G.R. No. 79451. May 14, 1990
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANTE FLORES Y PONCE, LARRY PONCE Y BUNGABONG AND OLIVER GUERRERO Y DAVIS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
FELICIANO, J.:
The decision of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 29, San Fernando, La Union, convicting the accused Dante Flores y Ponce, Larry Ponce y Bungabong and Oliver Guerrero y Davis of the crime of
murder and sentencing each of them to suffer reclusion perpetua, is before
us on appeal.
The accused Dante Flores,
Larry Ponce and Oliver Guerrero were charged by the Provincial Fiscal of La
Union in an Information which read as follows:
“That on or about the 3rd day of June, 1984, in the
Municipality of San Fernando, La Union, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating
with each other, and mutually helping one another, being then armed, with
deliberate intent to kill and without any justifiable cause, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously by means of treachery and abuse of
superior strength, attack, assault, stab several times, and hit SALVADOR
CATBAGAN in several parts of his body, inflicting upon him wounds that directly
caused his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Salvador Catbagan.
Contrary to Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code.”
The accused all pleaded
not guilty and went to trial. After
trial, the Regional Trial Court in a decision dated 23 June 1987, convicted all three
(3) accused of the crime of murder. The dispositive portion of the decision states:
“WHEREFORE, finding the accused Dante Flores y Ponce, Larry
Ponce y Bungabong and Oliver Guerrero Y Davis guilty
beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime of Murder defined and
penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, they are hereby
sentenced to suffer RECLUSION PERPETUA, and to pay the costs. They are further sentenced to indemnify
jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased the amount of P30,000.00 for
the death of Salvador Catbagan and the amount of
P5,980.00 which the heirs of the deceased had incurred for the wake and burial
of the deceased.”
SO ORDERED.”
In their Brief, the
appellants assign the following errors:
1. the lower court
erred in appreciating the evidence of the prosecution tending to show that the
three appellants mauled and inflicted the wounds that caused the death of the
victim, Salvador Catbagan;
2. the lower court
erred in not considering the circumstances favorable to the accused-appellants;
3. the trial court
erred in convicting the accused-appellants; and
4. the lower court
erred in not acquitting the accused-appellants.
From the record, the
facts of the case may be summarized in the following manner:
In the evening of 3 June
1984, Dante Flores,
Larry Ponce and Oliver Guerrero met at the Town Plaza of San Fernando, La Union, planning to attend an
amateur singing contest. They, however,
arrived at the Town Plaza too late for the singing contest. They then decided to see the last full movie
show at the Nancy Theater. They
were, however, also late for the last full show; accordingly, they
decided to drink some beer at the
Daily Fast Foods, a restaurant
some 100 meters away from the theater.[1]
The three (3) accused
drank several bottles of beer, after which they decided to call it a
night. While the three (3) were waiting
for a tricycle along P. Burgos Street, a man who was apparently drunk and who was
later on identified as the victim, Salvador Catbagan,
approached them and proceeded to urinate on the accused Dante Flores’ leg and
feet. That done, Catbagan asked Flores whether the latter had any
objection to what the former had done. Flores answered “none, manong.” Catbagan propounded the same question to the other two (2) accused, Larry Ponce
and Oliver Guerrero, successively; the two (2) gave the same negative answer:
“None, manong.”
Juanito Go, Barangay
Captain of Barangay 1, was patrolling the vicinity at
around 10:00 o’clock p.m. that evening and was at a vacant lot near the Nancy Theater when he became aware of a commotion taking
place at the corner of Don Chen Ja. He ran towards the situs
of the commotion. He saw Catbagan fleeing from the scene of the commotion with three
(3) individuals chasing after him. Catbagan lost his balance and fell to the ground and when
he attempted to get up and run, he was caught by appellant Dante
Flores. Catbagan
fell to the ground again and Juanito Go noted that Catbagan was bleeding.[2] The three (3) accused began running
northward along the highway. Patrolmen
Felipe Martinez and Reynaldo Biares, having also
noticed the commotion and the scuffling, chased the three (3) accused in a
tricycle. They were able to catch up
with the accused about half a kilometer away and apprehended them
and brought them to the police station for questioning.
