PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALFREDO HANGAD, ALLAN ALULOD, RENE REYES, LEOPOLDO BALANGUE AND RODELIO VIDAL, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

Accused appealed from the decision of Branch 50 of the Regional
Trial Court of Palawan in Criminal Case No. 8816, promulgated on 8 August 1991,^[1]
finding all of them guilty of the
murder of Decoroso Cajes in the evening of 14 November 1989 at Parola Beach in
the city of Puerto Princesa, and sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua and to pay, jointly
and severally, the heirs of Decoroso Cajes the sums of P50,000.00 as indemnity
for his death and P50,000.00 as moral damages.

The crime was allegedly committed on 14 November 1989 but the
Information charging them of murder was filed only on 28 June 1990.^[2]
The basis of the filing of the Information were the sworn statements of
witnesses Lloyd Mahinay and Ernesto Rosales taken by Police Sgt. Crisanto
Pantollano on 26 February 1990^[3] and
the paraffin test results finding Lloyd Mahinay and the accused positive for
nitrates.^[4]
The Information alleges the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident
premeditation.

A plea of guilty was entered by each of the accused during their
arraignment on 25 September 1990.^[5]
Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

To establish its case, the prosecution presented Lloyd Mahinay
and Ramon Pangilinan whose testimonies disclosed the following facts:

At 10:00 o’clock in the evening of 14 November 1989 while Lloyd
Mahinay, a resident of Parola Beach, Barangay Bagong Silang, Puerto Princesa
City, was on his way home, he met a group of five persons. One of them poked a gun at him and asked him
his name while the other four surrounded him. He did not know the name of the gunwielder but he could see his face and
estimate his height as the place was “not so dark because there was also
moonlight.” Then another person arrived and when he was about five meters
away from Lloyd, three members of the group met this other person. Two of these three men held the newcomer
while the third poked a gun at him. He
tried to struggle and one of the five persons shouted “Paputukan mo.”
Another person from the group raised his hand and struck the man and the latter
fell to the ground. The man was then shot. At this juncture, Lloyd tried to wrestle
with the person who was pointing a gun at him but the gun fired towards the
ground and the five panicked and ran away. Lloyd also panicked and ran towards the water and then to the place
where his companions were. He told them that he was waylaid by a group
of five men. He and his companions then
returned to the place where he was waylaid to find out what happened to the
other person. When Lloyd and his
companions reached that place, they found the other person lying on the
ground. He turned out to be his
co-worker, Decoroso Cajes, whose voice Lloyd earlier
recognized when Decoroso was held by the two men and he purportedly asked those
who escorted him, “Ano ba ito, wala naman akong kasalanan sa
inyo?” They then brought
Decoroso to the hospital and laid him down on a bed, but the doctor who
examined him told them that he was already dead.^[6]

Per the Post-Mortem Findings^[7] of
Dr. Manuel R. Bilog, Assistant Head Health Officer of the City of Puerto
Princesa, Decoroso Cajes sustained the following injuries:

“= Abrasion with peripheral hematoma, upper lid
(left) about 1” long, penetrated the whole thickness of the muscular
tissues

= Gun Shot wound — mid occiput, with powder
burns, circular, with penetration to the Cranium (skull) producing worn-out
brain tissues. Bullet slug lodged &
recovered about 2″ below the wound of entrance underneath the skin.”

The cause of death was “shock; hemorrhage,
massive, intra and extra-cerebral; gunshot wound.”

Lloyd did not know the names of the five persons until 9 October
1990 when he testified; but since he stated that he can recognize their faces, he was asked to identify them in
court. So, he went down from the
witness box and approached and tapped the shoulder of a person in the courtroom
who gave his name as Leopoldo Balangue. Lloyd identified Balangue as the person who poked a gun at him.^[8]
He also pointed to four other persons in the courtroom as the companions of
Balangue. They gave their names as Rene
Reyes, Rodelio Vidal, Alfredo Hangad and Allan Alulod. When told to point to the person who
allegedly shot Decoroso Cajes, Lloyd touched the shoulder of Rodelio Vidal.^[9]

