G.R. No. 105378. June 27, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDGAR SADANG, ARNULFO SAYO, AND LEODIGARIO ESPINAR, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
KAPUNAN, J.:
Before us is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Laoag City, Branch 15, in Criminal Case No. 4697-15 for robbery with
rape.
On October 20, 1989, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Laoag
City filed an information against Edgar Sadang, Arnulfo Sayo, Leodigario
Espinar and Joel Maligsay accusing them of the crime of robbery with rape,
defined and penalized under paragraph 2 of
Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The indictment reads:
“That on or about September 28, 1989, at night time, in Bgy.
14, Bacarra, locos Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, all the above-named accused conspiring, confederating and
mutually helping one another, then armed with deadly weapons, to wit: two short firearms, one hand grenade and one
balisong knife, with intent of gain and by means of violence and intimidation,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry
away the following properties belonging to and owned by EUGENIA GALAPON,
MARILYN FERMINA GALAPON, LUCIA GALAPON and DOMINADOR ACOB, to wit:
1. Seven (7) earrings valued at P10,000.00;
2. Two (2) pairs of earrings valued at
P3,000.00;
3. Two (2) wristwatches, timex and citizen valued at P5,000.00;
4. One (1) camera valued at P3,000.00;
5. One (1) set Betamax with rewinder valued at P10,000.00;
6. One (1) imported textile valued at P400.00;
7. One (1) unit imported chainsaw valued at P10,000.00;
8. Cash, Philippine currency amounting to P3,000.00;
9. Old coins amounting to P5.00;
10. Assorted jewelries (sic) belonging to Lucia Galapon valued at
P15,000.00;
11. One (1) cal. 30 smith and wesson valued at P8,000.00;
12. One (1) cal. 45 colt pistol valued at P15,000.00;
13. One (1) nike bag valued at P400.00.
and with a total amount and value of ONE
HUNDRED TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FIVE PESOS (P102,805.00), Philippine
currency, to the damage and prejudice of said Eugenia Galapon, Marilyn Fermina
Galapon, Dominador Acob and Lucia Galapon to the aforesaid sum of P102,805.00;
and, that during and on the occasion of the robbery, the accused EDGAR SADANG
and ARNULFO SAYO with the employment of force and intimidation took turns in
forcibly having sexual intercourse with MARILYN FERMINA GALAPON against the latter’s
will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.“[1]
On October 31, 1989, appellants Edgar Sadang, Arnulfo Sayo, and
Leodigario Espinar pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.[2] Subsequently, accused Joel Maligsay
was apprehended, hence, he was accordingly arraigned on June 1, 1990 where he
likewise entered a plea of not guilty.[3]
Thereafter, trial ensued with both parties presenting evidence.
In time, the court a quo rendered judgment, the decretal portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered declaring Edgar
Sadang, Arnulfo Sayo, Leodigario Espinar and Joel Maligsay guilty beyond
reasonable doubt as principals of the crime of robbery with rape penalized by
paragraph 2 of Article 294, in relation to Art. 293, of the Revised Penal Code. They are hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify jointly and severally
Eugenia Galapon, Marilyn Fermina Galapon, Dominador Acob, and Lucia Galapon in
the amount of P92,805.00 representing the value of the unrecovered stolen items. Further, they are also ordered to indemnify
jointly and severally Marilyn Fermina Galapon, the rape victim, in the amount
of P30,000.00.
Accused Joel Maligsay is sentenced in absentia having escaped from
detention during the trial. Let a standing
warrant be issued for his arrest.
SO ORDERED.“[4]
The relevant antecedents are as follows:
Private complainants Eugenia Galapon, her daughter Marilyn
Fermina Galapon, and the latter’s common-law husband, Dominador Acob, were
caretakers of a house located at Barangay 14, Bacarra, Ilocos Norte.
