G.R. No. 126253. August 16, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VICTOR M. MACOY, JR., ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
PARDO, J.:
joint decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 58, Cebu City finding him guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of parricide and illegal possession of firearm
and ammunition and sentencing him to two reclusion perpetua[2]
and to pay Marilou M. Macoy P6,530.78 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as
moral damages, P50,000.00 as death indemnity and costs for the death of
his son, Joglyn Macoy, and to an indeterminate penalty of seventeen (17)
years, four (4) months and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of maximum
and to pay the costs.[3]
On October 10, 1995,[4] Cebu
City Prosecutor II Virginia Palanca-Santiago filed with the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 58, Cebu City two (2) separate informations charging
accused Victor M. Macoy, Jr. with parricide and illegal possession of
firearm and ammunition, as follows:
Criminal Case No. CBU-39639
“That on or about the 9th day of October 1995, at about
12:20 a.
m., more or less, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, armed with an
unlicensed firearm, with deliberate intent, with intent to kill, did
then and there attack, assault and use personal violence upon one Joglyn
Macoy, his son, by shooting him with said firearm, hitting the latter
inflicting upon said Joglyn Macoy fatal wounds and as a consequence of
which the latter died instantaneously.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”[5]
Criminal Case No. CBU-39640
“That on or about the 9th day of October, 1995, at about
12:20
o’clock A. M., in the City of Cebu, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate
intent, did then and there keep under his control and possession one (1)
snubnose .38 caliber paltik revolver (Smith and Wesson) marked
“EYR10995” with three (3) rounds of live ammunition and one (1) empty
shell, which was used in the commission of the crime of Parricide,
without first obtaining a permit or license therefor from a competent
authority.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”[6]
The prosecutor recommended no bail for the temporary release of
accused Victor M. Macoy, Jr., in both cases.Upon arraignment on November 8, 1995, accused pleaded not guilty to
both informations.[7] Thereafter, the two (2) cases were tried
jointly.
At about 12:20 in the morning of October 9, 1995, accused Victor M.
Macoy Jr. arrived drunk at his house in 1612 Gil Tudtud St.,
Lahinglahing, Mabolo, Cebu City. As he was carrying a musical
instrument, his wife, Marilou M. Macoy called her son, Joglyn Macoy, to
help his father. While walking toward the house, accused was
complaining, in a low voice, about the muddy road leading to his house.
Apparently, he could not complain aloud because he was with his friends
who worked at the Department of Public Services (DPS), the department
responsible for the dumping of the soil on the road leading to his
house.
When Joglyn went out to help his father, he commented that “foolish this
DPS people damping [sic] soil which made the road muddy.” Thinking that
his son was blaming his barkadas from the DPS,
accused Victor angrily retorted in defense of his friends. A heated
argument ensued between father and son.
At this point, Cresenciano Marikit, Marilou’s younger brother arrived at
the house and prevailed upon Joglyn to calm down. He invited his
nephew to a nearby store, thirty (30) meters from his house.
Meanwhile, accused went to his room and took from the aparador a belt
bag, which contained a .38 caliber firearm. Marilou knew the kind of
gun the bag contained because accused told her so[8] and she would often see accused get
the gun from that bag to clean, and return it afterwards.[9]
Accused Victor took the gun, tucked it in his waist and left the house.
Marilou tried to persuade him not to leave the house, but accused
walked out of the house.
A few minutes later, she heard a burst of gunfire and saw a commotion at
the nearby store. When she arrived at the place, she saw her brother
Cresenciano holding her husband, accused Victor, while her son Joglyn
was being carried to a taxicab to be brought to the hospital. At the
Cebu Chong Hua Hospital, the attending physician declared Joglyn Macoy
dead on arrival.[10]
For hospitalization and funeral expenses, Marilou spent three thousand
eighty pesos and seventy eight centavos (P3,080.78) and three thousand
four hundred fifty (P3,450.00) pesos, respectively, supported by
receipts. For the services of a lawyer, she spent fifty thousand
(P50,000.00) pesos. By way of moral damages, Marilou said that five
hundred (P500,000.00) pesos would not be enough to compensate for the
loss of her son.[11]
Cresenciano Marikit positively identified accused as the assailant. At
about 12:30 in the morning of October 9, 1995, he and Danilo Macasero
were repairing his jeep outside his house at Lahinglahing, Mabolo, Cebu
City. Victor and his musician-friends passed by. They were all drunk.
