G.R. No. 132389. November 19, 2002
PEDRO CUPCUPIN, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari, seeking to set aside
the November 27, 1997 decision of the Court of Appeals,[1] in
CA-G.R. CR No. 17334, which affirmed with modification the November 18, 1994
decision[2]
of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Branch 170, wherein petitioner Pedro
Cupcupin was found guilty of the crimes of violation of Section 16, Article
III, Republic Act 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as
amended, and of violation of Section 1, Presidential Decree 1866, otherwise
known as the Unlawful Possession of Firearms and Ammunition, in Criminal Case
No. 13374-MN and Criminal Case No.13375-MN. 5784, respectively.
The Informations filed against petitioner read:
In Criminal Case No. 13374-MN for violation of Section 16,
Article III, Republic Act 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972, as amended:
That on 05 March 1993 in Malabon and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously possess approximately 38.2085 grams of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, popularly known as “shabu”, a regulated drug,
without the corresponding license or prescription therefor.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
In Criminal Case No. 13375-MN for violation of Section 1,
Presidential Decree 1866, otherwise known as the Unlawful Possession of
Firearms and Ammunition:
That on 05 March 1993 in Malabon and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have custody, control and possession of:
one (1) M16 Baby
Armalite rifle with defaced serial no. and fully loaded magazine one (1) Browning pistol without serial
no. with fully loaded magazine
two (2) empty magazine for Armalite
without lawful authority therefore.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
Upon arraignment on August 5, 1993, petitioner pleaded not
guilty. Trial on the merits thereafter
ensued.[5]
The version of the prosecution can be synthesized as follows:
Based on a confidential information that petitioner, Pedro Cupcupin is engaged
in selling methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), and in possession of firearms
and ammunitions without the necessary license, NBI Agent Timoteo Rejano of the
National Capital Region, conducted a surveillance on the vicinity of
petitioner’s residence at Int. David Santos, C. Arellano Streets, Malabon,
Metro Manila. After confirming said
confidential information, Agent Rejano applied for the issuance of search
warrants before Judge Romeo J. Callejo,[6] of
the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 49.[7]
On March 3, 1993, Judge Romeo J. Callejo issued the following
search warrants:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Plaintiff, SEARCH
WARRANT NO. 56-93
– versus –
FOR: VIOLATION OF SECTION 16
PEDRO CUPCUPIN ARTICLE
III, of REPUBLIC
Int. David Santos, C. Arellano ACT
6425, AS AMENDED
Street, Malabon, Metro
Manila
Accused.
x ————————————- x
SEARCH WARRANT
TO ANY PEACE OFFICER:
Upon sufficient showing of the existence of probable cause, after
determination personally by the Judge on examination under oath of the
applicant and his witness by means of searching questions and answers thereto,
based on the facts personally known to them that Respondent Pedro Cupcupin
residing at said address, had been and still is using the said premises, for
the possession and/or use of regulated substance known as methamphetamine
hydrochloride (SHABU) in violation of section 16 of Republic Act 6425, as
amended.
WHEREFORE, the Court commands you to conduct an immediate search,
at any time of the day or night, including Saturdays and Sundays, on the
premises at the above address, including the rooms located therein, and seize
the following:
“UNDETERMINED QUANTITY OF METAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (SHABU)”
and to bring the same before the Court for proper disposition in
accordance with law.
You shall make a return of the warrant to the Court within ten (10)
days from today.
SO ORDERED.[8]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Plaintiff, SEARCH WARRANT NO. 57-93
– versus –
FOR: VIOLATION OF
PEDRO CUPCUPIN PRESIDENTIAL
DECREE 1866
Int. David Santos, C. Arellano (SECTION
1)
Street, Malabon, Metro
Manila
Accused.
x ————————————- x
SEARCH WARRANT
TO ANY PEACE OFFICER:
Upon sufficient showing of the existence of probable cause, after
determination personally by the Judge on examination under oath of the
applicant and his witness by means of searching questions, and answers thereto,
based on the facts personally known to them, that Accused Pedro Cupcupin
residing at said address, had been and still in possession of assorted firearms
herein below listed, without the requisite license therefore, in violation of
Presidential Decree No. 1866.
