PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROGELIO BONDOY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Failing to convince a
thirty-one-year old storeowner and mother of two to drop the robbery charge
she had filed against him, Rogelio Bondoy, after forcibly entering her store
and nicking her abdomen with a sharp
knife, raped her within hearing distance of her children. For such offense, Bondoy was arrested by the
police on September 17, 1986^[1] and on that same day, the offended party,
Patria V. Sabularce, with the marital consent of her husband, filed a complaint
for “rape with physical injuries” before the Municipal Trial Court of
Tabaco, Albay.^[2]

On October 24, 1986, an
information for rape with the use of deadly weapon was filed against him before
the Regional Trial Court of Albay, Branch 17 at Tabaco. The information reads:

“The undersigned Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Albay hereby
accuses ROGELIO BONDOY of Sagurong, San Miguel Island, Tabaco, Albay of the
crime of RAPE WITH THE USE OF DEADLY WEAPON under ARTICLE 335 OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE, committed as follows:

That on or about the 15th day of September, 1986 at more or less
2:00 o’clock in the morning, at Barangay Sagurong, San Miguel Island,
Municipality of Tabaco, Province of Albay, Philippines and with the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously destroy the wall of the store in the
house of PATRIA V. SABULARCE, through which accused entered, and once inside,
with the use of a knife or deadly weapon and by means of force and intimidation
and with intent to have carnal knowledge, committed the crime of consummated
rape against Patria V. Sabularce, a married woman, wounding and inflicting
physical injuries to her, grabbing and tearing her duster and undressing her,
kissing her, mashing her breasts and by lying and having sexual intercourse
with her, all against her will and consent.

That the following aggravating circumstances attended the
commission of the crime, to wit:

1. That it was committed in
the dwelling of the offended party without the latter giving any provocation;

2. That the crime was
committed in the nighttime which facilitated its commission;

3. That the crime was
committed after unlawful entry; and

4. That as a means to the
commission of a crime a wall was broken.

ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.”^[3]

On arraignment, Bondoy
pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the prosecution
presented evidence proving the following:

Patria V. Sabularce,
married to Domingo Sabularce, lived in a one-bedroom house with a store
in Sagurong, San Miguel, Tabaco, Albay. A native of Lubang, Mindoro, she and her
husband arrived in Sagurong in December 1983 to put up a business as the
factory where they were employed allowed them only three working
days. Patria first met Bondoy through
the sister of her husband, Milagros
Boral, who recommended him to Patria as a baggage carrier.^[4]

On August 12, 1986,
Patria’s house was burglarized by Bondoy. Desiderio Boral, the husband of Milagros, whipped Bondoy three times on
the chest with an iron bar.^[5] Having taken cash worth P800.00, twenty-two
bottles of beer and several bottles of gin as well as bars of health soap after
attacking Patria with a kitchen knife and inflicting upon her physical
injuries, Bondoy was charged with the crime of robbery with physical injuries
by the Tabaco police before the Municipal Trial Court.^[6]

In the evening of
September 14, 1986 or a month after the robbery, Patria slept in the
room beside the kitchen with her seven and nine-year old children and nephew,
Rommel Boral, the thirteen-year-old son of Milagros. At around 2:00 o’clock the following morning, Patria was roused
from her sleep by the crushing noise of a wall being broken down. After hearing the sound of crashing bottles,
she took her flashlight and made her way towards the kitchen. Bondoy who was at the doorway immediately
grabbed Patria’s right hand and poked a sharp instrument at her. Bondoy told her not to shout or else she
would be killed. He then pulled her
down the earthen floor of the kitchen and took her flashlight even as she
cried. He said that he could do what he wanted to do with her because her defender,
Desiderio Boral, was not around. When
he asked her to withdraw the case she had filed against him, Patria told
him that she could not very well do it; wherewith, Bondoy ordered her to take off her clothes. When she refused, a struggle ensued and she
fell to the ground in a supine position. He then attempted to rape her but Patria fought back enabling her to sit
up. Bondoy, however, forcibly undressed
her and tried to pull down her panty.

As Patria continued
resisting, Bondoy repeatedly asked her to withdraw the case she had filed
against him; otherwise, she and the children would all die. Upon her refusal to acquiesce to his demand, Bondoy ordered her to lie down. When she refused, Bondoy slashed her
abdomen twice. Even as she fought back, Bondoy poked his knife at
her. With his left hand, Bondoy pinned
both her hands to the ground, lay on top of her and pulled down her panty. Although she tried to wiggle away from him,
he succeeded in consummating his bestial desire. Since Patria was shouting, he covered her mouth, then focused the
flashlight all over her body looking for her moles. Although Bondoy placed
the knife near Patria’s left hand, it was beyond her grasp.