Ramon Pangilinan, a security guard, testified that at about 10:00
o’clock in the evening of 14 November 1989, while he was at his store near the
Parola Beach, he heard “some voices in the cottage at the beach.” At
10:30 o’clock, he saw a group of about four persons going out of the Parola
Beach toward the poblacion. Not so long thereafter, the group of Decoroso
Cajes followed the first group. Then he
heard “a burst of a firearm,” but he did not mind it. Later, a commotion occurred and he learned
that Decoroso had been shot. That same
evening he was interrogated by the police regarding the incident and he told
the police that he “saw them (the first group) going out the parola
beach”^[10] but he could not identify any of them.^[11]

The defense presented a totally different account of what
occurred on the night of the incident. The trial court summarized the version of the defense as culled from its
witnesses as follows:

“x x x the accused who are all students of PNAC-RIFT denied
the accusation against them and maintained that at the time of the incident in
question, they were all sleeping at the cottage of a certain Mrs. Abian whose
son Eugene was their classmate at PNAC-RIFT, Puerto Princesa City.

Thus, at around three o’clock in the afternoon on November 14,
1989, Rene Reyes and some of his classmates, including all the accused, went to
the house of Eugene Abian at the Parola
Beach to help the latter and his mother in cooking since it was the birthday of
Eugene. Two hours later, some more
guests arrived and the birthday party started. After partaking of the food, the guests were served beer and the
drinking spree started at around 7:00 p.m. Beer flowed that night up to about 9:00 p.m. when Rene and his
classmates decided to rest already as they were very tired. Upon the suggestion of Mrs. Abian, they all
slept and spent the night at the latter’s cottage at the Parola Beach.

At around 12:00 midnight, Rene was awakened by one of his
classmates so that they could bring Eugene to the hospital as the latter’s
mouth was frothing. Together with Allan
Ramos, Ramon Aballa and the driver of the tricycle, Rene brought Eugene to the
hospital. On their way to the hospital
from the Parola Beach, they noticed a person sprawled on the ground along the
road. But since they were in a hurry to
bring Eugene to the hospital, they just evaded the said person. After having Eugene
treated at the hospital, Rene and company proceeded home. (Testimony of Rene Reyes, Tsn: pp. 3-8, Oct.
22, 1990).

Lito Montero, a neighbor of Eugene Abian was the one who drove the
tricycle that brought the latter to the hospital. He said they indeed noticed the person sprawled on the ground in
the middle of the road about 90 to 100 meters away from the Parola Beach, but
they just evaded him. (Testimony of
Rene Reyes, Tsn: pp. 2-7, Oct. 23, 1990). He added that he did not hear any sound of a gunfire on the night of
November 14, 1989 as he was then sleeping and was only awakened in order to
drive the tricycle.

Accused Rodelio Vidal, Allan Alulod and Leopoldo Balangue likewise
testified in Court and corroborated substantially the testimony of accused Rene
Reyes. (Testimony of Rodelio Vidal,
Allan Alulod and Leopoldo Balangue, Tsn: pp. 4-23, October 26, 1990) Accused
Alfredo Hangad likewise corroborated substantially the testimonies of all his
co?accused in the instant case. He further testified that during the said party, he and his companions
exploded firecrackers. Moreover, in the
afternoon of November 14, 1989 before going to Eugene’s place at Parola Beach,
he and his classmates were made to scatter fertilizer in the fishpond by the
use of their hands. (Testimony of Alfredo Hangad, Tsn: pp. 4-14,
November 7, 1990).

Dr. Manuel Bilog who conducted the autopsy on the deceased Decoroso
Cajes, also testified on his autopsy report and as to the trajectory of the
bullet. (Testimony of Dr. Manuel Bilog,
Tsn: pp. 26-28, Nov. 7, 1990).

The forensic chemist of the National Bureau of Investigation Aida
Viloria-Magsipoc was the one who conducted the paraffin examination on all the
accused and witness Lloyd Mahinay. The
former presented in Court copies of her Chemistry Reports finding all the
accused and prosecution witness Lloyd Mahinay positive for gunpowder nitrates. (Testimony of Aida Viloria-Magsipoc, Tsn:
pp. 2-21, Feb. 5, 1991).”^[12]

