FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 175881. August 28, 2007.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs . ARMANDO
RODAS 1 and JOSE RODAS, SR., 2 accused-appellants.
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO , J : p
Assailed before Us is the Decision 3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00289
which affirmed in toto the decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sindangan,
Zamboanga del Norte, Branch XI, convicting accused-appellants Armando Rodas and Jose
Rodas, Sr. of the crime of Murder.
For the death of one Titing Asenda, accused-appellant Jose Rodas, Sr., together with his
sons Charlito, Armando, and Jose Jr., all surnamed Rodas, were charged with murder in an
information which reads: DCSTAH
That, in the evening, on or about the 9th day of August, 1996, in the municipality
of Siayan, Zamboanga del Norte, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, armed with a hunting knife, firearm, chako and bolo,
conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, with intent
to kill, by means of treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, beat, stab and hack one
TITING ASENDA, thereby inflicting upon him multiple wounds on the vital parts of
his body which caused his death shortly thereafter; that as a result of the
commission of the said crime the heirs of the herein victim suffered the following
damages, viz:
a) Indemnity for victim's death P50,000.00
b) Loss of earning capacity P30,000.00
P80,000.00
CONTRARY TO LAW (Viol. of Art. 248, Revised Penal Code), with the aggravating
circumstances of nocturnity and abuse of superior strength. 5 ECcTaH
When arraigned on 22 November 1996, the four accused, assisted by counsel de oficio,
pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. 6
By agreement of the parties, pre-trial conference was terminated on 6 December 1996. 7
Thereafter, trial on the merits commenced.
The prosecution presented five witnesses, namely: Alberto Asonda, Danilo Asenda, Ernie
Anggot, Blessie Antiquina and PO1 Pablo Yosores. TCADEc
Before the prosecution could rest its case, accused Charlito Rodas 8 and Jose Rodas, Jr. 9
withdrew their previous pleas of "NOT GUILTY" and entered their respective pleas of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
"GUILTY" for the lesser crime of Homicide. Both were sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years and were each ordered
to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P12,500.00 as damages. 1 0
The prosecution formally offered Exhibits "A" to "H," inclusive, with sub-markings. 1 1 IDSEAH
From the evidence adduced, the prosecution's version of the killing is as follows:
On 9 August 1996, Titing Asenda, a resident of Boyos, Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte,
was at Milaub, Denoyan, Zamboanga del Norte, to help his brother, Danilo Asenda, in the
harvesting of the latter's corn. ScHAIT
On the same day, at around 8:00 in the evening, a benefit dance at Milaub, which was
sponsored by Boboy Raquilme, 1 2 was being held. Among those roaming in the vicinity of
the dance hall were Alberto Asonda and Ernie Anggot. They stopped and hung out near the
fence to watch the affair. Titing Asenda was standing near them. They saw Charlito Rodas,
Armando Rodas, Jose Rodas, Jr., and Jose Rodas, Sr. surround Titing Asenda. Suddenly,
without a word, Charlito Rodas, armed with a hunting knife, stabbed Titing at the back.
Armando Rodas then clubbed Titing with a chako hitting him at the left side of the nape
causing him to fall. Thereafter, Jose Rodas, Sr. handed to Jose Rodas, Jr. a bolo which the
latter used in hacking Titing, hitting him on the left elbow. Alberto Asonda and Ernie
Anggot tried to help Titing but Armando Rodas prevented them by pointing a gun at them
and firing it towards the sky.
After the assailants left, Alberto Asonda and Ernie Anggot approached Titing Asenda who
was already dead. They informed Danilo Asenda that his brother was killed. The police
arrived the following day after being informed of the incident. HDATCc
On the part of the defense, accused-appellants Armando Rodas and Jose Rodas, Sr., and
Vilma Rodas, the former's wife, took the witness stand. The defense rested its case
without marking and offering any documentary evidence.
