 1 August 2007 addressed to Jessie Canque, who in turn will give then their share as salary for planting seedlings. Sandigan worked with six (6) other co-workers for three weeks and slept together in the same tent, but he could not remember their surnames including the name of their employer whom he identified as one “Edgar”, his namesake. It was only Jessie Canque whom Edgar knew well among the people he worked with at San Simon, Pagatpat.[23]
On 31 January 2011, the lower court rendered a Decision finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Rape. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, the Court finds accused Jessie Canque in FC Criminal Case 2008-072 GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of QUALIFIED RAPE for which the Court imposes upon him the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.
Jessie Canque is further adjudged to pay “AAA” Php 75,000.00 in civil indemnity and Php50,000.00 in moral damages. With costs.
The charge in FC Criminal case No. 2008-073 is ordered DISMISSED.
Aggrieved, appellant raises before Us this lone assignment of error:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
The Court’s Ruling
The appeal is without merit.
Accused-appellant asserts that he cannot be convicted of the crime of rape under Article 266-A(1) because the prosecution has not proved 1) the fact of penetration and 2) the use of force, threat and intimidation.
Appellant argues that his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him has been violated because the crime apparently proved is different from the one alleged in the information.
We find no basis to sustain appellant’s argument because appellant was convicted of the crime of qualified rape as defined and penalized under paragraph 1, Article 266-A, in relation to paragraph 1, Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, under an information that plainly averred the essential elements of the crime charged as well as the aggravating/qualifying circumstance of knowledge of the mental retardation of the offended party.
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, provides:
Article 266-A. Rape; When And How Committed. — Rape is committed –
1) By a man who 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 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.
One of the aggravating circumstances that would qualify the crime and raise the penalty to death is:
ART. 266-B. Penalties –
x x x
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
x x x
1) When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the offense.
Carnal knowledge of a mental retardate[24] is rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 because a mental retardate is not capable of giving her consent to a sexual act and thus, sexual intercourse with an offended party of such diminished capacity can only be against her will. Proof of force or intimidation is not necessary for rape of this kind. It suffices for the prosecution to establish, one, the sexual congress between the accused and the victim, and, two, the mental retardation of the victim.[25]
The fact that AAA was a mental retardate is established by the evidence. The psychological test conducted by Dr. Ferrarez revealed that AAA had the mental age of a five-year-old child.[26] She explained that children like AAA are not particular with dates but they can still recall and connect incidents.[27] The physician who examined AAA also confirmed that AAA was a special child using the MSA, as she readily noticed that her mental intelligence was abnormal for her age.[28] BBB also had AAA checked by psychologist Marlou Sustiguer who informed her that AAA was a mental retardate. As per Certification dated 19 September 2007 issued by the Northern Mindanao Medical Center (NMMC) and signed by Psychiatrist Marlou A. Bagacay-Sustiguer, AAA was found to have Mental Retardation.[29] In sum, AAA’s mental condition was verified not only by one expert but three experts – two psychologists and one physician.
Appellant had sufficient notice that he was being accused of the crime of rape committed on the victim who “was not in full possession of her normal reasoning faculty”, as the condition of victim’s mental retardation was specifically alleged in the Information. Appellant knew at the very outset that he was being charged with rape of a mental retardate, but it is noteworthy that he never rebutted the prosecution’s evidence with respect to AAA’s mental state. In fact, he testified that he knew AAA prior to the alleged commission of the crime and he had lived with AAA and the latter’s family for some time. At such, it is reasonable to believe that he was aware of AAA’s mental condition when he repeatedly ravished her since AAA was hardly a stranger to him, and may even have used such impaired mental condition to succeed in his bestial desires upon her person.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, We accord credence on the trial court’s appreciation of the facts and concomitant finding that AAA was a mental retardate because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude during trial. From its vantage point, the trial court is in the best position to determine the truthfulness and credibility of witnesses.[30]
The fact of rape has also been proven beyond reasonable doubt. AAA’s testimony on how appellant raped her, despite the expected difficulty in conveying the accurate details of which as to exact time and place, is credible enough to convince this Court of the commission of the crime by appellant. In People v. Caoli[31] citing People v. Castillo, the Supreme Court in recognizing the competence and credibility of mentally retarded rape victims, ruled that:
It bears emphasis that the competence and credibility of mentally deficient rape victims as witnesses have been upheld by this Court where it is shown that they can communicate their ordeal capably and consistently. Rather than undermine the gravity of the complainant’s accusations, it even lends greater credence to her testimony, that, someone as feeble-minded and guileless could speak so tenaciously and explicitly on the details of the rape if she has not in fact suffered such crime at the hands of the accused. Moreover, it is settled that when a woman says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that she has been raped and her testimony alone is sufficient if it satisfies the exacting standard of credibility needed to convict the accused.
