PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDDIE FONTANILLA Y COLOBAN, BOBBY SORIANO Y APULINO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.  RICARDO SIBIDAL Y PAULINO – AT LARGE, ACCUSED.

On January 21, 1986,
Ricardo Sibidal, Eddie Fontanilla,
and Bobby Soriano were charged with the crime of
murder by the provincial fiscal of Puerto
Princesa City
in an Information which reads as follows:

That on or about the 21st day of November 1985 at
Bgy. Taritien,
Municipality of Narra, Province of Palawan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together
and mutually helping one another, with evident premeditation and treachery, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault and stab with their bladed weapons to wit:  knives and an ice pick one Federico Bangayan hitting him on vital parts of his body and
inflicting upon him several mortal injuries which were the direct and immediate
cause of his instantaneous death.

CONTRARY TO LAW, with aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength, evident premeditation and treachery.^[1]

Upon arraignment, the accused, Ricardo Sibidal,
Eddie Fontanilla, and Bobby Soriano
pleaded “not guilty” to the offense charged.

After trial, the court a quo rendered a decision on January 3, 1990, convicting the three
accused of the crime of murder as charged, the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court found and so finds all
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, as defined and
penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as principal(s) by
direct participation without mitigating circumstances and hereby sentenced each
and every accused to suffer an imprison­ment of RECLUSION PERPETUA, to
indemnify the heirs of Federico Bangayan the amount
of Nine Hundred Seventy Three Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety-Six (P973,896.00)
Pesos plus Ninety Thousand (P90,000.00) Pesos for funeral and other incidental expenses, Ten Thousand
(P10,000.00) Pesos moral damages and Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos as
exemplary damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to
pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.^[2]

The appeal before us was filed only by Eddie Fontanilla
and Bobby Soriano, as
Ricardo Sibidal had escaped during his detention and
remains at large up to the present as far
as the records show.

The facts of the case are as
follows:

On November 21, 1985, at around 6:30 o’clock in the evening,
in Bgy. Taritien, Municipality
of Narra,
Palawan, the deceased,
Federico Bangayan, had just taken a bath when he
heard his name being called from outside his house.  When he opened the door, three men barged in,
stabbed him and dragged him through the kitchen door to the street
outside.  About four hours later,
Federico’s cadaver was found in a shallow ditch 100 meters away from his
house.  An autopsy of Federico’s body
yielded the finding, inter alia, that the
cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to multiple stab wounds.^[3]
The Autopsy Report described twelve wounds found on different parts of the body
of Federico.  The accused were convicted
based on the exhibits presented together with the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses as summarized by the
trial court as follows:

Rosalinda Bangayan, 33 years old,
housekeeper and a resident of Taritien, Narra, Palawan declared that
on November 21, 1985 at
about 6:30 in the evening, Ricardo Sibidal knocked at their door.  She was very familiar with Ricardo and could
even recognize his voice because she was one of the sponsors during his
wedding.  Her husband, Federico Bangayan, opened the door and when Sibidal
entered, he stabbed her husband followed by Bobby Soriano
and Eddie Fontanilla (TSN, 7 June 13, 1986).  She was then sitting at the stairs breast
feeding her child.  Her husband and the
three (3) assailants stepped backward towards the kitchen.  She put down her baby and look
[sic] for a bolo.  She ran downstairs but her husband and the three
accused were no longer there.  After
three (3) minutes, Ricardo Sibidal, Bobby Soriano and Eddie Fontanilla were
running back to their house and upon seeing them coming she immediately closed
the door and windows and shouted for help from her neighbors.  Alfonso Ducejo came
and assisted them.  He wanted to get the
bolo she was holding but she did not give it. 
He got a
piece of wood, ran toward the road and told his son-in-law to get a police(man).  When the
police arrived, they looked and searched for her husband and found the cadaver
about 100 meters from their house.  The
police went to Estrella
Village to look for the
assailants.  Danny Bangayan,
her first cousin was the one who found her husband and told her that he is
[sic] already dead.  She saw the cadaver
in the morning because they do not want her to see him that evening.  Her husband was lying flat on the ground and sustained many
stabbed wounds.  (TSN
18 June 13, 1986).