WHEREFORE, the Court commands you to conduct an immediate search,
at any time of the day and night, including Saturdays, on the premises at the
above address including the rooms located therein and seize the following:
a) Two (2) .45 cal.
pistols;
b) One (1) .38 cal.
revolver;
c) One (1) .9 mm. pistol;
d) Two (2) M-16 armalite
rifles; and
e) One (1) .22 cal.
pistol
and bring the same before the Court for proper disposition in accordance
with law.
You shall make a return of the warrant to the Court within ten (10)
days from today.
SO ORDERED.[9]
On March 5, 1993, at about 7 a.m., the team composed of
Supervising Agent Eduard Villarta, NBI agents Timoteo Rejano, Ruel Lasala,
Narciso Peña, Jr., Joel Consador, Ceres Delapa-Cabrera, Ernesto Cabrera and
Special Investigators Arthur Oliveros and Ariel Nuñez and SPO1 Olazo, raided
the house of petitioner located at Int. David Santos and C. Arellano Streets,
Malabon, Metro Manila,[10]
which consisted of a 2-storey house made up of strong materials and a workshop
room at the ground floor made up of light materials.[11]
The NBI agents presented the search warrants and introduced
themselves to the petitioner and his wife, Adelfa Cupcupin. Upon their request, the NBI agents waited
for petitioner’s mother, Iluminada Cupcupin and in their presence, the team
searched the bedroom at the second floor and found a fully-loaded M16 armalite
rifle underneath the bed. They likewise
found a semi-automatic browning pistol and two empty magazines of armalite
inside a drawer of a table found in the same bedroom. Agents Rejano and Consador inscribed their respective initials
and date on the handle of the rifle and the pistol.[12]
An Inventory of the items seized was thereafter signed by Adelfa Cupcupin,
Elumina Cupcupin, and the petitioner.[13]
Thereafter, the team searched the workshop room, again in the
presence of petitioner, his wife, and his mother.[14]
Seized from petitioner’s workshop room were the following: “1) nine (9) plastic
packs of white crystalline substance found inside a box [of] ‘ETERNITY’; 2) one
improvised water pipe; 3) one (1) improvised burner; 4) one (1) weighing scale
marked ‘TAVITA’; 5) three (3) small tooters; 6) one pack of plastic pouches; 7)
one electric resealer; 8) aluminum foils; 9) five (5) assorted magazines for
pistols; 10) one (1) rifle grenade; 11) assorted bullets for M16, .45 cal and 9
mm.”[15]
An inventory of the items seized was prepared and thereafter signed and
acknowledged by Adelfa Cupcupin, Elumina Cupcupin, and the petitioner.[16]
Upon examination by NBI Forensic Chemist Aida R.
Viloria-Magsipoc, the nine plastic packs of white crystalline substance seized
from the workshop room of petitioner, turned out to be 38.0201 grams of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, popularly known as shabu.[17]
Petitioner, on the other hand, raised the defense of
frame-up. He alleged that between 6:00
to 7:00 in the morning of March 5, 1993, while he was resting at the ground
floor of his house in the company of his wife, Adelfa Cupcupin and their two
children, the team of NBI agents arrived. They searched his house and detained him and his family at the ground
floor. He denied ownership and possession
of the illegal items allegedly seized from his house but admitted ownership of
the automatic browning pistol found in his bedroom. He produced a Certification from the PNP Firearms and Explosive
Division showing that said browning, cal. 9mm pistol with Serial No. 245PZ84617
is registered in his name.[18]
After the search and while in handcuffs, he was forced to sign some documents
which turned out to be an inventory receipt and a search warrant.[19]
Petitioner further declared that the charges against him are
purely harassment because in 1991 he had been previously charged, but was subsequently
acquitted of illegal possession of regulated drugs and firearms in Criminal
Case Nos. 10108-MN and 10109- MN, respectively, before Branch 72, of the
Regional Trial Court of Malabon.[20]
On November 18, 1994, a decision was rendered by the trial court
convicting petitioner, to wit:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby
rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No.