After raping her, Bondoy
stood up and held her by the neck. In
her haste, she wore her underwear wrong side out. As she was still crying, Bondoy asked her for the key to the
kitchen door and unlocked the same.

As she sat exhausted on
the kitchen floor, she heard her child call out, “Mama.” Bondoy
ordered her to go upstairs while pointing the knife menacingly at her. Once inside the room, Bondoy held the hands
of her two children, kicked Rommel and told him not to shout; otherwise he
would kill them all. As he ordered them
to go to the store, Bondoy told Patria that they would go to town to withdraw
the case against him. Patria told him
that she could not very well go with him without her clothes on. Bondoy then flicked the knife at her
abdomen. Upon seeing this, Rommel
pleaded with Bondoy, “Manoy Rogel, do not do that to Tiya. It’s a pity.” Bondoy hit Rommel and as
the latter reeled, his forehead hit the wall.

Patria pleaded with
Bondoy to spare the children. Promising
that she would go with him, she asked for the sharp instrument he was
holding. As she approached him, she
held his hand that was holding the sharp instrument. Having succeeded in taking the knife, Patria stabbed Bondoy near
the armpit. Struggling for the
possession of the weapon and having retaken it, Bondoy stabbed her right
forearm, whereupon she managed to shout for help. Somebody responded, “What’s that, Patty?” Bondoy then
dashed out of the house through the kitchen leaving his t-shirt behind. Patria was left crying on the ground until,
espying her duster, she put it on.^[7]

According to Milagros
Boral, at around 2:00 o’clock in the morning of September 15, 1986, she
was awakened by the call of nature. Rising, she went to their kitchen, opened its door and went out. Then she heard someone weeping from the
store of Patria which was more or less two and a half meters from her own kitchen door. She was surprised to see that the wall of Patria’s store had been
destroyed.^[8] Overcoming her fear, she went to Patria’s
house, peeped through the pantry and saw Bondoy poking a sharp instrument at the latter and telling
her not to make a noise; otherwise he would kill all of them. Bondoy also said in Tagalog, “Wala ang
tagapagtanggol mo rito na si Derio.” She recognized Bondoy because of the
lighted lamp in Patria’s house.^[9]

As her husband was out at
sea then, Milagros sought the help of Manuel Bermal whose house was just
beside her own. Manuel replied that due
to his old age, he was in no position to help, but told her to go instead to
Alfredo Boqueo, the husband of her eldest sister. When he peeped through the bamboo slats of Patria’s house, he
also saw Bondoy pointing a knife at Patria and heard him ordering her to
withdraw the case she had filed against Bondoy. Both Bondoy and Patria were in their underwear. Manuel also heard Bondoy order Patria to lie
down. When she asked why, he saw Bondoy
slash Patria’s stomach twice even as his victim was already begging for mercy. Manuel then left as he could no longer stomach what he was witnessing.^[10]

Meanwhile, Milagros had
fetched Alfredo Boqueo and both of them ran the 200-meter distance
downhill to Patria’s house. When they
learned from Manuel that Bondoy was still inside, the two men told her to fetch Domingo, the husband of
Patria, at the Hacienda.

Milagros went to a
neighbor who owned a motorboat and lied to her that Patria’s daughter was
ailing because the son of the motorboat owner was the compadre of
Bondoy. She was still at the shore of
the Hacienda when she began calling for her brother Domingo and posthaste, they
went back to Sagurong. Learning from Manuel
that Bondoy was still inside Patria’s house, she held Alfredo and Domingo by their pants, pleading with them not to enter
the house of Patria as something untoward might happen. But when they heard Patria shouting for
help, the two men ran to give succor.

Gathering her wits about
her, Milagros accompanied the two men who entered the house of
Patria. They found a semi-conscious
Patria sitting in the store dressed in a torn duster and with a bleeding arm. Milagros massaged Patria’s chest and decided that they should
bring Patria to Tabaco.^[11]

Thirteen-year-old Rommel Boral
testified that he was awakened by the kick delivered by Bondoy. He saw Bondoy embracing his aunt with a
knife poked at her. Bondoy then brought
him and Patria’s two children to the store. Bondoy told Patria to come with
him but Patria retorted that she could not do so as she was naked, as in fact
she was only wearing her panty. After
Bondoy slashed Patria’s stomach, Rommel tried to restrain Bondoy from further
harming Patria but Bondoy pushed him hard such that he hit his forehead on a
hard object.

