CONTACT: |
Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
(632) 8524-2706 |
libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
416 Phil. 80
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. Nos. 137199-230, August 23, 2001 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.
GEORGE ALAY-AY Y JUDERIAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
DE LEON, JR., J.:
This is an appeal from the
Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital
Judicial Region, Branch 54, Manila, convicting the accused-appellant George
Alay-ay y Juderias of the crime of rape in Criminal Case No. 97-157054, and
also of the crime of acts of lasciviousness in Criminal Case No. 97-157055, and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the crime
of rape, and imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months and one day as
minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months as maximum of prision
correccional for the crime of acts of lasciviousness.
At the outset, we resolve to
dismiss the appeal in Criminal Case No. 97-157055 wherein the Regional Trial
Court convicted accused-appellant of the crime of acts of lasciviousness. Under Section 2 (b) of Rule 122 of the Rules
on Criminal Procedure, the appeal from a judgment rendered by the Regional
Trial Court in its original jurisdiction sentencing the accused to a penalty
other than life imprisonment or death must be taken to the Court of Appeals by
the filing of a notice of appeal with the trial court which rendered the
judgment or order appealed from, and by serving a copy thereof on the adverse
party.[2] Since accused-appellant did not appeal from the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 97-157055 to the
Court of Appeals, it became final and executory after the lapse of the 15-day
period for perfecting an appeal.[3]
Hence, we limit our review[4] to the appealed Decision of the Regional Trial Court
in Criminal Case No. 97-157054 where accused-appellant was convicted of the
crime of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
The Information in Criminal Case
No. 97-157054 reads:
That sometime in April 1996 at a house in Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named Accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had (sic) carnal knowledge of a child in the person of KAREN JANE ESTRADA, who was then under twelve years of age, by using force and intimidation.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]
When
arraigned, appellant pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented the
following testimonial evidence:
Private complainant Karen Jane
Estrada, a student and resident of No. 12 Padilla St., Lingayen, Pangasinan,
testified that she was born on November 26, 1984 as evidenced by her Birth
Certificate.[6] Her parents were Bobby Estrada and Daisy Estrada, a
domestic helper working in Hongkong. She was living with her grandmother.[7]
During the summer of 1996, after
complainant finished Grade 5, her grandmother, Leyte Gelido, brought her and
her cousin, Glynness Gerald Gelido, to the house of her Aunt Felame Esquejo at
No. 1252 Prudencio Street, Sampaloc, Manila to spend their vacation there from
April to May. However, complainant’s
grandmother did not stay with them. The
persons who were then residing in her Aunt Felame’s house were her Aunt Felame,
Uncle Dennis, Mang Flox, Manang Virgie, Ate An-an (Anne Lorraine Esquejo), Kuya
Wengweng (Sherwin Esquejo), Dario, and her cousin, Kimball. During the day, the persons left in the
house were Manang Virgie, the helper of her aunt; her one-year-old cousin,
Kimball; Dario whom she identified as the accused-appellant; and herself.[8]
During the early part of their
stay at her Aunt Felame’s house, when complainant and Glynness got tired of
playing at noon, they watched television in the living room. Appellant was also there. While watching television, appellant told
Glynness to go upstairs. Then appellant
started kissing complainant on the sofa, but she tried to evade him. Appellant told her to lie down on the sofa,
and he removed her panty while she resisted by kicking him, but to no
avail. After he removed her panty, he
licked her private part, touched the same, and also inserted his finger in her
private part. Appellant did the same
thing to her everyday at about 1:00 or 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon. Complainant’s companions in the house then
were Manang Virgie and Kimball who were upstairs sleeping. Her cousin Glynness was in the house of her
Aunt Leonie in Fairview.[9]
About one week after the first
incident, while Manang Virgie and Kimball were upstairs, appellant forcibly
removed complainant’s shorts and he removed his pants. While complainant was lying down on the
sofa, appellant forced his private organ into her private organ. The same thing happened when appellant raped
her a second time on the sofa. Her
companions in the house were Manang Virgie and Kimball. After the second rape, appellant committed
