G.R. No. 75366. July 04, 1990
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CARLOS AMPO-AN, DANIEL ALBAÑA, DANIEL CHAVEZ, AND PORFERIO CALAROM, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
SARMIENTO, J.:
In an Amended Information dated August 23, 1982, the appellants
Carlos Ampo-an, Daniel Albaña,
Daniel Chavez, and Porferio Calarom,
together with Manuel Doinog, were accused of Robbery
in Band with Multiple Homicide allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about the 23rd day of May, 1982, early in the morning,
at Sitio Taganoran, Barangay Tagnao, Municipality of Gandara, Province of Samar,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused Carlos Ampoan, Daniel Albaña, Daniel Chavez and Porferio
Calarom y Herrera alias Porfing
together with Manuel Doinog who is still at large, conspiring, confederating together
and mutually helping one another, by means of treachery and evident
premeditation and with the use of superior strength and cruelty to the herein
below mentioned victims, armed with
homemade shotguns (bardog) and sharp-pointed
bolos, with deliberate intent to kill, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, stab, hack and wounded the bodies
of the following victims: PABLO CAAMOD
(husband), ROSITA CAAMOD (wife) and their three children; DANILO CAAMOD, ROMEO
CAAMOD and two years old GEMMA CAAMOD, thus causing the death of said mentioned
victims; then by means of force and intimidation of persons; take, steal and carry away with them the amount of
TWO HUNDRED (P200.00) PESOS CASH, taken from Rosita Caamod
before she was killed, to the damage and prejudice of said above-mentioned
victims.[1]
Manuel Doinog remains at-large and can not be located.
Upon arraignment, the
remaining four accused pleaded “not guilty” and trial commenced.
In due course, a decision
was rendered convicting the appellants of the crime charged. The dispositive
portion reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds and declares accused Carlos Ampoan, Daniel Albaña, Daniel
Chavez and Porferio Calarom,
guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principal of the crime of robbery with
multiple homicide as charged, and considering the presence of four (4)
aggravating circumstances, namely: nighttime,
superior strength, by band and morada, and without
any mitigating circumstance to offset, sentences each of them to suffer the
extreme penalty of DEATH, in the manner prescribed by law, with the accessories
of the law, and they should jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the
(five (5)) deceased victims the sum of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND (P150,000.00)
pesos and pay to Rita Caamod the sum of P2,030.00
actual damages and pay the corresponding costs.
SO ORDERED.[2]
Pursuant to the mandate of the Constitution[3]
vis-a-vis the death penalty imposed, the records were
elevated to this Court on automatic review.
However, pending the resolution of this case, appellant Porferio Calarom died in the
Bureau of Prisons Hospital on June 30,
1988. Thus, his criminal
liability was totally extinguished, and it is only his (estate’s) possible
civil liability that is to be determined in this appeal.
We adopt the statement of facts submitted by the Solicitor
General as we find it to be accurate and supported by the records of the case.
Spouses Pablo and Rosita Caamod and their
four children resided in a one-room house in Sitio Taganoran, Barangay Tagnao, Gandara, Samar. Woven coconut leaves served as wall of their
house.
It was the habit of the Caamods to keep a
gas lamp lighted while sleeping. At the
time of the incident, the moon likewise provided illumination.
At about 1:00 o’clock in
the morning of May 23, 1982,
Leticia Caamod, one of the children, was awakened by
a gun shot (p. 21, tsn, November 9, 1983). When she looked outside, she saw Porferio Calarom carrying a gun,
a bolo and a torch. Porferio
Calarom called her father asking for petroleum for
the torch he will use in fishing (p. 24, Ibid).
Leticia Caamod also saw Carlos Ampo-an, Daniel Albaña and Daniel
Chavez. They were likewise armed with
bolos (p. 23, tsn, November 9, 1983).