Later, he heard noise coming from accused’s house, prompting him to go
there and verify what was going on. He found out that accused and his
son, Joglyn Macoy were having an argument regarding the repair being
done by the city government on the road leading to their house and the
inconvenience it had caused. When accused saw him, accused told him
“shut up, it is none of your business.”[12]
To prevent the argument from worsening, Cresenciano took his nephew out
of the house and brought him to a nearby store, about thirty (30) meters
from the house of the accused.
At the store while Cresenciano was talking to Joglyn, accused Victor
arrived, armed with a snub nose .38 caliber revolver and fired at
Joglyn. Accused missed with his first shot because the bullet got stuck
in the barrel. He fired a second shot hitting Joglyn near the left
shoulder. Joglyn fell to the ground.
While Joglyn was still on the ground, accused Victor fired a third shot,
but the bullet got stuck again. Cresenciano approached the accused and
wrestled with him for the possession of the gun. In the scuffle,
accused lost possession of the gun and it fell to the ground. Danilo
Macasero picked it up and threw it at the nearby canal. Joglyn was then
brought to the Cebu Chong Hua Hospital, while Cresenciano dragged
accused toward his (Cresenciano’s) house, twenty (20) meters from the
scene of the crime.
When the shooting incident happened, accused was about two (2) meters
away from the victim.[13]
Based on the death certificate issued by medico legal officer Dr. Jesus
P. Cerna, PNP, Cebu City, the time of injury was about 12:30 midnight of
October 9, 1995. The cause of death was “hemorrhage, acute, severe,
secondary to gun shot wound at the left chest.” One .38 caliber slug was
recovered from the second thoracic vertebra of the victim. The wound,
2.01 by 1.01 in diameter, was directed “downward and from the left
towards the right side at the back hitting the second rib lacerating the
lung particularly the upper lobe of the left lung, then the bullet
fractured the second thoracic vertebra, meaning, the bone of the spinal
column which is the second thoracic vertebra lacerating the spinal
cord.”[14]
Considering the
nature and characteristic of the gunshot wound entrance and the absence
of powder burns of the skin around the entrance, the distance of the
“muscle” [sic] of the gun to the skin of the victim was “24 inches.” The
trajectory of the bullet found inside the body of the victim revealed
that he was in a lower position than his assailant and that they might
have been facing each other, with the assailant more to the left of the
victim.[15]
At the time of his death, Joglyn Macoy was twenty seven (27) years old
and worked as a newspaper correspondent.
SPO4 Romeo O. Carreon, SPO1 George M. Ruiz, PO2 Elmo Y. Rosales and PO2
Filomeno D. Mendaros, Philippine National Police, Cebu City, were the
team-on-duty from 8:00 in the morning of October 8, 1995 until 8:00 in
the morning of October 9, 1995. At about 1:00 in the morning of October
9, they received a report from the base control operator about a
shooting incident at Gil Tudtud St., Lahinglahing, Mabolo, Cebu
City.[16]
They proceeded to the place and conducted an ocular inspection. They
found out that the victim of the shooting was Joglyn Macoy and the
person responsible was the victim’s own father, Victor Macoy, Jr. y
Midal. Since accused was no longer at the scene of the crime, they went
to his house.
Accused was arrested at his house after the policemen explained to him
his constitutional rights. Accused admitted that he shot his son Joglyn
Macoy. Later, accused’s brother-in-law arrived and informed them that
Joglyn was dead on arrival at the hospital.
With the accused in tow, the policemen went to Cebu Chong Hua Hospital
to question other witnesses. There they saw Danilo Macasero, who
informed them that he knew where the firearm used in the commission of
the crime was. They went back to Gil Tudtud St., Lahinglahing, Mabolo,
Cebu City. Danilo Macasero personally identified and turned over to the
police the murder weapon, a .38 caliber revolver (paltik).