lascivious acts against her.[10]
Complainant’s aunt and uncle
arrived home in the evening. She did
not report the molestation and rape to her aunt because she was afraid as
appellant told her that he would kill her.[11]
Complainant went home to the
province sometime in June 1996. She did
not tell her grandmother or anybody that she was sexually abused by appellant
in Manila.[12]
After complainant graduated from
elementary school in 1997, she again spent a two-week vacation in the house of
her Aunt Felame in Manila with her cousin Glynness and her grandmother. On April 20, 1997, at about 1:00 o’ clock in
the afternoon, appellant dragged her to the counter of the bar near the sofa
downstairs. He removed the buttons of
her shorts, inserted his fingers in her private part and mashed her private
part, which took place about one minute while she was standing. At that time, her companions in the house
were Manang Virgie and Kimball, who were at the second floor. Her cousin Glynness was in the house of her
Aunt Lyn.[13]
Sometime in May 1997, complainant
was fetched by her Aunt Lenny. At her
Aunt Lenny’s house, the latter teased her if she already had a boyfriend and if
somebody was courting her. She started
crying. She then told her grandmother
what appellant did to her. Her
grandmother also cried. Then they filed
a complaint at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Her statement was taken by Mamerto
Espartero.[14]
On cross-examination, complainant
testified that during her vacation in Manila in April and May 1996, she also
visited her aunt (Leonida Galimba) at No. 5 Butler St., Fairmont Subdivision,
Fairview, Quezon City on Sundays. Appellant was staying at Prudencio Street, Sampaloc, Manila. He stayed home from 7:00 to 2:30 o’ clock in
the afternoon and went to work at Robinson’s Galleria from Monday to Sunday
from 2:30 in the afternoon until the evening.[15]
Glynness Gerald Gelido, 10 years
old, and resident of No. 27 Padilla Street, West Lingayen, Pangasinan,
testified that in April 1996 and 1997, he and his Ate Karen (private
complainant) spent their summer vacation at the house of their Aunt Felame at
No. 1252 Prudencio Street, Sampaloc, Manila. Sometime in April 1996, while they were in their aunt’s house watching
the TV program Eat Bulaga, appellant told him to go upstairs. At the stairs, he saw appellant kissing his
Ate Karen in the living room. He stayed
at the stairs, but when he saw appellant touching the body of Ate Karen, he
went down and called her, then they went up. At that time, the persons in the house were Manang Virgie and Kimball
who were in the room upstairs. Three
(3) days later, he went to the house of his Aunt Leonida in Fairview, Quezon
City, while Karen was left behind.[16]
Sometime in April 1997, while
Glynness was in the house of his Aunt Leonida in Fairview with his grandparents
and complainant, it was revealed that
appellant kissed the complainant and touched her private parts after they were
teasing the complainant that she was already a young lady. They went to the NBI and Glynness gave a
statement.[17]
On cross-examination, Glynness
confirmed his answer to Question No. 12 in his affidavit that the persons
living in the house of his Aunt Felame were Sherwin, Ate An-an, Uncle Dennis,
Tita Felame, Dwight Kimball, Mang Flox, George Dario and Manang Virgie. He testified that those residing in said
house everyday were Tita Felame, Uncle Dennis, Kimball and Ate An-an. George (appellant) and Mang Flox did not
reside there everyday.[18]
Leonida Galimba, a resident of No.
5 Butler Street, Fairmont Subdivision, Fairview, Quezon City, testified that
she knew complainant Karen Jane Estrada because the latter is her niece. On April 24, 1997, she accompanied Karen
Jane Estrada in filing a complaint for rape at the NBI. In the morning of said date, Karen told her
that she was raped. At that time, Karen
had her menstruation and she joked Karen that maybe somebody was already
courting her. Karen cried together with
her cousin Glynness. At first, it was
Glynness who said that Karen was raped. Afterwards, they asked Karen herself and she narrated to them what
happened. Karen told them that Dario
(appellant) was the one who raped her. Dario was formerly a neighbor at Prudencio. After the revelation, Leonida went to the NBI with her parents
and Karen to file a complaint. She was a
witness in the sworn statement dated April 24, 1997 given by Karen at the NBI
and she identified her signature on the third page thereof. [19]
Mamerto Espartero, an NBI agent
assigned as a field agent at the National Capital Region of the NBI, Manila,
testified that on April 23, 1997, the case of Karen Jane Estrada was referred
to him for investigation. He
interviewed the complainant and after he was convinced that the crime of rape
was committed, he requested the medico-legal officer to examine complainant.[20]
On April 24, 1997, Mamerto