Romeo Palabay
together with Luzviminda Nigos
happened, that evening of 3 June 1984 at about 10:00 o’clock p.m., to be in front of the Nancy Theater looking at the still pictures on
display. Romeo’s attention was directed
by Luzviminda to the commotion which
had suddenly erupted at Petron gasoline station
across the street approximately 20 meters away.
Romeo noticed that Salvador Catbagan was being
mauled and beaten and so he (Romeo) ran towards the group to succor Salvador Catbagan, then lying on the ground with blood on his
chest. Romeo Palabay,
testifying for the prosecution, identified the three (3) accused as the three
(3) persons whom he saw attacking Salvador Catbagan,
namely, Dante Flores, Larry Ponce and Oliver Guerrero. Upon reaching the scene of the commotion,
Romeo picked up Salvador Catbagan, having in the
process to avoid a stabbing attack on himself by Dante Flores. Romeo carried Salvador Catbagan,
put him on board a tricycle and brought him to the Bethany Hospital.[3] There Salvador Catbagan
expired upon arrival.
Dr. Arturo Llavore, a Medico Legal Officer of the National Bureau of
Investigation, carried out an autopsy on the cadaver of Salvador Catbagan. The
autopsy revealed, apart from assorted contusions and abrasions on the face,
left arm, left and right wrists and on the knee, as well as incised wounds on the right cheek and on the
left posterior lumbar region, five (5) stab wounds:
1. The first wound was located on the chest,
anterior aspect, right side, directed downward, penetrating the lower lobe,
left lung, and the liver and perforating the upper portion of the stomach, with
an approximate depth of 16.5 cms.;
2. The second stab wound was located on the
left chest, anterior aspect, also directed downward and penetrating the left
lobe of the liver and the mesentery and cutting the “abdominal
aorta”, with an approximate depth of 15.5 cms.;
3. The third wound also oriented downward,
located on the chest, right side, anterior aspect and penetrating the lower
lobe of the right lung, with an approximate depth of 12 cms.;
4. The fourth stab wound also located on the
upper abdomen, perforated loops of the small intestine and ended at the lumbar
region, with an approximate depth of 10 cms.; and
5. The fifth stab wound, also found on the
lumbar region, left posterior aspect, oriented upwards, penetrated the spleen
and the base of the left lung, with an approxiÂmate depth of 9.5 cms.[4]
At the police station, Dr. Llavore was
able to scrape at some stains on the fingers of Dante Flores. The scrapings, upon laboratory examination, turned out to be dried human blood of the
AB type, which was the same blood type of the victim Salvador Catbagan.
In evaluating the
assignments of error raised by the accused, which assignments will be
considered together, the first point that should be made is that there were at
least two (2) eyewitnesses presented by the prosecution who were able,
positively and definitely, to identify the accused-appellants as having mauled and
beaten up the victim Salvador Catbagan. The first of these was Norma Ucol who testified in the following manner:
“WITNESS:
A: There
were three men and the fourth one is
Salvador.
FISCAL MUNAR:
Q: What
did these three men do if any?
A: I
just saw them, they boxed Salvador,
sir.
Q: How
did they box Salvador?
ATTY. PULMANO:
There were three men,
the question is vague.
FISCAL MUNAR:
Q: Will
you please demonstrate what you saw?
A: Witness
demonstrating straight thrust.
Q: What
else did you see?
A: When
I saw that the three men boxed Salvador
he fell down then Salvador kicked
them, sir.
Q: What
was the position of Salvador when
he kicked the three men?
A: He was lying down, sir.
Q: What
else did these three men do to Salvador?
A: I
do not know because I run inside the restaurant, sir.
Q: Where
did Salvador fall?
A: Near
the Wimpis Meal Station, sir.
Q: What
part of the Wimpis Station?
A: Outside,
sir.
Q: How
far away from the Wimpis Station?
A: Around
one meter, sir.
Q: Was
it already along the side walk or on the street?
A: Along
the side walk, sir.
Q: You
said three persons boxed Salvador Catbagan?
ATTY. PULMANO:
She said Salvador.
Q: Do
you know the full name of this Salvador.
A: Salvador
Catbagan, sir.
Q: You
said that three persons boxed Salvador
Catbagan,
will [you] be able to recognize those three persons?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: If
they are in court will you please point to them?
A: Witness
pointing to a man in the courtroom who answered in the name of Dante Flores and
the other person who answered by the name of Larry Ponce.