The trial court believed that the prosecution’s lone eyewitness,
Lloyd Mahinay, had positively identified those who attacked him and assaulted
and killed Decoroso Cajes. It also
found that the findings of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) not only
sufficiently corroborated Mahinay’s identification of the accused, they also
“furnished concrete evidence that all the 5 accused were together at the
time the victim was shot and killed in the evening of November 14, 1989 at
Barangay Bagong Silang, Puerto Princesa City.”^[13]
Treachery, the trial court further
ruled, attended the killing because the victim was “unarmed” and was
“suddenly and unexpectedly attacked.” In addition, it found that
conspiracy existed among the accused who “were animated by a joint purpose
or design, concerted act and community of interest,” and at the same time
it noted that they “were boisterous and most likely under the influence of
liquor having come from a birthday party with 2 of them armed with handguns
[and] were disposed to commit trouble on that particular evening in
question. x x x [T]hey accosted for no
apparent reason any person they first met on the way.”^[14] The generic aggravating circumstances of
abuse of superior strength and nighttime were considered against the accused
but they were credited with the alternative circumstance of intoxication which
was deemed not habitual.^[15]

On the other hand, the trial court rejected the accused’s version
of the incident because having been positively identified, their defense of
alibi fails. Moreover, they were unable
to give a plausible explanation for the presence of gunpowder nitrates on their
hands. Considering the testimony of the
NBI chemist that nitrates from gunpowder are different from nitrates produced
by firecrackers and fertilizers,^[16]
their claim that they handled fertilizers before the party and lighted
firecrackers in the evening of the incident cannot be given any weight.

In their Notice of Appeal^[17] filed
on 3 September 1991, after their motion for reconsideration was denied by the
trial court in its Order of 30 August 1991,^[18] the
accused informed the court that they were appealing the decision to the Court
of Appeals. The records of the case
were, however, forwarded to this Court in view of the penalty imposed. We accepted the appeal in the Resolution of
3 February 1992.

In their Appellants’ Brief filed on 20 November 1992, the accused
contend that the trial court erred in: (a)
convicting them despite the failure of the prosecution to present the quantum
of evidence required by the Constitution to secure a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt; (b) interpreting the testimony of the NBI chemist regarding
the presence of nitrates as conclusive evidence; (c) giving credence to the
lone testimony of the single prosecution witness which was self-serving,
biased, and gutted by doubt-inducing inconsistencies; and (d) interpreting the
true but legally considered weak defense of alibi as an absolute principle — even in the absence of sufficient
prosecution evidence.^[19]

The accused maintain that the evidence of the prosecution was not
sufficient to convict them. To them,
the positive identification made by the prosecution’s lone eyewitness is
questionable for it followed the “almost ritualistic procedure where the
prosecution witnesses are simply made to point out the accused on the basis of
a simple ‘if I see him I can identify him
declaration,’ and which accused are required to sit on an area conspicuously
reserved for them where they can be easily tagged.” They likened this
procedure to a mock police line-up. Moreover, they characterize the testimony of Lloyd Mahinay as
self-serving and biased. His error in
positively identifying in court the person who allegedly poked a gun at him and
his initial failure to recognize his co-worker, Decoroso Cajes, even while he
was able to identify the accused with certainty exemplify the doubt surrounding
Lloyd’s ability to positively identify the real killer or killers.

They further contend that “while the NBI chemist was
presented as an expert in her field of expertise, she is by no means an expert
of renown whose probity is beyond question.” Her testimony concerning
specks and smudges of nitrates on their hands was ambiguous. They argue that if Rodelio Vidal was indeed
the gunman who shot and killed Decoroso Cajes, he should have had more smudges
on his hands than Lloyd Mahinay, which was not the case. The official reports themselves do not make
a categorical finding that the nitrates came from gunpowder but only state that
the subjects were positive of nitrates.

Finally, they stress that the weakness of the defense of alibi
does not relieve the prosecution of its burden of proving their guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. Where the prosecution’s evidence
is weak, the alibi of the defendant assumes importance.

The determination of the accused’s guilt or innocence in this
case hinges on the credibility of the prosecution’s lone eyewitness, Lloyd
Mahinay.

It is a settled doctrine that when the issue of credibility of
witnesses is involved, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings
of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to
decide the question since it had heard the witnesses and observed their
deportment and manner of testifying during trial, unless certain facts or
circumstances of weight have been overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied
which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.^[20]

We have likewise consistently held that the testimony of a single
witness, when credible and trustworthy, is sufficient to convict.^[21]

Our painstaking examination of the records and evaluation of the
evidence leads us to no other conclusion than that the trial court overlooked
or failed to appreciate vital facts and circumstances which cast doubt on the
identification by Lloyd Mahinay of the
accused as the murderers of Decoroso Cajes.