Espartero went to appellant’s address in Sampaloc, Manila, introduced himself
as an NBI agent and informed appellant that there was a charge against him for
acts of lasciviousness. He invited
appellant to their office for a confrontation with the complainant. In the office, the complainant positively
identified him as the person who raped and committed acts of lasciviousness
against her. Complainant’s cousin
(Glynness Gelido) also positively identified appellant as the person whom he
saw kissing his cousin (complainant).[21]
At first, appellant denied having
committed the acts imputed to him, but during the course of their conversation,
he admitted having kissed the victim, but denied that he had sexual intercourse
with her or that he inserted his fingers in her vagina. Later, appellant asked Espartero for some
time to talk with the grandmother who accompanied complainant. At the time he conducted the investigation,
the complainant was turning 13 years old, but when the alleged rape was
committed, she was only eleven (11) years and five (5) months old.[22]
Espartero took the sworn statement
of the complainant and her cousin. He
also took pictures of complainant pointing at appellant as the person who raped
and committed acts of lasciviousness against her. At 11:00 o’ clock in the morning of April 24, 1997, he placed
appellant under arrest and prepared a booking sheet and arrest report (Exh. 6). He also prepared a Joint Affidavit of Arrest
(Exhs. F to F-1), and identified his signature therein.[23]
On cross-examination, Espartero
testified that he did not procure a warrant of arrest when he invited appellant
to their office, and that appellant voluntarily went to their office. He did not present appellant for
identification to complainant. He asked
appellant to sit on the other side of the room where they conducted the
investigation and asked the complainant to look around and see if the person
who abused her was present, and she was able to recognize appellant. There was no person seated next to
appellant, but there were so many persons inside their office. Appellant was not assisted by any counsel. He arrested appellant in their office
without a warrant of arrest.[24]
Dr. Armie Soreta, NBI medico-legal
officer, testified that on April 23, 1997, she conducted the medico-genital
examination of private complainant Karen Jane Estrada. She found that the complainant’s hymen was
intact, distensible or elastic, with no sign of laceration. The absence of laceration in the hymen,
however, does not prove absence of sexual intercourse. It was possible that there was actual
penetration in the genital of complainant because the hymenal orifice of the
complainant is 2.5 centimeters in diameter, which means that it can accommodate
a complete penetration of an adult male organ in full erection without causing
any hymenal laceration. Her findings
were reduced into writing (Exh. C).[25]
On the other hand,
accused-appellant George Alay-ay, 41 years old, married, leadsman of the
janitorial services of Robinson’s Galleria, put up the defense of denial and
alibi. He testified that in April 1996,
he was residing at No. 1252 Prudencio Street, Sampaloc, Manila together with
Dennis Esquejo, his wife Felame Esquejo, Sherwin Esquejo, Anne Lorraine
Esquejo, Virgie Palma, Vernon dela Cruz, and Jasmin Caranza. During the day, the persons who usually
stayed in the house were Anne Lorraine Esquejo, Sherwin Esquejo, Virgie Palma,
Vernon dela Cruz and himself. Virgie
was the house helper. Sherwin and Anne
Lorraine, who were students, stayed home during daytime because it was summer
vacation. Vernon dela Cruz, a policeman
assigned at the Tondo Police Station, worked during the night.[26]
In April 1996, appellant was
employed at Robinson’s Galleria at EDSA Ortigas. It took him more than one and a half (1½) hours to reach his
place of work. His work was from 3:00
o’clock in the afternoon until 12:00 o’clock midnight as evidenced by his time
card (Exh. 1). Since his work started
at 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, he left the house at about 1:15 because his
workplace was far and they also had a briefing 15 minutes before they started
working. He left his workplace at 12:15
early in the morning, arrived home at about 1:00 to 2:00 o’clock in the
morning, and slept at about 3:00 o’clock in the morning. He usually woke up before 12:00 noon.[27]
Appellant stated that he knew
complainant Karen Jane Estrada because she is the niece of his cousin’s
wife. She spent her vacation at their
place in April 1996. He could remember
that they arrived about April 10, 1996 because it was the wedding anniversary
and also the birthday of his cousin. Complainant arrived with her grandparents, cousins and aunts. After the said occasion, her aunt left, but
her grandparents stayed at their house. Complainant and her cousin used to transfer to another house for about
one week.[28]
On April 22 or 23, 1996, while
