PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BELARMINO DIVINA ALIAS “BEJAR” AND MECRITO BAGA Y HIYOG, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

In G.R. Nos. 93808-09, accused BELARMINO DIVINA alias
“Bejar” and MECRITO BAGA y HIYOG appealed from the judgment* rendered by the Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial
Region, Branch 35 of Dumaguete City convicting both accused for murder and
frustrated murder for the death of Concepcion Baillo and the gunshot wounds
sustained by Jaime Baillo.

In G.R. Nos. 94073-74, accused BELARMINO DIVINA alias
“Bejar” filed a petition for certiorari alleging that the
trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess
of jurisdiction for disapproving his property bond because it consists of
unregistered or untitled land.

On July 30, 1990,
this Court resolved to consolidate the two abovementioned cases.

In G.R. Nos. 93808-09, the accused BELARMINO DIVINA alias
“Bejar” and MECRITO SAGA y HIYOG were charged with murder and frustrated
murder in the two informations as follows.

The Information for Murder in Criminal Case No. 8342 dated August
30, 1988, alleged:

“That on or about the 17th day of June, 1988, at Barangay
Malungcay Daku, Municipality of Dauin, Province of Negros Oriental,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping
one another, with intent to kill, evident premeditation and treachery, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot
Concepcion Baillo with the use of a firearm which said accused were then armed
and provided, thereby inflicting upon the body of Concepcion Baillo a gunshot
wound at her back which directly caused her death immediately thereafter.

Contrary to Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code.”^[1]

The Information for Frustrated
Murder in Criminal Case No. 8362 dated September 9, 1988, alleged:

“That in the evening of June 17, 1988, at Barangay Malungcay
Daku, municipality of Dauin,
Province of Negros Oriental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with evident premeditation and
treachery, and with intent to kill, conspiring and confederating together and
acting under the same accord and purpose, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with the use of a gun, shoot one JAIME BAILLO
inflicting upon the latter the following injuries, to wit:

1.   Gunshot wound of entrance 0.5-1 cm. long
posterior chest wall lower left penetrating abdominal cavity with injury to the
liver left lobe thru & thru.

2.   Hemoperitoneum approximately 250 cc. with
metallic foreign body at submuscular area, epigastrium.

3.   Retro peritoneal hematoma.

4.   Gunshot wound of entrance 0.5 cm. left buttock
upper portion.

5.   Gunshot wound of exit left inguinal area.

6.   Pneumonia both lower lung fields.

thus the offenders performing all the acts
of execution which would have produced the crime of MURDER, as a consequence
but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of
the will of the perpetrators, that is, by the timely medical assistance
rendered to the victim that prevented his death.

Contrary to Article 248 in relation to Article 6 of the Revised
Penal Code.”^[2]

On May 18, 1990, the court a quo rendered
its decision convicting both
accused for murder and frustrated murder, the dispositive portion of which
reads:

“WHEREFORE, accused BELARMINO DIVINA alias “Bejar”
and MECRITO BAGA Y HIYOG are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crimes of Murder, qualified by treachery, in Criminal Case No. 8342 for the
killing of Concepcion Baillo; and for Frustrated Murder, also qualified by
treachery, in Criminal Case No. 8362, for the deadly wounds inflicted on Jaime
Baillo, and the Court hereby imposes the following penalties to wit:

1. For the Murder of
Concepcion Baillo in Criminal Case No. 8342, accused Belarmino Divina and
co-accused Mecrito Baga are hereby sentenced to suffer the imprisonment of
RECLUSION PERPETUA. Accused shall also
jointly and solidarily indemnify the heirs of the deceased victim the sum of
THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00), and to pay the costs;

2. For the Frustrated
Murder of Jaime Baillo in Criminal Case No. 8362, accused Belarmino Divina and
co-accused Mecrito Baga are hereby sentenced, after applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, as amended, to suffer an imprisonment ranging from EIGHT (8) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY of Prision
Mayor as minimum to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS AND FOUR (4) MONTHS of Reclusion
Temporal as maximum, and to pay the costs.