At around 6:30 in the evening of September 28, 1989 while the
complainants and other members of their family were watching a home movie, four
armed men appeared on their front porch (azotea).[5]
Dominador Acob switched on the porch light and saw a gun pointed at him.[6]
He was told not to be afraid because they were members of the NPA and they just wanted to enter
the house and to eat for they were hungry.[7]
Acob complied with the request, opened the front door[8]
and four men armed with guns, a hand grenade and a knife entered.[9]
Once inside, the four armed men identified in court as the four accused,
searched the house and asked for keys and money.[10] When
they were told that the occupants had no money and that the only key they had
was the key to the gate, Edgar Sadang and Arnulfo Sayo grabbed Eugenia Galapon
and Marilyn Galapon and brought them to the second floor of the house.[11]
Sadang demanded money from Marilyn, threatening to rape her and kill her
common-law husband if she refused.[12] When
she could not give any, she was taken into one of the rooms by Sadang.[13]
There, she was sexually assaulted by Sadang. With a gun pointed at her, he tore open her house dress (duster), ripped
off her panty, forced her to lie down on the bed, went on top of her and had
sexual intercourse with her forcibly, all the while threatening to kill her if
she offered any resistance.[14]
While this abuse was going on, Eugenia, Marilyn’s mother, was made to stand at
the door of the room to witness the rape while she was guarded by Sayo who was
armed with a knife.[15] When
Sadang finished taking advantage of Marilyn, he went out of the room and took
Eugenia away from the door. Sayo, on
the other hand, followed suit and raped Marilyn while threatening to kill her
if she resisted.[16]
Thereafter, Sadang and Sayo brought Marilyn and Eugenia to
another room to look for valuables.[17]
Sadang and Sayo then forcibly opened a wooden trunk (“baul” as is
commonly known in local parlance) and an aparador and took the following items,
viz: (a) assorted jewelry; (b) clothing
materials; (c) a chainsaw; (d) an electric drill; and (e) two guns, all of
which belonged to the family of Lucia Galapon, owner of the house who was
abroad at that time.[18]
Later, Sadang and Sayo brought Eugenia and Marilyn to the
groundfloor where the two other armed men, later identified as Joel Maligsay
and Leodigario Espinar, were guarding Dominador Acob and the rest of the
family.[19]
The four malefactors continued to search the house and took nine pairs of
earrings, a camera, a home video unit (Betamax) with rewinder, two wristwatches and P3,000.00 in
cash, all belonging to Eugenia and Marilyn Galapon and Dominador Acob from a
bodega and a medicine cabinet.[20] They
then assembled the said occupants in the living room and after threatening them
with death if they reported the incident to the police authorities, left the
house at about 11:00 in the evening.[21]
Afraid that the armed men will make good their threat, the
victims did not report the incident to the police.[22]
Neither did Marilyn Galapon, the rape victim, submit herself for medical
examination.[23]
Two weeks later or on October 16, 1989 to be exact, herein
private complainants were asked to go to the Bacarra Police Station to identify
a suspect apprehended by the police.[24] Said
private complainants identified Edgar Sadang as one of the four armed men who
robbed them on September 28, 1989 and as the first robber who raped Marilyn.[25]
Later, they were taken to the PC Headquarters in Camp Juan, Laoag City where
they identified another suspect, Arnulfo Sayo, as one of the armed robbers and
the second robber who raped Marilyn.[26] Said
positive identification was done in the investigation room of the said
headquarters and in the presence of police investigator, PC Sgt. Monico
Dolloog.[27]
Leodigario Espinar was likewise identified as one of the robbers. On May 10, 1990, Joel Maligsay was
apprehended and was later on identified in open court by Eugenia and Marilyn
Galapon.[28]
Subsequently, the police authorities recovered the stolen chain
saw and electric drill from the house of one Petronilo Espejo of San Nicolas,
Ilocos Norte who told police investigators that it was Edgar Sadang who offered
the items to him for sale.[29]
Based on the foregoing, the court a quo rendered the aforequoted judgment of conviction, hence,
the instant appeal.