appellant was sleeping downstairs on the sofa, he was awakened by the noise of
complainant and her cousin Glynness Gelido, whom they called Pinoy. He immediately stood up because he was very
angry and he chided them for being noisy when they could see that he was
sleeping. He told Pinoy to go
upstairs. He told complainant that she
was already a big girl and yet she was still playing and was very noisy. He was very mad at that time. Complainant replied, “Gago, wala kang
pakialam.” He got mad and held her breast and groin (singit) and
told her that she was already a lady. He held her breast and groin only to show her that she was already a big
girl and that she should not be playing and be childish. She kicked him repeatedly and scratched him,
and told him, “gago, bastos” repeatedly. He told her to go upstairs. At that time, his cousin, Anne Lorraine, Virgie Palma, Vernon dela Cruz
and his cousin Sherwin Esquejo were present at their residence. Anne Lorraine was in the family room
upstairs, Manang Virgie was also upstairs taking care of the child, and his
cousin Sherwin Esquejo was just outside the house. The following day, complainant went to the house of her aunt,
Leonida Galimba, in Fairview. After one
week, she returned to their place in Sampaloc, Manila.[29]
Appellant said that he was
arrested on April 24, 1997 without a warrant of arrest and was brought to the
NBI, NCR Office, but he was not interviewed there. They only asked him simple questions inside the car.[30]
Sherwin Esquejo, 19, a third year
college student, testified that he was a resident of No. 1252 Prudencio Street,
Sampaloc, Manila in the months of April and May 1996 and 1997. He did not witness any crime committed by
appellant in the summer of 1996 and 1997. In 1996, he stayed home from 12:00 o’clock noon until the evening
because he went to school only in the morning.[31]
Anne Lorraine Esquejo, 18, a food
attendant, corroborated the testimony of appellant that she resided in the same
house as the appellant in the months of April and May 1996 and 1997. Most of the time, she stayed home because it
was summer vacation and she was not enrolled in a summer class. She said that at that time, there was no
unusual incident that happened in the house which disturbed the peace and
relations of the persons staying therein.[32]
SPO4 Vernon dela Cruz testified
that he was staying at No. 1252 Prudencio Street, Sampaloc, Manila in April and
May of 1996 and 1997. Most of the time,
he stayed in the house because his tour of duty started at 5:30 in the
afternoon since his shift was during the night. He said that there was no unusual incident that happened which disturbed
the peace and the good relationship between the people living in said house.[33]
On October 29, 1998, the court a
quo rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape charged in Criminal Case No. 97-157054 and one (1) charge of act of lasciviousness covered by Criminal Case No. 97-157055; the victim being less than 12 years old as of April 1996, the absence of force or intimidation does not negate the crimes, the accused is, therefore, sentenced in Criminal Case No. 97-157054 to reclusion perpetua and in Criminal Case No. 97-157055, he is sentenced to imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day as minimum and four (4) years and two (2) months as maximum of prision correccional. The accused is also adjudged to pay the victim Karen Jane Estrada P200,000.00 as moral damages. The accused is acquitted in all the other cases.
SO ORDERED.[34]
Accused-appellant ascribed to the
trial court this lone error:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIMES OF RAPE AND ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS IN VIOLATION OF ARTS. 335 AND 336 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE RESPECTIVELY.[35]
In his Brief, accused-appellant
assailed the credibility of the private complainant due to her inconsistent
testimony. While complainant testified
that he committed acts of lasciviousness against her everyday at about 1:00 or
2:00 in the afternoon after the first incident, complainant’s cousin Glynness
Gelido testified that he was not residing in their aunt’s house everyday;
hence, it would be physically impossible for him to commit the crimes when he
was not staying in said house everyday. Moreover, if complainant was really a victim of rape, it was
inconsistent with human nature that she still spent her summer vacation in 1997
at the place of her aunt where she had allegedly been raped and molested in the
summer of 1996, and exposed herself to the same danger in his hands. Further, there was even no satisfactory
explanation why it took complainant more than one year to inform her relatives
of what happened to her. She did not
confide in anyone even in the province where she had nothing to fear from
him. Based on said arguments, appellant
prayed for his acquittal for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
Appellant’s arguments are devoid
of merit.