Defense evidence showed that only Charlito Rodas and Jose Rodas, Jr. killed Titing
Asenda. Appellant Jose Rodas, Sr. denied any participation in the killing of Titing Asenda
claiming he was not present in the benefit dance and that he was in his home with his wife
and infant granddaughter when the killing happened. He revealed that on the night of the
killing, his son, Charlito Rodas, who was carrying a hunting knife, arrived and told him he
killed somebody. He then brought his son to the municipal building of Siayan to surrender
him to the police authorities. IcSHTA
Appellant Armando Rodas likewise denied he was one of those who killed Titing Asenda.
He claimed that at the time of the killing, he was in his house sleeping with his children. He
denied using a chako and firing a gun. He insisted it was his brothers, Charlito and Jose Jr.,
who killed Titing Asenda because they pleaded guilty.
To bolster the testimony of the appellants, Vilma Rodas testified that she was at the
benefit dance when the killing happened. Armando and Jose Sr., she claimed, did not
participate in the killing. She said Charlito stabbed Titing while Jose Jr. merely punched the
victim. HAICcD
On 9 July 1998, the trial court promulgated its decision finding accused-appellants
Armando Rodas and Jose Rodas, Sr. guilty of the crime of Murder. The decretal portion of
the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Jose Rodas, Sr. and Armando Rodas
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER as defined and penalized under the
Revised Penal Code, as amended under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7659 and
hereby sentenced them to RECLUSION PERPETUA each and to indemnify the
heirs of the deceased, Titing Asenda, P12,500.00 each or a total of P25,000.00. IcDCaT
COST de oficio. 1 3
In finding accused-appellants guilty, the trial court gave credence to the testimonies of
eyewitnesses Alberto Asonda and Ernie Anggot. It found accused-appellants and the other
two accused conspired in the killing of the victim and that treachery attended the same. It
gave no weight to accused-appellants' defense of alibi and denial arguing that they were
positively identified as the perpetrators and that they failed to adduce evidence that it was
physically impossible for them to be present at the crime scene when the killing happened.
It added that their unsubstantiated denial will not be given greater evidentiary value over
the testimonies of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. HTDAac
With a Notice of Appeal 1 4 filed by accused-appellants, the trial court forwarded the entire
records of the case to this Court. 1 5 However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo, 1 6
the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.
In its decision dated 28 July 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the RTC's
decision. 1 7 IcaHTA
With the Court of Appeals' affirmance of their convictions, accused-appellants are now
before this Court via a notice of appeal. With the appeal being timely filed, the records of
the case were elevated to this Court.
In our Resolution 1 8 dated 19 February 2007, the parties were required to file their
respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired, within 30 days from notice. Accused-
appellants manifested that since they had already filed the Appellants' Brief, as well as
Reply and Supplemental Reply Brief, they are dispensing with the filing of the Supplemental
Brief because the latter will merely contain a reiteration of the arguments substantially
discussed in the former. 1 9 On the part of the Office of the Solicitor General, it manifested
that considering that the guilt of the appellants had already been discussed in the
Appellee's Brief, it was waiving its right to file a Supplemental Brief. 2 0 aDSTIC
Accused-Appellants assign as errors the following:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANTS WERE
ALSO PRESENT AT THE DANCE AND PARTICIPATED IN ATTACKING THE
VICTIM. CIHAED
II
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY, THEY ARE ONLY
LIABLE FOR THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE.
On the first assigned error, appellants contend that the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses Alberto Asonda and Ernie Anggot should not be believed because they did not
see the start of the assault on Titing, and all they saw was him injured and lying down on
the floor. They insist that Asonda and Anggot could not have seen the killing because only
a Petromax lighted the place. ATaDHC
After a careful and meticulous review of the records of the case, we find no reason to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
reverse the findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. We affirm
appellants' conviction.
We find the evidence of the prosecution to be more credible than that adduced by
appellants. When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great
weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of
some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full
opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the
trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate properly testimonial
evidence. 2 1 ACcHIa
It is to be noted that the Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the RTC. In this regard, it
is settled that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court,
said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court. 2 2 We find no
compelling reason to deviate from their findings.
