G.R. No. 70305. December 15, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALFREDO NITO Y MIRANDA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
ROMERO, J.:
Alfredo Nito y Miranda, a
21-year-old bachelor who had yet to complete his elementary education, was
charged with the rape of his girlfriend, Melba Llarena, who was then a
20-year-old student taking up Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education at
the Bicol University, in the complaint filed on October 17, 1973 by Melba and
her mother, Lourdes Llarena, before the Municipal Court of Daraga, Albay.[1]
In due course, the
following information was filed against Nito before the then Court of First
Instance of Albay, Branch I:
“That on or about October 12, 1973, in the Municipality of
Daraga, Province of Albay, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, by means of force
and intimidation and deprived Melba Llarena of reasons (sic), did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with Melba
Llarena against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Nito pleaded not guilty
to the offense charged.[2] At the trial, the lower court gathered from
the prosecution’s evidence the following facts:
Melba had known Nito
since the elementary grades. While he
did not court her, Nito once wrote her a letter. Melba also wrote him a letter dated September 20, 1972 wherein
she addressed him as “Dearest Freddie” and related to him her
group’s activities during the Malabog fiesta. Calling him “Noy,” Melba told Nito that she was staying with
the children of Tang Senen because she would go home from school at 6:00
o’clock and nobody could fetch her anymore (“wala na sa akin magsusundo
kaya natatakot akong umuuwi ng gabi”). Melba asked Nito when he would go home (“Kailan ba ang uwi
mo?”) and ended the letter with “Eternally yours, Ne.” Below
this, Melba wrote “Good Luck Good Health God Bless You” and
“I’ll Never Change” in quotation marks.[3] She also gave Nito her picture dated March
3, 1972 with these inscriptions: “To Fred, A souvenir to you. If you are sad, remember God, If you are happy remember me. From, Melba.”[4]
Late in the afternoon of October 12, 1973, Melba boarded a bus
from the Bicol University. She alighted
at the waiting shed in Malabog, Daraga, Albay and walked to her home in
Lacag. After walking about a kilometer
on the small trail, Nito suddenly appeared and pulled her towards the lower
portion of the area where there was a small uninhabited hut. Nito dragged her for a distance of around
five meters from the trail. Melba was
shouting and boxing Nito but she was not able to free herself from his hold as
he was “wrestling” with her. While seated, Nito forced her to remove her panty tearing it in the
process as he continued boxing her and kneeling on her thighs. Melba tried to push him and kept on moving
away even as he succeeded in laying on top of her and forcing his penis into
her vagina.
Nito fled when somebody arrived who helped Melba gather her
things, including her umbrella. Since
she was not feeling well, Melba “took some rest” and went home. She was crying on her way home and when her
mother saw her soiled clothes and torn panty which she was not wearing anymore,
her mother went to the barangay captain to complain.[5]
That night, Melba was examined by Dr. Leonila Ante of the Albay
Provincial Hospital but because she was “not contented with the first
doctor,”[6]
she submitted herself to another medical examination at the Rural Health Unit
in Daraga on October 16, 1973 by Dr. Rafael Navera who made the following
findings:
“EXTERNAL FINDINGS:
– Neck: Two (2) finger nail marks right, 2 cms.
– Hands: Abrasion of tips.
– Thighs: Hematoma 2 cms. in diameter, right medial
aspect.
– Buttocks: Abrasions 2 cms. bilateral
INTERNAL FINDINGS:
– Hematoma 1 o’clock uretheral opening 1 cms. in diameter.
– Defloration of hymen 9, 11, and 1 o’clock.