Accused Victor Macoy was taken to the police station. When asked to
present the authorization to legally possess or carry the subject
firearm, accused failed to produce any. The policemen arrested accused
for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866, or illegal possession of
firearm and ammunition. Thereafter, accused underwent paraffin
examination, while the murder weapon was subjected to gunpowder residue
examination and ballistics test.[17]
Police Senior Inspector Myrna P. Areola, PNP, Cebu City found that “the
chemical analysis conducted on both hand casts of Victor Macoy, Jr. y
Midal gave positive results for the presence of gunpowder
residue,”[18]
while the ballistic test conducted on the .38 revolver snubnose Smith
and Wesson marked “EYR10995” was found positive for gunpowder
residue.[19]
Danilo Macasero testified that at about 12:30 in the morning of October
9, 1995, he and Cresenciano Marikit arrived in Mabolo, Cebu City from
Lahug, Cebu City where they repaired Cresenciano’s jeep. They went to a
store near Cresenciano’s house to have snacks. Cresenciano left to
park his jeep at his house nearby. When he came back he was with his
nephew, Joglyn Macoy. He was informed that Joglyn had a heated argument
with his father accused Victor Macoy.[20]
As Cresenciano and Joglyn were talking, accused arrived shouting and
looking for his son. Accused approached the store, pulled the gun from
his waist and aimed at Joglyn. By this time, Joglyn, in a squatting
position, saw his father and told his uncle, Cresenciano Marikit, “Tiyo,
Papa is here.” Accused aimed the gun at his son and fired, but the
bullet got stuck. Accused fired a second time hitting Joglyn on the
left shoulder and he fell to the ground. Accused tried to fire his gun
again, but the weapon did not function.[21]
Cresenciano grappled with accused for the possession of the gun and in
the course of the scuffle, accused lost hold of the weapon. Danilo
picked up the gun and threw it in the canal, about eight (8) to ten (10)
meters away from the place of the shooting. Thereafter, he helped
bring Joglyn to the Cebu Chong Hua Hospital, where Joglyn was declared
dead on arrival.[22]
At the hospital, policemen from Ramos Police Station arrived and began
questioning witnesses to the shooting incident. Accused Victor M.
Macoy, Jr. was there, inside a police service car. Since Danilo knew
where the firearm used in the shooting was, he returned to the scene of
the crime, together with Sonny Arriola and Patrolman George Ruiz, and
retrieved the firearm from the canal. Danilo turned over the gun to
Patrolman Ruiz. Then, Danilo went home.[23]
In open court, Danilo Macasero identified the firearm on exhibit as the
gun used in shooting Joglyn Macoy and the very same gun he retrieved
from the canal and turned over to Patrolman Ruiz.[24]
In his defense, accused Victor M. Macoy, Jr. denied shooting his son and
owning the gun used in the shooting.
He claimed that at around 12:30 in the morning of October 9, 1995, he
arrived home at Lahing-Lahing, Mabolo, Cebu City from a birthday party
where he and his musician-friends played music.
Upon arrival, he had an argument with his son Joglyn Macoy over the
muddy road leading to their house. Joglyn blamed him because the people
responsible for the dumping of the soil on the road were his friends
from the Department of Public Services (DPS), Cebu City. As their
argument escalated, Cresenciano Marikit, his wife’s brother, arrived to
intervene and he took Joglyn out of the house. Accused Victor did not
know where his son and brother-in-law went.
Meanwhile, accused decided to go out of the house and get some fresh
air. Before leaving however, he got his gun, a .22 caliber revolver.
His wife tried to prevent him from leaving the house and bringing the
gun with him. However, he prevailed over her because there were many
thieves lurking in the neighborhood.
When he was about five (5) meters from their house, he heard a commotion
at the back of their house. Thinking that there were thieves, he fired
a warning shot in the air.[25]
Accused continued walking toward the direction of the store, one hundred
(100) meters from his house. As he was near the store, he noticed a
group of people and he approached them. There, he saw his son Joglyn
Macoy who uttered to his uncle Cresenciano, “Tiyo, Papa is
coming, pleace intercept, he might do something.”