When she was investigated she declared that she does not know the
persons who stabbed her husband because she was already weakened by fear and
afraid that the killers might return and killed [sic] her and her children (TSN
24, June 16, 1986).  She recognized Eddie
Fontanilla from the group who returned and was wearing
a hat, maong black pant [sic] and somewhat white
T-shirt.  She pointed Ricardo Sibidal as the mastermind because he was the one who called
at their house, saying “Ninong naaksidente po ang sasakyan ninyo”
(TSN 25, June 25, 1986).  The three (3)
accused planned to hold-up them [sic] in the house of the mother of Mario
Castillo (TSN 26, June 16, 1986).

Amos Bungay, 36 years old, married,
member of the INP and a resident
of Calategas, Narra, Palawan, declared that on December 4, 1985, he investigated
Eddie Fontanilla alias Boyet
Fontanilla for he wanted to tell the truth regarding
the killing of Federico Bangayan.  He apprised him of his constitutional rights
before he started the investigation.  The
investigation was done through a tape recorder.  The tape recorder was placed in front and the
accused answered the questions freely and voluntarily.  The Court noted that in the tape recorded
investigation of accused Fontanilla there was no mentioning
(sic) about the right to remain silent and to get the service of a counsel of his own choice.

Santiago Nollan, 47 years old, policeman, and a resident of Narra, Palawan,
testified that on December 1, 1985,
he investigated Bobby Soriano and before he started
the investigation he apprised him of his constitutional right(s) to remain
silent, to have a lawyer of his choice and any statement he made maybe used for
or against him.  Accused was brought by Pfc. Deliero in [sic] the investigation room.

Alfonso Ducejo, 53 years old, married,
farmer and a resident of Taritien, Narra, Palawan,
declared that on November 21,1985, at about 5:00
p.m., he was at Taritien, Narra, Palawan
walking on the road along line 5 going to the store to buy medicine.  He met Ricardo Sibidal,
Bobby Soriano and Eddie Fontanilla
who turned right side of the road passing a trail (TSN 5, February 23,
1987).  He was about 10 to 15 meters when
he first saw them.  He knew Eddie Fontanilla and Ricardo Sibidal
very well because when Fontanilla was still in
elementary grade he used to go to their house and he was also present in the
house of the mayor when Ricardo Sibidal got married.

When he was returning home after buying medicine, he heard the
shouts of Mrs. Bangayan asking for help whose house is about 400 meters
from his house.  He ran toward the house
of the Bangayans and when he was about 30 meters from
the house of the latter he shouted, “Saying, ano
ba ang nangyari”
for three (3) times and he saw the three (3) accused went (sic) down and ran
(sic) to the forest.  He tried to wrestle
the bolo from Mrs. Bangayan but she refused to give it.  He kept on shouting to attract people and
they responded.  He was told by Mrs. Bangayan
that her husband (Federico Bangayan) was brought out
of their house.  He told one of the
people to report the incident to the police at Narra,
Palawan.  They searched for the victim by following the
bloodstains and they found the body that evening.  They did not touch the cadaver and they
brought the same
home the following morning when the police arrived.  He reported to police Lieutenant Dimandal that the assailants were Eddie Fontanilla,
Ricardo Sibidal and Bobby Soriano.

Erlinda Castillo, 20 years old, married,
housekeeper and residing at Princesa Urduja, Narra, Palawan, declared that she is a resident of
Princess Urduja since birth.  Her husband is Mario Castillo.  She knew Bobby Soriano
when the latter went to their house and had a talk with her husband.  She had known Ricardo Sibidal
for a long time, for he is a relative of her husband.  On November
17, 1985, she was in their house with her parents-in-law.  In the morning of the same date, Bobby Soriano and Ricardo Sibidal
visited them.  They talked with her
husband and persuaded him to go to a certain place where they could get money,
however, her husband refused to go with them (TSN 26, July 16, 1987).  They told him that they could get money and
will not be caught.  The two accused
stayed in their house for two hours.