Firstly, Lloyd admitted that the place was not well-lit and that,
although there was light coming from the moon, he could not recognize his
co-worker, Decoroso Cajes, the victim, whom he claimed was only five meters away. Thus:

“Q How far was the deceased from you when he was
first accosted by the 3 other persons?

A   More or less this distance. (Witness pointing to the place he is sitting
to the post which the parties estimated to be about 5 meters away).

Q  From 5 meters away you could not recognize the
deceased who was working with you in the same place for one year that is why you recognized him only through
his voice?

A   Yes, sir.

Q  Why
could you not recognize a person you have known for one year because you have
worked together in the distance of 5 meters?

ATTY. ROCAMORA:

May we make it of record that the question
has been interpreted by the Honorable Court several times and witness has not
answered the same.

A   Because with that distance without the light
you cannot readily recognize the person but if a person is near you can identify.

Q  You mean to tell the Honorable Court that
despite the fact that you said the moon was very bright you cannot recognize a
person you have known for one year from 5 meters away, is that what you want
the court to believe?

A   I cannot, sir.”^[22]

There is no
evidence that Decoroso Cajes moved closer than five meters from Lloyd and vice-versa. If he could not
identify his co-worker at a distance of five meters except through the latter’s
voice, then indeed the place was poorly lit, in which case Lloyd could not
reasonably be expected to see a gun much smaller than Decoroso, being poked and
then fired at the latter. Moreover,
considering that Lloyd himself was attacked and assaulted with one person
holding him and another poking a gun at him, his attention would be focused at
that time on his two attackers and on his own safety and survival. What is more logical under the circumstances
is that since, as he claimed, he
heard the sound of a gunshot and he was
aware that Decoroso died from a gunshot wound, he merely inferred that there
was a gun and that it was fired at Decoroso.

Secondly, if indeed Lloyd was able to recognize the faces of the
accused, it is highly unlikely that he would make a mistake in identifying the
person who purportedly pointed a gun at him and from whom he tried to wrestle
it. Yet, we note that on direct
examination, he tapped the shoulder of the accused Leopoldo Balangue
to confirm to the court that Balangue was the person in question, but on
cross-examination, he pointed to accused Alfredo Hangad as the person who
pointed the gun at him. Thus, on cross-examination:

“Q Who among the 5 accused you identified were the
ones who held you?

A   This is the one who held me, at the other
side, (pointing to the person who gave his name as Allan Alulod) and this
person is the one who was holding the
gun (witness pointing to the person who gave his name as Alfredo Hanged when
asked).”^[23]

No attempt was made by the prosecution to
reconcile Lloyd’s conflicting testimony on this very vital point. He did not say that he inadvertently tapped
Leopoldo Balangue on the shoulder during the direct examination or that he
erred in pointing at Vidal. It was the
trial court which opined in its decision that Lloyd “later corrected
himself and pointed to Alfredo Hangad.”^[24] To
us, it is not a simple case of correction. The tapping of Leopoldo Balangue expressed a thousand words of
certainty, bordering on infallibility, that no one else except Leopoldo poked a
gun at him. If subsequently, Lloyd
knowingly changed his testimony without even giving the courtesy of an
explanation, his alleged positive identification of the person who poked the
gun at him is placed in serious doubt, nay, altogether discredited. The inevitable conclusion is that he was in
fact unable to recognize the man either by face or by name and that his
dramatic courtroom identification was contrived.

Thirdly, his testimony given in court on 9 October 1990 that he
did not know the names of the accused until that day is inconsistent with his sworn statement taken on 26 February
1990,^[25]
where he solemnly admitted that he learned their names when they were taken to
the NBI. Thus:

“06.-T:  Nakilala mo ba kung
sino-sino and mga taong nakaaway ninyo ng mga sandaling iyon?

S:  Noong una po ay nakikilala
ko lang sila sa kanilang taas at pangangatawan ngunit ng sila ay
damputin ng mga Pulis at dalhin sa NBI ay nakilala ko sila na
sina Allan Alulod, Alfredo Hangad, Rodelio Vidal, Rene Reyes at
Leopoldo
Balangue.”