13374, finding accused Pedro Cucupin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Violation of Section 16, Article III, Republic Act 6425, as further amended by
Republic Act 7659 and considering the quantity of the Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride involved in this case, hereby sentences him to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of One (1) Year, Eight (8) Months and Twenty (20) Days as
minimum, to Four (4) Years, Two (2) Months and One (1) Day as maximum, & to
pay the cost;
2. In Criminal Case No.
13375, finding accused Pedro Cupcupin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866, hereby sentences him to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of Seventeen (17) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day
as minimum, to Eighteen (18) Years, Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day as
maximum, and to pay the cost of this suit.
The unlicensed M16 baby armalite, magazines, assorted ammunitions,
methamphetamine hydrochloride and the paraphernalia presented as evidence are
all forfeited in favor of the government, and the Branch Clerk of Court is
directed to turn over the same to the PNP Firearms and Explosive Office and
Dangerous Drugs Board for proper disposition.
The 9mm automatic pistol is hereby ordered returned to accused
Pedro Cupcupin.
SO ORDERED.[21]
On appeal, the judgment of conviction was affirmed, but modified
as to the penalties, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the decision subject of this appeal is AFFIRMED with
modifications as to the penalties imposed:
(1) In Criminal Case No.
13374-MN for violation of R.A. No. 6425, accused-appellant is sentenced to
suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of Six (6) Months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to Four (4)
Years and Two (2) Months of prision
correccional, as minimum.
(2) In Criminal Case No. 13375-MN for violation of P.D. No. 1866,
accused-appellant shall suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of Six
(6) Years of prision correccional, as
minimum, to Eight (8) Years of prision
mayor, as maximum, and to pay a fine of thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00).
SO ORDERED.[22]
Hence, the instant petition raising the following errors:
I
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE
SEARCH WARRANTS WERE LEGALLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY INFIRM, INVALID AND VOID,
THEY NOT HAVING COMPLIED WITH THE INDESPENSABLE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ISSUANCE
THEREOF.
II
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND
CREDENCE TO THE WITNESSES OF THE PROSECUTION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE
WITNESSES, WHO WERE NBI AGENTS, WERE ACTUATED WITH MALICE, IMPROPER MOTIVE AND
COMMITTED IRREGULAR ACTS IN SECURING AND IMPLEMENTING THE AFOREMENTIONED SEARCH
WARRANTS.
III
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT AND
PROBATIVE VALUE TO THE EARLIER JOINT DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT ACQUITTING THE
ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENSES OF VIOLATION OF SEC. 15 OF THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT AND
VIOLATION OF P.D. 1866, WHICH ARE THE SAME OFFENSES NOW SUBJECT OF THE INSTANT
CASES AND WHERIN THE PETITIONER HAD BEEN CONVICTED BY THE TRIAL COURT AND
AFFIRMED BY THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS.
IV
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE
ACCUSED-PETITIONER OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED, THE SAME NOT HAVING BEEN PROVED
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[23]
Petitioner contends that the items allegedly seized from his
residence are inadmissible as evidence because the search warrants issued
against him failed to comply with the constitutional and statutory requirements
for the issuance of a valid search warrant. Specifically, petitioner claims that said warrants were defective on the
grounds that: (1) NBI Agent Timoteo Rejano who applied for the issuance thereof
had no personal knowledge of the facts on which the warrants were based; and
(2) subject warrants failed to particularly describe the place to be searched
because there are two houses located in the address stated in the said
warrants.
The contentions are without merit.
Sections 2 and 3 (2), Article III, of the Constitution state:
SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant
or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
SEC. 3. x x x
x x x x
x x x x x
(2) Any evidence obtained
in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.