Beatriz Lacsamana, 28 years old, married,
housekeeper and a resident of Princess Urduja, Narra, Palawan
declared that on November 17, 1985
at about 7:00 o’clock in the morning,
she was in the house of her mother Maria Castillo.  Bobby Soriano and
Ricardo (Atong) Sibidal
were there.  The two were talking to his
brother Mario Castillo and were inviting him to go somewhere.  His brother did not go with them for he had
many things to do.  She knew Bobby Soriano and Ricardo (Atong) Sibidal for they are her relatives.^[4]

The defense is denial and alibi, and the alleged violation of the
constitutional rights of the accused. 
Thus, the witnesses for the defense testified as follows:

Eddie Fontanilla, 21 years old, single,
farmer and a resident of Lapu-lapu, Narra, Palawan,
declared that he does [sic] not know Ricardo Sibidal
and Bobby Soriano prior to November 21, 1985.  He knew them [sic] at the Municipal Jail of Narra, Palawan.  On November
21, 1985, he was at Fernandez Street,
Puerto Princesa City.  He returned to Lapu-lapu St., Narra, Palawan
on December 1, 1985 and was
arrested on the same date.  He was forced
to admit the killing of Federico Bangayan but he
denied to have participated [sic].  He
was mauled by Station Commander of Narra, Palawan (TSN 5, Oct. 6, 1988).  Every night he was brought out of jail,
mauled and forced to admit the killing of Federico Bangayan.
 He claimed that during the investigation
he was not represented by a lawyer.  He
likewise claimed that he does not know that Ricardo Sibidal
and Bobby Soriano went to the house of a certain Castillo on November 12, 1985.  He further claimed that he had no counsel
when he was investigated by Judge Meregillano during
the preliminary investigation.  He
finally claimed that Cesar Villejo, a policeman poked
a gun to [sic] him before he was mauled and gave
his confession.  He does not know whether
his confession was reduced into [sic] writing.

Bobby Soriano, 24 years old, single,
farmer and a resident of Narra, Palawan,
declared that he came from Urdaneta, Pangasinan.  He
contended that he does not know barangay Taritien, Narra, Palawan. 
On November 21, 1985,
he was in his house.  He does [sic] not
know Ricardo Sibidal before November 21, 1985.  He met him only in jail.  He also
met Eddie Fontanilla in jail.  Until now he does not know Taritien, Narra, Palawan.  He also denied having known Erlinda Castillo or have [sic] gone to their place.  He never left his house on November 21, 1985.  He had been a resident of Narra,
Palawan [for] three months before November
21, 1985.

Roger Bucasas, 24 years old, married,
farmer and a resident of Isugod, Quezon,
Palawan, declared that in 1985
he was residing at Fernandez St.,
Puerto Princesa City.  On November
15, 1985, he met Eddie Fontanilla in the
house of his aunt and stayed there until December 2, 1985. 
That he has still a pending
case at RTC Branch 48 docketed as Crim. Case No. 7523
for Murder.

On cross-examination, he declared that he did not know that Eddie Fontanilla was later on charged [sic] for Murder, however, when he himself was imprisoned in the
Provincial Jail he met again Eddie Fontanilla.^[5]

The accused-appellants Eddie Fontanilla
and Bobby Soriano assailed the decision, assigning
the following errors in their common brief:

1.            The lower court
erred in holding that Rosalinda Bangayan and Alfonso Ducejo, two of prosecution witnesses has [sic] positively
identified the appellants as the
assailants.

2.            The lower court
erred in holding that the plan of the assailant was to rob the victim.

3.            The lower court
erred in giving credence on [sic] the testimony of prosecution witnesses and in
not giving credence on [sic] the testimony of defense witnesses.^[6]

It is an elementary rule in jurisprudence that a judgment of conviction demands the
positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator or perpetrators of
the crime charged by proof beyond reasonable
doubt.  The identification of the
offender is even more crucial in every criminal prosecution where the defense
pleads alibi.  Unless the identity of the
culprit is established beyond reasonable doubt, the charge against the accused
must be dismissed on the ground that the constitutional presumption of
innocence has not been overcome.^[7]
In the present case, we are not
persuaded that the prosecution has established unerringly the identity of the assailants,
for which reason, we reverse the decision of the court a quo.

