G.R. No. 129235. November 18, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FAUSTINO MORANO, EDGAR “TATA” MOLETA, JULIAN MONDANO, AND SANDY MORANO, ACCUSED. FAUSTINO MORANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:
decision[1]
of 15 August 1996 of the Regional Trial Court of Surigao City, Branch 30, which
convicted him and his co-accused Edgar “Tata” Moleta of the crime of murder and
sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to jointly and severally pay the heirs of
the victim Cosme “Baby” Nalam (NALAM) the amounts of
indemnification for the latter’s death;
reasonable reimbursement of hospital, burial and necessary expenses; and
as moral and exemplary damages.
Together with Sandy Morano, Edgar “Tata” Moleta, and Julian
Mondano, MORANO was charged with murder in an Amended Information which reads
as follows:
That on or about January 16, 1994, at Magsaysay, Mainit, Surigao
del Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, conspiring, conniving, confederating and mutually
helping one another with full freedom, intelligence and deliberate criminal
intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, criminally and
feloniously attack, assault and throw stones at Cosme Nalam, thereby inflicting
upon the latter the following injuries, to wit:-Lacerated wound tagus (L) ear
-Contusion hematoma (R) fronto parietal
-Abrasion ® asis
-T/C cerebral concussion
-Intracranial hemorrhage
for which injuries Cosme Nalam was immediately brought to the
Surigao Provincial Hospital but on January 20, 1994, said victim died due to
cardio respiratory arrest, secondary to cerebral hemorrhage, to the damage and
prejudice of his heirs by way of actual, compensatory, moral and exemplary
damages, the total of which shall be established in court during the trial.Contrary to Art. 248, Revised Penal Code with the qualifying
circumstance of superior strength.[2]
The case was docketed in the court below as Criminal Case No.
4300. Upon arraignment, each of the accused entered a plea of not guilty. Trial thereafter ensued. The prosecution presented four witnesses:
Manuel Roxas, Generio Andit, Rustico Peril, and Dr. Audie M. Reliquette.
Manuel Roxas, 31 years old and a resident of Barangay Magsaysay,
Mainit, Surigao del Norte, testified that at about 7:30 P.M. of 16 January
1994, while he was walking towards his home with his wife and children, they
met a group of persons. Among these
persons were accused MORANO and Julian Mondano. MORANO and his companions asked Roxas where Rustico Peril
was. Roxas told them that Rustico was
at the crossing of Sanghan, Magsaysay. At this instance, Roxas saw another group of persons, among whom were
accused Edgar “Tata” Moleta and MORANO’s son, accused Sandy Morano. When the second group joined the first
group, he heard Sandy tell his father MORANO “Tay, here is Baby Nalam.” Suddenly, there was a commotion. While he
was being dragged or pulled away by his wife towards the side street where the
house of the Barangay Captain was situated, Roxas saw MORANO throw stones at
victim NALAM and one Generio Andit. As
it was quite dark, Roxas did not see Julian Mondano, Edgar Moleta and Sandy Morano throw stones at anybody.[3]
Generio Andit, 49 years old and a resident of Mabini, Mainit,
Surigao del Norte, recalled that on the night in question, while he was walking
along the national highway near the house of the Barangay Captain on his way to
the house of his younger brother, he noticed some persons stoning somebody. When he beamed his flashlight on their faces
he recognized accused MORANO, Edgar Moleta, Julian Mondano, and Sandy Morano as
the ones who threw stones at NALAM. After having been hit on the back of his head, the left ear, and the
back of his shoulder, NALAM fell down the road near the house of one
Behagan. Andit was likewise hit on the
chest by a stone thrown by Moleta. When
Andit asked the attackers why they were stoning him and what his fault was, the
attackers simply disappeared.[4]
Rustico Peril, a 44-year-old farmer and a resident of Barangay
Magsaysay, Mainit, Surigao del Norte, testified that at around 7:30 P.M. of 16
January 1994 he was in the house of Henry Behagan, having a drinking session
with the latter. Suddenly there was a
commotion outside the house. He saw
NALAM already lying down by the side of the road just in front of Behagan’s
house. At a distance of about three
meters from NALAM were MORANO, who was holding a wooden stick, and Julian
Mondano, who was pointing his M-14 weapon at NALAM. He immediately admonished the duo by saying “That’s enough because the person might be killed.” MORANO and Julian forthwith walked
away. Peril claimed that there were
about ten to twenty other persons in the vicinity at the time he witnessed the
incident, but he could not recognize them because it was dark.[5]
Dr. Audie M. Relliquette, a resident physician of the Provincial
Hospital of Surigao City, declared that at around 10:15 P.M. of 16 January 1994
he examined the victim NALAM, who was then unconscious. He entered his findings in his Medical