Under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 126, of the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure, the requisites for the issuance of a valid search warrant
are as follows:
SEC. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. – A search warrant shall
not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to
be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witness he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be
anywhere in the Philippines. (3a)
SEC. 5. Examination of complainant; record. – The judge must, before
issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions and
answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn
statements, together with the affidavits submitted. (4a)
In determining probable cause in the issuance of a search
warrant, the oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the
personal knowledge of the applicant or his witnesses, because the purpose
thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not the individual making the
affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable
cause. Search warrants are not issued
on loose, vague or doubtful basis of fact, nor on mere suspicion or belief.[24]
In the case at bar, NBI Agent Timoteo Rejano who applied for the
issuance of Search Warrant Nos. 56-93 and 57-93, had personal knowledge of the
circumstances on which the warrants were based. Admittedly, Rejano’s knowledge of petitioner’s illegal possession
of firearms and prohibited drugs came from a confidential informant, and
therefore, initially hearsay. Nevertheless, the surveillance and investigation he conducted on the
basis of said confidential information enabled him to gain personal knowledge
of the illegal activities of petitioner.[25]
Hence, his testimony was sufficient justification for the examining judge to
conclude that there was probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant.
Contrary to the claim of petitioner, the records show that there
is only one house located in the address to be searched. The residence of petitioner consisted of a
structure with two floors, made up of strong materials and a workshop room at
the ground floor made up of light materials. The unrebutted testimony of the prosecution witnesses reveal that inside
the main house is an alley connected to the door of the workshop room. Pertinent portion of the testimony of NBI
Agent Consador, one of the members of the raiding team, reads:
Court (witness)
Q Where is the house of the
accused located?
A It is located at the
corner of Arellano St., Your Honor.
Q Malabon?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q Is there a number in the
house of the accused?
A I cannot recall, Your
Honor.
Q How many structures are
there in the premises of Pedro Cupcupin?
A As I remember, there are
two structures but it looks like they are adjacent, one big and the other one
like nipa hut but they are adjacent, Your Honor.
Q What do you mean
adjacent?
A The small structure is
connected to the big structure, Your Honor.
Q When you say connected,
will you tell the court what do you mean.
A When you enter the
structure, there is a door that can be opened at the small structure, Your
Honor.
Q Without going outside of
the house?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q Do we understand from you
that there is a connecting alley inside the bigger structure going to the small
structure?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q These two structures
belong to Pedro Cupcupin?
A Yes, Your Honor.
x x x x
x x x
x x.[26]
Likewise relevant is the testimony of Agent Rejano, thus:
x x x x x x x x x
A We go back now to the
two buildings which you said in your own opinion is only one. I am showing to you the picture which was
taken by your photographer, is this the scenario of the place where [the] two
buildings depicted in the picture marked as Exhibit “N”? A two stor[e]y house
is depicted at the left hand portion of Exhibit “M” that would be the house you
are alluding to as the house which you first entered the second floor despite
the fact that you will pass the ground floor that is the building you are
alluding in that statement of yours or testimony of yours a while ago?
A Yes, sir.
Q How about a structure
depicted at the right hand portion in between the two vehicles, is it part also
of the residence of Cupcupin?
A It is part of the
residence and while inside the edifice there is no divider, sir.
Q You will agree with me
Mr. witness that despite the fact that there is no division, two vehicles were
parked in between the two structures, one jeep and a passenger jeep. My question is, you will agree with me that
despite the fact [that] there was no division, two structures were clearly
depicted in Exhibit “N”?
A As I have said in my
observation, there is only one structure because in between seemingly two
structures, there is a corridor connecting the two structures. While inside the said edifice, there is only
one structure, sir.