Also considering the fact that the two (2) accused are charged with
a capital offense and taking into account their conviction today where it can
no longer be said that the evidence against them is not strong, and considering
that the possibility of their jumping bail and evading arrest is not now
remote, the two accused are likewise hereby ordered to be detained at the
Negros Oriental Detention and Rehabilitation Center without prejudice to their
filing an appeal, if so, unless they could put up an additional bail bond in
the amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) each.

SO ORDERED.”^[3]

On July 16, 1990, the accused-appellants Belarmino Divina and
Mecrito Baga filed an appeal with this Court which was docketed as G.R. Nos.
93808-09.

Pursuant to the trial court’s decision, accused-appellant
Belarmino Divina on June 29, 1990 filed an Urgent Exparte Motion For Approval Of Bail Bond before the
trial court offering untitled properties as property bond. On the
same date, the trial court in its Order dated June 29, 1990, directed the said
accused-appellant to put up a
titled property as property bond otherwise, he may put up a surety bond or a cash bond.^[4]

Accused-appellant’s motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid Order was denied.^[5]

Hence, accused-appellant Belarmino Divina filed with this Court a petition for certiorari wish urgent prayer for approval of bail
bond, docketed as G.R. Nos. 94073-74.

In G.R. Nos. 93808-09, accused-appellants contend that the court a
quo erred in finding that
their guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt and in convicting them of
the crime charged.^[6]

The prosecution’s version, as culled by the Solicitor General, is
as follows:

“In the evening of June 17, 1988 at around 6:30 o’clock in the
afternoon, Mr. Ambrocio Baillo, his thirteen (13) year old son Jaime Baillo and
his wife Concepcion Baillo just came from the “tabuan” (flea market)
at Barangay Anhawan, Dauin, Negros Oriental and were heading for home at
Barangay Daku, Dauin, Negros Oriental (TSN, January 3, 1984, pp. 4-5; TSN,
April 10, 1989, pp. 4-5). Just after
crossing the Maayong-tubig river and while walking one behind the other
(Ambrocio, Jaime then Concepcion) along the trail, suddenly and without any
warning, they were shot from behind (Ibid.). Concepcion, being hit and mortally wounded, fell down and cried
“agi!” (Ibid.). Jaime also
fell down because he was hit at the back and at the left hip. Ambrocio was not hurt. Upon seeing his wife and son fall, he
instructed his son Jaime to hide as he was going to get a vehicle (TSN, April
10, 1989, pp. 5-7). Immediately,
Ambrocio ran away and proceeded directly to their house and told his other son
Rogelio to go and see his mother and younger brother Jaime who were shot at
Malungcay Daku (Ibid., p. 7). Then
Ambrocio reported the incident to the police of Dauin and to the parish priest
(Father Badoy) whose truck they used to return to the place of the incident (Ibid.,
p. 8). Policemen Ikoy Tubil and Dadoy
Elumir rode on the truck while Ambrocio rode with June Alta Marino on the
latter’s motorcycle (Ibid., p. 9).

Meantime, at the scene of the incident, Jaime, upon being
instructed by his father Ambrocio, was able to crawl and hide himself behind a
hagonoy plant despite the wounds he sustained (TSN, January 3, 1989, p.
5). While hiding, two (2) men whom he
recognized as their neighbors – Belarmino Divina and Mecrito Baga (accused-appellants)
approached the lifeless body of his mother (Ibid.).

Then Belarmino Divina, with a gun, said in the dialect: “PUSIL
RAY TAMBAL SA MGA TESTIGOS SA CONTRA SA MGA DIVINA” which means “ONLY
THE GUN CAN SILENCE THOSE WITNESSES AGAINST THE DIVINAS” (Ibid., p. 6). (The records show that victim Concepcion
Baillo was a witness against the Divinas in another pending case.)

Meanwhile, Rogelio Baillo, after being told by his father of the
incident, immediately proceeded to Malungcay-Daku, the place of the incident
(TSN, April 10, 1989, P. 33).