The people at the store stood up and faced him. Fearing that he would
be attacked, he drew his gun and pointed it upwards. Immediately,
Cresenciano blocked his path and grappled with him for the possession of
the gun. In the course of their struggle, accused heard a burst of
gunfire and saw his son Joglyn fall to the ground. Then he heard
Cresenciano telling Danilo Macasero to pick up the gun. All this time,
he was still holding his gun so the gun that fell and was picked up by
Danilo was not his (Victor).[26]
Accused Victor was shocked by the fact that his son was shot. The
people gathered in the store helped his son and brought him to the
hospital. His mind went blank and he simply walked home.
When he arrived home, he inspected his gun, a .22 caliber, and found one
(1) empty shell and five (5) live bullets left. He was then sure that
another gun was used in shooting his son. Accused hid his gun under the
ipil-ipil trees in front of his house.[27]
Not long after, policemen arrived and he invited them in. He was asked
if he shot his son, which he denied. Suddenly his brother-in-law,
Cresenciano Marikit, arrived and said that his son Joglyn was dead on
arrival at the hospital. Accused commented that what happened to his
son was regretful.
Together with the police officers, they went to the Cebu Chong Hua
Hospital. Afterwards, accused was brought to the Ramos Police Station,
Cebu City where he was further investigated about the firearm and the
shooting of his son. All the time that he was undergoing investigation,
he was not apprised of his constitutional rights. He was not assisted
by counsel from the time he was asked searching questions in his house
up to the time of the filing of the cases against him with the City
Prosecutor’s Office, Cebu City. When he was asked if he had a license
for his .22 caliber revolver, he replied that the person who sold the
gun to him promised to secure a license for him.[28]
When accused Victor was asked in open court to identify the gun on
exhibit, he said that it was not his and that it was the first time he
had seen that gun. His gun was a .22 caliber revolver while the one
presented on exhibit was a .38 caliber revolver. Moreover, the gun on
exhibit had four (4) bullets; one (1) empty shell and three (3) live
bullets. Accused Victor admitted that at the time of the shooting he
was holding a gun, different from the one on exhibit. His gun was not
licensed and the seller was following it up for him. He loved his son
Joglyn because he was his only son. He was not able to assist his son
when the latter fell to the ground because his mind went blank.
On August 12, 1996, the trial court rendered a joint decision finding
accused Victor M. Macoy, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of parricide
and illegal possession of firearm, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
finding the accused, VICTOR M. MACOY, JR., GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the Crimes of Parricide and Illegal Possession of Firearm and
Ammunitions and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA in the case of Parricide in Criminal Case No. CBU-36639,[29]
and to pay Marilou M. Macoy the cum of P6,530.78 as actual damages, the
sum of P50,000 as moral damages and another sum of P50,000.00 as
indemnity for the death of her son and to pay the costs; in Criminal
Case No. CBU-39640 for Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunitions,
the said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty
of seventeen (17) years, Four (4) months and One (1) day to Twenty (20)
years and to pay the costs. These penalties shall be served by the
accused in accordance with Art. 70 of the Revised Penal Code, and, in
serving his sentence, the accused is credited with the full time of the
preventive imprisonment which he had undergone under the conditions
imposed in Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code.“The firearm (Exh. H) and the three (3) live ammunitions and
one
(1) empty shell (Exhs. I and I-1) are hereby forfeited in favor of the
government to be disposed of in the manner provided for by law.“SO ORDERED.
“Cebu City, Philippines, August 12, 1996.
“JOSE P. SOBERANO, JR.
J u d g e”[30]
On August 22, 1996, accused Victor M. Macoy, Jr. filed a notice of
appeal.[31]
Accused Victor Macoy, Jr. y Midal alleges that the trial court erred in
finding him guilty of illegal possession of firearm as the gun alleged
by the prosecution to have been used in the shooting of his son, Joglyn
Macoy, was not the same gun in his possession. Corollarily, he could
not be held responsible for his son’s death.[32]
On the other hand, the Solicitor General submits that due to the
enactment of Republic Act No. 8294, the penalty against the accused
should be modified from maximum period to reclusion
perpetua.