The aforementioned inconsistencies
refer merely to collateral matters, which either do not touch upon the
commission of the crime of rape or detract from the positive identification of
appellant as the person who sexually abused private complainant; therefore,
said inconsistencies do not affect either the substance of private
complainant’s declarations, their veracity, or the weight of her testimony.[36]
The alleged inconsistent testimony
of private complainant regarding the acts of lasciviousness committed against
her everyday after the first incident (Crim. Case No. 97-157055) was not even
considered by the trial court when it found appellant guilty of the crime of
rape. Nevertheless, appellant himself
admitted that he resided at No. 1252 Prudencio Street, Sampaloc, Manila in
April 1996 when the said crimes were committed against private
complainant. The Solicitor General
observed that even assuming that appellant did not reside in said house of
Felame Esquejo, this fact alone does not prove that appellant did not abuse
complainant.
Moreover, the delay on the part of
private complainant in informing her relatives that she was raped is
understandable since any woman, especially a young girl, would try to hide such
a traumatic and horrible experience even from the persons closest to her
because of shame and fear.[37] The fact that private complainant returned to her
aunt’s house in the summer of 1997 after she was raped in the same house the
summer before only shows the immaturity of private complainant, and that she
had not revealed the incident to her grandmother, otherwise her grandmother
would not have taken her there again for a vacation.
The trial court’s findings on the
credibility of the witnesses carry great weight and respect because it heard
them and observed their behavior at the witness stand.[38] Its findings will be sustained by the appellate
courts unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some
facts or circumstances of weight and substance which will alter the assailed
decision or affect the result of the case.[39] In the instant case, we see no reason to disturb the
findings of the trial court.
Further, there is no evidence
showing any improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to testify
falsely against the appellant; hence, the logical conclusion is that their
testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit.[40]
It was established that appellant
is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one count of rape against the private
complainant as shown by her straightforward testimony, thus:
ASST. PUB. PROS. MARCO
xxx xxx xxx
Q You mentioned earlier that the accused removed his pants when he raped you, when did it happen reckoned from the date that the accused first raped you?
A About one week, sir.
Q When you said that, “he raped me”, what do you mean when you said “he raped me”, what do you want to tell the Honorable Court?
A He forced his private organ to my private organ, sir.
Q And you mentioned that it was a week after that first incident, who were the persons present at that time when he raped you according to you?
A Manang Virgie and Kimbol, sir.
Q And where was your Manang Virgie and Kimbol when this Dario raped you according to you?
A They were upstairs, sir.
Q And in what portion of the house of your auntie was he able to rape you?
A At the sofa, sir.
Q Also on the sofa?
A Yes, sir.
Q Before he actually tried to force his private organ to your private organ, what was the first act committed against you by Dario, if any?
A He told me that he will kill me and also my cousin, sir.
Q And after he told you that, what else did he do to you on that date?
A He threatened me, sir.
Q Before this Dario was able to force his private organ to your private organ, what was he wearing at that time?
A He was wearing pants, sir.
Q How about you, what were you wearing at that time?
A I was wearing shorts, sir.
Q And what did he do to your shorts before because according to you you were raped by this Dario?
A He removed my shorts, sir.
Q And you let him removed your shorts?
A I was forced to remove my shorts, sir.
Q How did he force you?
A He was removing it forcibly, sir.
Q After he was able to forcibly removed your shorts, how was he able to rape you because according to you he was wearing pants, how was he able to rape you?
A He removed his pants, sir.
Q After removing his pants, what else did he do to you?
A He forced his private organ to my private organ, sir.
Q And where were you at that time when he forced his private organ to your private organ?
A He was beside me, sir.
Q And where were you on the sofa?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what was your position on the sofa?
A I was lying down, sir.
Q Was he able to push his organ to your organ?
A Yes, sir.
Q And after he was able to push through his organ to your organ, what did you feel?
A I was hurt, sir.
Q You mentioned that after that first time he raped you, he raped you again, when did that happen?
A Also in the month of May, sir.
Q May of that year 1996 also?
A Yes, sir.
Q Can you still remember the actual date?
A I cannot remember, sir.
Q On that second rape that according to you was committed by Dario, where did it happen?
A Also on that place, the sofa, sir.
Q And who were the persons at that time in the house when he raped you for the second time?