– Admits 1 finger easily.”[7]
Nito, however, presented evidence to the effect that the sexual
intercourse between him and Melba that late afternoon of October 12, 1973 was
with their mutual consent. According to
Nito, Melba became his girlfriend in August 1972 and he would call her
“Ne” as he was “Noy” to her. When she sent him the letter, he was working with Dr. Abis in
Manila but he went home towards the end of October on account of her
information that nobody could fetch her. From then on, he would meet her at the waiting shed in Malabog and
accompany her to her home in Malada which is a sitio of Malabog.[8]
On September 7, 1973, Melba sent word to Nito through her sister,
Evangeline, that she was sick. Hence,
before going to her house, Nito bought milk, eggs and biscuits. With a friend, Ariston Mercadero, Nito
proceeded to Melba’s house. Evangeline
left for the store. When told that
their mother was in Daraga for the fiesta, Nito left his friend reading comics
in the balcony and he entered Melba’s room which was separated from the balcony
by the sala. While talking with each
other, Nito asked Melba if he “could use her and she consented.” Nito
kissed her and while he was embracing her, she removed her panty and they
copulated. Afterwards, they told each
other stories.[9]
On October 11, 1973, at the waiting shed in Malabog, Melba told
Nito to break up with his other girlfriend from Alcala, Lilia Manzano. Nito obliged and focused his attention on
Melba. Because Melba was jealous of
that girl and had signified that she did not like him anymore, the following
day, October 12, 1973, Nito waited for Melba at the Malabog waiting shed in
hopes of reconciling with her, which did take place.[10]
He had been at the Malabog waiting shed since ten minutes before
5:00 o’clock when Melba arrived. While
walking to Lacag, Nito asked Melba if he “could use her and she said,
yes.” She put her books on the trail and he kissed her. She embraced him as he began holding her
private parts. Noticing that she was about to lie down, Nito told her that they
should go a little farther “below.” Melba was smiling as they went
down the trail.
They were still standing while engaged in foreplay but as Melba
sat down, she removed her yellow panty. As they were copulating, a certain Juan arrived. Nito signalled him to go away by waving his hand. Melba could not see Juan because he was
around ten meters “above her head.” The area where they had sexual
intercourse was below the trail and dense “palomaria” or “ipil-ipil” trees blocked the view
from the trail. They were between these
trees and they were doing the act on the banana leaves which they had gathered
and used to keep themselves from being soiled as the carabao grass on the area
was sparse.[11]
After copulation, Nito and Melba proceeded home. On the way, Puring Luces, a relative of Melba,
who had apparently been told by Juan about what transpired below the trail,
called Nito names.[12] Puring actually called him depota but
he ignored her and they continued walking. Melba then told him to go home and she herself would go to her own home.[13]
To Nito’s surprise, the police came that same night and took him
to the jail in Daraga municipal hall. It was there that Nito learned that Melba had charged him with
rape. The following morning, his statement was taken.[14]
After trial, the lower
court rendered a decision[15] of conviction. It gave full credence to the testimony of the victim, pointing
out that the “supposed inconsistencies” therein “refer to
incidental details which do not affect the credibility of her main
asseverations.” The court said:
“The defense has not convincingly established that in accusing
Alfredo Nito of such a serious offense, Melba had been actuated by some
ulterior motive which induced her to resort to mere fabrication to attain her
purpose. The claim of the accused that
one reason why Melba signed the complaint is that she was under the moral
ascendancy of her mother and elder brothers who did not like her to marry a
poor and illiterate man because of her status as a BSEEd student teacher who
was about to become a professional, is simply, to say the least, too
preposterous and absurd to inspire credence. For indeed there is neither rhyme nor reason for the Llarenas to
consider the marriage of Melba to a poor and illiterate man as a disgrace to
their family and yet be so vile and heartless to go to the extent of exposing
her to public ridicule, humiliation and obloquy as a victim of sexual assault
just to prevent such marriage. But the
fact is, no satisfactory evidence exists in the record showing that Melba’s
mother and elder brothers have harbored any ill-feeling against the
accused. As the Court has stated
earlier, no true Filipina would ever go around in public unravelling facts and
circumstances of her sexual debauchery, if such were not true. Apart from these, the Court believes that
the offended party’s young mind and degree of understanding at the time were
still quite raw and not so comprehensive enough to be entrusted with such
confabulation too complicated and too evil for her to fully grasp.
On the other hand, the contention of the defense that the sexual
intercourse between the accused and the victim on October 12, 1973, was
mutually agreed upon is utterly incredible as it conflicts with the common and
usual manner Filipino women deport and conduct themselves. It is highly improbable that Melba Llarena
would agree to a coitus with the accused in an open space only five meters away
from an elevated trail, where they could be easily discovered by
passers-by. An affair such as that
claimed by the defense is carried out in a discreet manner. Besides, if Melba Llarena consented to have
coition with the accused, her conduct thereafter defies understanding. For if it is true that the sexual act was
indeed mutually desired and performed, why did she complain not only to her
mother but also to the authorities, such that the accused was immediately
arrested from his house on the day following the incident. Furthermore, the statement of the accused to
the Police on October 13, 1973 (Exhibit E) negates and contradicts this pretense
of the defense. (This is followed by
excerpts from the sworn statement of Nito in the Bicol dialect.) x x x.
