G.R. No. 131421. November 18, 2002
GERONIMO DADO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Court assailing the June 26, 1997 decision of the Court of Appeals[1]
in CA-G.R. CR No. 16886, which affirmed the decision[2] dated
April 22, 1994, of the Regional Trial Court of Sultan Kudarat, Branch 19, in
Criminal Case No. 2056, finding petitioner Geronimo Dado and his co-accused
Francisco Eraso guilty of the crime of homicide.
In an Information dated August 24, 1993, petitioner Geronimo Dado
and accused Francisco Eraso were charged with murder allegedly committed as
follows:
That in the evening of May 25, 1992, at Sitio Paitan, Barangay
Sagasa, Municipality of Esperanza, Province of Sultan Kudarat, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, armed with
firearms, with intent to kill, with evident premeditation and treachery, did
then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, attack, assault and shot
one SILVESTRE BALINAS with the use of the afore-mentioned weapons, thereby
inflicting gunshot wounds upon the latter which caused his instantaneous death.
CONTRARY TO LAW, particularly Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code
of the Philippines, with the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of
superior strength.[3]
Upon arraignment on September 22, 1992, petitioner and his
co-accused pleaded not guilty.[4] Trial
thereafter followed.
The antecedent facts as narrated by prosecution witnesses Alfredo
Balinas[5]
and Rufo Alga[6]
are as follows: On the night of May 25,
1992, the Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat Police Station formed three teams to
intercept cattle rustlers from Barangay Laguinding, Sultan Kudarat. The team, composed of petitioner SPO4
Geromino Dado and CAFGU members Francisco Eraso, Alfredo Balinas, and Rufo
Alga, waited behind a large dike at Sitio Paitan, Sultan Kudarat. Alfredo Balinas and Rufo Alga, who were both
armed with M14 armalite rifles, positioned themselves between petitioner, who
was armed with a caliber .45 pistol, and accused Francisco Eraso, who was
carrying an M16 armalite rifle. They
were all facing southwards in a half-kneeling position and were about 2 arms
length away from each other. At around
11:00 of the same evening, the team saw somebody approaching at a distance of
50 meters. Though it was a moonless
night, they noticed that he was half-naked. When he was about 5 meters away from the team, Alfredo Balinas noticed
that Francisco Eraso, who was on his right side, was making some
movements. Balinas told Eraso to wait,
but before Balinas could beam his flash light, Eraso fired his M16 armalite
rifle at the approaching man. Immediately thereafter, petitioner, who was on the left side of Rufo
Alga, fired a single shot from his .45 caliber pistol. The victim shouted, “Tay Dolfo, ako ini,” (“Tay Dolfo, [this is] me”)[7]
as he fell on the ground. The victim
turned out to be Silvestre “Butsoy” Balinas, the nephew of Alfredo Balinas and
not the cattle rustler the team were ordered to intercept. Repentant of what he did, accused Eraso
embraced Alfredo Balinas saying, “Pare, this was not intentionally done and
this was merely an accident.”[8]
Silvestre Balinas died as a result of the gunshot wounds he
sustained. The post-mortem examination
conducted on his cadaver by Dr. Rhodora T. Antenor, yielded the following
results:
Gunshot wounds located at:
1. (Point of Entry) – at
right outer lateral arm with a diameter of 0.25 cm coursing tangentially and
exiting at the right inner arm, about 4 cm below the elbow, 2.5 cm by 3cm in
diameter (Point of Exit).No powder burns noted.