The Court finds that Alberto Asonda and Ernie Anggot witnessed the killing of Titing
Asenda by Charlito Rodas, Armando Rodas, Jose Rodas, Jr. and Jose Rodas, Sr. When
Titing was killed, Asonda and Anggot were near him. Contrary to the claim of the defense
that the place where the killing occurred was not lighted enough for the assailants to be
identified, the place was sufficiently lighted by a Petromax as testified to by Vilma Rodas.
2 3 EaSCAH
Appellants make a big issue about the absence of a medical examination. Should they be
exonerated because of this? The answer is no.
A medical examination or a medical certificate is not indispensable in the case at bar. Its
absence will not prove that appellants did not commit the cime charged. They can still be
convicted by mere testimonial evidence, if the same is convincing. In the case at bar, the
testimonies of the two eyewitnesses, which the Court found to be credible, are sufficient
to prove the crime and its perpetrators. TEHIaA
Appellants' defense of denial and alibi must likewise fail. Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by
clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary
value than the positive testimony of a victim. 2 4 Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative
and self-serving assertion. 2 5
Denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses who were not
shown to have any ill motive to testify against appellants. Absence of improper motive
makes the testimony worthy of full faith and credence. 2 6 In this case, appellants, who were
positively identified, testified that Asonda and Anggot had no ill motive to testify against
them. 2 7 Moreover, ill motive has no bearing when accused were positively identified by
credible eyewitnesses. Motive gains importance only when the identity of the culprit is
doubtful. 2 8 ICHcaD
Appellants also interposed the defense of alibi. No jurisprudence in criminal law is more
settled than that alibi is the weakest of all defenses for it is easy to contrive and difficult to
disprove, and for which reason it is generally rejected. 2 9 For the defense of alibi to
prosper, it is imperative that the accused establish two elements: (1) he was not at the
locus criminis at the time the offense was committed; and (2) it was physically impossible
for him to be at the scene at the time of its commission. 3 0 Appellants failed to do so.
In the case at bar, both appellants claimed that on the night Titing Asenda was killed, they
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
were one kilometer away. Thus, it was not possible for them to have been at the scene of
the crime when the crime was committed. The defense witnesses, however, gave
conflicting testimonies. Appellant Armando said his residence was more or less one
kilometer away from the crime scene 3 1 but Jose Sr. said it was only 50 meters away. 3 2
Jose Sr. 3 3 said the house of Charlito was only 50 meters away from the crime scene but
Armando said it was one kilometer away. 3 4 Armando said his wife was in Dipolog City
when the killing happened, 3 5 but his wife said she witnessed the killing. 3 6 Armando said
he and all the other accused lived in separate houses, 3 7 but his wife revealed that Charlito
lives with Jose Sr. 3 8 Vilma Rodas said after the killing, she immediately went home and
told Armando that his brothers killed somebody 3 9 but her husband said he only learned of
it the next morning. 4 0 What is more incredible is the fact that despite the testimony of
Vilma Rodas that she informed Armando of the killing, the latter never testified to this
effect. All these negate appellants' claim that they were not at the crime scene when the
killing took place. ADEHTS
The information alleged that appellants, together with Charlito and Jose Jr., conspired in
killing Titing Asenda. Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is conspiracy
when two or more persons agree to commit a crime and decide to commit it. It is
hornbook doctrine that conspiracy must be proved by positive and convincing evidence,
the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself. 4 1 Indeed, proof of previous agreement
among the malefactors to commit the crime is not essential to prove conspiracy. It is not
necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim; what is
primordial is that all the participants performed specific acts with such closeness and
coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to bring about the victim's death.