In English the above admissions of Alfredo Nito mean:
‘Q – In
your own personal knowledge, of what felony
are you being accused by the mother of Melba Llarena?
A – Because
of one thing that I did to Melba Llarena.
x x x x x x x x x.
Q – What
do you mean by ‘one thing that you did to Melba Llarena?’
A – Sexual
intercourse.
Q – When
did this incident happen and in what place did it happen, if you still
remember?
A – Yesterday,
Friday, October 12, 1973 at about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon and it happened
there at Malabog, Daraga, Albay.
Q – In
what particular place in Malabog, did you have sexual intercourse with Melba
Llarena?
A – On
the grass, near the house of Gaspar Gasino.
x x x x x x x x x.
Q – With
regards to this incident, was it really Melba’s consent or did you force her?
A – I
forced her (Bicol: Pigfuerza ko po).’
The admissibility of Exhibit E has not been assailed by the defense
when the same was offered in the evidence by the prosecution. Moreover, the accused did not bother to
explain his declarations therein despite the opportunities given him by the
Court.
The defense likewise maintain that the testimony of Dra. Leonila
Ante proves that the complainant had a previous carnal experience. The Court will go further than that and add
that the medico-legal certificate (Exhibit 5) issued by this physician reveals
that the hymen of Melba Llarena had old lacerations at 1, 9 and 11 o’clock
positions. But these findings do not
preclude the commission of rape (People vs. Espiritu, No. L-63451, May 31,
1984). Virginity of the offended party
is not an essential element of this crime (People vs. Mesias, et al., Nos.
L-40318-20, Feb. 29, 1984). The fact
that the offended party was no longer a virgin is not a defense in a charge of
rape, provided that the sexual act was committed with force and violence
(People vs. Espiritu, supra; People vs. Mesias, et al., supra; People vs.
Santos, 94 SCRA 277), just like in the
present case.
The testimony of Juanito Nolasco has not improved the cause of his
defense. This witness has categorically
admitted that he would have testified for the prosecution had he not been
rejected by the complainant. But because
of his rejection by the offended party, he testified for the defense. x x x.
The Court cannot give any weight to the testimony of this defense
witness who has offered to swear in favor of one side, and when he was
rejected, he swore in favor of the adverse side. It is extremely dangerous to rely on the declaration of such
witness who has lost his sense of justice and truth.”
Thus, the lower court
disposed of the case as follows:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered pronouncing accused Alfredo
Nito guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the felony of rape, and
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.
Said accused is ordered to pay to Melba Llarena, the offended
party, the sum of P15,000.00 and to her parents, another P10,000.00, for moral
damages, with costs against the accused.
SO ORDERED.”
Nito interposed the instant appeal questioning the lower court’s
findings that he employed force and violence upon the victim and that his guilt
has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
This case is not the ordinary rape case wherein no witnesses are
present to support or demolish the testimony of either the accused or the
victim. In this case, both the
testimonies of the accused and the victim are corroborated by other
witnesses. Melba’s testimony is
supported by that of Jose Navarro who testified that he was walking on the
trail that afternoon of October 12, 1993 when he heard the scream of a woman
coming from below the trail. Thus, he
proceeded to where the scream came from and saw a woman “being
wrestled” by a man. He noticed
that the panty of the woman “was already removed.”[16]
Navarro testified thus:
“Q – And where was the pantie of the woman because you said the pantie
was already removed, what was the man doing?
A – I saw the man wrestling with the woman and the woman was struggling
against the man. As a matter of fact,
the woman was holding the trunk of a tree, and he (sic) was kicking the man.
Q – Now,
you have not answered my question. My
question is you said the pantie of the woman was already removed. What was the man doing when the pantie of
the woman was already removed?
A – As
I understood from the scene, when the pantie was removed, I think
the man was wanting to do something
wrong against the woman because the woman
was struggling and he was not able
or the purpose was not accomplished.
x x x x x x x x x.
Q – What
did the man want to do with the woman?
A – The man wanted to have sexual intercourse with the woman your Honor,
that is what I understand of the scene, that the man wanted to have intercourse
with the woman because the pantie was already removed and he was already on top
of the woman.
Q – Now,
are you sure if the penis was able to penetrate the vagina?
A – I
am not sure whether the penis penetrated the vagina because I was at a
distance.