However, in a resolution dated January 31, 1993, the trial court
resolved to dismiss the appeal of accused-appellant Arnulfo Sayo for failure of
his counsel de parte to file his appeal brief
within the reglementary period.[30]
On February 3, 1993, accused-appellants Edgar Sadang and
Leodigario Espinar filed their joint brief and ascribed to the court below the
following errors, to wit:
“I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING EVIDENTIARY
WEIGHT TO THE INCONSISTENT, UNRELIABLE, UNWORTHY AND INCREDIBLE TESTIMONIES OF
PROSECUTION WITNESSES EUGENIA GALAPON AND MARILYN GALAPON RELATIVE TO THE
IMPUGNED INCIDENT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT DISREGARDING
THE IDENTIFICATION MADE BY THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT EDGAR
SADANG AS ONE OF THE PERPETRATORS OF THE CRIME CHARGED.
III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT
MARILYN GALAPON WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY ACCUSED-APPELLANT EDGAR SADANG
CONSIDERING THAT SHE DID NOT OFFER ANY TENACIOUS RESISTANCE AND THAT SHE FAILED
TO SUBMIT HERSELF FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATION.
IV
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING
EXCULPATORY WEIGHT TO THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI INTERPOSED BY ACCUSED-APPELLANT EDGAR
SADANG CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT HIS IDENTIFICATION WAS HIGHLY DUBITABLE.
V
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS EDGAR SADANG AND LEODIGARIO ESPINAR OF THE CRIME CHARGED
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO HURDLE THE EXACTING TEST OF MORAL CERTAINTY.”[31]
The appeal fails to persuade.
The guilt of the accused-appellants for the crime of robbery with
rape had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
As defined by law, robbery is the taking of personal property
belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of violence against, or
intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything.[32]
In the case at bench, the prosecution has sufficiently established the fact
that herein private complainants were robbed of valuables by four armed men on
that fateful night of September 28, 1989. The testimonies of Marilyn Galapon and Eugenia Galapon are clear on this
point.
Marilyn Fermina Galapon testified on direct examination:
“q Now
after Arnulfo Sayo had already raped you, what transpired next, if any?
a We went out of the room
and they continued to look for valuables inside our house, sir.”
x x x x
x x x
x x
“q Were
they able to take anything inside that room that you mentioned?
a There were, sir.
q What are those items,
if you know?
a Jewelries (sic) of the
owner of the house, chain saw and two guns, sir.
q What else, if any?
a Betamax, rings,
earrings and many more but I can no longer remember the others, sir.
q Who among the two was
ransacking the “baul”?
a Sadang was the one who
ransacked the “baul” and Sayo the aparador, sir.”
x x x x
x x x
x x
“q And after that,
what transpired next?
a We went down, sir.”
x x x x
x x x
x x
“q And what happened
downstairs, if you know?
a They opened our medicine cabinet and there they took nine pairs
of earrings, two watches and no more, sir.”[33]
On cross examination, the same witness testified:
“q x
x x All your aparadors were unlocked, is it not?
a They were locked, sir.
q And how did they open
them?
a They forcibly opened,
sir.
q And in that aparador,
that is where the jewelries (sic) were placed?
a No, sir.
q Where?
a On the wooden trunk,
sir.”
x x x x
x x x
x x
“q So
after ransacking upstairs, they also ransacked downstairs?
a Yes, sir.
q But they did not take
anything downstairs?
a Our money amounting to
P3,000.00, our two (2) watches and jewelries (sic) including one (1) camera and
betamax, sir.”[34]
Corroborating the foregoing testimony, Eugenia Galapon declared
on direct examination:
“q You
stated that Sadang searched your aparador and others, can you recall what items
was taken by him?
a Yes, sir.
q What are those items
that were taken?
a They took jewelries (sic), clothings,
camera, flashlight, Betamax rewinder, chain saw, two watches, and they also
took our money, sir, and P5.00 old coin.”[35]
On cross examination, the same witness testified:
“q Then
these four persons who claimed to be NPAs have to farce you to bring out your
money and jewelries (sic)?
a They just ransacked the
house and got our jewelries (sic) from the medicine cabinet and upstairs,
sir.”[36]
On the fact of rape, Marilyn Fermina Galapon categorically
declared:
“q Now
when you were already inside the middle room as you have stated with respect to
Edgar Sadang, what happened?
a He tore my duster, sir.
q And thereafter, what
transpired?
a He removed my panty and
let me lie down on the bed, sir.
q After x x x he forced
you to lie down on the bed, what transpired next?