Pablo Caamod woke up and gave petroleum
to Porferio Calarom. Without warning, Porferio
Calarom stabbed Pablo Caamod. Pablo Caamod
explained, “Compadre do not kill me.” Porferio Calarom answered,
“Come on, I will kill you because you will reveal” (p. 27, tsn, November 9, 1983).
Pablo Caamod ran to the bushes about
three meters away from the house. Porferio Calarom, Carlos Ampo–an and Daniel Chavez chased
him (p. 29, ibid), while Daniel Albaña entered the
house of the Caamod’s (p. 30, ibid). Upon overtaking Pablo Caamod,
Porferio Calarom again
hacked him on the thigh. Carlos Caamod (sic) and Daniel Chavez likewise took turns in
hacking Pablo Caamod.
As a result, Pablo Caamod suffered nine wounds
(Exhibit “L”, Autopsy Report for Pablo Caamod).
Meantime, Leticia Caamod surreptitiously
went out of the house and hid behind the bushes, about two meters at the back
of the house and three meters from where her father was being attacked. At her vantage point, she became the
terrified spectator of the killing of her father by Porferio
Calarom, Daniel Albaña,
Carlos Ampo-an and Daniel Chavez.
Inside the house, Daniel Albaña demanded
money from Rosita Caamod (p. 1, tsn,
November 20 [November 10], 1983).
Leticia Caamod saw her mother hand money to
Daniel Albaña.
Then Daniel Albaña stabbed Rosita Caamod on the abdomen.
Rosita Caamod pleaded for her life saying,
“Son, do not kill me.” Daniel Albaña
retorted, “I will kill you because
you will reveal” (p. 2, tsn, ibid). Rosita Caamod
sustained eight wounds (Exh. “N”,
Autopsy Report for Rosita Caamod).
Thereafter, Porferio Calarom,
Daniel Albaña, Carlos Ampo–an and Daniel Chavez mercilessly stabbed and killed Danilo, Romeo and Gemma Caamod who were roused from their sleep (p. 3, tsn, November 20 [November 10], 1983). Then they looked for Leticia Caamod, but when they failed to find her, they went away
(p. 4, tsn, ibid).
Leticia Caamod remained behind the
bushes. At daybreak, she proceeded to
her older sister, Rita Caamod Marcial,
residing in another house at Barangay Tagnao, Gandara, Samar, to report the
gruesome incident (p. 4, tsn, November 10,
1983). Still in tears and horrified,
Leticia Caamod named appellants as the perpetrators
of the crime (p. 4, ibid; p. 49, tsn, November 15,
1983; p. 73, ibid). Rita accompanied
Leticia to Barangay Captain Conrado
Martinez who in turn accompanied them to the police authorities in Gandara, Samar
(p. 51, ibid). Police authorities under
Police Sgt. Genelito Penellere,
Sub-station Commander of Gandara, Samar, went with Leticia, Rita and Barangay Captain Martinez to the scene of the crime (p. 83,
tsn, December 7, 1983). They saw the lifeless bodies of Pablo Caamod near the bushes, Rosita Caamod
at the back of the house (p. 83, tsn, December 7,
1983), and Danilo, Romeo and Gemma
inside the house (p. 84, ibid).
At the scene of the crime, the police investigators saw a footprint
which resembled that of Porferio Calarom,
who had webbed toes (p. 85, tsn, December 7, 1983).
The police investigators proceeded to the house of Porferio Calarom, and found him
there. They noted that beside him was a
bolo with blood-stained handle and scabbard (p. 88, tsn,
December 7, 1983). His polo shirt also
appeared to be blood-stained (p. 88, ibid).
When interrogated at the house and in the presence of Barangay Captain Martinez, Porferio
Calarom admitted that he participated in the
commission of the offense, and disclosed that his cohorts were appellants
Daniel Chavez (p. 33 [sic], ibid) Carlos Ampoan and
Daniel Albaña (p. 34 [sic], ibid).
Upon his arrest, Daniel Chavez was taken to the house of Barangay Captain Martinez.