x x x x
x x x
x x.[27]
It is clear from the foregoing that the workshop room where the
packs of shabu were found is actually an integral part of petitioner’s
residence. Hence, it cannot be argued that there are two houses in the address
stated in the warrants and that the same failed to particularly describe the
place to be searched. The rule is that a description of the place to be
searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable
effort, ascertain and identify the place intended to be searched. Tested against the foregoing rule, the Court
finds that the residence of petitioner stated in the warrants as “Int. David
Santos, C. Arellano Street, Malabon, Metro Manila,” can with reasonable effort
be ascertained and identified by the NBI agents who were ordered to search the
“… above address, including the rooms located therein.”[28]
It must be stressed that petitioner does not deny ownership,
access to and more importantly, immediate physical occupancy and control over
said workshop room and his entire residence. As a matter of law, when prohibited and regulated drugs are found in a
house or other building belonging to and occupied by a particular person, the
presumption arises that such person is in possession of such drugs in violation
of law, and the fact of finding the same is sufficient to convict. Otherwise stated, the finding of the drugs
in the building owned by petitioner raised the presumption of knowledge and,
standing alone, was sufficient to convict.[29]
It may be argued that in the cases of illegal possession of
regulated drugs and firearms filed against petitioner in 1991, in Criminal Case
Nos. 10108-MN and 10109- MN, respectively, before Branch 72, of the Regional
Trial Court of Malabon, the trial court found that the “nipa hut” near the
house of petitioner is owned by a certain Benjamin Santos.[30]
But since it was not shown that said “nipa hut” is the same workshop room
referred to in the present case, and that the factual circumstances on which
the finding that subject “nipa hut” is not owned by petitioner, still holds
true in the instant case, the Court cannot rule that there are indeed two
houses in the address stated in the search warrants issued against
petitioner. At any rate, it is not the
ownership of the place where the illegal items were seized that matters. What is decisive is that, it is the
petitioner who had access to and control over said workshop room being an
integral part of his house.
In criminal cases involving prohibited drugs, there can be no
conviction unless the prosecution shows that the accused knowingly possessed
the prohibited articles in his person, or that animus possidendi is shown to be present together with his
possession or control of such article.[31] Animus possidendi is only prima
facie. It is subject to contrary proof
and may be rebutted by evidence that the accused did not in fact exercise power
and control over the thing in question, and did not intend to do so. The burden of evidence is thus shifted to
the possessor to explain absence of animus
possidendi.[32]
In the instant case, petitioner failed to present any evidence to
rebut the existence of animus possidendi
over the armalite rifle and the packs of shabu found in his residence. The mere uncorroborated statement that he
was not aware of the existence of said illegal items in his house is
insufficient.[33]
Moreover, the defense of “frame-up” raised by petitioner is a common and
standard line of defense which is invariably viewed by this Court with
disfavor, it being capable of easy concoction and difficult to prove. Considering that no clear and convincing
evidence was presented to prove that he was really framed up, the presumption
of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the principle
that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled
to great respect, must prevail over the petitioner’s imputation of ill-motive
and harassment on the part of the NBI Agents who conducted the search.[34]
For the crime of illegal possession of regulated drugs, the Court
of Appeals correctly deleted the excess of 1 day in the maximum penalty imposed
by the trial court, i.e., four (4)
years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of prision
correccional. In People
v. Medenilla,[35] the
Court held that if the regulated drug weighs less than 66.67 grams, then the
penalty is prision correctional, if
66.67 grams or more but less than 133.33 grams, then the penalty is prision mayor, and if 133.33 grams or
more, but less than 200 grams, then the penalty is reclusion temporal. Considering that 38.0201 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, or
shabu is involved in the case at bar, the proper penalty is prision correccional. There being no attendant modifying
circumstance the maximum period of the imposable penalty, cannot exceed two (2)
years, four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months,
the medium period of prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
minimum period of the imposable penalty shall be within the range of arresto mayor (1 month and 1 day to 6
months), the penalty next lower in degree to prision correccional.
Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act 2002, increased the penalty for illegal possession of 10
grams or more but less than 50 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or
“shabu” to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from four hundred thousand
pesos (P400,000.00) to five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00). However, said law not being favorable to the
accused, cannot be given retroactive application in the instant case.
Under Republic Act 8294, amending P.D. No. 1866, the penalty for
illegal possession of firearms classified as high powered, like an M16 armalite
rifle,[36]
is prision mayor minimum and a fine
of P30,000.00. No modifying
circumstance having been proven, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium
period.[37]
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum period of the imposable
penalty cannot exceed the medium period of prision
mayor minimum, i.e., six (6)
years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seven (7) years and four (4)
months. The Court of Appeals therefore
erred in fixing the maximum period of the imposable penalty to eight (8) years
of prision mayor. The minimum period shall be within the range
of prision correccional in its
maximum period (4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years), the penalty next lower
in degree to prision mayor minimum.