a He went on top of me
and fucked me, sir.
q Why did you not cry for
help at that time?
a Because a gun was poked
on the left side of my head, sir.”
x x x x
x x x
x x
“q And
after that, what transpired next, if any?
a His companion followed
in raping me, sir.
q Who?
a Arnulfo Sayo,
sir.”
x x x x
x x x
x x
“q How
did Arnulfo Sayo rape you?
a The same with Edgar
Sadang, he went on top of me and raped me, sir. . . fucked me.
q Why did you not call
for help that time when Arnulfo Sayo was raping you?
a Because he was pointing
his knife on the left side of my head, sir.”
x x x x
x x x
x x
“q Now
after Arnulfo Sayo had already raped you, what transpired next, if any?
a We went out of the room
and they continued to look for valuables inside our house, sir.”[37]
x x x x
x x x
x x
“q Now
despite of that, you did not make any resistance?
a I made resistance but
because the gun was poked on my head and he said he will kill me, sir.”
x x x x
x x x
x x
“q Now
when Edgar Sadang was already on top of you, where was the gun that he used . .
where was the gun Edgar Sadang was holding?
a It was placed on the
bed but he was holding it and pointing the gun at my head, sir.”[38]
Eugenia Galapon who witnessed the said sexual assault as she was
standing at the door of the room while Sadang was raping her daughter testified
on direct examination:
“q You
said that you were at the door of the room where your daughter was raped?
a Yes, Your Honor.”
x x x x
x x x
x x
“q Was
the door open?
a Yes, Your Honor.
FISCAL MANUEL:
“q Kindly
explain before this Honorable Court how Edgar Sadang raped your daughter?
a Edgar Sadang told my
daughter that if she does not follow to his likes she will be killed.
q Why did you not help
your daughter when you have seen that Edgar Sadang is raping her?
a How can I help her if
we will talk they will kill us, sir.
“q Who
told you that?
a Edgar Sadang,
sir.”[39]
On cross examination, the same witness testified:
“q Because
you saw your daughter lay in the bed you presumed that she was raped?
a She was really raped
and I really saw her being raped (inlungat).
q You saw she was being
raped because the fact is that Edgar Sadang is on top of her?
a Yes, sir, he really
went on top of my daughter.”
x x x x
x x x x x
“q You
did not see because the room was very dark at that time, isn’t it?
a No, sir, it was very
bright because I was ashamed to
look of (sic) them of their push and pull position so I moved my face.
q You mean to say that
because you ashame (sic) of their position so you did not see anything?
a I saw him holding a gun
but I cannot remember where was that gun pointed.
q You better answer my
question. My question is because you
(sic) ashame to see your daughter, isn’t that when Sadang was on top of your
daughter, you turned your head because you cannot bear to look your daughter
being raped?
a No, sir, because when
he inserted his penis, I was still looking at them.
q You mean to say that
when his penis was inserted, you saw them?
a I saw them, sir.”
x x x x
x x x
x x
“q What
kind of resistance was your daughter did?
a My daughter resisted
and she even informed Sadang that she has husband but Sadang threatened her to
be killed (sic).[40]
On the crime of rape, appellants insist that the absence of
medical examination, the non-presentation of the victim’s torn panty in court,
and the lack of resistance on the part of the victim, are fatal to the case of
the prosecution.
We do not agree.
The absence of medical findings by a medico-legal officer does
not disprove the commission of rape.[41]
Medical examination is not an indispensable element in the prosecution of rape;[42] neither is the presentation of the victim’s
torn panty fatal to the prosecution’s case.[43] The testimonial evidence adduced on behalf
of the People was sufficient to establish that the crime of rape had indeed
been committed. Furthermore, had
Marilyn subjected herself to medical examination, the same would have been
fruitless. The sexual assault happened
on September 28, 1989 while the identification of the perpetrators was done
only on October 16, 1989, a clear 18-day period after the harrowing incident
occurred. In fact, had there been no
apprehension, the victims would not have complained for fear of their
lives. With respect to the lack of
tenacious resistance on the part of the victim during the rape, it would
suffice to state that the victim was unable to resist because of the threat to
her life. Sadang was armed with a gun
pointed at the victim’s head when he ravished her.[44] Under Article 335, paragraph 1, of the
Revised Penal Code, rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman by
using force or intimidation. Hence,
rape may be committed even if no force is used. Intimidation is sufficient, and this includes the moral kind such
as threatening the victim with a gun or knife.[45] Therefore, when appellant Sadang threatened
the victim herein with a gun during the sexual assault, intimidation was
present constituting his act as rape.