Certificate.[6]
NALAM sustained the following injuries: (1) a “lacerated wound tagus,”
about 1.5 cm. long on the left ear, which could have been caused by a blunt
instrument; (2) a contusion hematoma at
the right portion of the forehead, which could have been also caused by a blunt
instrument; and (3) a superficial abrasion on the right side of the superior iliac spine. Based on the
location of the injuries, NALAM was not assaulted from behind. NALAM also suffered “cerebral contusion” and
“intracranial hemorrhage,” which caused his unconsciousness or the suspension
of his brain’s function. NALAM remained
in the hospital for the succeeding days and finally expired on the fourth day,
or on 20 January 1994. The cause of his
death was cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to cerebral hemorrhage.[7]
The witnesses presented by the defense were SPO2 Ramon Samolde;
accused Julian Mondano; accused Edgar Moleta; Rolan Laromo; Nestor Mordeno;
accused MORANO; Cesar Cauling; and Elsie Nalam, wife of NALAM.
SPO2 Ramon Samolde, a member of the PNP of Mainit, Surigao del
Norte, declared that an hour before the occurrence of the fatal incident in
question, he was at a store outside the cockpit where he witnessed the verbal
altercation between accused Julian Mondano and Peril. He promptly prevented the
fight and requested Mondano to stay with him in the meantime and assist him in
maintaining peace and order in the area. While performing his duties, Samolde saw many people going out of the cockpit. At about the same time, he saw NALAM run and
then fall down near Henry Behagan’s house. He did not see MORANO,
Sandy Morano, and Edgar Moleta during the commotion. He then requested for a police car to bring NALAM to the Medicare
Emergency Hospital. Mondano who was
with him at the time the commotion took place, helped him bring NALAM to the
hospital.[8]
For his part, accused Julian Mondano declared that at about 8:00
P.M. of 16 January 1994, while he and SPO2 Samolde was conversing at a store
near the cockpit, they heard shouts coming from a distance. Upon arrival at the scene of the commotion,
they noticed someone had fallen down over the opposite side of the road. Only Samolde crossed the road to examine the
body, while he (Julian) stayed put about six meters away. At that time, he noticed many people come
out of the cockpit. Samolde requested
somebody to call the police. When the
police patrol car arrived, he accompanied Samolde and NALAM’s wife to take
NALAM to the hospital. Mondano admitted
that he had with him an M-14 firearm, which was issued to him as a CAFGU
member.[9]
Accused Edgar “Tata” Moleta, for his part, declared that he had
nothing to do with NALAM’s death. He
claimed that at about 7:00 P.M. of on 16 January 1994, he and his friend Rolan
Laromo went out of the cockpit and proceeded to buy fish at the public
market. Finding no fish, they instead
drank liquor in a store inside the market. The drinking session lasted until 4:00 A.M. the next day.[10]
Rolan Laromo substantially corroborated Moleta’s testimony.[11]
Nestor Mordeno, the Barangay Captain of Magsaysay, Mainit,
Surigao del Norte, testified that he
saw MORANO and Rustico Peril having a heated argument inside the cockpit at
about 7:00 P.M. of 16 January 1994. He
pacified them and escorted MORANO out of the cockpit up to the road to see that
the latter would go home. He noticed
that MORANO was walking ahead of NALAM. Thereafter, he returned inside the cockpit. About thirty minutes later, somebody shouted that there was a
fight outside the cockpit. Mordeno
immediately went out to the place of the incident. With his flashlight, he saw NALAM already on the ground, face
down with blood oozing out on the left side of his mouth. He also saw NALAM’s son Reming brandish a “sundangay,” a local small sharp-pointed
bolo. He requested Reming to put down
the weapon. Later, he saw Police
Officer Samolde point his service revolver at Reming as he (Samolde) was
ordering the latter to put down his weapon. Samolde then brought Reming to the police station.[12]
At the witness stand, MORANO declared that at about 7:00 P.M. of
16 January 1994, he and Rustico Peril were engaged in a heated argument inside
the cockpit, as the latter refused to pay the bet he lost. They were, however, eventually pacified by
Barangay Captain Mordeno, who escorted him out of the cockpit. On his way home, MORANO, together with his
son Sandy Morano and one Cesar Cauling, saw groups of persons. In one of the groups, he saw the victim
NALAM heatedly arguing with Martin Galve. Sandy then told him that they better go home. On their way home, they met Manuel Roxas and briefly conversed
with him. They arrived home at 8:30
P.M. and went to sleep. He heard the
next day that something happened to NALAM.[13]
Cesar Cauling substantially corroborated MORANO’s testimony.[14]
Elsie Nalam, wife of the deceased NALAM, testified that from the
Mainit Medicare Hospital, she brought her husband to the Surigao Provincial
Hospital aboard the police patrol car. While