Upon arrival, he was told by his brother Jaime that Belarmino
Divina and Mecrito Baga had approached the dead body of their mother Concepcion
Baillo with Belarmino holding a gun (Ibid., p. 35). Rogelio saw wounds at the arms and at the back of his mother and
he was not able to talk with her anymore (Ibid., 36). He also observed that Jaime sustained wounds at his left hip and
at the back (Ibid.).

Thereafter, at about 10:00 o’clock that same evening, Ambrocio
Baillo arrived with the truck of Fr. Badoy accompanied by policemen Ikoy Tubil
and Dadoy Elumir and, Jun Alta Marino, a teacher in Malungcay Daku. Ambrocio noticed that his wife, Concepcion
was already dead while his son Jaime was alive (Ibid., pp. 9-10). Ambrocio further observed that his wife Concepcion
sustained six (6) wounds at the back and both her arms were lacerated
(Ibid.). His son Jaime also sustained
gunshot wounds at the back and at the left hip (Ibid.). They then loaded the dead body of Concepcion
on the truck and brought her to their house while Jaime was brought to the
provincial hospital for treatment (Ibid.). Jaime was operated twice. As
testified to by the attending physician, Dr. Nerissa Calumpang, Jaime could
have died were it not for the timely medical attention (TSN, April 11, 1989, pp. 2-18). Jaime was discharged only after two (2) weeks of confinement
after which, he temporarily lived with their relatives at Valencia (a nearby
municipality) because of fear that he might be killed by the Divinas (TSN,
March 29,1989, p. 18).”^[7]

Accused-appellants, Belarmino Divina and Mecrito Baga interpose
the defense of denial and alibi.

Accused Belarmino Divina’s defense as contained in his Brief is
as follows:

“Accused Belarmino Divina has been living in his
parents-in-law’s house at Anhawan, Dauin, Negros Oriental, since January,
1984. (TSN, January 31, 1990,
p.2). He was the OIC Barangay Captain
of Anhawan since 1986 up to May, 1988 (ibid., p. 3).

On June 17, 1988, from .7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., he was plowing in
his farm; after which he ate his lunch. At about 3:00 p.m. of the same day, he went to the “tabu-an”,
(a flea market) about 40 meters from his in-law’s house where he met Sabino
Sarense, Dedio Tubil, Porferio Tubil, Alberto Deloria and Nicolas Sarense. At about 3:30 p.m., the group, including
accused Divina, played volley-ball. The
group finished playing at about 4:00 p.m. after which they ate bread. At about 5:30 p.m. accused Divina invited
the group to his in-law’s house where he also lives with his family, to drink
tuba. The group was joined by Tony
Regalado and Lucero Regalado, accused Divina’s brothers-in-law. They drank tuba until 7:00 p.m. that night
after which accused Divina with his family, Dedio Tubil and Porferio Tubil
stayed around to view the TV.

Sabino Sarense, after the group stopped drinking at 7:00 p.m., left
together with his son Nicolas Sarense and Alberto Deloria. The rest of their group, Dedio Tubil,
Porferio Tubil and accused Divina with his family were watching the TV. At about 8:00 p.m., Dedio and Porferio Tubil
also left.

Accused Divina came to know of the killing of Concepcion Baillo the
following day, June 18, 1988. Since
that day accused Divina never heard of the identity of the suspect until he was
arrested on July 26, 1988, as the suspect himself at about 4:00 p.m., at the
Poblacion of Dauin while waiting for transportation going to Anhawan where he
lives.”^[8]

On the other hand, Mecrito
Baga’s defense is as follows:

“Mecrito Baga and Douglas Divina were plowing the latter’s
field on June 17, 1988, starting from 7:00 o’clock in the morning until 11:00
o’clock that morning and from 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon to 5:00 o’clock in
the afternoon that same day. They
rested for a while in the house of Douglas Divina and at about 6:00 o’clock
p.m. Mecrito Baga with his mother Nicolasa Baga joined the Divina family in
praying the Holy Rosary which prayer had been going on for the last six
months. After the prayer which ended at
about 7:00 o’clock in the evening, accused Mecrito Baga and his mother joined
the Divina family for supper. After
supper, Mecrito Baga joined Guillermo Divina, Douglas Divina and Restituto
Delvo in drinking tuba. At about 9:00
o’clock in the evening, Mecrito Baga and his mother left the residence of
Douglas Divina.