4 2 Once conspiracy is established, all the conspirators are answerable as co-principals
regardless of their degree of participation. In the contemplation of the law, the act of one
becomes the act of all, and it matters not who among the accused inflicted the fatal blow
on the victim. 4 3
In this case, conspiracy was convincingly proven beyond reasonable doubt. All the accused
had the same purpose and acted in unison when they assaulted the victim. Surrounding the
victim, Charlito stabbed Titing Asenda at the back with a hunting knife. Armando next
clubbed the victim with a chako, hitting him on the left side of the nape, causing him to fall
to the ground. Jose Sr. then handed a bolo to Jose Jr. who used it in hacking the victim. IaDcTC
On the second assigned error, appellants argue that assuming arguendo they are guilty,
they are liable only for the crime of homicide, not murder. They contend that treachery was
absent since they, together with Charlito and Jose Jr., met the victim casually in the dance
hall.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing. The essence of treachery is
the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving
the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without
risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. 4 4 In
People v. Villonez, 4 5 we ruled that treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim
was forewarned of danger to his person. What is decisive is that the execution of the
attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. EAaHTI
In the case under review, the victim was completely unaware that he was going to be
attacked. 4 6 He was not forewarned of any danger to himself as there was no altercation or
disagreement between the accused and the victim. If treachery may be appreciated even
when the victim was forewarned, more so should it be appreciated when the victim was
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
not, as in the case at bar. The suddenness of the attack, the number of the accused and
their use of weapons against the unarmed victim prevent the possibility of any defense or
retaliation by the victim. The fact that the victim was already sprawled on the ground and
still Jose Jr. hacked him with a bolo clearly constitutes treachery.
The information also alleged that evident premeditation, nocturnity and abuse of superior
strength attended the killing. IaAHCE
For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be established:
(1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly
indicating that he has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between
decision and execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
4 7 Like any other circumstance that qualifies a killing as murder, evident premeditation
must be established by clear and positive proof; that is, by proof beyond reasonable
doubt. 4 8 The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act was
preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent
during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. 4 9 In the case at bar, the
prosecution failed to show the presence of any of these elements.
The aggravating circumstance of nocturnity cannot be considered against appellants. This
circumstance is considered aggravating only when it facilitated the commission of the
crime, or was especially sought or taken advantage of by the accused for the purpose of
impunity. The essence of this aggravating circumstance is the obscuridad afforded by, and
not merely the chronological onset of, nighttime. Although the offense was committed at
night, nocturnity does not become a modifying factor when the place is adequately lighted
and, thus, could no longer insure the offender's immunity from identification or capture. 5 0
In the instant case, the prosecution failed to show that nighttime facilitated the
commission of the crime, or was especially sought or taken advantage of by the accused
for the purpose of impunity. The crime scene was sufficiently lighted by a Petromax which
led to the identification of all the accused. IEcDCa
The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the killing. There
was glaring disparity of strength between the victim and the four accused. The victim was
unarmed while the accused were armed with a hunting knife, chako and bolo. It is evident
that the accused took advantage of their combined strength to consummate the offense.
This aggravating circumstance, though, cannot be separately appreciated
because it is absorbed in treachery . In People v. Parreno, 5 1 we decreed:
As regards the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, what
should be considered is not that there were three, four, or more assailants as
against one victim, but whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined
strength in order to consummate the offense. While it is true that superiority in
number does not per se mean superiority in strength, the appellants in this case
did not only enjoy superiority in number, but were armed with a weapon, while the
victim had no means with which to defend himself. Thus, there was obvious
physical disparity between the protagonists and abuse of superior strength on the
part of the appellants. Abuse of superior strength attended the killing when the
offenders took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the
offense. However, the circumstance of abuse of superior strength cannot be
appreciated separately, it being necessarily absorbed in treachery.
ITAaHc
As a final attempt to lower their conviction to Homicide, appellants, citing People v. Alba,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
5 2 argue that although treachery was alleged in the Information and proven according to
the trial court, the same was not specified as a qualifying circumstance. Such argument
fails.