in transit, she noticed that her husband could not move his body and was
sometimes unconscious. During the times
that he was conscious, she asked him who stoned him. NALAM answered, “I do not know who stoned me. I was not able
to recognize.” When they arrived at
the Surigao Provincial Hospital, NALAM could not talk anymore, and his eyes
were closed until his death four days after.[15]
In its decision, the trial court first made an observation that
the crime scene was dark when the stoning incident in question happened. The lights from the nearby houses might have
illumined to some extent the area surrounding the locus criminis but not its outer edges. Against this backdrop, the trial court proceeded to scrutinize
the testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses Generio Andit, Manuel Roxas,
and Rustico Peril. It believed Andit’s
testimony that he saw MORANO and Moleta throw stones at NALAM. However, it doubted Andit’s identification
of Sandy Morano and Julian Mondano since he did not mention their names in the
affidavit he executed before the arraignment. It did not believe Andit’s explanation that he was confused as to their
names and that he thought they were Litoy Basil and Justino Henete, who were
included in the original information and substituted with the names of Sandy
Morano and Julian Mondano in the Amended Information, respectively.
As to Peril’s testimony, the trial court was not persuaded. It gave credit to Police Officer Samolde’s
testimony regarding the whereabouts of accused Julian Mondano on the night
NALAM was assaulted. It was thus
convinced that only MORANO and Edgar Moleta were responsible for the stoning
and killing of NALAM.
Fully crediting the accounts of the prosecution witnesses Andit
and Roxas that MORANO and Moleta suddenly threw stones at the unsuspecting
NALAM, the trial court concluded that the duo used or employed excessive force
against an unarmed and hapless victim who, when hit, fell to the ground. Thus, it appreciated the qualifying
circumstance of abuse of superior strength. It also deduced from their acts unity of purpose and design to kill
NALAM, which were indicative of conspiracy.
The trial court then decreed in its decision, to wit:
WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, since the stoning incident
transpired on January 16, 1994 and Republic Act No. 7659 took effect on
December 31, 1993 yet, this Court finds accused FAUSTINO MORANO and EDGAR
“TATA” MOLETA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER, as defined
and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A.
No. 7659, and, there being no modifying circumstances, hereby sentences each of
them to suffer an imprisonment of RECLUSION PERPETUA; to jointly and severally
pay the heirs of victim Cosme “Baby” Nalam, the following:
- Fifty Thousand (
P50,000) Pesos, as indemnification for
the death of the victim;- Ten Thousand (
P10,000) Pesos for equitable and
reasonable reimbursement of hospital, burial, and necessary expenses incurred;
and- Ten Thousand (
P10,000) Pesos for moral and exemplary
damages.without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; to suffer
the accessory penalties provided for by law; and, to pay the costs.Considering that accused Edgar “Tata” Moleta has been detained on
April 18, 1994, and was only able to put up his bond on February 24, 1995, but
the same was withdrawn on November 7, 1995, hence, he was detained again up to
the present, his cumulative preventive detention shall be deductible from the
penalty imposed upon him, as provided for by law.On the other hand, for having been not positively identified by the
prosecution witnesses, accused JULIAN MONDANO, JR. and SANDY MORANO are hereby
EXCULPATED from the crime charged; the filed property bonds for their
provisional liberty are hereby ordered CANCELLED and RELEASED.SO ORDERED.[16]
Only accused MORANO appealed from the judgment.[17]
In his Appellant’s Brief, he argues that the trial court’s conclusions are
speculative and unsupported by the evidence on record. Prosecution eyewitnesses Manuel Roxas and Generio
Andit failed to see the actual stoning of NALAM. Roxas merely saw the beginning
of the commotion and the actual stoning of Andit. As for Andit, he is not a credible witness considering that the
trial court rejected his testimony regarding his identification of Sandy Morano
and Julian Mondano. MORANO asserts that
prosecution witness Peril was biased and unreliable, for he had an axe to grind
against him (MORANO) in view of their altercation inside the cockpit previous
to the incident. He further maintains
that there is no evidence of abuse of superior strength and conspiracy. The trial court engaged itself in
conjectures and surmises on these issues.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) disagrees with
MORANO. It maintains that the
testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses proved that accused MORANO and
Edgar Moleta simultaneously threw stones at NALAM, who was alone and unarmed.