Rommel heard Patria
telling Bondoy to give her his knife before they left. Suddenly, he saw Patria stab Bondoy and the
two struggled for possession of the knife. Having succeeded in grabbing the weapon, Bondoy stabbed Patria on
her right arm. It was at this moment
that Patria shouted for help and somebody from outside the house asked,
“What happened, Patty?,” Bondoy then left the house through the
kitchen.^[12]

Patria was in a state of
shock when she was brought by motorboat to the Tabaco police headquarters. Milagros tried to talk to her but Patria
kept on crying. From the police
headquarters, she was taken to the Ziga Memorial Hospital by her husband. There, Dr. Sonny Sta. Rosa conducted a
vaginal examination on Patria which revealed the presence of spermatozoa in the
cervical opening of her vaginal pool and canal.^[13]
Thereupon he issued a medical certificate showing that Patria sustained an incised 1.5 cm. wound at the
lateral aspect of her right forearm and multiple abrasions.^[14] He later testified that Patria’s incised
wound could have been caused by a sharp instrument and that the other
abrasions indicated in the medical certificate,
which could also have been caused by a sharp instrument, were three in number
and located in the area surrounding the umbilicus or navel.^[15]

Lilia Colar, the medical
technologist at the Ziga Memorial Hospital, examined the specimen of vaginal
discharge taken from Patria and found that it was “positive for
sperm cells.”^[16] She declared, however, that the sperm cells were
non-motile or dead.^[17]

The defense theory, on
the other hand, is that Bondoy could not have had sexual intercourse
with Patria without her consent because
they were lovers. To prove this, the
defense presented Emelita Bondoy, the defendant’s wife.

Emelita testified that on
the night of February 27, 1986, her husband asked her to watch his
motorboat. After her husband left, she
slept but she was awakened by an aching tooth. She went to Patria’s store to buy medicine but when she was near the store, she heard someone crying. Peeping through a hole, she saw Patria
sitting on the lap of her husband with her head on his chest. Patria was telling her husband to leave his
family and go with her to Manila. Bondoy retorted that he would go with Patria only if she gave him five
thousand pesos (P5,000.00) which he would leave with his family. Inasmuch as Patria said that she had only
two thousand pesos (P2,000.00), Bondoy proposed that they had better stay where
they were as they could still be happy.

Emelita heard Patria say
that she wanted vengeance on her husband (Domingo) who was having an
affair with Normilita, Patria’s own
sister. As she could no longer bear the
conversation, Emelita went home
and cried all night. When Bondoy returned
the following morning, she confronted him and he admitted that he was indeed
having a relationship with Patria. He
consoled her, however, saying that he still loved his family.

After that incident,
Emelita noticed that Bondoy and Patria were always together. Thus, in March, the two boarded a
“sibid?sibid” and went
to Hacienda. After her husband had been
charged with robbery, Bondoy’s family transferred to Rawis and
returned to Sagurong in September. However, she admitted not knowing anything about the September 15, 1986
incident because she and her children were in Rawis.

On cross-examination,
Emelita testified that on September 14, her husband left for Sagurong
and he returned only at 9:00 o’clock in the morning of September 15. On further questioning, however, she said
that her husband was sleeping with her between 2:00 and 3:00 o’clock in the
morning of September 15. Inspite of her knowledge about the relationship between
Patria and her husband, she kept silent about it because she wanted to avoid a
scandal.^[18] In fact, she did not tell even her own
parents about her husband’s infidelity although she confided the same to
Bondoy’s own parents.

To buttress her testimony
on the relationship between Patria and Bondoy, she produced in court a
ring which Patria allegedly gave her husband. The ring was given to her by her husband after the rape case had been
filed against him or just before she testified. She saw the ring on Patria’s finger even before the robbery case
was filed against Bondoy. When asked by
the fiscal to wear the ring, it fitted
Emelita’s ring finger.^[19]