Appellant in trying to cast doubt on prosecution witness Eugenia
Galapon’s credibility alleged the following “inconsistencies” and/or
“improbabilities” in the latter’s testimony, to wit:
(i) Eugenia testified
that her daughter Marilyn was wearing a “black dotted with white”
duster when molested. The apparel was
later presented in court during which, the defense counsel manifested its color
to be blue with green, red, white and pink prints.”[46]
(ii) Eugenia claimed that
she was investigated in the morning of October 16, 1989 albeit her sworn
statement disclosed that she was investigated at about 1:30 in the afternoon of
the same day.[47]
(iii) Eugenia said that
“she was able to recognize Joel Maligsay as one of the intruders because
of the latter’s mole at the right cheek. Joel indeed has a mole but it was
on the left cheek.[48]
(iv) Eugenia averred that
the nearest house from the crime scene was 100 meters to the north and that
there was no house at the eastern side. On ocular inspection, it was noted that there was a house 14 meters to
the east of the crime scene.[49]
(v) Eugenia testified
that she did not see Sayo rape her daughter although in her sworn statement,
she stated that the rape was committed “in front” of her.[50]
(vi) Eugenia claimed that
a gun was poked at her while Marilyn identified the weapon poked at her mother
as nothing but a knife.[51]
(vii) Eugenia failed to
make an outcry while her daughter was being ravished — a circumstance that is
contrary to human nature.[52]
(viii) Eugenia’s
identification of appellants is dubious as such startling occurrence was
sufficient to distort her recollection.[53] And,
(ix) Eugenia and her
family did not report the incident immediately to the authorities because, in truth,
there was nothing to report.[54]
The inconsistencies referred to by the defense as basis to
discredit Eugenia’s testimony are de
minimus which are not sufficient to blur or cast doubt on her
straightforward attestations, and such inconsistencies must rather be viewed as
adding credence and veracity to the spontaneity of her testimony.[55]
The supposedly inconsistent statements given by Eugenia are clearly susceptible
of coagmentation as to what actually transpired that evening.[56]
In the case of People vs. Custodio[57] citing
People vs. Muñoz,[58] this
Court declared that:
“The fact that the witness fails to mention a particular
detail of an incident, especially when testifying on different occasions, does
not per se undermine his credibility. The nature and difference of the proceedings involved and the questions
propounded therein as would or would not succeed in eliciting the details
desired are only some of the factors to be considered. What is controlling is the consistency of
the witness in relating the significant and indispensable components of the
principal occurrence. We have held that
a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses
referring to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the basic
aspects of the whys and wherefores of the crime, do not impair their
credibility.”
The circumstances cited by appellants do not, at all, indicate
fabrication and falsehoods. At best,
they merely reflect the witness’s sincerity, candor, and at times, her
illiteracy. Thus, despite the minor
inconsistencies in Eugenia’s testimony (which we find insignificant and
inconsequential to discuss singly), it is believable on the whole as a coherent
narration of what transpired that evening. Moreover, assuming arguendo that
Eugenia’s version must be disregarded, the same would not result in the
acquittal of the appellants, the said testimony being merely corroborative of
Marilyn’s narration.
Finally, the constitutional presumption of innocence vigorously
invoked by the appellants cannot be applied in the instant case where the guilt
of the accused had been proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is true that the Bill of Rights
guarantees that any person accused of a criminal offense is presumed innocent
until the contrary is proved,[59] and
the quantum of evidence required by law to overcome this presumption, and to
justify any criminal conviction is proof beyond reasonable doubt.[60]
However, this is not to say that
there should be absolute certainty in every criminal conviction. What the law requires the prosecution to
adduce is only that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind[61] or
at least, moral certainty that the offense was committed.[62]
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED but MODIFIED with
respect to the indemnity awarded to Marilyn Galapon. The same should be increased to P50,000.00 in line with recent
jurisprudence. Costs against
appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, and Quiason, JJ.,
concur.