In the presence of Martinez,
Porferio Calarom rebuked
Daniel Chavez, “Do not deny because you are one, you are the planner of
this incident” (p. 95, ibid). This
resulted to verbal altercation between the two.
Thereafter the two were subjected to investigation by the police authorities
at the office of Sgt. Penellere (p. 95, ibid).
Daniel Albaña and Carlos Ampo–an could not be located as
they left for unknown places, obviously to avoid arrest (p. 113, tsn, December 7, 1983).
On June 3, 1982 or ten days after the gory event, however, they
surrendered to Tomas Oliva, then Acting Barangay Captain of Tagnao, Gandara, Samar, as a result of
the negotiation for their surrender undertaken by their parents (p. 114, tsn, ibid).[4]
It is evident from the
above recital of facts that only the testimony of Leticia Caamod,
the twelve year old daughter of the Caamod spouses and
the lone survivor of the heinous crime, identified and established the criminal
participation of each of the appellants as she alone witnessed the brutal
slaying of her parents, her two brothers, and her younger sister. And she did so positively, clearly, and
promptly. She was even tested in the crucible of a voir dire[5] which she passed with flying colors.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
FISCAL AGUILAR:
With
the Permission of this Honorable Court.
Q. Do
you understand why you are made to swear?
A. Yes.
Q. Why?
A. To
tell the truth.
Q. And
do you know what would happen to you (if you) tell a lie?
A. You are being punished by God.
FISCAL AGUILAR:
Q. And
do you know what will the Court do if you are caught telling a lie?
A. I
will be put in prison.
Q. So
you will tell the truth in this Court?
A. Yes,
sir.[6]
Before us, the appellants
assail their conviction by alleging that the trial court gravely erred in
giving full weight and credence to the evidence of the prosecution and in
disregarding the evidence for the defense.
Consequently, they contend that the trial court gravely erred in
finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.[7]
All the appellants
interposed alibi as their common defense.
1. Daniel Chavez, 27, married, and used to be a welder in Manila
for about 7 years,[8]
denied the charge against him. He
testified that it was only when his wife, Jovita,
wrote him she would be giving birth that he returned home to Barangay Tagnao, Gandara, Samar, on April 29,
1982. On the eve of May 22, 1982, his wife gave birth to their first
born assisted by Tarcela Machate,
a comadrona.
The following day, after buying their viand, he was arrested at Tagnao. He was
brought inside a room adjacent to the jail across the office of the station
commander where he was allegedly tortured.
He was then forced to affix his signature on an affidavit the contents
of which were never read to him. For
fear of his life, he never divulged the claimed maltreatment.
2. Daniel Albaña, 20, single, farmer,
and residing in Sitio Cabayangan,
Barangay Tagnao, Gandara, Samar,[9]
testified that on the same night, his older sister, Jovita,
the wife of Chavez, was already experiencing labor pains, thus he and Daniel
stayed at home.
In the early morning of May
23, 1982, Patrolman Ayong and another
policeman arrived; they took him to Gandara where he
was put in jail. The policemen struck
him with a piece of wood hitting him at the back; he was also boxed on the
chest. While he was being maltreated, he
learned through Patrolman Ayong about the massacre of
the Caamod family for which he was being inculpated.
Daniel Albaña presented Rosita Victoriano Albaña, his mother and
mother-in-law of Daniel Chavez, the latter being the husband of his (Daniel Albaña’s) sister. At
the time of the killings, both Daniels slept at their farmhouse. They did not leave the place because Chavez’s
wife had just given birth. The following
day, they were arrested by three (3) policemen who brought them to the
municipal jail.
Andres Albaña, the father of Daniel Albaña, was also called to the witness stand. He stated that on the eve of the massacre of the Caamod family, Daniel Chavez was at the bedside of his
wife, while Daniel Albaña was pounding rice. He added that the two did not leave the house
and he knew this as a fact because he did not sleep till the early morning of
May 23, keeping himself awake by reading the Holy Bible. When he inquired from the policemen why the
two were being arrested, the policemen meanly fired their guns at the mud, thus
splashing mud at his face.