We also wish to
point out that in that same statement of Lloyd, the name Alfredo Hangad
is written in ball pen in bold letters over the typewritten name Noel Hernandez,
and the name Rene Reyes is written also in ball pen in bold
letters over the typewritten name Renato Balangue. Since the sworn statement is supposed to be
that of Lloyd Mahinay, they should have been initialed by him to show that he either made or authorized the
superimpositions on those very substantive matters, viz., the names of two of
the assailants. But both
superimpositions are not initialed by any person. These unexplained superimpositions cast a heavy toll on the
truthfulness of Lloyd Mahinay’s testimony. They even strongly suggest that it was the investigator himself who
provided the names of the alleged assailants and fed them to the mouth of Lloyd
and thereafter “corrected” the two names on the statement to conform
to the paraffin test results of Alfredo Hangad and Rene Reyes.

Furthermore, it is obvious to us that Lloyd Mahinay had a motive
to point to any of the accused as the gunman. He himself was a primary suspect because he was found positive for
nitrates. To him, it became a
matter of survival. His answers on cross-examination on this point are revealing:

“Q And it took you 3 months to give your statement
to the police regarding this alleged incident?

A   Yes, sir.

Q  And you gave your statement to the police
because you wanted to explain why powder burns were found in your hands, is that correct, Mr. Witness?

A   Yes, sir.

Q  That is why in the statement you specifically
explained why you got powder burns in
your hands?

A   Yes, sir.

Q  But during the month of November you did not
go to the police and have your statement taken, Mr. Witness?

A   I did not, sir.

Q  During the month of December you did not go to
the police and have your statement taken?

A   No, sir.

Q  During
the month of January you did not go to the police to have your statement taken?

A   I did not, sir.

Q  It
was only in February after the report on the paraffin test showed that you have
a lot of powder burns in both hands that you went to the police to have your
statement taken?

A   Yes, sir.”^[26]

According to the findings of defense witness Aida Viloria­-Magsipoc,
Supervising Forensic Chemist in the Forensic Chemistry Section of the NBI, the
paraffin tests of the left and right hands of Lloyd Mahinay showed that he was
also positive for nitrates with specks located as follows:

“LEFT HAND:

1. One (1) speck, proximal third, first
metacarpal;

2. One (1) speck, middle third, third
metacarpal;

3. One (1) speck, proximal third, third
metacarpal.

RIGHT HAND:

1. One (1) speck, middle third, distal
phalange, thumb;

2. One (1) speck, distal third,
proximal phalange, thumb;

3. One (1) speck, middle third,
proximal phalange, thumb;

4. One (1) speck, distal third, first
metacarpal;

5. One (1) speck, distal third, second
metacarpal;

6. One (1) speck, distal third,
proximal phalange, index finger;

7. One (1) speck, distal third, third
metacarpal.”^[27]

and that the nitrates so found are from
gunpowder.^[28]
She further declared that based on the number of nitrates specks and their distribution on the hands of the
subjects, Lloyd Mahinay had “the greater possibility of firing the
firearm” than accused Rene Reyes,^[29] Allan Alulod,^[30] Leopoldo Balangue,^[31] Rodelio Vidal^[32] and Alfredo Hangad.^[33] As testified by Lloyd Mahinay, he grappled for
the possession of the gun pointed at him by one of the five persons who waylaid
him, and that in the process a shot was fired therefrom toward the ground. It is not clear who pulled the trigger since
there is neither an admission nor a denial from Lloyd that he did but
definitely there was such a shot fired from the gun as admitted by Lloyd
himself and confirmed by the result of the paraffin test on him.

That the evidence clearly indicate that the gun Lloyd grappled
for was fired is crucial to us in the further assessment of the reliability of
Lloyd’s testimony. He testified that it
was Rodelio Vidal who shot Decoroso Cajes and that two shots from two different
guns, one which was poked at him and the other poked at Decoroso, were actually
fired. As earlier adverted to, however,
prosecution witness Ramon Pangilinan testified that two groups of persons
passed by near his store at Parola Beach going toward the poblacion, and that not so long after he “heard a burst of a firearm.”^[34] From this testimony, it is apparent that
only one burst of gunfire or one shot was fired from a gun. If we are to give credence to the testimony
of Lloyd Mahinay, this shot could be the one fired from the gun poked at him when he allegedly grappled for
its possession. And since we seriously
doubt that Lloyd actually saw Vidal
fire the gun at Decoroso Cajes, the only scenario that opens itself to us or
which we could reasonably reconstruct is that Lloyd himself was with that group
that Ramon Pangilinan referred to as the group of Decoroso Cajes and a confrontation took place between
Decoroso’s group and the other, unidentified group in this way —
someone from the latter confronted Lloyd with a gun; a rumble ensued thereafter
between the two groups; there was a mad scramble for the possession of the firearm; Decoroso was hit by one
from the other group and fell to the ground; and at that particular instance,
any of the protagonists for the possession of the firearm must have
accidentally pulled the trigger and off went one bullet which hit Decoroso; all
panicked and ran away.