FISCAL MUNAR:
Q: What
about the third person will you be able to recognize him?
A: Yes,
sir, he is not here.
Q: Will
you please describe him?
A: He
is dark with curly hair and he is tall, sir.
FISCAL MUNAR:
May
we make on record your honor, that in the bail bond posted by one of the
accused namely Oliver Guerrero do not bear any picture
and because of this the witness will not be able to identify the accused Oliver
Guerrero. In view of his absence today
as well as there is no photograph attached to his bail bond.[5]
x x x x x x
x x x
FISCAL MUNAR:
Still on direct examination.
With the permission of the Honorable Court.
COURT:
Proceed.
FISCAL MUNAR:
When
you testified the last time, you were asked to point out the three (3) persons
whom you saw attacked and boxed Salvador Catbagan and
you pointed to the person Larry Ponce and Dante Flores, while the third person
was then absent, my question today is, will you now please look at the
person in the court room and point to that person if he is here?
A: There
is, sir.
Q: Will
you please point to him?
A: (Witness
pointing to a man in the court room who answered by the name of Oliver
Guerrero.)
Q: Now,
in your direct examination, you said that you saw the victim Salvador Catbagan being boxed by the three (3) persons, now, who was
that person whom you saw boxed Salvador Catbagan?
ATTY. PULMANO:
Already
answered, the three persons she identified.
FISCAL MUNAR:
Will
you please explain what you mean, when they boxed Salvador Catbagan?
ATTY. PULMANO:
Already answered. She
demonstrated that the persons delivered a
punch.
FISCAL MUNAR:
In
the interest of justice, she should explain because we want the witness to
testify how those three persons boxed Salvador Catbagan.
ATTY. PULMANO:
But
the witness has already demonstrated, what more, action speaks more than words.
COURT:
Witness
may answer.
WITNESS:
A: I
already said it before, sir.
FISCAL MUNAR:
Q: Whom
did you see boxed Salvador Catbagan?
ATTY. PULMANO:
Already answered. The three (3) persons.
FISCAL MUNAR:
Precisely,
the three persons, she only demonstrated one box.
Q: Was
it at the same time?
ATTY. PULMANO:
That
is better, we will withdraw our objection if that is
the case.
WITNESS:
A: No,
sir.
FISCAL MUNAR:
Q: Alright,
how did they box him? Was it only one
time?
A: I
only saw one who boxed Salvador,
sir.
Q: Who
was that person?
A: I
do not know who among them because I am far away. I cannot identify.
Q: After
boxing Salvador Catbagan what did these three (3)
persons do?
ATTY. PULMANO:
Already answered, Your Honor. She said I do not know anymore.
FISCAL MUNAR:
The
question is, what did the three persons do after boxing Salvador Catbagan and the question is not yet translated.
COURT:
Witness
may answer.
WITNESS:
A: They
tried to go near him again, sir.
FISCAL MUNAR:
Q: When
you said they, to whom do you
refer?
WITNESS:
A: The
three (3) of them, sir. (Witness pointing
to the three accused).
FISCAL MUNAR:
Q: Were
they able to get near Salvador Catbagan?
A: No,
sir.
Q: Why?
ATTY. PULMANO:
The witness already answered, she does not
know because she went already to the restaurant.
x x x x x x x x x“[6]
The second eyewitness,
prosecution witness Romeo Palabay, corroborated Norma
Ucol’s testimony.
Romeo Palabay was also able to identify Dante Flores as having
stabbed at the victim with a knife:
“x x x x x x x x
x
Q: While
you were there was there anything unusual that happened?
A: There
was, sir.
Q: What
was that?
A: Bobby
was being mauled, sir.
Q: Who
is this Bobby who was being mauled?
A: Salvador
Catbagan, sir.
Q: Where
was this Bobby when he was being mauled?
A: He
was in the Petron, sir.
FISCAL MUNAR:
Q: What
did you do when Bobby was being
mauled?
A: I
run immediately, sir.
Q: Towards where?
A: Going
north, sir.
Q: To
where?
A: I
went to see Bobby who was being mauled, sir.
Q: And
were you able to reach that place where Bobby was being mauled?
Q: I
saw three persons, sir.