Under Republic Act No. 8294, the penalty for illegal possession of low
powered firearm such as handgun, .38 or .22 caliber and others of
similar firepower, has been lowered to prision correccional maximum and a
fine of not less than fifteen (P15,000.00) thousand pesos, provided
that no other crime was committed.[33]
In denying responsibility for parricide and illegal possession of
firearm, accused Victor Macoy, Jr. y Midal advances the theory that two
(2) firearms were involved, a .38 caliber revolver, snubnose and his .22
caliber paltik revolver. He intimated that his brother-in-law,
Cresenciano Marikit, was also armed when the latter tried to grapple
with him for possession of his .22 caliber paltik revolver. He denied
owning the .38 caliber revolver. However, the .22 paltik revolver he
owned was not presented in evidence. Neither was it licensed. To avoid
suspicion that he shot his son, he buried the gun under the ipil-ipil
trees in front of his house immediately after the incident. Why did he
not retrieve the gun to show that it is a .22 cal. revolver?
Though accused categorically denied ownership of the .38 caliber
revolver presented as prosecution evidence, prosecution witnesses
Marilou Macoy, Cresenciano Marikit and Danilo Macasero positively
identified the gun as the weapon used by the accused on the night in
question. No ill motive has been established against these witnesses
that might have prompted them to incriminate the accused or falsely
testify against him. “It is settled that when there is no showing that
the principal witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper
motive, the presumption is that the witnesses were not so actuated and
their testimonies are thus entitled to full faith and credit.
Testimonies of witnesses who have no motive or reason to falsify or
perjure their testimonies should be given credence.”[34] Their narration of
what exactly transpired on that fateful night was consistent and
corroborative of each other’s testimony.
Considering that, as alleged by accused, many people were gathered at
the store when the shooting incident occurred, how come that no one saw
his brother-in-law was armed with a gun. This leaves us with no other
conclusion than that accused Victor concocted the two-gun theory to
avoid criminal liability.
Hence, accused’s defense of denial must fail. In fact, accused admitted
his presence at the scene of the crime.
His denial of the killing of his son can not prevail over his positive
identification by prosecution witnesses. “It is well-settled that
denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a
negative self-serving assertion, which deserves no weight in
law.”[35]
With regard to accused’s conviction for illegal possession of firearm,
as aptly submitted by the Solicitor General, the penalty imposed on him
should be modified because of the enactment of Republic Act No. 8294
amending Presidential Decree No. 1866. As held in People vs.
Molina,[36] People
vs. Feloteo,[37]
and People vs. Narvasa,[38]
there can be no separate conviction of the crime of illegal possession
of firearm if homicide or murder is committed with the use of unlicensed
firearm. Such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance in the homicide or murder committed.
Republic Act No. 8294 took effect on July 6, 1997, fifteen days after
its publication on June 21, 1997. The crimes involved in the instant
case took place on October 9, 1995. As in the case of any penal law,
the provisions of Republic Act No. 8294 will have generally only
prospective application. In cases, however, where the new penal law
will be advantageous to the accused, the law may be given retroactive
application (Article 22, Revised Penal Code). Insofar as it will spare
accused-appellant from a separate conviction for illegal possession of
firearm, Republic Act No. 8294 may be given retroactive
application.[39]
Further, in line with this Court’s ruling in People vs. Valdez,[40]
“in so far as this particular provision of Republic Act No. 8294 is not
beneficial to accused-appellant because it unduly aggravates the crime,
this new law will not be given retroactive application, lest it might
acquire the character of an ex-post facto law.” The application of the
cited provision of the new law would not be beneficial to the accused,
as it would increase the penalty for parricide from reclusion perpetua
to death.