If there was murder in the hearts of any of the accused, assuming
that they did compose the other group, we find it hard to believe that Lloyd
was not shot at but was just asked for his name when he was the first one to be
waylaid, held by one and poked with a gun by another. The trial court did surmise or speculate on why the killing of
Decoroso happened:

“As the Court appreciates the evidence, the Court can only
surmised [sic] that the unfortunate incident happened by reason of youthful
exuberance. The 5 accused mostly in
their late teens and another in his early twenties were students and definitely
do not belong to the bad elements in town. Their attendance in the birthday celebration of their co-student where
food and drinks flowed freely and made some or all of them affected by
alcohol. In their youthful zest for
thrill and excitement and uninhibited by alcohol, they set out to try and prove
their manly ego around as they were with 2 handguns.”

Conviction, however, cannot lie on mere
surmises or speculation.

All told, the guilt of the accused has not been proven beyond
reasonable doubt. Our minds cannot rest
easy upon a conviction of the accused on the basis of the doubtful testimony of
the lone eyewitness, Lloyd Mahinay.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of Branch 50 of the
Regional Trial Court of Palawan in Criminal Case No. 8816 is REVERSED and the
accused-appellants ALFREDO HANGAD, ALLAN ALULOD, RENE REYES, LEOPOLDO BALANGUE
and RODELIO VIDAL are ACQUITTED with costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Bellosillo,
and Quiason, JJ., concur.

Griño-Aquino, J., on official
leave.

---

^[1]
Original Records (OR), 167-175; Rollo, 16-24. Per Judge Angel R. Miclat.

^[2]
OR, 1.

^[3]
OR, 2-3.

^[4]
Id., 15-20-a.

^[5]
Id., 25.

^[6]
TSN, 9 October 1990, 6-8; 11-21.

^[7]
Exhibit “A”; OR, 46.

^[8]
TSN, 9 October 1990, 9-10.

^[9]
Id., 14.

^[10]
TSN, 15 October 1990, 5-6.

^[11]
Id., 10.

^[12]
OR, 168-169; Rollo, 17-18.

^[13]
Id., 172; Id., 21.

^[14]
OR, 170-171; Rollo, 20-21.

^[15]
Id., 175; Id., 24.

^[16]
Id., 173; Id., 22.

^[17]
OR, 225.

^[18]
Id., 223.

^[19]
Rollo, 65.

^[20]
See People vs. Pascual, 208
SCRA 393 [1992]; People vs. Simon, 209 SCRA 148 [1992]; People vs.
Florida 214 SCRA 227 [1992]; People vs. Matrimonio, 215 SCRA 613 [1992].

^[21]
See People vs. Lee, 204 SCRA 900 [1991]; People vs. Dela Cruz, 207 SCRA
632 [1992]; People vs. Francisco, 213 SCRA 746 [1992].

^[22]
TSN, 9 October 1990, 31-32.

^[23]
TSN, 9 October 1990, 44-45.

^[24]
OR, 168.

^[25]
Marked as Exhibit “C” and also as Exhibit “2.” This
document is typewritten and was subscribed and sworn to on 26 February 1990
before Assistant City Prosecutor Nelia Yap?Fernandez of Puerto Princesa
City; OR, 2.

^[26]
TSN, 9 October 1990, 28-29.

^[27]
Exhibit “3”-Hangad; Exhibit “6”-all accused; OR, 15.

^[28]
TSN, 5 February 1991, 9-10.

^[29]
Id., 15-16.

^[30]
Id., 17-18.

^[31]
Id., 19-20.

^[32]
Id., 21.

^[33]
Id., 24.

^[34]
TSN, 15 October 1990, 3-4.