NALAM was hit on the head, shoulder and ear. His injuries were confirmed by Dr.
Relliquette, who examined him and issued the death certificate. These
simultaneous overt acts of stoning NALAM proved unity of purpose and design on
the part of MORANO and Moleta. They
likewise took advantage of their superior strength in attacking NALAM. Their
superiority in number and strength rendered NALAM helpless and without adequate
means of defending himself.
It is clear, to us, that MORANO’s conviction by the trial court
depended mainly on the testimonies of prosecution eyewitnesses Manuel Roxas and
Generio Andit. A scrutiny of their
testimonies is, therefore, in order.
A careful review of the testimony of Roxas reveals that he did
not see the entire “commotion”; he saw only the inception of the “throwing of
stone incident.”[18]
While he was being dragged by his wife away from the scene, he maintained that
he saw MORANO pelt a stone at NALAM and another stone at witness Andit.[19]
But then he admitted in court that in his affidavit, which he executed three
days after the event, he only mentioned that MORANO threw a stone at Andit. He
admitted that he did not mention, or that he forgot to state, in his affidavit
that he also saw MORANO throw a stone at NALAM. He remembered that vital information only on the morning he was
called to the witness stand.[20]
We seriously doubt that Roxas actually saw MORANO throw a stone
at NALAM. Our jurisprudence teaches us
that affidavits are generally inferior or subordinate in importance to open
court declarations because they are often executed when the affiant is at a
high pitch of excitement and when his mental faculties are not in such a state
as to afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which has
transpired.[21]
This rule does not, however, apply where the omission in the affidavit refers
to a very important detail of the incident that the one relating the incident
as an eyewitness would not be expected to fail to mention.[22]
Roxas reasoned that he simply forgot at the time his affidavit was prepared to
include therein the fact that MORANO stoned NALAM. Then, suddenly, seven months after and on the day he was to
testify, he seemed to expediently remember such very important detail. For Roxas to have forgotten this most
important detail in his affidavit and to remember only the stoning of Generio
Andit leaves some doubt in our minds on the veracity of his delayed revelation.
Let us now examine the testimony of Andit. He claims that he saw accused MORANO,
Moleta, Sandy Morano, and Mondano stone NALAM at his back. He focused his
flashlight on them before NALAM’s fall. He was certain that Moleta threw one
stone at him. Considering the
questionable eyewitness account of Roxas as to the actual stoning of NALAM by
MORANO, would Andit’s eyewitness story suffice to convict MORANO?
Let us follow Andit’s testimony, thus:
Q: So, while you were
walking toward the house of your brother Eleuterio Andit at the highway, what
unusual incident happened?A: When I arrived near the
house of the barangay captain Mordeno, I witnessed that this Baby Nalam was
being stoned.Q: Stoned by whom?
A: I saw four persons
stoning to[sic] Baby Nalam.Q: Who were these four
persons?A: These four accused.
Q: Then, what happened to
Cosme Baby Nalam when they stoned him?A: He fell down.
Q: In what part of the road
did he fall?A: Near the house of
Behagan.Q: After Cosme Nalam had
fallen down, what else did they do?A: I was also stoned by
them.[23]. . . . . . . . .
Q: How far away from you
were the persons throwing stones at Baby Nalam?A: Nine meters, more or
less.Q: Were you standing in the
same direction at [sic] that of Baby Nalam in relation to the persons
who were throwing stones at him?A: Yes, sir.