(The witness then went on to demonstrate how the woman was holding
on to the trunk of a tree as she struggled by pushing the man and kicking him.)
x x x x x x x x x.
Q – Now,
how many times more or less did you see the woman kicking and pushing the man
atop of her with her right hand?
A – I could not count how many times she was kicking because the woman was
crying or weeping as she was kicking the man and pushing him.
x x x x x x x x x.
Q – When
you arrived at the scene, did you see any other person?
A – Yes,
sir.
Q – Who
was that person?
A – I
do not know the name of the man because it was the first time that I saw him.
Q – Now,
when you were already both there, what did the man whom you saw do?
A – He
was looking.
Q – What
did that man aside from looking do?
A – That
man shouted to the man who was wrestling the woman.
Q – And
what did the man wrestling the woman do when he was shouted at?
A – He
looked around and after seeing us, he ran away.
x x x x x x x x x.
Q – This
man who was wrestling the woman, before he ran away, what did he do to himself
if any?
A – He
wore his pants.
Q – Why,
at the time he was wrestling the woman, where was his pants or what happened to
it?
A – I
think he removed his pants because I saw the pants beside himself.
Q – What
else happened after the man ran away?
A – No
more, sir.
Q – What
did you do also?
A – I
told the other man to take care of the woman so that I will be able to inform
the Barrio Captain that something happened.” (Underscoring supplied)[17]
On the other hand, Nito’s testimony was buttressed by that of
Juanito Nolasco who, on that fateful October day, saw Nito and Melba embracing
and kissing each other. He was
approximately ten (10) meters away from the couple who, at first, was
standing. After the woman sat down on
the ground the man followed suit and they embraced each other. As the woman lay down, Nito rolled down his
pants up to the knees. Melba also
removed her panty and she had sexual intercourse with Nito. As they were copulating, Melba was embracing
Nito and they did not detect that they were being watched.[18]
Nolasco saw Melba’s books on the side of the trail, some of which
had rolled down the sloping ground. There were several “palomaria” or “ipil-ipil” trees
in the area but when Nito saw him, he signalled Nolasco to go away. Melba did not see him and there was no other
person in the area at the time.[19]
According to Nolasco,
Melba at first asked him to testify but he eventually testified for Nito
because Melba did not want him to testify (for her) anymore.[20] In fact, as early as the same evening of the
incident, Melba’s uncle went to his house and asked him to testify. Hence, Nolasco executed the affidavit dated
October 16, 1973 wherein he stated that he saw a woman embracing a man.[21]
This was thereafter offered in evidence as Exhibit D.[22]
However, before he executed the affidavit, Nolasco was told by Melba’s mother
that should he be asked the names of Melba and Nito, he should tell the police
that he did not know their names.[23]
Another piece of evidence
presented by the defense was Nito’s testimony on rebuttal that while
they were having their “sexual play,” Melba glanced upward, saw
Nolasco and told Nito about his presence.[24]
Being contrary to Nito’s earlier testimony that Melba could not see Juanito
because he was above her, the lower
court obviously considered this as a mark of weakness of the defense evidence.
While the issue of credibility is clearly within the jurisdiction
of the trial court and its findings on this issue must generally be respected
on appeal unless certain facts of substance and value have been overlooked
which, if considered, might affect the result of the case,[25]
in rape cases this rule must be considered in light of the following
principles: (a) an accusation for rape
can be made easily but it is difficult to prove and much more difficult for the
person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) in view of the intrinsic
nature of the crime whereby only two (2) persons are usually involved, the testimony
of the complainant must be scrutinized with great caution, and (c) evidence for
the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to
draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[26]
Upon a scrutiny of the details of the evidence at hand, we find
that although the defense evidence is weak, neither is the prosecution evidence
strong enough to merit a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, we find pieces of evidence which
strike negatively at the very essence of the crime – casting doubt on whether force or intimidation was in fact employed
upon the victim when she and the appellant performed the sexual act.
Melba’s contention that
she was continuously boxed by appellant who also knelt on her thighs is belied
by the two medical certificates presented in evidence. The first medical certificates which was
issued after she was examined by Dr. Leonila Ante right after Melba was
allegedly raped,[27] states:
“October
16, 1973
MEDICO
– LEGAL CERTIFICATE
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is to certify that Miss MELBA LLARENA, 20 years old, female,
Filipino and a resident of Lacag, Daraga has been physically examined in this
hospital on October 12, 1973 with the following findings:
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
– VAGINA ADMITS TWO FINGERS.