Two prosecution witnesses, namely, Rosalinda Bangayan
and Alfonso Ducejo, identified the accused-appellants
as the assailants.  However, only
Rosalinda Bangayan testified that she actually saw her husband being attacked and
stabbed by three persons whom she belatedly identified as the
accused-appellants.  On the other hand,
Alfonso Ducejo’s testimony identifying the three accused as the assailants
was pure conjecture and plainly speculative. 
He never witnessed the actual killing. 
The fact that he saw the three accused walking along the road and turning right to a trail upon seeing him^[8]
and later running away from the
house of the victim into the forest, does not warrant the conclusion that they
were the ones who killed Federico Bangayan.  Proof to sustain conviction must survive the
test of reason.  Suspicion of guilt, no matter how strong, should not be permitted to sway judgment.^[9]

Similarly, Rosalinda Bangayan’s
testimony identifying the three accused as
her husband’s murderers is suspect and not credible.  She testified during the trial of June 13 and
16, 1986, that she knew very well the alleged mastermind Ricardo Sibidal, being her “hijado.”
She also said that she saw him and the two other accused kill her husband that
fateful day of November 21, 1985.  Thus, on direct and cross-examinations,
Rosalinda Bangayan testified as follows:

(Direct
Examination)

Q:    Who is that somebody who called on (sic)
your house?

A:    Ricardo Sibidal,
he is our godson in marriage.

Q:    And how long have you known this Ricardo Sibidal?

A:    For long time already since boyhood.

xxx                         xxx                               xxx

Q:    Who
stabbed your husband?

A:    The three accused.  x x x Ricardo Sibidal,
Bobby Soriano and Boyet Fontanilla.

(Cross-examination)

xxx                         xxx                               xxx

Q:    Madam witness, you
likewise stated that you have known Ricardo Sibidal
for a long
time, did I get your right?

A:    Yes,
sir.

Q:    In fact you were one of the sponsors during
the wedding ceremony of Ricardo Sibidal and his wife, am I correct?

A:    Yes,
sir.

Q:    As a matter of fact Madam witness
you have been very familiar with the person?

A:    Yes, sir.

Q:    Even the voice, you can determine that it
was his voice, am I correct?

A:    Yes, sir.

Q:    And even if his back was towards your front
you can recognized [sic] him as Ricardo Sibidal in a distance of around 3 or 5 meters, did I get
you right?

A:    I can recognize, sir.

Q:    More so if he will be facing you at a distance of about 3 or 4 meters?

A:    Yes, sir.

xxx                        xxx                  xxx^[10]

Yet, on the very night and morning of the incident, or on
November 21 and 22, 1985, despite the presence of the authorities and many
other persons–the close relatives and friends of the victim, her
husband–Rosalinda Bangayan never disclosed the
identity of the killers that she allegedly saw and with whom she was familiar,
especially Ricardo Sibidal whom she could recognize
even from behind.  What is worse, on December 3, 1985, when she gave her
sworn statement to the police authorities, barely 13 days after the killing,
she never identified the killers she allegedly saw and was familiar with.  Thus, in her “Sinumpaang
Salaysay” taken on said date, she gave the
following unequivocal answers:

05.T  –     Nakilala mo ba ang mga
taong sumaksak sa asawa mo?

05.S  –    Hindi po at wala akong nakikilala
sa kanila.

06.T  –     Ano ang suot ng
taong unang pumasok sa inyong
bahay?  Kung iyong natatandaan.

06.S  –    Nakita ko pong nakasuot ng barong puti ang isa
at ang isa naman ay nakasuot ng jacket na checkered na may kulay at ang isa pa ay hindi
ko na po
matandaan dahilan sa maliit lang
po ang ilaw
namin kaya hindi ko masyadong
naaninagan.^[11]

(Emphasis
supplied.)

It was only after she had talked with one Kapitan
Sison and the Castillo spouses that she named the
accused-appellants as the persons who killed her husband.^[12]
The transcripts of the hearing on June
16, 1986 at which Rosalinda Bangayan
testified bears this out:

xxx                        xxx                               xxx

FISCAL:     (To witness Rosalinda Bangayan)

Q:  Now madam witness, you mentioned a person by
the name of Lacsamana who talked with Sibidal when he was arrested, where were you when Lacsamana talked with Sibidal?