2. (Point of Entry) –
2.5 by 9.5 cm in diameter at upper mid-inner thigh, about 5 cm from the ischial
spine. Exposed were the damaged
muscles, blood vessels and the surrounding tissues along the femoral
triangle. The wound coursed upwards
toward the pelvic area through the inguinal canal with blast injuries noted
[at] the urinary bladder prostate gland, urethra, part of the ureter, the
mid-pelvic bone (symphysis pubis), and the surrounding vessels and tissues of
the pelvis. Marked bleeding was noted
along the injured pelvic area. Three
(3) pieces of irregularly shaped metallic slugs were recovered from the body; one,
silvery colored, along the iliac spine almost glued to the bone; two, copper
colored, embedded in the urinary bladder substance; three, copper colored,
embedded in blasted substance almost on the pelvic floor. Hematoma noted along the penile
area.No other injuries noted.[9]
Dr. Rhodora T. Antenor testified that the fatal wound that caused
the death of the victim was the one inflicted on the mid-inner thigh. The bullet pierced through and injured the
organs in the pelvic region where she found three irregularly shaped metallic
fragments. Dr. Antenor added that the
position of the victim at that time of the shooting was higher than the
assailant considering that the trajectory of the bullets was upwards. She added that the wound on the victim’s
right outer lateral arm alone, would not bring about death, unless not
immediately treated.[10]
Upon examination by NBI Ballistician Elmer Nelson D. Piedad, the
three metallic fragments recovered from the fatal wound of the victim turned
out to be fragments of a 5.56 mm jacketed bullet, thus:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION:
x x x x
x x x x x1. Evidence marked
“SB-1” is a part of a copper jacket of a caliber 5.56mm jacketed bullet and was
fired through the barrel of a caliber 5.56mm firearms.2. Evidence marked
“SB-2” and “SB-3” could be parts of the lead core of evidence copper jacketed
marked “SB-1”.x x x x
x x x x x.[11]
On cross-examination, he declared that he is not sure whether the
2 other metallic fragments (marked as exhibit “SB-2” and “SB-3”) recovered from
the fatal wound of the victim are indeed parts of “SB-1” which is a part of a copper jacket of a
caliber 5.56 mm. jacketed bullet.[12]
For his part, petitioner testified that on the night of the
incident, he was armed with a .45 caliber pistol. He claimed that while waiting for the cattle rustlers, he and his
team positioned themselves beneath a big hole from which a big tree had been
uprooted. He was facing eastward while
his companions, CAFGU members, Francisco Eraso, Alfredo Balinas, and Rufo Alga,
were facing southwards. When he heard
rapid gun bursts, he thought they were being fired upon by their enemies, thus,
he immediately fired a single shot eastward. It was only when accused Eraso embraced and asked forgiveness from
Alfredo Balinas, that he realized somebody was shot.[13]
On cross-examination however, he admitted that he knew the rapid
gun burst which he thought to be from their enemies came from 2 meters behind
him. He explained that his arm was then
broken making it difficult for him to move. Thus, when he heard the gun burst, he did not turn to face the source
thereof and instead fired his .45 caliber pistol in front of him. He declared that his purpose in firing his
.45 caliber pistol opposite the source of the rapid gun burst was to demoralize
their enemy.[14]
On April 22, 1994, the trial court convicted petitioner and
accused Eraso of the crime of homicide. The dispositive portion thereof reads:
WHEREFORE, upon all the foregoing considerations, the Court finds
the accused, SPO4 Geronimo Dado and Francisco Eraso, guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of HOMICIDE.ACCORDINGLY, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court
hereby sentences the accused, SPO4 Geronimo Dado and Francisco Eraso, to suffer
the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment, ranging from EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE
(1) DAY of prision mayor, as minimum,
to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal, as maximum; to
indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the late Silvestre Balinas, Jr.:a) the amount of
P3,000.00 as actual damages which was duly established in relation to the
expenses incurred for the complete funeral services given to the deceased
victim;b) the amount of
P15,000.00, as moral damages;c) the amount of
P10,000.00, as exemplary damages;d) the amount of
P50,000.00, as indemnity for death; and to pay the costs.IT IS SO ORDERED.[15]
The aforesaid judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals on June 26, 1997.[16]
A petition for review[17] was
filed by accused Francisco Eraso but the same was denied in a Resolution dated
February 11, 1998,[18]
which became final and executory on March 30, 1998.[19]
Hence, as regards Francisco Eraso, the decision of the Court of Appeals finding
him guilty of homicide has become final.