ATTY. PULMANO:
I
move to strike the answer of the witness, Your Honor, it is not
responsive. The question is were you able to reach the place?
A: I
reach the place, sir.
Q: What
did you see?
A: I
saw three men, sir.
Q: What
were those three men doing?
A: They
were mauling Bobby, sir.
Q: Will
you demonstrate how they were mauling Bobby Catbagan?
A: Witness
demonstrating a thrust downward with his right hand.
FISCAL MUNAR:
Q: What
was the position of Salvador
Catbagan when he was being mauled?
A: He
was lying down his face upward, sir.
Q: Where
were the three who were mauling Salvador
Catbagan?
A: The
two were north of Salvador
Catbagan and the other one was on the south of Salvador
Catbagan, sir.
Q: Those
three persons who were mauling Salvador
Catbagan will you please look those persons inside
the courtroom and point to us those persons if they are here?
A: They
are here, sir. Witness pointing to the
three accused seated on the bench.
Q: Will
you please go down and pat their shoulder?
ATTY. PULMANO:
The
witness pointed to the three persons even moving his finger towards his left.
FISCAL MUNAR:
Q: Will
you go down and tap the shoulder of the persons whom you saw in that incident who mauled Salvador Catbagan?
Note:
Witness went to the place where the accused were sitting and
touch the shoulder of the three men whose name is Dante Flores, Larry Ponce and
Oscar Pimentel.[7]
x x x x x x x x x
FISCAL MUNAR:
Q: What did you observe the three
persons holding if any?
ATTY. PULMANO:
The
same objection, not premised it assumed the fact not fully established.
COURT:
Witness may answer.
WITNESS:
A: There
was a knife, sir.
Q: And
who was holding that knife?
A: Witness
pointing to a man at the northern most of the bench and when asked his name he
answered that he is Dante Flores.
Q: When
you reached near the persons what did you do?
A: They
moved a little bit far, sir.
Q: And
what did you do?
A: I
went to carry Bobby Catbagan.
Q: When
you were able to carry Bobby Catbagan what
did the three (3) persons do if any?
A: He
came again to stab me, sir.
Q: Who
was that person who went to stab you?
A: Dante
Flores, sir.
Q: Was
he able to stab you?
A: I
was able to evade, sir.
x x x x
x x x x x“[8]
While Romeo was able to observe only Dante Flores in the act of holding a knife, the trial court found
that, considerÂing the number of wounds sustained by the
deceased and the differing dimensions of the entry wounds, at least two (2)
knives had been used in inflicting multiple stab wounds upon the deceased and
that those wounds had been inflicted by more than one person. The trial court said:
“At least two knives were used in the inflicted wounds
sustained by the deceased because the entrance of stabbed wound No. 1 and 2 are
longer than the stabbed wound No. 5.
[In] stabbed wound No. 2, the entrance is 2.7 cms.
longer while stabbed wound No. 4 is only 7 cms. longer.
x x
x x x x x
x x[9]
The number of wounds and their sizes would mean that more than
one knife had been used in the commission of the crime and that more than one person had inflicted them. The
prosecution witnesses had actually seen the three accused delivering blows to
the deceased immediately before the deceased run away from them and fell
on the road bleeding. There is but only one inescapable conclusion
therefore that the three accused were all armed with knives with which they
inflicted the several wounds sustained by the deceased, and that conspiracy
attended the commission of the crime.
x x x x x x x x x“[10]
The trial court obviously found the testimony of the prosecution
eyewitnesses to be reliable and credible and, after careful consideration of
the records of this case, we find no reason for
overturning such findings. The general
rule is that “the findings of the trial court as to the credibility of the
witnesses are to be given weight and a high degree of respect by the appellate
court”.[11]
Moreover, “if there is nothing in the record to show that the prosecution
witnesses were moved by any improper motive to accuse falsely the appellants of
so grave a crime as murder, then the findings of the trial court as to the
credibility must be respected.”[12]
The appellants point to certain alleged errors, contradictions, and
inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution. Thus, it is claimed that the testimony on direct examination of Norma Ucol to the effect that she saw the three (3) accused gang up on the victim and that she saw one of the accused strike the
victim who was in turn kicked by the latter, was inconsistent with her
declaration on cross-examination that she did not recognize the person who
delivered that blow. The Court, however,
finds no necessary contradiction in these statements. Norma’s statement that she could not identify
the person who delivered the blow must be viewed in relation to all her earlier
statements (direct and cross examination) in order to be properly
understood. Her testimony may be
understood to mean that she saw at that time the faces and general appearance
of the three (3) accused, since
the area involved was well-lighted at 10:00
o’clock p.m.[13]
But, she learned the names of the accused
only upon meeting them at the police station.