Mecrito Baga learned about the killing of Concepcion Baillo and the
wounding of her son the following day, June 18, 1988, but he never heard of any
suspect, not until July 25, 1988, when he was arrested by four policemen in his
house.”^[9]

This appeal hinges on the credibility of the lone eyewitness and
victim Jaime Baillo.

On the question of
credibility, this Court will not as a general rule disturb the findings of the
trial judge unless he has plainly
overlooked certain facts of substance and
value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case. The reason is the opportunity available to the trial court — but
not to the appellate court — to observe the witnesses on the stand and to assess their credibility not only by the nature of their
testimony but also by their demeanor under questioning.^[10]

Accused-appellants allege that the testimony of the lone
eyewitness, Jaime Baillo, is far from credible for being
conflicting, uncorroborated, unreliable and inconclusive. In support of this contention,
accused-appellants point out that Jaime Baillo upon admission in the hospital
on the night of the incident allegedly told Dr. Calumpang that he (Jaime) was
shot by an unknown assailant.^[11]

Dr. Calumpang’s testimony on cross examination is quoted as
follows:

“ATTY. BARRAMEDA:

Q     And
did he tell you who shot him?

A      No.
By an unknown assailant.

Q     That
was what he said?

A      Yes,
Sir.

Q     Unknown
assailant?

A      Yes,
Sir.

Q     That
is very clear to you that he was shot an unknown assailant?

A      Witness
nodding her head.

Q     Please
vocalize your answer. Yes, he said
that?

A      Yes,
your honor.

“x x x x
x”.”^[12]
(Underscoring Ours.)

A reading of the
above-quoted testimony shows
that the response of the doctor to the question: “Did he tell you
who shot him?” was “No”. The phrase “by an unknown assailant”
was merely volunteered by the doctor which can be taken to mean that the assailant was unknown to
her but not necessarily unknown to
the victim, Jaime Baillo. The
succeeding question propounded by the defense counsel, to wit “That is very
clear to you that he was shot by an
unknown assailant?” calls for a statement of an opinion and not a
statement of fact.

It is the duty of the defense counsel to propound questions that will not result in two or more interpretations
as what happened in this case. The
resulting inconsistencies were the product of the kind of questions propounded by defense counsel.

As to the alleged testimony of one Feliciano Parao given in
another criminal case that the
victim Jaime Baillo allegedly told him that it was Guillermo Divina and Douglas
Divina, brothers of Belarmino Divina, who shot him and his mother, the said testimony cannot hut be considered as hearsay for Feliciano Parao was not
presented as witness during the trial of this case. His testimony has no probative value. The trial court was correct in rejecting said statements.

The defense makes a big
issue of the fact that the prosecution witnesses Ambrocio Baillo, Jaime Baillo and Rogelio Baillo reported the identities of the accused only after
one month and nine days have elapsed
despite the fact that the accused’s identities were already known to them on
the very night of the incident.^[13]

The rule is
well-established that the failure to reveal or disclose at once the identity of the accused does not necessarily affect much less impair, the
credibility of the witness.^[14] The
initial reluctance of witnesses to volunteer information about a criminal case
and their unwillingness to be involved in criminal investigations due to fear
of reprisal is common and has been judicially
declared not to affect credibility.^[15]

In the case at bar, it is fact that one of the accused, Belarmino
Divina, has been the OIC
Barangay Captain of Anhawan since 1986 up to May, 1988. It cannot be gainsaid that although the
incident happened after his term having held said position, he has a strong influence in said
place. It was natural for the victim to
fear for his life as explained by him.