Petitioner, on the other hand, filed the instant petition
contending that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred: (1) in ruling
that he acted in conspiracy with accused Francisco Eraso; and (2) in finding
him guilty of homicide on the basis of the evidence presented by the
prosecution.
In convicting the petitioner, both the trial court and the Court
of Appeals found that conspiracy attended the commission of the crime. The Court of Appeals ruled that petitioner
and accused Eraso conspired in killing the deceased, thus, it is no longer
necessary to establish who caused the fatal wound inasmuch as conspiracy makes
the act of one conspirator the act of all.
A reading, however, of the information filed against petitioner
will readily show that the prosecution failed to allege the circumstance of
conspiracy. Pertinent portion of the
information states: “ x x x the said accused, armed with firearms, with intent
to kill, with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, attack, assault and shot one SILVESTRE
BALINAS with the use of the afore-mentioned weapons, thereby inflicting gunshot
wounds upon the latter which caused his instantaneous death. x x x”
Undoubtedly, the information does not satisfy the requirement that conspiracy
must be conveyed in “appropriate language.”[20] The
words “conspired,” “confederated,” or the phrase “acting in concert” or “in
conspiracy,” or their synonyms or derivatives do not appear in the indictment.
The language used by the prosecution in charging the petitioner and his
co-accused contains no reference to conspiracy which must be alleged, not
merely inferred from the information. Absent particular statements in the accusatory portion of the charge sheet
concerning any definitive act constituting conspiracy, the same cannot be
considered against the petitioner who must perforce be held accountable only
for his own acts or omissions.[21] In
all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall first be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him. To ensure that the due process rights
of an accused are observed, every indictment must embody the essential elements
of the crime charged with reasonable particularity as to the name of the
accused, the time and place of commission of the offense, and the circumstances
thereof.[22]
Moreover, even if conspiracy was sufficiently alleged in the
information, the same cannot be considered against the petitioner. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit
it. Although the agreement need not be
directly proven, circumstantial evidence of such agreement must nonetheless be
convincingly shown. Indeed, like the
offense itself, conspiracy must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, it has been held that neither joint
nor simultaneous action is per se
sufficient proof of conspiracy.[23]
In the case at bar, petitioner and accused Eraso’s seemingly
concerted and almost simultaneous acts were more of a spontaneous reaction
rather than the result of a common plan to kill the victim. Simultaneity alone would not be enough to
demonstrate the concurrence of will or the unity of action and purpose that
could be the basis for collective responsibility of two or more individuals
particularly if, as in the case at bar, the incident occurred at the spur of
the moment. In conspiracy, there should
be a conscious design to perpetrate the offense.[24]
Thus, petitioner can only be held responsible for the acts or
omissions which can be proved to have been committed by him personally. In other words, his criminal accountability,
if any, should be determined on an individual rather than on a collective
basis. Petitioner could not be made to
answer for the acts done by his co-accused, Franciso Eraso, unless it be shown
that he participated directly and personally in the commission of those
acts. It becomes important therefore to
determine whether petitioner inflicted the fatal wound that directly caused the
death of the victim.
The trial court found that a .45 caliber bullet will create a
bigger entrance wound as compared to a 5.56 mm. bullet which is of a lower
caliber. It concluded that the wound on
the inner thigh of the victim must have been caused by a .45 caliber bullet
because said wound had a bigger entrance than the wound sustained by the victim
on the right outer lateral arm.[25]
However, this conclusion is entirely devoid of basis because no evidence was
presented to substantiate said conclusions. What is decisive is the result of the Ballistic Examination conducted by
NBI Ballistician Elmer D. Piedad, on the 3 metallic fragments recovered from
the fatal wound of the victim. Piedad
found that one of said fragments, marked “SB-1,” “is a part of a copper jacket
of a caliber 5.56 mm. jacketed bullet and was fired through the barrel of a
caliber 5.56 mm. firearm,”[26] and
not a part of a .45 caliber bullet.[27]
Pertinent portion of his testimony, reads:
ATTY. MONTEFERIO:
Q: You have presented before
this Honorable Court [a] piece of paper … marked “A-1”. This refer to the very same Exhibit “A-1”?A: Yes, sir.