In People v. Aquino, 5 3 we have held that even after the recent amendments to the Rules of
Criminal Procedure, qualifying circumstances need not be preceded by descriptive words
such as "qualifying" or "qualified by" to properly qualify an offense. We explained: aHcACI
Section 8 of Rule 110 requires that the Information shall "state the designation of
the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the
offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances." Section 8
merely requires the Information to specify the circumstances. Section 8 does not
require the use of the words "qualifying" or "qualified by" to refer to the
circumstances which raise the category of an offense. It is not the use of the
words "qualifying" or "qualified by" that raises a crime to a higher category, but
the specific allegation of an attendant circumstance which adds the essential
element raising the crime to a higher category.
In the instant case, the attendant circumstances of minority and relationship were
specifically alleged in the Information precisely to qualify the offense of simple
rape to qualified rape. The absence of the words "qualifying" or "qualified by"
cannot prevent the rape from qualifying as a heinous crime provided these two
circumstances are specifically alleged in the Information and proved beyond
reasonable doubt. HacADE
We therefore reiterate that Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 merely require that the
Information allege, specify or enumerate the attendant circumstances mentioned
in the law to qualify the offense. These circumstances need not be preceded by
the words "aggravating/qualifying," "qualifying," or "qualified by" to be considered
as qualifying circumstances. It is sufficient that these circumstances be specified
in the Information to apprise the accused of the charges against him to enable
him to prepare fully for his defense, thus precluding surprises during the trial.
When the prosecution specifically alleges in the Information the circumstances
mentioned in the law as qualifying the crime, and succeeds in proving them
beyond reasonable doubt, the Court is constrained to impose the higher penalty
mandated by law. This includes the death penalty in proper cases.
xxx xxx xxx
To guide the bench and the bar, this Resolution clarifies and resolves the issue of
how to allege or specify qualifying or aggravating circumstances in the
Information. The words "aggravating/qualifying," "qualifying," "qualified by,"
"aggravating," or "aggravated by" need not be expressly stated as long as the
particular attendant circumstances are specified in the Information. 5 4ACaDTH
Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, 5 5
murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. There being neither mitigating nor
aggravating circumstance in the commission of the felony, appellants should be
sentenced to reclusion perpetua, conformably to Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
We now go to the award of damages. When death occurs due to a crime, the following
damages may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2)
actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and (5)
temperate damages. 5 6 cHSIAC
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof
other than the commission of the crime. 5 7 We affirm the award of civil indemnity given by
the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Under prevailing jurisprudence, 5 8 the award of
P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is in order. Both the trial court and
the Court of Appeals awarded P25,000.00 as civil indemnity because the two accused who
pleaded guilty to the lower offense of homicide were ordered to pay P25,000.00 or half of
the P50,000.00 civil indemnity. Considering that half of the P50,000.00 was already paid,
appellants should therefore pay only the difference.
As to actual damages, the heirs of the victim are not entitled thereto because said
damages were not duly proved with reasonable degree of certainty. 5 9 However, the award
of P25,000.00 in temperate damages in homicide or murder cases is proper when no
evidence of burial and funeral expenses is presented in the trial court. 6 0 Under Article
2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages may be recovered as it cannot be denied that
the heirs of the victim suffered pecuniary loss although the exact amount was not proved.
6 1 cCDAHE
Anent moral damages, the same is mandatory in cases of murder and homicide, without
need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim. 6 2 The award of P50,000.00
as moral damages is in order.
The heirs of the victim are likewise entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of
P25,000.00 since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was firmly established. 6 3 cICHTD
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR-HC No. 00289 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Appellants Armando Rodas and
Jose Rodas, Sr. are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of murder as defined in Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, qualified by
treachery. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance in the commission of the
crime, they are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The
appellants are ORDERED to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of Titing Asenda the amount
of P25,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as temperate
damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. Costs against the appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, Nachura and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Middle name is Martinez.
2. Middle name is Marinduque.
3. Rollo, pp. 141-152; penned by Associate Justice Sixto Marella, Jr. with Associate
Justices Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores and Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr., concurring.