– HYMEN LACERATED AT 1, 9, AND 11
O’CLOCK POSITIONS. –
OLD LACERATIONS
– PATIENT IS IN MENSTRUATION.
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
ISSUED per request of the Daraga Police Department, Daraga, Albay.
By:
(Sgd.)
LEONILA A. ANTE, M.D.
Resident
Physician”
At the witness stand, Dr.
Ante, a 61-year-old retired physician at the Albay Provincial Hospital who
practiced obstetrics and gynecology and who, as chief of clinics, had attended
to more than ten medico-legal cases, categorically testified that upon being
informed that Melba had been raped, she “examined her physically if there
(were) bruises, contusion, signs of struggle” but because she “did
not find any injuries,” she did not include any such findings in the
medical certificate.[28] On why she did not include “negative
findings,” Dr. Ante testified:
Q – Will
you tell us why did you not put the negative findings of yours in the medical
certificate you issued?
A – That
is what I did. I did not include the
negative findings.
Q – Why
did you not include your negative findings of the physical examination of the
patient?
A – Because
I did not find anything.
Q – Why,
precisely, why did you not state in this medical certificate whether you made
physical examination on the patient? Why?
A – I
did not see anything that is why I did not write anything in the medical
certificate. What is there . . . the
thing I placed there was what I saw.
FISCAL TOLOSA
Q – Doctora,
is it not also a policy in your office, in the hospital, that whenever you
conduct examination whether there is negative or positive findings you note it
in the medical certificate?
A – But
not at all times. But oftentimes I do
not include. I do not write there when
I could not find anything.
Q – You
mean to say sometimes if the findings is negative you also put it in the
medical certificate?
A – Maybe
the other physician(s), but me, I usually do not write anymore the negative
findings.
COURT
Q – What
is your reason for not writing negative findings?
A – I
do not include any negative findings. I
have not been asked by other
judges. That is why I continued doing
that.”[29]
Dr. Ante’s finding that
Melba had menstrual flow on October 12, 1973 was verified by Melba herself who
admitted that it was her fourth day of menstruation and that the bloodstains
found in her panty were caused by it.[30] But, as Melba herself stated, her
dissatisfaction with the findings of Dr. Ante led her to submit to another
medical examination by Dr. Navera four days after the incident or on October
16, 1973. We find, however, that Dr.
Navera’s “external findings” that she had two fingernail marks on the
neck, abrasions on the tips of her hands, a 2-cm. hematoma on the right
medial aspect of the thigh and 2-cm. abrasions on the bilateral aspect of her
buttocks scarcely proved the “continuous boxing” that Melba swore she
suffered from the hands of appellant. Dr. Navera’s medical certificate also shows that Melba “was not able
to move due to body pains and (she was) in a state of shock.”[31]
And yet, Melba testified that after the incident on Friday, she went to school
“the following Monday,” which was October 15, 1973, one day before
Dr. Navera examined her.[32]
With regard to the use of force during the incident, worth noting
is the fact that apart from the repeated general statement that she was
“boxed continuously” by appellant, Melba did not specify the
particular part of the body where she was boxed. If it were really true that appellant boxed her so that she would
submit to his lustful intention, she would have revealed the same as early as
the preliminary investigation of the case. However, as the defense counsel pointed out at the trial, nowhere in the
transcripts of the preliminary investigation is there a narration about
appellant’s having used his fist to consummate his bestial desire.[33]
On the other hand, Melba seemed to be so observant as to have noticed the
length and size of appellant’s sex organ and to describe it during the
preliminary investigation although at the trial, she claimed to have seen it
only for “a fleeting moment.”[34]
Jose Navarro’s corroborative testimony was neither of any help to
the prosecution with regard to the punches suffered by Melba. All he stated at the trial was that Melba
was shouting as she “wrestled” with appellant. Asked to demonstrate how the two
“wrestled,” Navarro obliged by showing that the right hand of
appellant was embracing the back of Melba while his left hand was “holding or touching the right nipple
and (he was) kissing the woman on the neck.”[35]
Moreover, to an unbiased
mind, a reading of the testimony of Melba reveals that she was not the credible
witness that the lower court found her to be. For one thing, on cross-examination, Melba admitted that she had known
appellant since the elementary grades but she “did not mind”
him. She flatly denied that he courted
her in the same breath that she categorically
denied that he wrote her letters.[36] But after having been shown her letter to
appellant, she admitted that she wrote him a letter and that he, too, did write
her once.[37] Eventually, she admitted authorship of the
“Dearest Freddie” letter.[38]
Considering the principle
that all doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused, these weak points in
the prosecution evidence must certainly tilt the scale in favor of the
appellant especially because the lower court gave credence to evidence which
should not have been considered against him. This is the confession executed by the appellant before the Daraga
police which the lower court considered weighty enough because its offer in
evidence was not objected to by the defense. To recall, on October 13, 1973, the 1973 Constitution was in full force
and effect. Sec. 20 of its Bill of
Rights which provides for the right of the accused to counsel during custodial
investigation should, therefore, be respected even when the accused is waiving
the same.[39]
While appellant’s confession was sworn to before the municipal judge, there is
no indication at all that it was executed in the presence of appellant’s
counsel. Hence, said confession should
not have been given evidentiary value.