Moreover, her failure to identify who among the three (3) accused had
struck the victim does not appear critical or essential, considering that
conspiracy among the accused was alleged and proven at the trial. The rule is:
where there is conspiracy, a showing as to who inflicted the fatal blow
is not required.[14]
It is also claimed that
the testimony of Romeo Palabay that he saw the three
(3) accused gang up on the victim in the premises of the Petron
gasoline station was inconsistent with his statement that the three (3) accused
were Dante Flores, Larry Ponce and Oscar Pimentel, the last named not being one
of the accused. We find no serious
contradiction in the foregoing statements.
Attention must be directed to the fact that Romeo was able to point out[15]
to the trial court the three (3)
accused who were then sitting on a
bench inside the court room as the culprits.
The alleged error occurred when Romeo named the three (3) accused in
this case: the name Oscar Pimentel which
was not a name used by any of the accused, came up. The record offers no explanaÂtion how the
name “Oscar Pimentel”, rather than “Oliver Guerrero”, came
up. Defense counsel did not object at
the time to what is now on appeal, alleged to be an error in identification. It is, however, pertinent to note that witness
Palabay was not previously acquainted with any of the accused before the
killing of Catbagan and that he (like Norma Ucol) learned their names only when he saw them at the
police station.[16] It must also be noted that the presence
of all the accused (including Oliver Guerrero) at the time and place of the crime was properly
established by the testimony of the other witnesses for the prosecution.
Appellants further claim
that the testimony of Romeo Palabay to the effect
that he saw accused Dante Flores holding a knife which
said accused used in trying to stab him was diametrically opposed to the
testimony of Barangay Captain Go that he did not take any knife from the accused Flores.
There appears nothing mutually contradictory between these two (2)
statements. Assuming that Flores was really armed with a knife
at the time of his encounter with Catbagan, Flores certainly had the opportunity to drop of get
rid of the knife by the time Barangay
Captain Go caught up with him.
The other alleged
inconsistencies and errors in Palabay’s testimony
appear too minor to be considered explicitly and they do not affect the
credibility of said witness. Minor
discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses are but natural and to be
expected. They enhance their credibility
because these discrepancies tend to indicate that the answers were unrehearsed.[17]
The evidence submitted by
the prosecution did not show who, apart from Dante Flores, of the three (3)
accused had weilded a knife and inflicted knife wounds
upon the victim. It must, therefore, be
noted that the element of conspiracy was present since all the three (3)
accused had acted in a concerted manner in attacking and chasing the deceased
victim. It follows that all three (3)
may be held liable for the stabbing and killing of the victim.[18]
The defense of the accused consisted of the simple denial that
anyone of them had attacked and stabbed at the victim. All three (3) testified that not one of them had
felt upset or angry when the deceased Catbagan had
urinated on the leg of Dante Flores and that the deceased victim had
unaccountably started to run away. The
trial court clearly found this defense unworthy of serious consideration —
“The accused have a motive in committing the crime
charged. While they were at the park,
the deceased who was then drunk approached them and urinated on the leg of
Dante Flores. According to the three
accused, after urinating on the leg of Dante Flores, he asked the accused one
after the other if they had hurt feelings because of what he had done, but all of them simply answered
“none manong“. The act of the deceased in urinating on
the leg of Dante Flores is indeed very provocative which must have angered the
accused to stab him. As a matter of fact, the three accused all
testified that after urinating on the leg of Dante Flores there is a commotion
ensued which was but the result of the act of the deceased in urinating on the
leg of Dante Flores.”[19] (Underscoring in the original)
The trial court thus found provocation on
the part of the deceased and that the accused must have responded in anger by
attacking and stabbing the deceased.