x x x x
x x x x xQ: …Please tell us, how did
you arrive in your findings that SB-1 is part of a copper jacket of a caliber
5.56 mm. jacketed bullet; how did you arrive?A: In a copper jacket[ed]
bullet, there is always [a] copper jacket, that is upper part of the bullet,
sir.Q: How did you arrive at the
conclusion that this is part of a copper jacket of 5.56 mm.?A: I carefully examined
SB-1 in my report to a copper jacket[ed] bullet fired from [a] 5.56 mm., and I
found out that the lands and grooves of the evidenced (sic) copper
jacket marked SB-1 is riflings of the standard 5.56 mm., they have the same
lands and grooves.Q: Did you utilize
instruments in order to determine?A: A bullet comparison
microscope.[28]x x x x
x x x x xATTY. PASOK:
x x x x
x x x x xQ: Mr. witness, being a
ballistic expert, you know the composition of the bullet of [a] .45 caliber and that of [an] armalite?A: Copper jacket.
Q: The composition on the
content of the lead of .45 caliber and that of armalite?A: We are not in the
composition but we are on a caliber (sic).Q: With that answer, it may
be possible that this Exhibit “2”, SB -1, SB-2 and SB-3, could be bullet from a
caliber .45, M-14 or M-16?A: It could not be
possible. SB-1 is part of a copper
jacket of 5.56 mm. and the lead core evidenced (sic) marked SB-2 and
SB-3 could be parts of the copper jacket evidenced (sic) marked SB-1.[29]x x x x
x x x x xQ: Look at your
Certification and in Exhibit “3-A”, in page 2 under the column, “Findings and
Conclusions” and I quote: “Evidenced (sic) marked SB-2 and ‘SB-3’ could
be parts of the lead core of evidenced (sic) copper jacket marked [as]
‘SB-1’. My question, you said could be
part of copper jacket marked SB-1, are you telling the Court, you are sure that
this Exhibits “SB-2” and “SB-3” [are] not … part of a copper . . . jacket
marked as SB-1?A: It could be parts or it
could not be parts.Q: You are in doubt that
this is really part of SB-1?A: It could be part, I am
doubting.COURT:
Q: If it could not be parts
of the lead core of the copper jacket of 5.56 mm. caliber ammunition, would you
say that the same would be part of the lead core of the copper jacket of a
different caliber or ammunition?A: The copper jacket is
parts (sic) of the caliber 5.56 and the lead core could be parts. We cannot evidently conclude. It could be parts of copper jacket evidenced
marked SB-1.There is no basis.
COURT:
Q: You are saying that
practically, any ammunition has copper jacket?A: The caliber 5.56 mm.
there is copper jacket (sic) but something in caliber .38 copper jacket,
rubber putted and lead (sic).Q: How about .45 firearm?
A: The caliber .45, they
are copper jacketed bullet or copper putted (sic) or lead.Q: The same thing with 5.56
mm.?A: Yes. All jacketed, 5.56 are all jacketed.
COURT:
Q: That is the reason why
you said that your findings and conclusion that the evidenced (sic)
marked as SB-2 and SB-3 could be possibly parts of the lead core or the
evidenced (sic) copper jacket marked as SB-1?A: Could be, Your Honor.
COURT:
Cross for the prosecution.