Q: Since you said that you
saw Baby Nalam at the time that the persons were throwing stones at him, did
you see whether he was facing toward the person or whether his back was turned
to them?A: His back was facing from
the persons who stoned him.Q: And you saw at the
precise moment that … the first stone was thrown that [sic] Baby Nalam
was turning his back away to these persons?A: Yes, sir.
Q: And he was hit immediately
by the first stone that was thrown at Baby Nalam?A: I was not able to see
whether he was hit by that first stone, I only saw four persons who stoned him.Q: Did you see at the same
time Baby Nalam and the four persons who were throwing stones at him?A: They did not throw at
the same time.Q: So, the four persons
therefore were throwing stones one after the other, is that what you want to
impress to the court?A: Yes, sir, that [was]
what I saw.Q: And what was the gap of
time when each one of the four persons throws [sic] stones at Baby
Nalam?A: One after the other
successively.Q: And of the four persons
who threw stones at Baby Nalam, did you see anyone of the stones hit Baby
Nalam?A: Yes, sir.
Q: And through all these
time Baby Nalam [sic] his back was turned away from the four persons?A: Yes, sir.
Q: And after Baby Nalam fell
down, they started throwing stones at you also?A: Yes, sir.
Q: How many times… many
stones were thrown at you?A: Only one.
Q: And that time you were facing
the four persons who threw stones at you?A: Yes, sir.[24]
. . . . .
. . . .COURT:
Few questions from the court.
Q: Of course, you saw who
threw that single stone at you?A: Yes, sir.
Q: Who was that person?
A: Tata Moleta.
Q: You clearly saw because
you ha[d] a flashlight focused to [sic] him?A: Yes, your Honor.[25]
. . . . .
. . . .Q: You better be certain. At what instance did you focus your
flashlight to Nalam, when Nalam fell down?A: Before he fell down.
Q: You focused your flashlight on Nalam already?
A: I focused my flashlight to [sic] the four persons.[26]
. . . . .
. . . .Q: What attracted you to
focus your flashlight to the four accused?A: Because I noticed that
they were stoning somebody?Q: You focused your
flashlight. So when you focused your flashlight, there were already stones
thrown?A: Yes, your Honor, I saw four persons stoning.
. . . . .
. . . .Q: You did not see them
throw stones?A: I saw them, they were
the ones who stoned Baby Nalam.Q: Did you actually see the
throwing of the stones by the accused?A: Yes, Sir.
. . . . .
. . . .Q: How did you know that Baby Nalam fell down?
A: I saw him fell down.
Q: Because, he was hit on
the back?A: Yes, your Honor.
Q: And you clearly saw what
part of the back he was hit because you were lighting your flashlight?A: Yes, Sir.
Q: What part of the back?
A: Into his head and also
the left ear and at the back of the shoulder.Q: So, from what you saw how
many stones hit Nalam?A: Four stones.[27]
Without delving into the trial court’s thesis rejecting Andit’s
testimony on the identity of the two other assailants of NALAM because they
were already acquitted, we give full credit to its finding that Andit was clear
and consistent on MORANO’s participation in the killing of NALAM. On Andit’s credibility, we apply the rule
that when the issue of credibility of a witness is involved, the appellate
courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court because the
latter is in a better position to resolve the issue, having heard the witness
himself and observed his deportment during trial unless certain facts of value
have been plainly ignored, which if considered, might affect the result of the
case.[28]
We see no compelling reason to depart from the trial court’s
favorable appreciation of the testimony of Andit on MORANO’s culpability. Besides, our own evaluation of his testimony
shows that it is positive, credible and consistent on the stoning of NALAM by
four persons, which included MORANO. Andit did not waver even under a rigid cross-examination that he saw
these persons. His identification of
MORANO was convincing and had the ring of truth. He focused his flashlight on the assailants, among whom was
MORANO. He observed that MORANO and his
companions were grouped together, about one arm-length of each other and that
they successively threw stones on NALAM.
It is indisputable, therefore, that MORANO was one of the four persons who stoned NALAM. Thus, based on
Andit’s testimony alone, there is more than sufficient proof to convict MORANO.