A They were Manang Virgie and Kimbol, sir.[41]
x x x x x x x x x
As a rule, testimonies of rape
victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no
young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration,
allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by
being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire
to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.[42]
Appellant’s defense of denial and
alibi cannot prevail over his positive identification.[43] A mere denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense
and constitutes self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater
evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on
affirmative matters.[44] For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only
that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but he must likewise
demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the
crime at the time of its commission.[45] Accused-appellant failed to establish that it was
physically impossible for him to be at home at No. 1252 Prudencio Street,
Sampaloc, Manila where the rape took place considering that he and private
complainant stayed in the same house in April 1996 when the crime was
committed. The time card of appellant
would only show the time he reported for work, which is from 3:00 o’clock in
the afternoon to 12:00 o’clock midnight, but it could not prove his whereabouts
before 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon when the crime was allegedly committed.
Under Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any
of the following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
The crime of rape shall be
punished by reclusion perpetua.
Hence, the trial court correctly
imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the rape of private
complainant who was then under 12 years old. The trial court also correctly awarded private complainant moral damages
in view of the mental anxiety and emotional trauma she suffered; however, the
amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) is excessive and should be
reduced to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) in accordance with the latest
jurisprudence.[46] The Solicitor General correctly pointed out that the
trial court failed to award civil indemnity to private complainant which is
mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[47]
WHEREFORE, the Decision in Criminal Case No. 97-157054 of the
Regional Trial Court finding accused-appellant George Alay-ay y Juderias guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and is ordered to
pay the offended party, Karen Jane Estrada, the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) as civil indemnity, whereas the award of moral damages in the
amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) is reduced to Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P50,000.00).
The appeal from the Decision of
the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 97-157055 is DISMISSED, the
said Decision having become final and executory after the lapse of the 15-day
period to perfect an appeal therefrom to the Court of Appeals.
SO ORDERED.
[1] Penned by Judge
Manuel T. Muro, Rollo, pp. 82-95.
[2] People v. Pajo, G.R.
No. 135109, December 18, 2000.
[3] Id.
[4] Article VIII,
Section 5, paragraph 2 (D) of the 1987 Constitution.
[5] Rollo, p. 8.
[6] Exh. “D”, Exhibits of Criminal Case, p. 6.
[7] TSN, October 15,
1997, pp. 4-6, 26, 48.
[8] TSN, October 15,
1997, pp. 6-10, 44-45.
[9] TSN, October 15,
1997, pp. 11-18.
[10] TSN, October 15,
1997, pp. 18-23.
[11] TSN, October 15,
1997, pp. 24-26.
[12] TSN, October 15,
1997, p. 26.
[13] TSN, October 15,
1997, pp. 28-30.
[14] TSN, October 15,
1997, pp. 34-36.
[15] TSN, October 15,
1997, pp. 43-44.
[16] TSN, November 24,
1997, pp. 8, 18-24, 27.
[17] TSN, November 24, 1997,
pp. 8-14.
[18] TSN, November 24,
1997, pp. 25-26.
[19] TSN, February 10,
1998, pp. 3-17.
[20] TSN, November 18,
1997, pp. 3-5.
[21] TSN, November 18,
1997, p. 6.
[22] TSN, November 18,
1997, pp. 6-8.
[23] TSN, November 18,
1997, pp. 8-14.
[24] TSN, November 18,
1997, pp. 16-21.
[25] TSN, November 18,
1997, pp. 6-14.
[26] TSN, April 30, 1998,
pp. 3-5.
[27] TSN, April 30, 1998,
pp. 6-7.
[28] TSN, April 30, 1998,
pp. 7-9.
[29] TSN, April 30, 1998,
pp. 9-12.
[30] TSN, April 30, 1998,
p. 14.
[31] TSN, May 5, 1998,
pp. 3-6.
[32] TSN, May 14, 1998,
pp. 3-4.
[33] TSN, May 14,
1998, p. 5.
[34] Rollo, pp.
82-95.
[35] Rollo, p. 72.
[36] People v.
Irinea, 164 SCRA 121, 127 (1988).
[37] People v.
Bañago, 309 SCRA 417, 421 (1999).
[38] People v.
Banela, 301 SCRA 84, 90-91 (1999).
[39] Ibid.
[40] Id., p. 92.
[41] TSN, October 15, 1997,
pp. 18-23.
[42] Supra, note
37, 422.
[43] People v.
Nazareno, 260 SCRA 256, 282 (1996).
[44] People v. Alvero,
G.R. Nos. 134536-38, April 5, 2000.
[45] People v.
Banela, 301 SCRA 84, 93 (1999).
[46] People v. Pajo, et
al., G.R. No. 135109, December 18, 2000.
[47] Supra, note
37, 423.