FISCAL DE PERALTA:
x x x x
x x x x xQ: A caliber .45 bullet has
copper jacket, is that correct?A: Some caliber .45 has
copper jacket, some copper putted (sic), some lead.Q: If a caliber .45 bullet
has copper jacket, then why is it that in your findings in Exhibit “2”,
particularly SB-1, you made it appear that this is part of a copper jacket of
5.56 mm. and not from a .45 caliber?A: It is part of a copper jacket
of 5.56 mm., sir.Q: Why did you specifically
state that SB-1 is part of a copper jacket of 5.56 mm?A: Because it is only a
part of a copper jacket of 5.56 mm… because it is only a part.COURT:
Q: But you said it could be
a part?A: It is a part, Your
Honor.FISCAL DE PERALTA:
Q: What is the distinction
of copper jacket of 5.56 mm. and copper jacket of .45 caliber?A: They have the same (sic),
but in my findings, I compared that to
a caliber 5.56 mm. copper jacket fired from armalite under a microscope, the
lands and grooves of the copper jacket and the standard bullet fired from
5.56., they are the same in width.Q: Did you compare riflings
of .45 caliber from the specimen marked SB-1?A: No need to compare
because the caliber .45 lands and grooves is too wide, the lands and grooves of
.45 caliber is very wide. They are not the same.Q: How about the lands and
grooves of a caliber 5.56 mm. compared to a .45 caliber?A: The caliber 5.56 mm. is
smaller but on a caliber .45 are very wide.[30]
The doubt entertained by NBI Ballistician Elmer D. Piedad, as to
whether the 2 other metallic fragments (marked as exhibit “SB-2” and “SB-3”)
are indeed parts of the lead core of the “SB-1”, which is part of a copper jacket of a caliber 5.56 mm. jacketed
bullet, must be resolved in favor of petitioner; that is, said metallic
fragments cannot be presumed to be particles of a .45 caliber bullet fired from
the .45 caliber pistol of petitioner. Under equipoise rule, where the evidence on an issue of fact is in
equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party
having the burden of proof loses. The equipoise rule finds application if, as
in the present case, the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two
or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the
accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not
fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a
conviction. Briefly stated, the needed
quantum of proof to convict the accused of the crime charged is found lacking.[31]
Evidently, the prosecution failed to prove that the metallic
fragments found in the fatal wound of the victim are particles of a .45 caliber
bullet that emanated from the .45 caliber pistol fired by petitioner. For this reason, the Court cannot in good
conscience affirm his conviction for the crime of homicide.
In the same vein, petitioner cannot be held responsible for the
wound inflicted on the victim’s right outer lateral arm for the same reason
that there is no evidence proving beyond moral certainty that said wound was
caused by the bullet fired from petitioner’s .45 caliber pistol.
Nevertheless, petitioner is not completely without
liability. The Court sustains the
finding of the trial court that petitioner fired his .45 caliber pistol towards
the victim. From the attendant
circumstances, it appears that there is no evidence tending to prove that
petitioner had animus interficendi or
intent to kill the victim. Note that
the prosecution witnesses did not see whether petitioner aimed to kill the
victim.[32]
Intent to kill cannot be automatically drawn from the mere fact that the use of
firearms is dangerous to life.[33] Animus interficendi must be established
with the same degree of certainty as is required of the other elements of the
crime. The inference of intent to kill
should not be drawn in the absence of circumstances sufficient to prove such
intent beyond reasonable doubt.[34]
Absent an intent to kill in firing the gun towards the victim,
petitioner should be held liable for the crime of illegal discharge of firearm
under Article 254 of the Revised Penal Code.[35] The
elements of this crime are: (1) that the offender discharges a firearm against
or at another person; and (2) that the offender has no intention to kill that
person.[36]
Though the information charged the petitioner with murder, he could be validly
convicted of illegal discharge of firearm, an offense which is necessarily
included in the crime of unlawful killing of a person. Under Rule 120, Section 4, of the Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure, when there is a variance between the offense
charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and the offense as
charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused
shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense
charged, or the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.
Pursuant to Article 254 of the Revised Penal Code, illegal
discharge of firearm is punishable with prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods There being no modifying
circumstances and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, petitioner should be
sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum to two (2) years and eleven (11) months
of prision correccional, as maximum.
WHEREFORE, in view of
all the foregoing, the June 26, 1997 decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR No. 16886, affirming the conviction of petitioner for the crime of
homicide is SET ASIDE and petitioner
is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on
the ground of reasonable doubt.
