403 Phil. 525

THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 137770, January 30, 2001 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FERNANDO DULOT @ PANDOY (AT LARGE), BILLY BATURIANO @ BILLY, FELIPE BATURIANO @ IPE (AT LARGE), AND GOMER BATURIANO (AT LARGE), ACCUSED.

BILLY BATURIANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N

VITUG, J.:

When Florinda Bautista left the house in the afternoon of 30 July 1995 to report for work at a garments factory, her teen-age son, Dajohn Bautista, was still home. But it was the last time Florinda would see her son alive. Five hours later, at ten o'clock that evening, her other children would break, to her great disbelief, the news that Dajohn was dead. He was barely sixteen years old.

On 20 October 1995, the following Information was filed against the four accused-

"I N F O R M A T I O N"
"The undersigned Assistant Provincial Prosecutor accuses Fernando Dulot alias Pandoy, Billy Baturiano alias Billy, Felipe Baturiano alias Ipe and Gomer Baturiano of the crime of murder, penalized under the provisions of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:

"That on or about the 30th day of July, 1995, in the municipality of Meycauayan, Province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused armed with an ice pick and fan knife, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another and with intent to kill one Dajohn Bautista, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with evident premeditation and treachery, attack, assault and stab the said Dajohn Bautista hitting the latter on the different parts of his body thereby inflicting upon him serious bodily injuries which directly caused the death of the said Dajohn Bautista."[1]
According to Braulo Rosete, a friend of the deceased, he was with Dajohn Bautista that fateful day at the latter's house in Little Grace Park, a squatter's area in Meycauayan, Bulacan. At seven o'clock, he and Dajohn went to Aling Chedeng's store to get some cigarettes. At the store, they saw one of the accused, Felipe Baturiano, who unexplainably blamed the two friends for the loss of his wallet. Braulo and Dajohn just decided to hurriedly leave the store and return to the latter's house. After some time, however, the two friends went back to the store to buy some bottles of beer. At the store, Felipe Baturiano, who was still there, suddenly threw teargas at them. The deceased was able to dodge, but the teargas hit Braulo. With his friend's eyes in pain, Dajohn guided him back to the house. After recovering, about thirty minutes later, Braulo insisted on going home and requested his friend to accompany him. Dajoh acceded. Dajohn would never make it to Braulo's house. On the way, the two teenagers were accosted by accused-appellant Billy Baturiano and Fernando Dulot alias "Pandoy." Standing beside the two men was Fernando Dulot, wielding a double-bladed knife. Evident that Dajohn was the intended prey upon seeing "Pandoy" in an attempt to stab him, Braulo yelled to warn his friend. Dajohn was able to run a distance of ten meters and would have escaped had it not been for the two other accused - Felipe Baturiano and Gomer Baturiano - who blocked his way and eventually caught up with him. Billy Baturiano and Gomer Baturiano held the arms and hands of Dajohn. Now trapped and defenseless, Dajohn was stabbed repeatedly by Fernando Dulot and Felipe Baturiano. Fernando dulot, with the use of his double-bladed knife, delivered three stab thrusts and Felipe Baturiano, using an icepick, gave two stab thrusts on the victim before scampering into the night. When asked to speculate what could have motivated the four assailants to kill Dajoh Bautista, Braulo could only surmise that it might have been because the victim was courting at the time the daughter of Billy Baturiano. Braulo identified in court Billy Baturiano. The three co-accused - Fernando Dulot, Felipe Baturiano, and Gomer Baturiano - had been able to elude the cluthches of the law and remained at large.

In an autopsy conducted by Dr. Benito Caballero, three fatal wounds were found on the body of the deceased, one superficial wound on the upper part of the chest caused by a pointed and bladed instrument, and two other wounds at the right side of the thorax likely caused by an icepick. A bigger wound was also found on the right arm. The cause of death was diagnosed to be shocked brought about by massive external and internal hemorrhage due to multiple stab wounds on the chest, abdomen and extremity, penetrating the victim's right lung, heart and large intestines. Upon cross-examination, Dr. Caballero declared that the wound perforating through the victim's heart was decidedly fatal and put the victim's chance at life rather bleak even if immediate medical attention were then made available.