The trial court, therefore, correctly found accused Victor Macoy, Jr. y
Midal guilty of parricide. The crime has been duly established by the
prosecution. Under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty
for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. The
two
penalties being indivisible, and there being neither mitigating nor
aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser
penalty shall be applied pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 63
of the Revised Penal Code.[41] The court a quo properly meted the proper
penalty of reclusion perpetua.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the appealed
decision with
modification. As thus modified, the Court finds accused-appellant
Victor Macoy, Jr. y Midal guilty beyond reasonable doubt of parricide
defined and penalized under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, and
hereby sentences him to reclusion perpetua, with all the accessory
penalties of the law; to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount
of P6,530.78 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as death indemnity,
P50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs.
The Court dismisses Criminal Case No. CBU-39640 for violation of
Presidential Decree No. 1866. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Quisumbing, Purisima, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago,
and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr., C.J., see separate opinion.
Bellosillo, J., no part.
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:
The ponencia concludes that R.A. No. 8294 should not be given
retroactive effect because it would have disadvantageous effect on
appellant. If the use of the illegally possessed firearm in this case
would be considered an aggravating circumstance, the penalty for
parricide would have to be death, the maximum of that prescribed by law
(reclusion perpetua to death). I agree.
Consequently, the illegal possession of firearm must remain as a
separate offense. Hence, appellant must have to be penalized for
illegal possession of firearm. However, it is the reduced penalty
therefor under R.A. No. 8294 that should be imposed. The law can be
given retroactive effect since that would result to appellant’s
advantage.
[1] In Criminal
Cases Nos.
CBU-39639 and CBU-39640, Decision promulgated on August 12, 1996, Judge
Jose P. Soberano, Jr., presiding.
[2] Criminal Case
No. CBU-39639.
[3] Criminal Case
No. CBU-39640.
[4] Trial Court
Record, Criminal Case No. CBU-39639, p. 1; Criminal Case No. CBU-39640,
p. 1.
[5] Trial Court
Record, Criminal Case No. CBU-39639, p. 7.
[6] Trial Court
Record, Criminal Case No. CBU-39640, p. 9.
[7] Trial Court
Record, Criminal Case No. CBU-39639, p. 13.
[8] TSN, January
10, 1996, p. 14.
[9] TSN, ibid.,
pp. 5-6.
[10] TSN, ibid.,
pp. 10-17.
[11] TSN, ibid.,
pp., 7-8.
[12] TSN, January
11, 1996, p. 4.
[13] TSN, ibid.,
p. 8.
[14] TSN, February
8, 1996, pp. 5-6.
[15] TSN, ibid.,
pp. 7-8.
[16] TSN, February
14, 1996, p. 3.
[17] TSN, February
13, 1996, pp. 18-23.
[18] TSN, February
8, 1996, p. 14.
[19] TSN, ibid.,
p. 15.
[20] TSN, February
13, 1996, pp. 4-5.
[21] TSN, ibid.,
p. 6.
[22] TSN, ibid.,
pp. 7-8.
[23] TSN, ibid.,
pp. 9-10.
[24] TSN, ibid.,
p. 11.
[25] TSN, March
26, 1996, pp. 2-6.
[26] TSN, ibid.,
pp. 7-9.
[27] TSN, ibid.,
p. 9.
[28] TSN, March
26, 1996, p. 13.
[29] This should
read Criminal Case No. CBU-39639.
[30] Rollo, p. 39.
[31] Rollo, p. 41.
[32] Appellant’s
Brief, Rollo, pp. 71-103, at p. 96.
[33] Appellee’s
Brief, Rollo, pp. 156-198, at p. 196. (Emphasis supplied)
[34] People vs.
Radel Gallarde, G.R. No. 133025, February 17, 2000.
[35] People vs.
Ramil Dacibar and Warlito Dicon, G.R. No. 111286, February 17, 2000.
[36] 292 SCRA 742
[1998].
[37] 295 SCRA 607
[1998].
[38] 298 SCRA 637
[1998].
[39] People vs.
Valdez, 304 SCRA 611, 630 [1999] .
[40] Supra.
[41] People vs.
Lyndon Sañez y Lacson, G.R. No. 132512, December 15, 1999.