In addition thereto, the incident also resulted in the death of
Concepcion Baillo, wife of Ambrocio Baillo and mother of Jaime and Rogelio
Baillo. We have held that
“(a)lthough there is a natural tendency to seek the ends of justice for
the treacherous killing of a dearly departed, mourning and rites for the dead
take priority as dictated by our culture.^[16]

Moreover, the injuries sustained by the victim Jaime Baillo, both
physical and emotional, and the necessary
period of recuperation after his
discharge from the hospital are enough reasons to understand the delay in the filing of the complaint.

Both accused interposed the defense of alibi and denial. It is Our view that the trial court was correct in convicting
accused Belarmino Divina on the strength of the testimony of the lone
eyewitness Jaime Baillo but in the case of the accused Mecrito Baga, We find
the evidence of the prosecution not
sufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

On the issue of conspiracy, We hold that it was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Nowhere in the trial court’s decision was there any mention of any act of the accused that may be construed
as an overt act in the furtherance of conspiracy. Absent such an evidentiary basis, We cannot
accept the finding of implied conspiracy.^[17]

We have held that:

“x x x, albeit no formal agreement is necessary to prove
conspiracy and the same may be inferred from the circumstances attending the
commission of the crime, yet conspiracy must be established by the same quantum
of evidence as any other ingredient of the offense. Such evidence must show intentional participation in the
transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design or
purpose. The same degree of proof
necessary to establish the crime is required to establish a finding of criminal
conspiracy, that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt. It cannot be established by conjectures but by positive and
conclusive evidence. Since conspiracy
must he proved beyond peradventure of a doubt, it follows that it cannot be
appreciated where the facts can be consistent with the non-participation of the
accused in the fancied cabal.”^[18]

In the case at
bar, no conspiracy may be deduced where there is no evidence to show the
participation of accused Mecrito Baga in the shooting incident. The lone eyewitness Jaime Baillo testified
that while he was hiding behind the hagonoy plants, he saw accused Belarmino
Divina holding a gun and together with Mecrito
Baga, approached the lifeless body of his mother. The mere presence of accused Mecrito Baga
does not prove his participation in the killing. The mere fact of being with Divina does not of itself establish
conspiracy.^[19]

Having found that no conspiracy attended the commission of the
crime and that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused Mecrito
Baga beyond reasonable doubt. We are
constrained to acquit him of the crime charged.

With regards to accused Belarmino Divina, conviction must he
sustained.

The well-settled rule is that alibi is one of the weakest
defenses that can be resorted to by an accused, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but
also because of its easy fabrication. We have repeatedly held that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over
the positive identification of the accused by witnesses for the prosecution and that to establish it the
accused must show that he was at some other place for such a period of time that it was impossible for him to have been at the place where the crime
was committed at the time of its commission.^[20]

Record shows that
the victim Jaime Baillo while hiding behind the hagonoy plant saw accused Belarmino Divina approach the dead body of
his mother Concepcion Baillo and uttered
“PUSIL RAY TAMBAL SA MGA TESTIGOS
SA CONTRA SA MGA DIVINA” which means “ONLY THE GUN CAN SILENCE THOSE WITNESSES AGAINST THE DIVINAS”.

In
addition thereto, accused Belarmino Divina in his cross examination admitted that the
house of his father-in-­law
where he was allegedly drinking
tuba with his friends is only about two and a half (2 ½) kilometers from where the victims Concepcion Baillo and
Jaime Baillo were shot at.^[21]
Hence, it was not physically impossible for accused Belarmino Divina to be at
the place where the crime was committed.

Moreover, although motive is unnecessary when the assailant has
been positively identified,^[22] in
this case, accused Belarmino Divina has the motive to commit the crime charged
because the victim Concepcion Baillo was shown to be a witness against the
former’s brothers in another
criminal case.

Accused Belarmino Divina argues that as stated in the police
blotter, the shooting incident happened at around 7:40 o’clock in the evening of June 17, 1988 and not 6:30 o’clock
as claimed by the prosecution witnesses. It was therefore, not possible for the victim Jaime Baillo to have seen
the accused without the aid of a lighted torch.