Juan Bongalos, the
brother-in-law of Bondoy, testified that at around 9:00 o’clock in the
evening of September 14, he had supper with Bondoy whom he had invited. They talked about Bondoy’s intimate relationship
with Patria. After supper, he
accompanied Bondoy home because Patria’s relatives had been threatening
Bondoy. Along the way, Patria called
Bondoy and told him to go with her to her house. Bondoy, who had his shirt slung on his shoulder, reached only the kitchen door of Patria’s house. Patria was forcing Bondoy to go inside her
house but he declined the invitation. While Bondoy was raising his left hand, Patria suddenly stabbed him on
his left side. Bondoy ran away and Juan
followed him.^[20]

Testifying on his own
behalf, Bondoy corroborated Bongalos’ story on how he was wounded by
Patria. He added that Patria stabbed
him because he wanted to end their relationship. Bondoy repeated Emelita’s story about the February 27 incident
between himself and Patria that she allegedly witnessed. He also testified that he operates a motor
banca between Sagurong and Tabaco to ferry cargo and passengers like
Patria. He admitted having been
employed by Patria as a baggage carrier and that she had been paying him for
his services until they had a “love relationship” for one and a half
years. During the relationship, he “used” her.^[21]

Bondoy related that on
one occasion, while riding together in a “sibid-sibid” towards
Hacienda, he and Patria kissed each other. Patria gave him a ring as a symbol of her love for him.^[22] He admitted wearing the ring on his left
little finger. However, when asked by
the fiscal to try on the ring, the court noticed that it did not fit him.^[23]

On April 20, 1987, the
lower court^[24] rendered a decision convicting Bondoy of the
crime charged. Its dispositive portion
states:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds accused
ROGELIO BONDOY of Sagurong, San Miguel Island, Tabaco, Albay GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE with Physical Injuries and Use of a
Deadly Weapon, attended to by the following aggravating circumstances: (1) it was committed in the dwelling of the
offended party without the latter giving any provocation; (2) the crime was
committed after unlawful entry; and (3) as a means to the commission of a crime
a wall was broken. There is no
mitigating circumstance.

For these reasons, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA.

With all the accessories of the law.

The accused is further ordered to pay unto the complainant the sum
of SIXTY THOUSAND (P60,000.00) PESOS for and as moral damages and FIFTEEN
THOUSAND (P15,000.00) PESOS for and as exemplary damages.

Costs against the accused.

SO ORDERED.”

Bondoy interposed this
appeal claiming that the lower court erred in: (a) finding that he had sexual intercourse with Patria on September 15,
1986; (b) giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, and
(c) finding that he is guilty of the crime and/or the prosecution was able to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.^[25]

In disclaiming that he
had sexual intercourse with Patria on September 15, 1986, appellant stresses
that since not one of the other prosecution witnesses was able to confirm or
corroborate Patria’s testimony on the matter, this should be treated with
extreme caution.

Even admitting that the
testimony of a rape victim should be scrutinized carefully, considering the
nature of the crime and the fact that the offense is, more often than not,
committed without any witnesses, this Court has repeatedly held that
when a woman says that she has been raped, she says all that is necessary to
show that rape was indeed committed. If
her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted solely on its basis.^[26] Thus, even if the victim’s testimony
on how she was raped is uncorroborated,
it is sufficient to justify a conviction for rape as long as it is credible and
positive and satisfies the court of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.^[27]

On the credibility of
Patria and her testimony, the lower court stated:

“The sordid details related by private complainant about how,
when, and where the crime was committed belies the denial and protestation of
innocence by the accused. The deportment
of Patria Sabularce in the witness stand, her willingness to devulge (sic) even
the intimate details of the incident and which cannot be a mere product of her
concoction (sic) are enough to convince the Court.”^[28]

There is, therefore, no
reason to doubt the veracity of the occurrence of the sexual intercourse forced
by appellant upon Patria. Contrary to
appellant’s contention, the testimony of the doctor who examined her and the
medical technologist who examined the specimen taken from her body, as well as
their respective written findings, corroborated rather than contradicted the
complainant’s testimony that she was raped. Appellant’s undue emphasis on the fact that the spermatozoa found by
Lilia Colar in the said specimen was nonmotile and therefore, no sexual
intercourse could have occurred between appellant and Patria in the early
morning of September 15, 1986, the specimen having been examined within the
72-hour period which Dr. Sta. Rosa himself admitted as the lifespan of a
spermatozoa, is, to say the least, a desperate but futile attempt at
exoneration.