AAA’s testimony on her ordeal at the hands of the accused-appellant are as follows:
Q: Do you now Jessie Canque? A: Yes Q: Why do you know him? A: He often goes to our house. Q: Were there instances that Jessie Canque sleep in your house? A: Yes and he molested me. Q: What do you mean by “he molested me”? A: He first took my clothes, my bra, short pants and panty and he inserted his penis to my vagina. Q: Where did this happen? A: In our house. Q: What else did he do to you? A: He squeezed my breast. Q: And then what else? A: And then he struck my head using a wood. Q: How many times did he do this inserting of his penis to your vagina? A: Several times. Q: Is it not on different days? A: Yes, and he often slap my face. Q: When he finished inserting his penis to your vagina, what did he do? A: He made a push and pull movement and squeezed my breast. Q: What else? A: He slapped my face, he struck my head using a wood. Q: What else? A: He grabbed my hair. Q: What else? A: He dragged me to the dirty kitchen and twists (sic) my arm. Q: What else? A: He boxed my back many times. Q: What else did he do to you? A: He bit me many times. Q: What else? A: He brought with him a bolo and he poke the tip of the bolo to my vagina. Q: What else did he do to you? A: He threatened to kill me if I will tell somebody about what he did to me. Q: You mentioned that this happened many times or different times? A: Yes. Q: Could you still remember when was the first time that Jessie Canque inserted his penis into your vagina? A: Yes. Q: When was that? A: In 2007. xxx Q: Now, you mentioned here in your affidavit in No. 6 of your affidavit in your answer, which says and I quote: “Pagkahuman niya ug kiyo kiyo sa ako, iya dayon gipang haplas sa akoa and hugaw.” What do you mean by this? A: The sperm. Q: What did he do with the sperm? A: He spread on my body. Q: Where specifically to your body? A: On my breast. Q: Now, you also mentioned here in your No. 4 statement and I quote: “gisupsup niya ang akong totoy ug iya akong gihalokan sa akong dagway.” Which in English translation means: “He sucked my breast and kissed my face.” A: Yes. Q: May I continue. “And after that he inserted his penis to my vagina.” A: Yes, and it is painful. Q: Why, what did he do to you? A: He inserted his finger to my vagina. Q: How many fingers? A: Only one finger, the fore finger. Q: Where is Jessie Canque now? A: He is there. “Witness pointing her back and pointed to a person.” Q: There are two of them, where is he? A: The one seating left side fronting the Court. “And when asked of his name answered as Jessie Canque?[32]
AAA’s candid, detailed and firm testimony on how appellant molested her deserves full credence, as the trial court so accorded and cannot prevail over the appellant’s claim that no penetration sufficient to consummate sexual intercourse occurred. Considering further AAA’s mental state of a 4-5 year old child, it can reasonably be assumed that AAA was unfamiliar with and naive in sexual conduct that it was quite unbelievable for her to imagine or fabricate such a sordid story of physical violation and of personal defloration.[33]
Moreover, AAA’s testimony is corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Watamama which revealed that AAA had healed hymenal laceration at 6 o’clock position at the time of examination. When the victim’s testimony is corroborated by the physician’s finding of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of essential requisites of carnal knowledge.[34] It is well-settled that rape can be established by the sole testimony of the victim that is credible and untainted with serious uncertainty, and a fortiori, when the medical findings supported the testimony of the victim.[35]
Defense of alibi cannot prosper
Appellant’s defense of alibi is bereft of merit.