A:   Lacsamana talked
with us.

Q:  When you said with us, to whom are you
referring (to)?

A:   My companions were my brother and Cesar Deliro, sir.

Q:  Where was [sic] this conversation took place?

A:   In the house of Cesar Deliro,
sir.

Q:  And what was the conversation that you have
had on that occasion with Lacsamana?

A:   It has [sic] made mentioned [sic] in our
conversation that they were the ones who killed my husband, sir.

ATTY.
AUSTRIA:  Again we move that it be stricken out of the
record because it illicits hearsay answer, your
Honor.

COURT:    Let it remain in the record.

FISCAL:     (To witness)

Q:  Who told you that they were the ones who
killed your husband?

A:   Capitan Sison, sir,
and their relatives who heard the plans that they are going to holdup and to go to our house.  They are also our witnesses.

Q:  You mentioned about their relatives who told
you that they are going to hold up your house who
[sic] is the name of the relatives?

A:   Mario Castillo and his wife Erlinda Castillo and the sister Beatriz Lacsamana
who is the sister of Mario Castillo and they have planned it in the house of
the mother of Mario Castillo, sir.

Q:  Now madam witness you said that they were the
ones who killed my [sic] husband, to whom are you referring (to)?

A:   Ricardo Sibidal,
Bobby Soriano and Boyet Fontanilla.^[13]

xxx                         xxx                               xxx

(Emphasis supplied.)

While ordinarily, the failure of a witness to report at once to
the police authorities the crime he had witnessed should not be taken against
him and should not affect his credibility, here, the unreasonable delay in
Rosalinda Bangayan’s identification of the accused
engenders doubt on her veracity.  She
only incriminated and revealed the identity of the accused during the trial on June 16, 1986, or seven (7) long
months after the crime happened on November
21, 1985.  We have held that
the silence of an alleged
eyewitness for several weeks renders his credibility doubtful x x x.  The long delay in reporting the crime
or its author to the authorities not caused by threat, intimidation, or
coercion, renders the testimony untruthful,^[14]
or, at the least, doubtful.  There is no
showing that Rosalinda Bangayan was threatened,
intimidated, or coerced not to reveal the identity of the accused-appellants as
the culprits, hence, her delay in reporting the same is unjustified and makes
her credibility suspect.

The positive identification of the perpetrators of an offense is
required if their complicity is to be established beyond reasonable doubt.  The failure to identify any of the accused
would be fatal to the case of the prosecution as to the said accused.^[15]
Here, Rosalinda Bangayan’s identification of the
accused appellants as her husband’s assailants is inadmissible hearsay inasmuch
as it was not based on her
personal knowledge but on the suggestion of third parties who were not even
eyewitnesses to the crime.  This raises
doubt in the mind of this Court whether or not the accused-appellants were
indeed the authors of the crime charged. 
Such doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused-appellants.  The Constitution and the law are clear that
in case of reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted.  Our jurisprudence is built upon the concept
that it is preferable for the guilty to remain unpunished than for an innocent
person to suffer any punishment unjustly.^[16]

There being no positive identification of the assailants, proof
as to motive is essential, especially so when the evidence on the commission of
the crime is purely circumstantial or inconclusive,^[17]
as in the present case.  The prosecution
posits that the accused-appellants planned to rob the deceased, he being the
owner of two vehicles and 18 hectares of
farmland in Narra, Palawan. 
Said plan was allegedly hatched in the house of Mario Castillo whom the
accused-appellants tried to convince to go with them to a place where they could get money
without being caught.^[18]
But the prosecution did not present even an iota of evidence to prove that the
deceased, or any member of his household, was robbed.  Nothing was shown to have been taken, or
attempted to be taken, by the accused-appellants from the house of the latter,
not even a single centavo, not a single grain of rice, nay not a farthing.  Hence, the prosecution’s theory of robbery
must fall.