WHEREFORE, in view of
all the foregoing, the November 27, 1997 decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR No. 17334, finding petitioner Pedro Cupcupin guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crimes of illegal possession of regulated drugs and
illegal possession of firearm is AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATIONS. As modified, petitioner is sentenced to
suffer: (1) the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6)
months of arresto mayor, as minimum,
to four (4) years and two (2) months, of prision
correccional, as maximum in Criminal Case No. 13374-MN, for illegal
possession of regulated drugs under Section 16, of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by
R.A. No. 7659; and (2) the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from
six (6) years of prision correccional,
as minimum, to seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P30,000.00 for
illegal possession of firearm under Section 1, of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by
R.A. No. 8294, in Criminal Case No. 13375-MN.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna,
JJ., concur.
[1] Eleventh Division, composed of Associate
Justices: Quirino D. Abad Santos, Jr. (Chairman and ponente); Ruben T. Reyes (member) and Hilarion L. Aquino (member).
[2] Penned by Judge Benjamin T. Antonio.
[3] Records of Criminal Case No. 13374-MN, p.
1.
[4] Records of Criminal Case No. 13375-MN, p.
1.
[5] Records, p. 81.
[6] Now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
[7] TSN, December 14, 1993, p. 32.
[8] Exhibit “E”, Records, p. 146.
[9] Exhibit “E-1”, Records, p. 147.
[10] TSN, December 14, 1993, p. 5.
[11] TSN, February 1, 1994, p. 13; January 6,
1994, pp. 14-15.
[12] TSN, December 14, 1993, pp. 7-11; February
1, 1994, pp. 1-7.
[13] Exhibit “K”, Records, p. 149.
[14] TSN, December 14, 1993, p. 12.
[15] Exhibit “J”, Records, p. 148.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Exhibit “C”, Records, p. 145.
[18] Exhibits “6” and “7”, Records, pp. 225-227.
[19] TSN, April 5, 1994, pp. 2-14.
[20] Exhibits “4”, Records, p. 218.
[21] Records, p. 253.
[22] Rollo,
p. 79.
[23] Rollo,
pp. 38-39.
[24] Uy,
et al. v. Bureau of Internal Revenue,
et al., 344 SCRA 36, 55-56 [2000]; citing Alvarez v. Court of First Instance of Tayabas, 64 Phil. 33 [1937]; Quintero
v. National Bureau of Investigation,
162 SCRA 467 [1988].
[25] Yu, et al. v. Hondrado, et al., 99 SCRA 273, 278 [1980].
[26] TSN, February 1, 1994, p. 13.
[27] TSN, January 6, 1994, pp. 14-15.
[28] Exhibit “E”, p. 146; and Exhibit “E-1”, p.
147.
[29] United States v. Gan Lian Po, 34 Phil. 880,
882-883.
[30] Exhibit “4-B”, Records, pp. 219-221.
[31] People v.
Burton, 268 SCRA 531, 550-551 [1997]; citing Aquino, The Revised Penal Code,
1987 Ed., Vol. II, p. 351; U.S. v.
Ngan Ping, 34 Phil. 660 [1916]; People v.
Libag, 184 SCRA 707 [1990]; People v.
Aranda, 226 SCRA 562 [1993].
[32] People v.
Burton, supra, citing Cruz, Isagani
A., Constitutional Law, 1993 ed., p. 313; U.S. v. Lim Chingco, 15 Phil. 52 [1910].
[33] People v.
Burton, supra.
[34] People v.
Sotto, 275 SCRA 191, 204-205 [1997]; citing People v. Ponsica, 230 SCRA 87 [1994].
[35] 355 SCRA 172, 194 [2001].
[36] People
v. Castillo, et al., 333 SCRA
506, 522 [2000].
[37] Revised Penal Code, Article 64.