4. Records, pp. 85-104.
5. Records, p. 13.
6. Id. at 20.
7. Id. at 22.
8. Entered plea of guilty to the lesser crime of Homicide on 17 October 1997.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
9. Entered plea of guilty to the lesser crime of Homicide on 29 May 1998.
10. Records, pp. 39-40 and 55-56.
11. Id. at 60-66.
12. Sometimes spelled as "Requilme."
13. Records, pp. 103-104.
14. Id. at 105.
15. Id. at 106.
16. G.R. Nos. 147678-87, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
17. Rollo, p. 151.
18. Id. at 18.
19. Id. at 19-20.
20. Id. at 21-22.
21. People v. Escultor, G.R. Nos. 149366-67, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 651, 661.
22. People v. Aguila, G.R. No. 171017, 6 December 2006, 510 SCRA 642, 661; Rebucan v.
People, G.R. No. 164545, 20 November 2006, 507 SCRA 332, 347.
23. TSN, 30 April 1999, p. 9.
24. People v. Esperas, 461 Phil. 700, 713 (2003).
25. People v. Agsaoay, Jr., G.R. Nos. 132125-26, 3 June 2004, 430 SCRA 450, 466.
26. People v. Brecinio, G.R. No. 138534, 17 March 2004, 425 SCRA 616, 625.
27. TSN, 7 August 1998, pp. 6-7, 11 December 1998, pp. 11-12.
28. People v. Orpilla, 425 Phil. 419, 428 (2002); People v. Sicad, 439 Phil. 610, 626 (2002).
29. People v. Sanchez, 426 Phil. 19, 31 (2002).
30. People v. Flora, 389 Phil. 601, 611 (2000).
31. TSN, 11 December 1998, p. 4.
32. TSN, 7 August 1998, p. 9.
33 Id.
34 TSN, 11 December 1998, p. 8.
35. Id. at 11.
36. TSN, 30 April 1999, p. 3.
37. TSN, 11 December 1998, p. 4.
38. TSN, 30 April 1999, p. 6.
39. Id. at 4.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
40. TSN, 11 December 1998, p. 8.
41. People v. Montenegro, G.R. No. 157933, 10 August 2004, 436 SCRA 33, 41.
42. People v. Amazan, G.R. Nos. 136251, 138606 & 138607, 16 January 2001, 349 SCRA
218, 234.
43. People v. Tagana, G.R. No. 133027, 4 March 2004, 424 SCRA 620, 642.
44. People v. Botona, G.R. No. 161291, 27 September 2004, 439 SCRA 294, 301.
45. 359 Phil. 95, 112 (1998).
46. TSN, 31 January 1997, p. 8.
47. People v. Tan, 411 Phil. 813, 836-837 (2001).
48. People v. Manes, 362 Phil. 569, 579 (1999).
49. People v. Rivera, 458 Phil. 856, 879 (2003).
50. People v. Cario, G.R. No. 131117, 15 June 2004, 432 SCRA 57, 84.
51. G.R. No. 144343, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 591, 608.
52. 425 Phil. 666, 677-678 (2002).
53. 435 Phil. 417 (2002).
54. Id. at 426-427.
55. An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that
Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as amended, other Special Laws, and for other
Purposes. Took effect on 31 December 1993.
56. People v. Beltran, Jr., G.R. No. 168051, 27 September 2006, 503 SCRA 715, 740.
57. People v. Tubongbanua, G.R. No. 171271, 31 August 2006, 500 SCRA 727, 742.
58. People v. Pascual, G.R. No. 173309, 23 January 2007; People v. Cabinan, G.R. No.
176158, 27 March 2007; People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 176158, 27 March 2007.
59. People v. Tubongbanua, supra note 57.
60. People v. Dacillo, G.R. No. 149368, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 528, 538.
61. People v. Surongon, G.R. No. 173478, 12 July 2007.
62. People v. Bajar, 460 Phil. 683, 700 (2003).
63. People v. Beltran, Jr., supra note 56.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