Testifying for his defense, Billy Baturiano gave an alibi, which situated him about 100 meters from the scene of the crime. On the date and time of the murder, Billy Baturiano said, he was at the house of Ananias Ysrael, a neighbor, and had been there since six o'clock that evening. He and Ysrael were engaged in conversation when an unidentified female passing by the house shouted that someone had been stabbed. Curious, Billy Baturiano and Ananias Ysrael went to the scene, about 100 meters or a mere 20-minute walk from Ysrael's house, to take a look at what had happened. From bystanders, Billy Baturiano learned that Fernando Dulot had stabbed Dajohn Bautista. By the time he and Ysrael arrived at the crime scene, Fernando Dulot and the victim were no longer around. Billy Baturiano and his friend decided to go home. He claimed being at a loss why he was being charged for the death of the victim as no ill-will existed between him and the Bautista family.

Ananias Ysrael sought to corroborate Billy Baturiano's testimony. He and accused-appellant were neighbors at Little Grace Park, Meycauayan, Bulacan, their houses being merely five meters apart. On the day in question, Ysrael was at his residence with his son and daughter. At approximately six o'clock in the afternoon, Billy Baturiano passed by their house. Ysrael invited Billy in because he intended to ask Billy, a carpenter, regarding a repair work to be done. Ananias Ysrael served Billy Baturiano a cup of coffee. While the two men were conversing, a woman passed by yelling that someone had been stabbed. The two did not recognize the woman because it was already dark. Ananias Ysrael and Billy Baturiano went to the scene of the incident, a store about 100 meters from Ysrael's house and about 150 meters from the house of accused-appellant. Ysrael gathered from the people milling in the vicinity, that it was Fernando Dulot who had stabbed the victim.

On rebuttal, the prosecution presented Joselito Lique, the vice-president of the "Samahan ng Mahihirap sa Little Grace Park II" from 1989 to 1996 and a continuous resident since 1979, who claimed that he was familiar with the residents of the place, among whom were accused-appellant Billy Baturiano and his co-accused Fernando Dulot, Felipe "Ipe" Baturiano and Gomer Baturiano, but insisted not being aware of anyone by the name of Ananias Ysrael as having resided at the squatter's area.

Contesting the allegation of Joselito Lique, Billy Baturiano, when recalled to the witness stand, said that Lique could not possibly be acquainted with all the residents of little Grace Park, the two associations in the squatters' area - the "Samahan ng mga Mahihirap sa LGP, "of which Joselito Lique was the vice-president and the "Samahan ng Urban Poor" - being distinct organizations and Ananias Ysrael being a member of the latter association as so certified to by its president.[2]

The trial court, after the parties had submitted the case for decision, rendered judgment finding accused Billy Baturiano guilty of the crime of murder -
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused BILLY BATURIANO @ Billy, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder, penalized under the provisions of Article 248 of the Revised Penal code and hereby sentences him with the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

"On the civil aspect, an award of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to the victim's heirs is justified, this being the jurisprudence on the matter; thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) actual expenses representing the funeral, burial and other incidental expenses; and exemplary damages of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to the victim's heirs is called for not only as a measure of recompense for the anguish and mental suffering of their heirs but to set an example and sense of prevention to other person not to commit the same offense.

"Accused Billy Baturiano is entitled to full credit of preventive imprisonment.

"The other accused who are still at large, namely: Fernando Dulot alias Pandoy, Felipe Baturiano, alias Ipe and Gomer Baturiano are not yet apprehended and accordingly the case against them are hereby ARCHIVED and therefore issue alias Warrant of Arrest against them."[3]
In his appeal elevated to this court, accused-appellant raised the following assignment of errors-

"FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN INCLINING TO GIVE FAITH AND CREDIT IN FAVOR OF THE PROSECUTION TO THAT SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENSE.

"SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING AND DECLARING THAT THE TESTIMONY OF SINGLE WITNESS BRAULIO ROSETE WAS FOUND CONVINCING AND TRUSTWORTHY, SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

"THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI IS INHERENTLY WEAK AND WORTHLESS.

"FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE DEFENSE.

"FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING AND DECLARING ACCUSED BILLY BATURIANO ALIAS BILLY GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR THE CRIME OF MURDER AND SENTENCED HIM TO RECLUSION PERPETUA.

"SIXTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING AND DECLARING THAT AN AWARD OF P50,000.00 TO THE VICTIM'S HEIRS IS JUSTIFIED; THAT P30,000.00 AS ACTUAL EXPENSES REPRESENTING THE FUNERAL, BURIAL AND OTHER INCIDENTAL EXPENSES AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES OF P50,000.00 ARE CALLED FOR.

"SEVENTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT BILLY BATURIANO ALIAS BILLY AND IN NOT DECLARING THAT SAID ACCUSED IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY KIND OF DAMAGES."[4]
All seven assignments could narrow down to the singular issue of whether or not accused-appellant Billy Baturiano killed Dajohn Bautista. Accused-appellant, in sum, would submit that the prosecution failed to overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt the presumption of innocence in his favor.

Like the trial court, however, the court is morally convinced of the guilt of accused-appellant. Braulo Rosete, an eyewitness to the killing and a friend of the victim, has given a credible account of the incident.
"Q.On said date at around 7:00 in the morning will you tell us where were you at that time and date?


"A.

We were then at the house of the deceased, sir.



"Q.

Where is this house of the deceased located?



"A.LGP, Meycauyan, Bulacan, sir.


"Q.This deceased that you mentioned you are referring to whom, Mr. Witness?


"A.My friend Dajohn Bautista, sir.


"Q.
On said date, July 30, 1995 at around 7:00 o'clock while in that place of LGP, Meycauayan, Bulacan, do you recall of any unusual incident that transpired?


"A.

There was, sir.



"Q.What was that?


"A.We went to a store to buy cigarette and Felipe Baturiano was then on that store.


"Q.You said `we', to whom are you referring?


"A.With Dajohn Bautista, sir.


"Q.And while in that store what happened next?


"A.While Felipe Baturiano was there, his wallet fell and he was blaming us for that matter, sir.


"Q.What happened after that? When you were being blamed or being suspected for the missing wallet?


"A.We left, sir and went home to his house.


"Q.To whose house?


"A.At the house of Dajohn Bautista.


"Q.Will you tell us the distance or how far is the house of Dajohn Bautista from that store where you come from?


"A.Around 20 meters in distance, sir.


"Q.And after that, were you able to reach the house of Dajohn Bautista?


"A.Yes, sir.


"Q.What happened next?


"A.After a few minutes, we again left the house to buy beer, sir.


"Q.Where?


"A.At Aling Chedeng's store, sir.


"Q.You are referring to the same store where you come from?


"A.Yes, sir.


"Q.Were you able to reach the said store again?


"A.We reached the store and again Felipe Baturiano was there, sir.


"Q.Now, when you reached the store of Aling Chedeng, what if any, transpired after that?


"A.

While we are about to reach the store suddenly, Felipe Baturiano faced us and threw a tear gas at us, sir.



"Q.When you said `tinear-gas kami', what do you mean by that?


"A.
We were together but I was the only one who was tear-gassed because he was able to evade the said tear gas, sir.


"Q.Are you referring to Dajohn Bautista?


"A.Yes, sir.


"Q.When Felipe Baturiano tear-gassed you, what instrument did he use, Mr Witness?


"A.

The tear gas that is used by the guard, sir.



"Q.What happened after that?


"A.After that he brought me to his house because my eyes were in pain at that time, sir.