Time and again, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that alibi is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to fabricate and difficult to prove, and therefor cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the witnesses.[36] To be given merit, the accused must adduce clear and convincing evidence that he was in a place other than situs criminis at the time the crime was committed, such that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed.[37] In People v. Espinosa,[38] the Supreme Court in disregarding the accused’s defense of alibi, held that:
For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must establish with clear and convincing evidence not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. Aside from his testimony, the appellant never presented any other evidence to prove that he was not at the scene of the crime at the time the rape took place. He did not present any other witness, let alone his wife, whom he claimed was with him when they went back to Cavite, to bolster his stance that he went home that same night sometime in August 1996. Weak as it is, alibi becomes all the more ineffectual when the accused fails to demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time it was committed. [Emphasis Supplied]
In the case at bar, it was not physically impossible for appellant to be in the crime scene and commit his sexual assault upon the person of AAA, considering that the distance between Cagayan de Oro City where he allegedly stayed and slept on 1 August 2007 and Claveria where AAA was molested is only about 47 kilometers, and can be travelled by land within approximately a span of 30-45 minutes. Inasmuch as appellant was not able to support his defense of alibi with any clear and convincing proof that it was physically impossible for him to commit the crime charged, the same can be easily dismissed as self-serving.
Denial and alibi constitute self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of a credible witness.[39] Thus, despite appellant’s defense of alibi and denial, his guilt for the rape of AAA would not be reversed in the face of AAA’s unwavering testimony and of her positive identification of him as the person who molested her. Having failed to discharge the burden of proving his defense of alibi, this Court is constrained to affirm appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the Decision dated 31 January 2011 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Camello, J., Ch., and Inting, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 32-42.
[2] People v. Tubat, G.R. No. 183093. February 1, 2012. In People v. Cabalquinto (G.R. No. 167693, 19 September 2006, 502 SCRA 419), the real name and the personal circumstances of the victim, and any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity, including those of her immediate family or household members were withheld in order to maintain the confidentiality of information on child abuse cases, and consistent with the application of: (1) the provisions of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) and its implementing rules; (2) Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004) and its implementing rules; and (3) this Court’s Resolution dated 19 October 2004 in A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC (Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children).
[3] Records, pp. 3-4.
[4] Rollo, pp. 32-33.
[5] TSN, 20 October 2008, pp. 40-44.
[6] TSN, 20 October 2008, pp. 42, 46-47.
[7] TSN, 11 August 2008, pp. 5-7.
[8] TSN, 11 August 2008, pp. 8-9; pp. 20-21.
[9] TSN, 11 August 2008, pp. 11-13.
[10] TSN, 8 September 2008, pp. 29, 33.
[11] TSN, 8 September 2008, p. 30.
[12] TSN, 8 September 2008, p. 31, 34.
[13] Records, pp. 101-102.
[14] TSN, 4 November 2008, pp. 56-57.
[15] TSN, 2 August 2010, pp. 85-87.
[16] TSN, 2 August 2010, pp. 78-82.
[17] TSN, 2 August 2010, p. 100.
[18] TSN, 2 August 2010, p. 84.
[19] TSN, 2 August 2010, p. 96.
[20] TSN, 2 August 2010, p. 91.
[21] TSN, 3 February 2009, pp. 63-65.
[22] TSN, 3 February 2009, pp. 66-71.
[23] TSN, 20 January 2010, pp. 79-84.
[24] People v. Dalandas, G.R. No. 140209, 27 December 2002. – Mental retardation is a chronic condition present from birth or early childhood and characterized by impaired intellectual functioning measured by standardized tests. It manifests itself in impaired adaptation to the daily demands of the individual’s own social environment. Commonly, a mental retardate exhibits a slow rate of maturation, physical and/or psychological, as well as impaired learning capacity.
[25] People v. Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, 19 October 2011.
[26] Records, pp. 101-102.
[27] TSN, 4 November 2008, p. 56.
[28] TSN, 8 September 2008, p. 34.
[29] Records, p. 99.
[30] People v. Pareja y Cruz, G.R. No. 202122, 15 January 2014.
[31] G.R. No. 203041, 5 June 2013.
[32] TSN, 20 October 2008, pp. 40-43.
[33] People v. Macaya, G.R. Nos. 137185-86, 15 February 2001.
[34] People v. Estoya y Mateo, G.R. No. 200531, 5 December 2012.
[35] Supra note 25.
[36] People v. Castro, G.R. No. 187073, 14 March 2012.
[37] People v. Laurino, G.R. No. 199264, 24 October 2012.
[38] G.R. Nos. 153714-20. August 15, 2003.
[39] People v. Vergara y Clavero, G.R. No. 199226, 15 January 2014.