We have held that the testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible,
is sufficient to convict an accused even in a murder charge.[29]
We also agree with the trial court that there was conspiracy
among MORANO and his companions in the stoning of NALAM. In a conspiracy, it is
not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the
victim. What is important is that all the participants performed specific acts
with closeness and coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose
and design to bring about the death of the victim. Conspiracy may even be shown
through circumstantial evidence; deduced from the mode and manner in which the
offense was perpetrated; or inferred
from the acts of the accused themselves when such acts point to a joint purpose
and design, a concerted action, and a community of interest.[30]
Clearly, there was unanimity in the design, intent, and execution
of the attack of NALAM. The overt acts of throwing the stones at the target
NALAM prove the malevolent common intent of MORANO and his companions.
However, we disagree with the finding of the trial court that
abuse of physical strength attended the commission of the crime. It was not
established that MORANO and his companions deliberately took advantage of their
number and combined strength, and applied excessive force out of proportion to
the means available to the deceased in order to consummate the crime.[31]
From Andit’s testimony, he merely chanced upon the group as they were throwing
stones at NALAM, and they quickly disappeared when he asked them why he was
being hit also. Hence, in the absence
of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, MORANO is liable
for the crime of homicide only, and not murder.
Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, homicide is
punishable by reclusion temporal. There being no modifying circumstance, the
penalty shall be imposed in its medium period pursuant to Article 64(1) of the
same Code. Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, MORANO may be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty, the minimum
of which should be within the range of prision
mayor in its medium period, and the maximum is reclusion temporal in its medium period.
Neither can we sustain the trial court’s awards of P10,000
as equitable and reasonable reimbursement of hospital, burial, and necessary
expenses and of P10,000 as moral and exemplary damages. These awards have no factual basis.
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Surigao City, Branch
30, in Criminal Case No. 4300 finding accused-appellant FAUSTINO MORANO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Murder is hereby MODIFIED. As modified, he is hereby found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of homicide, defined and
penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. In view of the absence of any modifying
circumstance, he is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate imprisonment
penalty ranging from ten (10) years of prision
mayor as minimum to seventeen
(17) years and four (4) months of reclusion
temporal as maximum. The awards of P10,000 as equitable
and reasonable reimbursement of hospital, burial, and necessary expenses
incurred and P10,000 for moral and exemplary damages are hereby
deleted. The order for
accused-appellant FAUSTINO MORANO and his co-accused Edgar “Tata” Moleta to
jointly and severally pay the heirs of the victim Cosme “Baby” Nalam P50,000
as indemnity for his death stands.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Vitug, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
[1]
Original Record (OR), 138-169; Rollo,
181-212. Per Judge Melchor M. Libarnes.
[2]
OR, 22; Rollo, 11-12.
[3]
TSN, 30 August 1994, 4-7, 10-11, 17.
[4]
Id., 21-23; 38-45.
[5]
Id., 18-21, 29.
[6]
OR, 17.
[7]
TSN, 13 September 1994, 5-6, 11-12.
[8]
TSN, 21 February 1995, 5-14.
[9]
TSN, 7 November 1995, 5-8.
[10]
Id., 15-17, 19.
[11]
TSN, 12 July 1995, 41-45.
[12]
TSN, 15 November 1995, 4-8.
[13]
Id., 10-14.
[14]
TSN, 12 July 1995, 33-38.
[15]
Id., 24-28.
[16]
Supra note 1.
[17]
OR, 186.
[18]
TSN, 30 August 1994, 10.
[19]
Id., 6-7.
[20]
Id., 13-15.
[21] See People v.
Sanchez, 313 SCRA 254, 268 [1999]; People v. Castillo, 349 SCRA 732, 742
[2001].
[22]
People v. Anggot, 105 SCRA 168, 175
[1981].
[23]
TSN, 30 August 1994, 22.
[24]
TSN, 30 August 1994, 38-39.
[25]
Id., 40.
[26]
TSN, 30 August 1994, 43.
[27]
Id., 44-45.
[28]
People v. Aquino, G.R. No. 145371, 28 September 2001; People v.
Rama, G.R. No. 144386, 23 January 2002; People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 135022,
11 July 2002.
[29]
People v. Batidor, 303 SCRA 335, 350 [1999].
[30]
People v. Barnuevo, G.R. No. 134928, 28 September 2001. See also People v. Alib, 322 SCRA 93, 101 [2000]; People v. Orbita, 322 SCRA 321, 325-326 [2000].
[31]
People v. Mationg, 355 SCRA 458, 475 [2001].