3. Carlos Ampo-an, 22, single, farmer,
and a resident of Barangay Tagnao,
Gandara, Samar,[10]
testified that on the night of May 22, 1982, he was with his parents, Tiburcio and Marianita Ampo-an, at their farm house at Sitio
Taganoran. On
the next day, Moning Vitoriano
(Mamerto Vitoriano) hired
him to work at the former’s farm in the hills of Sitio Taganoran. He finished his work around 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon.
On June 2, 1982,
Carlos Ampo–an was
investigated at the office of Patrolman Ayong. He vehemently denied the alleged
surrender. Instead, he was smitten with
the muzzle of an armalite on his right leg and right
chest as evidenced by a scar on his leg.
He was even compelled to place his thumbprint on a document the contents
of which he was not told nor was he allowed to read.
Mamerto Vitoriano, affirmed that
Carlos tilled his camote and cassava plantation on May 23, 1982, from 7:00 o’clock in the morning till noontime. He was paid P5.00 for the work done.
Marianita Ampo-an,
the mother of Carlos Ampo-an, corroborated the alibi
of her son. She testified that her son,
Carlos, slept in their house when the gruesome episode took place. In
fact, she and Carlos woke up at around 4:00
o’clock in the morning of May
23, 1982 because Carlos would still have to sharpen his bolo to be
used in clearing the farm of Mamerto Vitoriano.
Decisive in this appeal is the determination as to which prevails
between the positive identification of the four appellants by one eyewitness as
against their individual alibi. As
stated earlier, the trial court found the herein accused, Carlos Ampo-an, Daniel Chavez, Daniel Albaña, and Porferio Calarom
guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals of the crime of robbery with
multiple homicide and sentenced each of them to suffer the extreme penalty of
death. After a thorough scrutiny of all
the evidences on record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court with
modification as to the penalty imposed.
While indeed, “(T)he
prosecution has the onus probandi of establishing the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the weakness of the defense
does not relieve it of its duty x
x x,”[11] in
the instant case, we are fully convinced that the prosecution has proven beyond
reasonable doubt the guilt of the four accused-appellants. As underscored at the outset, Leticia Caamod, the only survivor, in her testimony, positively and
clearly identified the four accused, Carlos Ampo-an,
Daniel Albaña, Daniel Chavez, and Porferio
Calarom, as the killers of her father, Pablo Caamod, 48, mother, Rosita Caamod,
45, two younger brothers, Romeo, 7, Danilo, 2, and
her younger sister, Gemma, 5 years old. In her account, on the early morning of May 23,
1982, a gunshot woke her up.[12] With the illumination from the lighted gas
lamp measuring around nine centimeters in circumference and the moonlight that
filtered through the porous coconut leaves which served as walls of their small hut,[13] she vividly witnessed the grotesque scene as she hid first at one side of the stairs, and
later in the bushes, just two meters from their home; how Porferio
Calarom, armed with a shotgun and a bolo, on the pretext of asking for petroleum to fuel
their torches, stabbed the right side of the body of her father; how her father
ran to the “grasses” (bushes); how Daniel Chavez, Daniel Ampo-an, and Porferio Calarom also armed with bolos chased him; and how they took
turns in hacking her father to death.[14] Leticia well recognized the appellants
because of the lighted torches which Porferio Calarom and Carlos Ampo–an were carrying, and as already stated, the lighted gas
lamp inside their house plus the moonlight that filtered into their humble
abode. Except the fifth accused who was
in the dark, she was certain of the identity of the four men especially Porferio Calarom, the “compadre” of her father, because they were not wearing
masks, hats, or anything to hide their identities.[15] More so because she and
the appellants live in the same Barangay of Tagnao, Gandara, Samar, although in different sitios.