Motive, of course, is not an
essential element of a crime. Thus,
extreme moral perversion could lead a person to commit a crime without a motive
that could be appreciated or understood by an ordinary man.[20] It is settled that where the identity of a
person accused of having committed a
crime is not in dispute, the motive that may have impelled the commission of the crime is not very relevant.[21] In the instant case, there are at least two (2) eyewitnesses to the crime as earlier noted, whose testimonies were, in
addition, corroborated by at least four (4) other witnesses: Juanito Go,
Luzviminda Nigos and two (2) police patrolmen, Patrolmen
Felipe Martinez and Reynaldo Biares, all of whom testified that the accused were present at the scene of the crime
chasing after the deceased, and fleeing from the scene after the Barangay Captain and the police had begun to converge upon
them, and were arrested immediately after fleeing from the fatal mauling and
stabbing of the victim. There was, in
other words, no need for the prosecution to prove motive on the part of the
accused-appellants. Even so, the
explanation of the trial court being quite in line with ordinary human
behavior, that explanation appears useful in understanding what happened that
night of 3 June 1984 when Salvador Catbagan, to all
appearances drunk and in a belligerent mood, had the misfortune of coming
across and inflicting himself upon the three (3) accused-appellants who had
themselves been drinking beer.
It remains only to note
that the killing of Salvador Catbagan was attended by
the generic aggravating circumsÂtance of abuse of superior strength. The three (3) accused-appellants obviously
outnumbered and ganged up on Salvador Catbagan. The multiplicity of the abrasions and
contusions, incised wounds and the deep and deadly stab wounds sustained by Catbagan indicated the overpowering nature of the violent
attack directed against him.
WHEREFORE, the
decision of the trial court finding the accused-appellants Dante Flores, Larry
Ponce and Oliver Guerrero guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder
and sentencing each of them to reclusion perpetua,
to indemnify the heirs of the deceased
in the amount of P30,000.00 plus the amount of
P5,980.00 incurred for burial and funeral expenses of the deceased and to pay the costs,
is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), Gutierrez,
Jr., Bidin, and
Cortes, JJ., concur.
[1]
TSN, 21 May 1986, pp. 6-8; Record, pp. 323-325.
[2]
TSN, 30 January 1986, pp. 9-14; Record,
pp. 233-238; TSN, 3 December 1986, pp. 9-15; Record, pp. 212-218.
[3]
TSN, 13 May 1986, pp. 5-7; Record, pp. 285-287; TSN, 3 December
1985, p. 7; Record, p. 7.
[4]
Decision of the trial court,
Rollo, pp. 53-55.
[5]
TSN, 10 December 1984, pp. 4-6; Record, pp. 68-70. Underscoring supplied.
[6]
TSN, 20 December 1984, pp. 2-6; Record, pp. 73-77. Underscoring supplied.
[7]
TSN, 13 November 1984, pp. 3-6; Record, pp. 42-45. Underscoring supplied.
[8]
Id., pp. 7-8; Record, pp. 46-47. Underscoring supplied.
[9]
Decision of the trial
court, Rollo, p. 55.
Underscoring supplied.
[10]
Id., Rollo, p. 63.
Underscoring supplied.
[11]
People v. Valdez, et al., 159 SCRA 152 (1988); People v. Sarol, 139 SCRA 125 (1985).
[12]
People v. Valdez, supra.
[13]
TSN, 20 December 1984, p. 9; Record, p. 80.
[14]
People v. Tamba, 147 SCRA 427 (1987); People v. Tala, 141 SCRA 240 (1986).
[15]
TSN, 13 November 1984, p. 5; Record, p. 44.
[16]
See in this connection, People v.
Magdueño, 144 SCRA 210 (1986).
[17]
People v.
Bautista, 147 SCRA 500 (1987); People v. De las
Piñas, 141 SCRA 379 (1986); People v.
Valentino, 141 SCRA 397 (1986).
[18]
People v. Roxas, 147
SCRA 169 (1987); People v. Jusep, 151 SCRA 248 (1987); People v. Garcia, 141 SCRA 336 (1986); People v.
Arhis, 144 SCRA 684 (1986).
[19]
Decision of the trial
court, Rollo, p. 59.
[20]
People v. Arcilla, G.R.
No. 11792, 30 June 1985; People v. Del Rosario, 105 Phil. 591
(1959).
[21]
People v. Ramilo y Sangalang, G.R. No. 52230, 15 December 1987; People v. Ibal y Yakap, 143 SCRA 317
(1986).