"Q.You are referring to Dajohn Bautista who brought you to his house?


"A.Yes, sir. To rest.


"Q.For how long did you take your rest, Mr. Witness?


"A.Around 30 minutes, sir.


"Q.

And after you rest for about 30 minutes, what did you do after that?



"A.
After 30 minutes, when my eyes were already don't feel any pain anymore, I requested him to bring me home.


"Q.Were you able to reach your house?


"A.No, sir.


"Q.Why?


"A.I was not able to reach home sir because we were accosted by Billy Baturiano and Fernando Dulot alias Pandoy, sir.


"Q.What were these persons doing when they blocked your way?


"A.I think they were having a drinking spree then.


"Q.What transpired next?


"A.After that I saw Fernando Dulot holding a knife, sir.


"Q.
When these persons - Billy Baturiano and Fernando Dulot alias Pandoy blocked your way were the former Billy Baturiano holding a knife? How far were they from each other?


"Atty. De Leon:



That's misleading it was Fernando Dulot who was holding a knife.


"Fiscal Buan:



Yes.


"Atty. De Leon:



But you said Billy Baturiano.


"Fiscal Buan:



I stand to be corrected your Honor. It was Fernando Dulot.


"Q.How far were they from each other when they were blocking your way?


"Atty. De leon:



So do we understand that the fiscal is now changing the name from Billy to Fernando Dulot?


"Fiscal Buan:



Yes.


"A.They were almost side by side, sir.


"Q.What did you do after that, if any?


"A.They hit Dajohn Bautista and I told him to run away because Pandoy was attempting to stab him.


"Q.What did Dajohn do if any, after you said those words?


"A.He ran away but he was caught or reached after running away for 10 meters, sir.


"Q.Why was he caught?


"A.He was caught sir because Felipe Baturiano and Gomer Baturiano blocked his way.


"Q.Where was he blocked by these two (2) persons Felipe Baturiano and Gomer Baturiano?


"A.Near our house, sir.


"Q.What happened after the deceased Dajohn Bautista was blocked by Felipe Baturiano and Gomer Baturiano?


"A.

After that sir, Gomer Baturiano and Billy Baturiano held the hands of Dajohn Bautista in both hands.



"Q.Which arms was held by Gomer Baturiano?


"A.Left hand and arm, sir.


"Q.How about Billy Baturiano where did he hold the deceased Dajohn Bautista?


"A.Right, sir.


"Q.What right?


"A.Right arm and hand, sir.


"Q.
While the deceased Dajohn Bautista was being held in both arms and hands both by Gomer and Billy Baturiano, what happened after that, Mr. Witness?


"A.

After that Fernando Dulot stabbed him, sir.



"Q.What else?


"A.And also Felipe Baturiano stabbed him, sir.


"Q.You want to tell us that the deceased was stabbed by these two persons simultaneously or one after the other?


"A.Simultaneously, sir.


"Q.What did Fernando Dulot alias Pandoy use in stabbing the deceased?


"A.A double-bladed knife, sir.


"Q.How about Felipe what did he use in stabbing the victim?


"A.

An ice pick, sir.



"Q.Can you tell us how many times did these two persons stab the victim?


"A.I cannot remember for how many times, sir.


"Q.Could you possibly say only once?


"xxx xxx xxx



"Fernando Dulot stabbed the victim around three (3) times and Felipe Baturiano stabbed him around two (2) times, sir.


"Q.After Dajohn Bautista was stabbed by these persons, what happened next?


"A.They ran away after that, sir."[5]
The records sufficiently bare the participation of accused-appellant Billy Baturiano, along with his co-accused Fernando Dulot, in waylaying Dajohn Bautista.

The victim was walking his friend home, when pounced upon. Dajohn at first, would appear to have succeeded in getting away from both malefactors but, after several meters, his path was blocked by co-accused Felipe Baturiano and Gomer Baturiano. Accused-appellant and Gomer Baturiano then quickly held both hands and arms of Dajohn, permitting Fernando Dulot and Felipe Baturiano to stab the victim.