Leticia was not only an
eyewitness but also an “earwitness.” She
audibly heard Daniel Albaña demand money from her
mother saying, “Mang Rosing
give us money.”[16] Then her mother pleaded for her life in
desperation. She begged, “Son, do
not kill me.”[17] But Daniel Albaña
responded, “I will kill you because you will report.”[18] Soon her pleas were silenced when Daniel Albaña mercilessly stabbed the abdomen of her mother after
grabbing from her hand the money he demanded.
Through the spaces between the sheets of cogon leaves, she saw the whole
macabre scene depicting her loved ones as helpless victims of
men of ill will.
By six o’clock in the same morning, when “the coast
was clear,” so to speak, she ran to her elder sister, Rita Marcial y Caamod, 25, married, a farmer, and who resided in another house in the same barangay.[19] Still visibly disturbed and frightened, she
narrated to her sister Rita the atrocious killing of their kinfolk and the
names of the killers, to wit: Carlos Ampo-an, Daniel Chavez, Daniel Albaña,
and Porferio Calarom. Being in such an emotional state, Leticia
certainly was in no position to contrive to falsely implicate the appellants
with an atrocious offense. For in the
words of the Court, “the identification of an accused by an eyewitness
while in a state of shock is worthy of full faith and credit.”[20]
Promptly, Rita and Leticia went to the Barangay
Captain of Tagnao, Conrado
Martinez, and reported the crime; forthwith, he accompanied them to Police
Sergeant Genelito Penellere,
Sub-station Commander of Gandara, Samar. Together with some members of the Civilian
Home Defense Force and army soldiers, they went to the scene of the crime. This prompt action of the Caamod
sisters which led to the immediate arrest of two of the killers bespeaks of
spontaneity of reaction not dictated by an ulterior motivation but of their
earnest desire for the vindication of the deaths of their father and mother and
brothers and sister.[21]
Besides, the gruesome
pictures that were taken hours after the killing, eloquently speak for
themselves.[22]
Time and time again, the Court has invariably decreed that alibi
can not prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the
perpetrators of the crime. To sustain
the defense of alibi, the accused must not only prove satisfactorily that he
was at another place at the time the crime happened, but more important, that
it was physically impossible for him to have been at the place where the crime
was committed.[23]
Appellants brothers-in-law Daniel Chavez
and Daniel Albaña’s mutual defense of alibi that they
were attending to the needs of Jovita who was giving
birth at their house at the same time of the alleged killing, is unavailing.
The two Daniels live together in Sitio Cabayangan. In going
to Barangay Tagnao proper,
they would pass the victim’s Sitio Taganoran which is just two (2) kilometers away from their
(Daniels’) home, and could be reached in less than two (2) hours hiking. With this distance, it was not physically
impossible for the brothers-in-law to be at the scene of the crime at one o’clock in the early morning of May 23, 1982.
We can not give credence to the narrations of Andres Albaña, Rosita Victoriano Albaña, and Marianita Ampo-an on the alibi of their respective relatives. Their testimonies are undeniably tainted with
biases borne out of compassion and the natural desire of parents to bail out
their sons from criminal liability.
Furthermore, “(a)libi
is at best a weak defense and easy of fabrication especially between parents
and children, relatives, and even those not related.”[24]
On the same vein, we reject Porferio Calarom’s alibi. His
house is only two kilometers away from the Caamod’s
place. This fact of accessibility would
suffice to obviate the favorable consideration of his defense of alibi notably in the light of abundant real evidence
presented against him, like the footprints with the tell-tale webbed toes
matching his discovered at the scene of the crime, the bolo with the hilt and
scabbard thereof still wet with blood found in his house when the police
arrested him on the same morning of the killings and robbery, and his
bloodstained polo shirt also found by the police in the same place and on the
same occasion as the bolo. All these
physical evidences affirm incontrovertibly his positive and clear
identification by the young girl Leticia and set our minds at rest on the moral
certainty of his guilt precluding any iota of doubt.