Considering the heinous nature of the crime of rape, the heavy
hand of the law should make itself felt in order to send the message that the
same shall not be condoned, but rather condemned strongly by the
government. Nonetheless, in the
prosecution of the crime, as in any other crime, moral certainty, though not
absolute certainty, is required of the proof requisite to produce conviction of the accused. By reasonable doubt is meant that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such investigation, to let
the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt.
To be sure, a sexual offender deserves no place in society, but
because the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case failed to measure
up to the degree of proof required by law, we cannot convict the accused on the
basis thereof. As the Court has
repeatedly observed, it is better to set a guilty man free than to incarcerate
an innocent one.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is hereby
REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Appellant
Alfredo Nito y Miranda is ACQUITTED of the charge of rape and is ordered
released from prison immediately.
SO ORDERED.
Feliciano, (Chairman), Bidin, Melo, and Vitug, JJ., concur.
[1]
Exh. “A.”
[2]
Record, p. 80.
[3]
Exh. “I;” Record, p. 113.
[4]
Exh. “H-2” inside envelope; Record, p. 114.
[5]
TSN, March 11, 1976, pp. 5-15.
[6]
Ibid, at pp. 37-39.
[7]
Exh. “B;” Record, p. 5.
[8]
TSN, March 9, 1984, pp. 5-11.
[9]
Ibid, pp. 15-20.
[10]
TSN, May 30, 1984, pp. 60-65.
[11]
TSN, March 9, 1984, pp. 20-41.
[12]
Ibid, pp. 42-44.
[13]
TSN, April 13, 1984, pp. 16-18.
[14]
Ibid, pp. 20-27.
[15]
Penned by Judge Ramon P. Makasiar.
[16]
TSN, July 10, 1975, pp. 4-6.
[17]
Ibid, pp. 6-12.
[18]
TSN, January 23, 1984, pp. 5-11.
[19]
Ibid, pp. 14-18.
[20]
Ibid, p. 21.
[21]
There is no English translation in the record but the gist of the affidavit is
that while on his way home at around 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of October
12, 1973, Nolasco saw scattered along the trail several books and an umbrella
and that when he looked below the trail he saw a man and a woman whose names he
did not know, with the woman embracing the man (“nahiling kong babae na
nakokopo kan lalake”).
[22]
Ibid, p. 31.
[23]
TSN, January 23, 1984, p. 25.
[24]
TSN, October 24, 1984, p. 10.
[25]
People v. Matrimonio, G.R. Nos. 82223-24, November 13, 1992, 215 SCRA
613.
[26]
People v. Batis, G.R. Nos. 94188-89, December 17, 1992, 216 SCRA 673,
680 citing People v. Tismo, G.R. No. 44773, December 4, 1991, 204 SCRA
535.
[27]
Exh. “5;” Record, p. 359.
[28]
TSN, August 21, 1984, p. 10.
[29]
Ibid, pp. 13-14.
[30]
TSN, December 1, 1976, pp. 21-22.
[31]
Exh. “B.”
[32]
TSN, March 11, 1976, p. 18.
[33]
TSN, December 1, 1976, p. 18.
[34]
Ibid, pp. 21-22.
[35]
TSN, July 10, 1975, p. 21.
[36]
TSN, March 11, 1976, p. 22.
[37]
Ibid, p. 26.
[38]
Exh. “I.”
[39]
People v. Dacoycoy, G.R. No. 71662, May 8, 1992, 208 SCRA 583.