A new decision is entered finding petitioner Geronimo Dado guilty
of the crime of illegal discharge of firearm and sentencing him to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto
mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years and eleven (11) months of prision correccional, as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
[1]
Special Ninth Division composed of Associate Justices Ramon Mabutas, Jr.
(Chairman and ponente); Portia Aliño
Hormachuelos (member); and Bernardo LL. Salas (member).
[2]
Judge German M. Malcampo.
[3]
Records, p. 13.
[4]
Records, p. 78.
[5]
TSN, February 24, 1993, pp. 4-25.
[6]
TSN, February 26, 1993, pp. 3-26.
[7]
TSN, February 24, 1993, p. 21.
[8]
TSN, February 26, 1993, p. 22.
[9]
Records, p. 174.
[10]
TSN, March 26, 1993, pp. 26-44.
[11]
Records, p. 252.
[12]
TSN, July 22, 1993, p. 37.
[13]
TSN, March 31, 1993, pp. 11–25.
[14]
TSN, April 1, 1993, pp. 15-20.
[15]
Rollo, p. 94.
[16]
The decretal portion thereof reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision (dated
April 22, 1994) of the Regional Trail Court (Branch 19) in Isulan, Sultan
Kudarat in Criminal Case No. 2056 is hereby AFFIRMED, with costs against the
accused (appellants).
SO ORDERED. (Rollo,
p. 58)
[17]
Docketed as G.R. No. 131419.
[18]
CA Rollo, p. 341.
[19]
CA Rollo, p. 344.
[20]
Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124036, October 23, 2001, citing
Agsill v. U.S., 60 F2d. 780 (1932); People v. Quitlong, 292 SCRA 360
[1998].
[21] Garcia v. Court of Appeals, supra.
[22]
Garcia v. Court of Appeals, supra.
[23]
People v. Miana, Sr., G.R. No. 134565, August 9, 2001; citing The
Revised Penal Code, Article 8; People v.
Padrones, 189 SCRA 496 [1990]; People v.
Saavedra, 149 SCRA 610 [1987]; People v.
Tividad, 20 SCRA 549 [1967]; People v.
Jorge, 231 SCRA 693 [1994]; People v.
Dorico, 54 SCRA 172 [1973].
[24]
People v. Albina, 298 SCRA 260, 276 [1998]; citing People v.
Quitlong, 292 SCRA 360 [1998]; Sabiniano v. Court of Appeals, 319 Phil. 92 [1995].
[25]
Rollo, p. 90.
[26]
Records, p. 252.
[27]
TSN, July 22, 1993, pp. 39-40.
[28]
TSN, July 22, 1993, pp. 12-13.
[29]
Ibid., p. 28.
[30]
Id., pp. 37-40.
[31]
Tin v.
People, G.R. No. 126480, August 10, 2001, citing Rivera v.
Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 673 [1998]; People v.
Cawaling 293 SCRA 267 [1998].
[32]
TSN, February 24, 1993, p. 66.
[33]
People v. Villanueva, 51 Phil. 488,
491 [1928].
[34]
Mondragon v. People, 17 SCRA 476, 481
[1966]; citing People v. Villanueva,
51 Phil. 488 [1928]; U.S. v. Reyes
and Palanca, 30 Phil. 551 [1915]; U.S. v.
Mendoza, 38 Phil. 691 [1918]; People v.
Montes, 53 Phil. 323 [1929]; People v.
Pacusbas, 64 Phil. 614 [1937]; and People v.
Penesa, 81 Phil. 398 [1948].
[35] Art. 254. Discharge
of firearms. — Any person who shall shoot at another with any firearm shall
suffer the penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods, unless the facts of the
case are such that the act can be held to constitute frustrated or attempted
parricide, murder, homicide or any other crime for which a higher penalty is
prescribed by any of the articles of this Code.
[36]
Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, vol. 2, 1998 ed., p. 492.