With the overwhelming
evidence of guilt, there seems to be no need to dwell lengthily on the
admissibility or inadmissibility of the extra-judicial confessions of Calarom and Chavez despite the objections belabored by the
defense. After all, these
“confessions” could be ignored altogether without prejudicing the
requirements of proof beyond reasonable doubt which, as we already ruled, the
prosecution has amply established. Be
this as it may, the issue raised by the defense on this score digs deep into constitutional
imperatives on the rights of the accused which we can not and must not just
dismiss perfunctorily.
We say, the extra-judicial confessions of Porferio Calarom and Daniel
Chavez suffer constitutional infirmities.
Section 20 of the 1973 Constitution is explicit. Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel,
and to be informed of such right. No
force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the
free will shall be used against him. Any
confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in
evidence.
Daniel Chavez testified
that after his arrest on May 23, 1982, some police authorities inserted in one
of his nostrils a piece of
bamboo split and boxed him on the chest, upper part of his umbilicus, and on
his neck. Then he was investigated by
Patrolman Arturo Ayong in the presence of Police
Sergeant Genelito Penellere
at the Integrated National Police Investigation Section of Gandara,
Samar.
After that, he was allegedly forced to affix his thumbprint on his sworn
statement.
Porferio Calarom was also
investigated by Patrolman Arturo Ayong on May 24,
1982. He also testified that policemen held his
right hand and forced him to place his thumbmark on
his written declaration.
The trial court did not
believe these imputations of torture or high-handedness against the officers of
the law in the investigation of this case and in the obtention
of these “confessions” and admitted them nevertheless as part of the
evidence proving the guilt of the appellants.
We do not find anything in the records of the case which would compel us
to overrule the trial court on this score.
But there is an undeniable fact which constrains us to declare the
inadmissibility of these confessions.
The statements of Chavez and Calarom on May 23
and 24, 1982 were taken without assistance of counsel. While it is true that there were waivers of
the right to counsel, the declarants were not
also assisted by counsel when they executed the said waivers.
While the right to counsel may be waived, such waiver must be effected voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. The waiver must be furthermore, with the
assistance of the accused’s lawyer.
Since Porferio Calarom
and Daniel Chavez were neither assisted by counsel while they were under
investigation, nor at least, given a counsel de oficio
when they waived their rights to counsel, their confessions are inadmissible in
evidence. The lack of counsel
“makes [those] statement[s], in contemplation of law, ‘involuntary,’ even
if it were otherwise voluntary, technically.”[25]
We are convinced
that the teachings of Galit,[26] Burgos,[27]
Olvis,[28]
and similar cases that no custodial investigation should be conducted unless it
be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any person on
his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee
himself or anyone on his behalf.
Be all these as they may,
regardless of the inadmissibility in evidence of the extrajudicial confessions,
we find there are other proofs in the record sufficient to affirm the appealed
decision of the trial court holding all the four appellants guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robo
con homicidio as defined and penalized under Article
294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The
juridical concept of this special complex crime of robbery with homicide does
not limit the taking of human life to one single victim.[29] The number of persons killed is
immaterial. All homicides or murders are merged in the composite, integrated whole, that is robbery with homicide, as long as all the
killings were perpetrated by reason of or on occasion of robbery.[30] Further, the term “homicide” in
robbery with homicide should be understood as a generic term and includes
murder.[31]
The appellants, all armed
with bolos and a shotgun, busted in the dwelling of the deceased Caamod family and robbed them. By reason or occasion of the robbery, they
killed Pablo Caamod with the sole end in view of
removing opposition to the robbery. They
further ruthlessly slew Rosita, Danilo, Romy, and Gemma to prevent their identification and to
conceal the robbery.