[1]
Information, pp. 1-2; Original Records, pp. 1-2.
[2]
Original Records, pp. 16-17.
[3]
Original Records, pp. 39, 44.
[4]
Decision, p. 25; Original Records, p. 166.
[5]
TSN, June 4, 1990, p. 8.
[6]
Ibid.
[7]
Id., at pp. 8-9.
[8]
Ibid.
[9]
TSN, February 12, 1991, p. 6.
[10]
Id., at p. 8.
[11]
Id., at p. 9; TSN, June 4, 1990, pp. 9-10.
[12]
Ibid.
[13]
TSN, February 12, 1991, p. 9.
[14]
Id., at pp. 10-11.
[15]
Id., at p. 10; TSN, June 4,1990, pp. 10, 12-13.
[16]
Id., at pp. 13-14.
[17]
Id., at p. 15.
[18]
Ibid.
[19]
Id., at p. 16.
[20]
Ibid.
[21]
Id., at p. 17.
[22]
Ibid.
[23]
Ibid.
[24]
TSN, February 12, 1991, p. 40.
[25]
Ibid.
[26]
Ibid.
[27]
Ibid.
[28]
TSN, June 4, 1990, p. 46.
[29]
TSN, March 19, 1991, pp. 3-8.
[30]
Rollo, p. 54.
[31]
Rollo, p. 65.
[32]
Article 293, Revised Penal Code.
[33]
TSN, February 12, 1991, pp.
14-16.
[34]
Id., at pp. 35-36 and 42.
[35]
TSN, June 4, 1990, p. 13.
[36]
TSN, July 23, 1990, p. 19.
[37]
TSN, February 12, 1991, pp. 10, 13-14.
[38]
Id., at p. 30.
[39]
TSN, June 4, 1990, pp. 10-11.
[40]
TSN, December 11, 1990, pp. 4, 5,
6, and 8.
[41]
People vs. Base, G.R. No. 92124, May 6, 1991, 196 SCRA 688.
[42]
People vs. Angsioko, G.R. No. 44223, August 13, 1984, 131 SCRA 486.
[43]
People vs. Corro, G.R. No. 62673, May 15, 1991, 197 SCRA 121.
[44]
TSN, February 12, 1991, p. 30.
[45]
People vs. Villamayor, G.R. Nos. 97475-76, July 18, 1991, 199 SCRA 472;
People vs. Hortillano, 177 SCRA 729.
[46]
Pp. 7-8, Appellants’ Brief; Rollo, pp. 71-72.
[47]
Pp. 8-9, Id.; Id., at pp. 72-73.
[48]
Pp. 9-10, id.; Id.,
at pp. 73-74.
[49]
Pp. 10-11; Id., at p. 74.
[50]
Pp.13, id.; Id., at
p. 76.
[51]
p. 14, id.; Id., at p. 77.
[52]
p. 15, id.; Id., at
p.78.
[53]
p. 17, id.; Id., at p. 80.
[54]
Pp. 17-18, id.; Id., at pp. 80-81.
[55]
People vs. Collado, No. 88631, April 30, 1991, 196 SCRA 519.
[56]
People vs. Custodio, G.R. No. 96230, May 27, 1991, 197 SCRA 538.
[57]
Id., at p. 543
[58]
163 SCRA 730.
[59]
Article III, Section 14(2), Constitution.
[60]
Rule 123, Section 2, Rules of Court.
[61]
Rule 133, Section 2 and Rule 131,
Section 2, Rules of Court; People vs. Fernando, G.R. No. 60409, December
1, 1987, 156 SCRA 35; People vs. Ola, G.R. No. 47147, July 3, 1987, 152
SCRA 1; People vs. de Guzman, G.R. No. 68951, June 16, 1988, 162 SCRA
145.
[62]
People vs. Felipe, 115 SCRA 88; People vs. Dramayo, 42 SCRA 59;
U.S. vs. Lasada, 18 Phil. 90.