As correctly expounded by
the Solicitor General, Dr. Sta. Rosa’s testimony that a spermatozoa has a
lifespan of 72 hours simply means that it can live up to 72 hours.^[29] By the same token, it can die within said
period of time. Its presence in the
specimen taken from the body of Patria reveals that indeed she has had sexual
intercourse with appellant. As she
herself swore at the witness stand, before September 15, 1993, Patria had
performed the connubial act with her husband on September 7, 1993.^[30]

Nevertheless, it should
be underscored that the presence or absence of spermatozoa in the vagina is not
determinative of the commission of rape because a sperm test is not a sine
qua non for the successful prosecution of a rape case. Thus, the lack of spermatozoa in the
victim’s body does not even negate the crime of rape.^[31]
The important element in rape is penetration of the pudenda and not emission of
seminal fluid.^[32]

In assailing the lower court’s
stamp of credibility on the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies,
appellant enumerates what he considers as circumstances which belie the
victim’s claim of rape, thus: Patria
shouted for help only after she was stabbed in the forearm; her failure to
shout when she was raped; her conversation with appellant on a “topic
different from the alleged crime of rape” obviously referring to his order
to Patria to drop the robbery charge against him; his having asked her to go to
town at 2:00 o’clock in the morning; his having asked for a key when the
kitchen door was already open after he had made his entry, and Patria’s failure
to testify that he removed his pants.

As earlier stated, all of
these circumstances may be subsumed under the subject of credibility of the
witnesses and their testimonies. Credibility, to state what is axiomatic, is the sole province of
the trial court.^[33]
In the absence of any showing that it
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of
weight and substance that would have affected
the result of the case, the trial court’s findings on the matter of credibility
of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.^[34]
As such, the trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it deserves this Court’s
utmost respect, for it had the advantage of having directly observed their
demeanor in court.^[35] We
can do no less in this case.

Indeed, while there might
have been lapses in the complainant’s testimony such as her failure to
testify on whether or not appellant removed his shorts before he violated her,
the Court declares that such detail, whether present or absent in the testimony
of the complainant, is immaterial and its absence is not sufficient to reverse the finding of guilt. Like Patria’s
failure to notice whether appellant ejaculated while raping her, it is
understandable that such detail might have escaped her attention due to the
stress of the moment. Furthermore, it was simply not asked of
her. To repeat, her statement
that she was raped said it all.

Moreover, complainant’s
testimony is not the only basis for the finding of appellant’s guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. Although
circumstantial in nature, the testimonies of the other witnesses likewise point
to his culpability. That except for Dr.
Sta. Rosa and Lilia Colar, the prosecution witnesses are all related to the complainant does not in the
least weaken the prosecution’s
theory of the crime, for even the appellant’s own witnesses are related to
him. It must be stressed that the crime
was committed in a remote rural island where everyone is kin to each
other. It is immaterial that the prosecution
witnesses are related to the victim as long as their testimonies, independent of the relationship, are not inherently
improbable in themselves.^[36]

Appellant’s insistence
that rape could not have been committed because of the alleged amorous
relationship between him and the complainant was correctly disregarded by the
lower court. It noted that Patria’s
behavior after the commission of the crime “speaks of a desire to abide by
the law and let our Courts of Justice take care of the wrong done to her.”^[37] Hence, she proceeded immediately to the
police headquarters and later allowed an examination of her private parts. It should be added that at the trial,
she endured the shame and rigors of recalling her harrowing ordeal before
complete strangers. As the lower court
correctly observed, if indeed Patria had an illicit relationship with appellant
even before he robbed her store, then certainly, she would not have lodged the
robbery charge, much less maintained the liaison, for such behavior would have
been incongruous with the alleged facts.

That appellant broke the
wall of Patria’s house to effect entry, also belies his claim that
Patria was his paramour. She could have
allowed him easy access to her home as her husband was elsewhere, but she refrained from doing so. Appellant would have the Court believe that Patria openly asked
him to come inside her house in the presence of his brother-in-law and,
failing to get what she wanted, stabbed
him. To say the least, this tale is
incredulous, if not absurd.

On the basis of the
testimonies presented, the Court is legally and morally convinced that
appellant committed the crime of rape qualified by the use of a deadly weapon,
as defined and penalized in Art. 335 of
the Revised Penal Code. However, the
Court finds inaccurate the ruling below that the crime committed is “rape
with physical injuries and use of deadly weapon.” The physical injuries
sustained by Patria are part and parcel of the commission of the crime of rape,
there being no separate treatment in the case of the physical harm done to
Patria. Moreover, although mentioned in
the complaint filed by Patria, the crime of physical injuries (lesiones),
whether serious, less serious or slight, was not specifically alleged in
the information. This is a deviation
from the provision of Sec. 7, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, as the complaint
or information did not even refer to the provision of law punishing the offense
of physical injuries. As such, the
ambiguity of the information in this regard should be resolved in favor of the
accused.