We now deal with the aggravating circumstances that attended the
commission of the crime. The trial court
is correct in ruling that the generic aggravating circumstances of nighttime
and morada
aggravated the offense. The darkness of
the early dawn was purposely sought by the robbers for their easy escape. Morada is likewise present in this case, inasmuch as the
crime took place and was committed by the appellants in the home of the
victims. The appellants showed greater
perversity in their deliberate invasion of the tranquility of the Caamod’s domicile.[32]
On the other hand, we can not stamp our imprimatur on the trial
court’s appreciation of the aggravating circumstances of superior strength and
by band as these are absorbed in treachery which unquestionably attended the
commission of the complex offense charged.[33]
The penal liability of Porferio Calarom had been extinguished by his death on June 30, 1988; however, his civil
liability survives him which can be recovered from his estate.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is hereby
AFFIRMED except that the penalty imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to the provisions of Article III, Section
19(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. With costs.
SO ORDERED.
Paras, Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), J., With reservation re the
penalty of reclusion perpetua pursuant to my dissent
in People v. Muñoz & Millora,
et al. (170 SCRA 107).
[1]
Court of First
Instance of Samar, 13th Judicial District,
Branch IV, Calbayog City, First Assistant
Provincial Fiscal Ceferino C. Cabañas.
[2]
Regional Trial Court, 8th Judicial Region, Branch XXXL, Narciso T. Vasquez, Jr., presiding judge; Calbayog City, April 26, 1986.
[3]
CONSTITUTION (1973), Art. X,
sec. 5(e).
[4]
Rollo, 135-139.
[5]
Voir dire means to speak the truth and denotes the
preliminary examination which the court may make of one presented as a witness (or juror), where his
competence, interest, etc. is objected to. (Words and Phrases, Vol. 44, pages
598-599.)
[6]
T.S.N., November 9, 1983, 15-16.
[7]
Appellant’s Brief, Rollo,
109.
[8]
T.S.N., December 5, 1984, 81.
[9]
T.S.N., December 11, 1984, 175.
[10]
T.S.N., September 5, 1985, 39.
[11]
People v. Pecato, No.
L-41008, June 18, 1987, 151
SCRA 14, citing: People
v. Cruz, No. L-24424, March 30, 1970, 32 SCRA 181.
[12]
T.S.N., November 10, 1983, 8.
[13]
T.S.N., November 9, 1983, 23.
[14]
Id., 9-15.
[15]
Supra, People v. Pecato, 25.
[16]
T.S.N., Nov. 10, 1983, 2.
[17]
Ibid.
[18]
Ibid.
[19]
November 15, 1983, 46.
[20]
People v. CabeItes, Nos. L-38145-48, June
29, 1979, 91 SCRA 208.
[21]
People v. Adones, G.R. No. L-63453, September
24, 1986, 144 SCRA 364.
[22]
Exhibits
“A”, “B”, “C”, “C-1”, “C-2”,
and “C-3”.
[23]
People v.
Stalin Guevarra, G.R. No. 65017, November 13, 1989,
citing: People v. Atencio, G.R. Nos. 67721-22, December 10, 1987, 156 SCRA 242.
[24]
Supra, People v. Pecato,
26-27.
[25]
People v. Decierdo, G.R. No.
L-46956, May 7, 1987, 149
SCRA 496, citing:
Magtoto v. Manguera,
Nos. L-37201-02;
37424, 38929, March
3, 1975, 63 SCRA 27.
[26]
People v. Galit, No. L-51770, March 20, 1985, 135 SCRA 465.
[27]
People v. Burgos, No.
L-68955, September 4, 1986, 144 SCRA 1.
[28]
People v. Olvis, No. L-71092, September 30, 1987, 154 SCRA
513.
[29]
People v. Madrid, 88 Phil. 1.
[30]
Supra, 15.
[31]
Supra; People v. Pecato,
28; People v. Manalang, G.R. No. 67662, February 9, 1989, 70 SCRA 149, 164.
[32]
People v. Roncal, et al., G.R. No. L-26857-58, October 21, 1977, 79 SCRA 509.
[33]
People v. Tajon, No. L-47067, April 17,
1984, 128 SCRA 656.