The Court likewise notes with disgust and condemnation the
widow’s act of giving money to the police authorities, and the receipt thereof
by the latter, in the amount of P4,000.00 to cover the
expenses in their quest for the alleged mastermind of the killing of her
husband.^[19]
We can
not countenance this “generosity” as it is nothing short of a bribe
to the police.  Moreover, having thus been
bribed, the latter can not thereafter be expected to act fairly in
investigating the crime and the accused-appellants.  This lack of fairness was evident during the
custodial investigation of the latter which was conducted perfunctorily and
without due regard to the rights of an accused guaranteed in the 1987
Constitution.  No less than the court a quo
acknowledged this fatal defect.  Thus the
court said:

x x x
The Court noted that in the tape recorded investigation of accused Fontanilla there was no mentioning [sic] about the right to
remain silent and to get the service of a counsel of his own choice.^[20]

It is therefore clear that the extrajudicial confession of Eddie Fontanilla admitting his participation in the murder of
Federico Bangayan was taken without the assistance of counsel, and his alleged
waiver of the assistance of counsel was not made in the presence of counsel.^[21]
The fatal omission renders the accused-appellant Fontanilla’s
extrajudicial confession inadmissible in evidence.  We said in Decierdo:^[22]

There is no doubt that the accused’s
alleged extrajudicial confession is in the nature of an uncounselled
confession and hence, inadmissible in evidence. 
Section 20 of Article IV of the 1973 Constitution applies.  It provides:

Section 20.  No person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself.  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.

That the aforequoted provision applies has been affirmed in
a long line of decisions, the confession in question having been obtained
during the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution,
although the incumbent Chief Justice of this Court insists that coerced
confessions obtained either prior to or after the effectivity
of the 1973 Charter are equally inadmissible in evidence.

While the right to counsel is a right that may be waived, such
waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.  The waiver must furthermore be in the
presence of the accused’s lawyer.

xxx                     xxx                   xxx

It is not enough that the accused be informed of his constitutional
rights.  That is but the first step.  It is necessary, in addition, that he be
convinced that notwithstanding the fact that he is in “enemy”
territory, he is not a doomed man.  That
is the essence of Section 20 of the 1973 Bill of Rights.

Indeed, the hostile environment of police headquarters (the
“police-dominated atmosphere” referred to in Duero,
supra) or similar venues are enough to overwhelm one, who, out of resignation,
may execute a “confession” not truly his own.  In People v. Navoa
we said that “coercion can be mental as well as physical, and that the
blood of the accused is not the
only hallmark of an unconstitutional confession.”

All told, the prosecution has failed to convince this Court of the
guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is REVERSED and the
accused-appellants are ACQUITTED.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

---

^[1]
Rollo, 6.

^[2]
Id., 66.

^[3]
Exhibit “A”, Original Record, 239.

^[4]
Decision, Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa, Judicial Region, Branch 49, Hon. Sabas R. Acosta, Presiding Judge, 58-61.

^[5]
Supra, 61-62.

^[6]
Appellee’s Brief, Rollo,
100.

^[7]
People v. Acosta, G.R. No. 70133, July
2, 1990.

^[8]
TSN, p. 126.

^[9]
People v. Torre, G.R. 44905, April 25, 1990.

^[10]
TSN, 8, hearing on June 13, 1986,
and hearing on June 16, 1986, 31-32.

^[11]
Exhibit 1, Original Record, 243.

^[12]
TSN, hearing on June 16, 1986,
26 and 29.

^[13]
TSN, hearing on June 16, 1986, 53-55.

^[14]
People v. Besa, G.R. No. 78899, March 22, 1990.

^[15]
People v. Tumale, G.R. No. 89116, August 22, 1990.

^[16]
People v. Libag, G.R. No.
68997, April
27, 1990, citing People v. Alcaraz, G.R. No. 66509, April 25, 1985.

^[17]
People v. Ariel, No. L-34416, February 21, 1980.

^[18]
TSN, hearing on July 17, 1987,
26-28; September
22, 1987, 4.

^[19]
TSN, hearing on June 13, 1986,
24.

^[20]
Decision, supra, note 4, 6.

^[21]
TSN, hearing on January 23, 1985, 115.

^[22]
People v. Decierdo, No.
L-46956, May 7, 1987.