The lower court correctly
imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua inasmuch as the
crime was attended by the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and unlawful
entry.^[38]
The qualifying circumstance of breaking down a wall should be deemed absorbed
in unlawful entry. There being two
aggravating and no mitigating circumstances,
the penalty of death would have been the proper penalty were it not for the
fact that such penalty is constitutionally banned. The victim, being entitled to moral damages
under Art. 2219 of the Civil Code, appellant should be held liable in the
amount of fifty thousand (P50,000.00) as indemnity for the commission of the
crime^[39]
instead of the total damages of
seventy-five thousand pesos (P75,000.00) imposed by the lower court.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court convicting
Rogelio Bondoy of the crime of rape by the use of a deadly weapon and imposing
on him the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby affirmed. The same penalty is modified by directing
Rogelio Bondoy to indemnify Patria V. Sabularce in the amount of fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00). Costs against the
appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), Bidin, Davide, Jr., and Melo, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Record, back of p. 16.

^[2]
Exhibit F.

^[3]
Ibid, pp. 20-21.

^[4]
TSN, December 4, 1986, p. 28; TSN,
January 9, 1987, p. 38.

^[5]
TSN, January 9, 1987, pp. 26-27.

^[6]
Exh. M.

^[7]
TSN, December 18, 1986, pp. 17-28.

^[8]
Exh. “B” (photograph of
damaged wall).

^[9]
TSN, November 28, 1986, pp. 34-39.

^[10]
TSN, November 21, 1986, pp. 23-35.

^[11]
TSN, November 28, 1986, pp. 39-50.

^[12]
TSN, December 18, 1986, pp. 5-8.

^[13]
TSN, November 21, 1986, pp. 5-6.

^[14]
Exh. “A”.

^[15]
TSN, November 21, 1986, pp. 8-9.

^[16]
Exh. “C”.

^[17]
TSN, January 14, 1987, p. 8.

^[18]
TSN, February 13, 1987, pp. 4-12.

^[19]
Ibid., pp. 19-21.

^[20]
TSN, March 11, 1986, pp. 3-7.

^[21]
TSN, March 13, 1987, pp. 5-6.

^[22]
Ibid., pp. 9-10.

^[23]
Ibid., p. 29.

^[24]
Presided by Judge Cesar B. Pimente.

^[25]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 6; Rollo,
p. 115.

^[26]
People v. Biendo, G.R. No. 84731, December 16, 1992 citing People
v. De los Reyes, G.R. No.
85771, November 19, 1990, 203 SCRA 707.

^[27]
People v. Villorente, G.R. No. 100198,
July 1, 1992, 210 SCRA 647 citing People v. Soliao, G.R. No. 91131, February 19, 1991, 194 SCRA 250.

^[28]
Decision, p. 30; Rollo, p. 52.

^[29]
Appellee’s Brief, p. 12; Rollo,
p. 145.

^[30]
TSN, January 9, 1993, p. 11.

^[31]
People v. Paciente, G.R. No.
94309, June 18, 1992, 210 SCRA 86 citing People v. Baracia, L-48360,
June 24, 1985, 137 SCRA 148.

^[32]
People v. Paciente, supra
citing People v. Sonico, G.R. No. 70308, December 14, 1987, 157 SCRA
419; People v. Managbanag, G.r. No. 66550, November 27, 1987, 155 SCRA
669; People v. Man­aay, L-47489, June 18, 1987, 151 SCRA 31.

^[33]
People v. Dacquel, G.R. No.
97917, June 22, 1992, 210 SCRA 215 citing People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No.
84714, October 5, 1990, 190 SCRA 328.

^[34]
People v. Villorente, supra, citing People v. Baduya, G.R. No.
84448, February 7, 1990, 182 SCRA 57.

^[35]
People v. Dacquel, supra,
citing People v. Lim, G.R. No. 86454, October 18, 1990, 190 SCRA 706.

^[36]
People v. Bragaes, G.R. No.
62359, November 14, 1991, 203 SCRA 555.

^[37]
Decision, p. 32; Rollo, p. 54.

^[38]
Arts. 335 and 64 (a), Revised Penal
Code.

^[39]
People v. Tismo, L-44773,
December 4, 1991, 204 SCRA 535.