The fact that witness Braulo Rosete has been unable to relate minute details, such as in pinpointing the exact part of the victim's hands and arms held by the malefactors, is no serious flaw in his narration. In assessing the veracity of the account of a witness, courts are generally known to disregard inadequacies in the minor details of the testimony. Often, even inconsequential discrepancies are considered to be indications that the witness has been unrehearsed.[6]

The question on the credibility of a witness, furthermore, is a matter best addressed by the trial court, not the appellate court, for reasons so many times adverted to in previous holdings by the Court that need not here be belabored anew.

The assertion of accused-appellant of being nowhere at the crime scene during its commission does not persuade. Accused-appellant himself has stated that the distance between the house of his friend and the scene of the crime is only about a hundred meters. It is also axiomatic that an alibi, even when corroborated, cannot stand in the face of the positive identification of an eyewitness[7] who is not shown to have any ill motive for testifying falsely against an accused.[8]

Accused-appellant would stress that it was only he, among the four accused, who was arrested, and that he chose not to escape the clutches of the law which he could have easily done, a matter that should be an indicum of innocence and clear conscience. The records, however, would belie this claim. The warrant of arrest for all four accused was issued on 13 November 1995 but none of them could be located and the warrant was, in fact, ultimately returned unserved on 17 February 1996. With no progress on the case, the trial court was constrained to archive the same (on 06 March 1996) and to order the issuance of an alias warrant of arrest. It was only two years later, specifically on 07 October 1997, when herein appellant was himself finally arrested that would hardly draw a picture of an innocent man unscrupulously plucked from his otherwise peaceful existence by unconscionable police authorities for a crime he did not commit.

The concerted and synchronized acts of the four malefactors in taking the life of the victim exhibit nothing less than conspiracy. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[9] 9 As a mode of commission of a crime, it is usually characterized as a concurrence of sentiments, a joint purpose and a concerted action,[10] manifested by the performance of specific acts with closeness and coordination.[11]

The four accused collectively and individually pursued their evident common and unlawful design of eliminating the hapless victim. The latter had already made a dash to escape accused-appellant and Fernando Dulot and would have, indeed, eluded these two assailants were it not for the blocking maneuver of accused Gomer Baturiano and Felipe Baturiano. Fernando Dulot and Felipe Baturiano were able to stab the deceased after accused-appellant and Gomer Baturiano held the hands and the arms of the boy and rendered him helpless and immobile.

It does not matter then that accused-appellant did not deliver the fatal blows. The act of one conspirator being the act of all, it is not necessary that the prosecution yet prove that all the conspirators have actually hit and killed the victim for, instead, what would be important is that they have performed coordinated specific acts so as to unmistakably manifest a clearly shared design in ultimately bringing about the consummation of the crime.[12] Singularity in intent makes all the conspirators liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and the character of their participation.

The prosecution has alleged the existence of premeditation and treachery.

It is an established rule that any circumstance which qualifies a killing to murder should be proven as indubitably as the killing itself.[13] The essence of evident premeditation is the execution of the criminal act preceded by cool thought and reflection within a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.[14] While the courts have not infrequently regarded the existence of conspiracy as being itself indicative of premeditation,[15] there are instances when a finding of the circumstance of premeditation does not automatically follow a finding of conspiracy or vice-versa. Where, as in this case, conspiracy is merely implied from concerted actions at the time of the commission of the offense, evident premeditation can not be appreciated, there being no proof to show how and when the plan to kill the victim is hatched or the time that has elapsed before being carried out, in order to determine if the accused has had sufficient time between its inception and its fulfillment to dispassionately consider and accept all its consequences.[16] Thus, to sustain a finding of premeditation, it must not only appear that the accused has formed a determination to commit the crime prior to the moment of its execution but that also such determination is the result of meditation, calculation, reflection or persistent attempt.[17]