We do not agree. A police
blotter is a book which records criminal incidents reported to the police. Entries in official records, as in this case
of a police blotter, are only prima facie evidence of the facts therein
stated. They are not conclusive.^[23] It
is undisputed that the alleged time of the commission of the crime, i.e., 7:40
in the evening of June 17, 1988, was supplied only by the parish priest Fr.
Badoy who was neither present when the shooting incident happened nor presented
as a witness during the
trial. The information supplied is
therefore hearsay and does not have any probative value.

With regards to G.R. Nos. 94073-74, We are constrained to deny
accused Belarmino Divina’s petition for certiorari in line with this
Court’s Administrative Circular No. 2-93 dated January 20, 1992 “Re:
Cancellation of Bail Bond of Accused Convicted of Capital Offense in the
Regional Trial Court” pertinent provisions of which are quoted hereunder:

“The basic governing principle on the right of the accused to bail is laid down in Section 3 of Rule
114 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, which provides:

“Sec. 3. Bail, a
matter of right; exception. — All persons in custody shall before final
conviction, be entitled to bail as a matter of right, except those charged with a capital offense or an offense
which, under the law at the time
of its commission and at the time of the application for bail, is punishable by
reclusion perpetua, when the evidence of guilt is strong.”

Pursuant to the aforecited provision, an accused who is charged
with a capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, shall no
longer be entitled to bail as a matter of right even if he appeals the case to
this Court since his conviction clearly imports that the evidence of his guilt
of the offense charged is strong.” (Underscoring Supplied.)

Accused Belarmino Divina was
convicted by the Regional Trial Court of the crime of murder which is an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetuaI. Pursuant to SC
Administrative Circular No. 2-92, he is
no longer entitled to bail even if he appeals to Us since his conviction clearly imports that the evidence of
his guilt is strong.

We therefore find
no reason to dwell on the issue raised in said petition.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered ACQUITTING accused MECRITO BAGA of the crime of Murder in
Criminal Case No. 8342 and of Frustrated Murder in Criminal Case No. 8362 for
failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The convictions of accused BELARMINO
DIVINA in Criminal Cases Nos.
8342 and 8362 are AFFIRMED with the
modification that he be ordered to
indemnify the heirs of the victim Concepcion Baillo in the amount of P50,000.00 in consonance with
prevailing jurisprudence.

The petition for certiorari filed by accused
BELARMINO DIVINA is DISMISSED
for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Nocon, JJ., concur.

---

* Penned by Judge Rosendo B.
Bandal, Jr.

^[1]
Rollo of G.R. Nos. 93808-09, p. 11.

^[2]
Ibid., pp. 22-23.

^[3]
Ibid., p. 41; Decision p. 21.

^[4]
Annex “D” of Urgent Petition: Rollo of G.R. Nos. 94073-74, p.
15.

^[5]
Annex “F” of Urgent Petition; Rollo of G.R. Nos. 94073-74, p.
22.

^[6]
Brief for Accused-Appellants, p. 1.

^[7]
Appellee’s Brief. pp. 6-11: Rollo.
pp. 71-76.

^[8]
Appellants’ Brief, p. 3.

^[9]
Ibid., pp. 5-6.

^[10]
People v. Belibet, 199 SCRA 587 (1991).

^[11]
Appellants’ Brief, p. 8.

^[12]
Ibid., p. 10.

^[13]
Appellants’ Brief, p. 8.

^[14]
People v. Valdez, 159 SCRA 152 (1988).

^[15]
People v. Rosario, 134
SCRA 497 (1985).

^[16]
People v. Sabellano, 198 SCRA 196 (1991).

^[17]
People v. Saavedra, 149 SCRA 610 (1987).

^[18]
People v. Furugganan, 193
SCRA 471, 480-481 (1991); citing People
v. Drilon, et al., 123 SCRA 72 (1983); People v. Martinez, 127 SCRA 260 (1984).

^[19]
People v. Sosing, 111 SCRA 368 (1982).

^[20]
People v. Devaras, 205
SCRA 676 (1992).

^[21]
TSN, January 31, 1990, p. 13.

^[22]
People v. Kyamko, 192 SCRA 374 (1990).

^[23]
People v. Santilo, Jr., 201 SCRA
87 (1991).