In the instant case, the prosecution failed to prove the time when the intent to commit the crime was engendered, the motive that gave rise to it, the means that they had beforehand selected to carry out the criminal intent, and, in general, all such other facts and antecedents which, when combined, would show that the accused acted with that cold and deep meditation and tenacious persistence in the accomplishment of the criminal design.[18]

Treachery exists when, in the commission of the crime, the assailant employs means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might make.[19]

In this case, treachery indubitably attended the murder of Dajohn Bautista. The manner by which the four accused had silently lain in wait for their intended prey to pass by, the suddenness and the unexpectedness of their appearance, their well-calculated and synchronized execution of the crime, particularly the manner with which they held their victim defenseless before fatally stabbing him, added with the circumstances of the sheer numbers and combined strength of four grown men against the victim, could only underscore the fact that the four accused had employed insidious methods to guarantee the consummation of the crime in such a way as to least afford the victim the opportunity to flee or to defend his life.[20]

The circumstance of treachery having qualified the killing of Dajohn Bautista to murder for which the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, and there being neither aggravating circumstance nor mitigating circumstance additionally in attendance, the trial court committed no error in imposing upon accused-appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

With respect to the civil liability, the trial judge, the Hon. Arturo G. Tayag, awarded to the heirs of the deceased, the amount of P50,000.00 for the death of the victim, P30,000.00 for actual expenses and P50,000.00 by way of exemplary damages. In an attempt to prove actual damages, the mother of the victim, Florinda Bautista presented a copy of the contract[21] with the Boy Villarin Funeral Homes for the amount of P15,000.00. In seeking to establish expenses for the wake, Florinda Bautista submitted a mere handwritten itemized list of grocery items purchased by her from the store of one Amelita Penuliar. The list was purportedly prepared by Penuliar who, unfortunately, was not presented to testify thereon.

It was correct for the trial court to award to the heirs of Dajohn Bautista the sum of P50,000.00 for his death, by way of civil indemnity.[22] The full award of actual expenses cannot, however, be sustained there being no competent proof therefore except only insofar as the item for P15,000.00 funeral expenses is concerned. The exemplary damages of P50,000.00 should, conformably with prevailing jurisprudence, be reduced to P20,000.00.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Branch 79 of the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan finding accused Billy Baturiano GUILTY of the crime of Murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED. The decision of the trial court as regards the civil liability of accused-appellant is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION by reducing the actual damages to P15,000.00 and exemplary damages to P20,000.00. Costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Melo, (Chairman, Third Division), Panganiban, Gonzaga-Reyes, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.



[1] Records, p. 1.

[2] Exhibit 4 for the defense.

[3] Rollo, pp. 25-26.

[4] Rollo, pp. 89-91.

[5] TSN, 14 January 1998, pp. 3-8.

[6] People vs. Fuertes, 229 SCRA 289.

[7] People vs. Calope, 224 SCRA 413.

[8] People vs. Javier, 229 SCRA 638.

[9] Article 8, Revised Penal Code.

[10] People vs. Sumbillo, 271 SCRA 428.

[11] People vs. Azugue, 268 SCRA 711.

[12] People vs. Dinglasan, 267 SCRA 26.

[13] People vs. Daen, Jr., 244 SCRA 382.

[14] People vs. Durante, 53 Phil 363.

[15] United States vs. Larion, 2 Phil 476; United States vs. Maquiraya, 14 Phil 243.

[16] Ramon C. Aquino and Carolina C Grino-Aquino, "The Revised Penal Code", Act No, 3815, as amended by R.A. 7659, 1997, Ed. Vol. I, p. 375.

[17] United States vs. Alvarez, 3 Phil 24; People vs. Carillo, 77 Phil 572.

[18] Aquino, supra., p. 361.

[19] Article 248, RPC.

[20] People vs. Jamiro, 279 SCRA 290.

[21] Exhibit C

[22] People vs. Veras, Jr., 201 SCRA 551.



Source: Supreme Court E-Library
This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS)