10/1/23, 9:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 582

her three-year period of probationary period such that from the end
of the first school year, her probationary employment is deemed
renewed for the following two school years. (Magis Young
Achievers’ Learning Center vs. Manalo, 579 SCRA 421 [2009])
——o0o——

G.R. No. 174483. March 31, 2009.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAMON

REGALARIO, MARCIANO REGALARIO, SOTERO
REGALARIO, BIENVENIDO REGALARIO and NOEL
REGALARIO, accused-appellants.

Criminal Law; Murder; Justifying Circumstances; Self-Defense;

Elements.—When self-defense is invoked by an accused charged with
murder or homicide he necessarily owns up to the killing but may escape
criminal liability by proving that it was justified and that he incurred no
criminal liability therefor. Hence, the three (3) elements of self-defense,
namely: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and (c)
lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself,
must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. However, without
unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense, either complete or
incomplete.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The settled rule in jurisprudence is that
when unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has the right to
kill or even wound the former aggressor.—After he was shot, he hit the
victim at the back of the latter’s head and he continued hitting the victim
who retreated backward. From that moment, the inceptive unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim ceased to exist and the continuation of
the offensive stance of Ramon put him in the place of an aggressor. There
was clearly no longer any danger,

_______________

* EN BANC.

739

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018aeb85c0614e518a40000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/22
10/1/23, 9:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 582

VOL. 582, March 31, 2009 739

People vs. Regalario

but still Ramon went beyond the call of self-preservation. In People v.

Cajurao, 420 SCRA 207 (2004), we held: …The settled rule in
jurisprudence is that when unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no
longer has the right to kill or even wound the former aggressor.
Retaliation is not a justifying circumstance. Upon the cessation of the
unlawful aggression and the danger or risk to life and limb, the necessity for
the person invoking self-defense to attack his adversary ceases. If he persists
in attacking his adversary, he can no longer invoke the justifying
circumstance of self-defense. Self-defense does not justify the
unnecessary killing of an aggressor who is retreating from the fray.
Same; Same; Witnesses; Elementary is the rule that positive
identification, where categorical and consistent, prevails over
unsubstantiated denials because the latter are negative and self-serving, and
thus, cannot be given any weight on the scales of justice.—Accused-
appellants’ denials cannot overcome the positive identification by the
prosecution’s witnesses. Elementary is the rule that positive identification,
where categorical and consistent, prevails over unsubstantiated denials
because the latter are negative and self-serving, and thus, cannot be given
any weight on the scales of justice. The participation of each of the accused-
appellants can be fully ascertained from the clear, categorical and
spontaneous testimony given by prosecution witness, Ronnie Siglos, who
was at the scene of the crime
Same; Same; Conspiracy; Conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it—direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found, for criminals do not
write down their lawless plans and plots.—We agree with the findings of the
two courts below as to the presence of conspiracy. Conspiracy exists when
two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found,
for criminals do not write down their lawless plans and plots. The agreement
to commit a crime, however, may be deduced from the mode and manner of
the commission of the offense or inferred from acts that point to a joint
purpose and design, concerted action, and community of intent. It does not
matter who inflicted the mortal wound, as the act of one is the act of all, and
each incurs the same criminal liability.

740

740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Regalario

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018aeb85c0614e518a40000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/22
10/1/23, 9:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 582

Same; Same; Aggravating Circumstances; Abuse of Superior Strength;

To take advantage of superior strength is to use force out of proportion to
the means available to the person attacked to defend himself—it must be
clearly shown that there was deliberate intent on the part of the malefactors
to take advantage thereof.—We likewise rule that both the CA and the trial
court were correct in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of abuse of
superior strength in killing Rolando Sevilla. To take advantage of superior
strength is to use force out of proportion to the means available to the
person attacked to defend himself. In order to be appreciated, it must be
clearly shown that there was deliberate intent on the part of the malefactors
to take advantage thereof. In this case, as testified to by the prosecution
eyewitnesses, accused-appellants Ramon, Sotero and Bienvenido, with the
exception of Marciano, were armed with nightsticks (bahi) while Noel was
holding a knife. Clearly they took advantage of their superiority in number
and arms in killing the victim, as shown by numerous wounds the latter
suffered in different parts of his body.
Same; Same; Same; Cruelty; Scoffing at the Body of the Victim; The
aggravating circumstance of scoffing at the body of the victim is present
when the accused did not just kill the victim but tied him hog-style after
rendering him immobilized, an action which constituted outraging or
scoffing at the corpse of the victim.—Also affirmed is the ruling of both
courts appreciating the presence of the generic aggravating circumstance of
scoffing at the body of the victim. Accused-appellants did not just kill the
victim. They tied him hog-style after rendering him immobilized. This
action constituted outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim. In this
connection, we agree with the trial court’s observation: …The concerted
acts committed by all the accused mostly armed with wooden clubs and one
with a 7-inch long knife after the victim fell pummeling him with mortal
blows on the forehead and back of his head and stab wounds on his neck
and one of them telling his co-accused to kill the victim clearly proved that
the Regalarios conspired and took advantage of their strength and number.
Not satisfied with delivering mortal blows even when their hapless victim
was already immobile, Bienvenido and Sotero, upon order of their co-
accused Marciano, tied their victim hog style. The manner by which
Rolando was tied as vividly captured in the picture (Exhs. ‘C’ & ‘D’) clearly
speaks for itself that it was nothing but to scoff at their victim.

741

VOL. 582, March 31, 2009 741

People vs. Regalario

AUTOMATIC REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Public Attorney’s Office and Caroline Cruz-Sabio for accused-
appellants.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018aeb85c0614e518a40000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/22
10/1/23, 9:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 582

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

For automatic review is the decision1 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 01556 which affirmed with modification,
an earlier decision2 of the Regional Trial Court of Ligao, Albay,
Branch 13 in Criminal Case No. 3613, finding accused-appellants
Ramon, Marciano, Sotero, Bienvenido and Noel, all surnamed
Regalario guilty of murder and sentencing them to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify jointly and severally the
heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.00, and another sum of
P50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs of the
proceedings.
In the court of origin, accused-appellants Ramon, Mar-ciano,
Sotero, Bienvenido and Noel were originally charged with
Homicide. However, after reinvestigation of the case, the Panel of
Prosecutors of the Department of Justice, Legaspi City, consisting of
State Prosecutors Romulo SJ Tolentino, Mary May B. De Leoz and
Elmer M. Lanuzo filed an amended information3 charging the
accused-appellants with murder, committed as follows:

“That on February 22, 1997 at about 11:00 in the evening, at Brgy.

Natasan, Municipality of Libon, province of Albay, Philippines and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso with Associate Justice Portia Aliño-
Hormachuelos and Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino, concurring; Rollo, pp. 3-29.
2 Penned by Judge Jose S. Sañez; CA Record, pp. 51-84.
3 RTC Record, p. 55.

742

742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Regalario

named accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, with

intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with
cruelty, treachery, abuse of superior strength, nighttime attack, assault, strike
and hit ROLANDO SEVILLA with wooden clubs (bahi) used as their night
sticks, hitting the latter at the different parts of his body and tying down his
hands and feet with a rope, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious and
mortal wounds which directly caused his death, to the damage and prejudice
of his legal heirs.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.”

On October 9, 1998, accused-appellants, duly assisted by their

counsel, entered a plea of “not guilty” to the offense charged.4
Thereafter, trial ensued.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018aeb85c0614e518a40000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/22
10/1/23, 9:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 582

The prosecution presented the following as its witnesses: Zaldy

Siglos, Nancy Sara, Ryan Sara, Armando Cabais Poblete, Ronnie
Siglos, Cynthia Sevilla, Norma Torres, Policeman Jose Gregorio,
Cenen Talagtag, Cesar Sazon and Dr. Mario Cerillo, while Antonio
Relato and Nicanor Regonia testified on rebuttal. Nancy Sara,
Cynthia Sevilla and Ryan Sara were presented for a second time also
as rebuttal witnesses.
On their part, accused-appellants took the witness stand. All
raised the defense of denial except for Ramon who admitted the act
charged but claimed self-defense. To corroborate their defense, Jose
Poblete and Adonis Velasco were presented. The defense also
presented Senior Police Officer 2 (SPO2) Jimmy Colisao, Harold
Reolo, Ma. Julieta Razonable, and Dr. Leopoldo Barrosa II.
On August 24, 2000, the trial court rendered its decision5 giving
full faith and credit to the prosecution’s evidence. It ruled out
accused-appellant Ramon Regalario’s claim of self defense, and held
that there was conspiracy among the accused-appellants in the
commission of the crime as shown in

_______________
4 Id., at pp. 115-116.
5 CA Rollo at 51-84.

743

VOL. 582, March 31, 2009 743

People vs. Regalario

the manner in which all of them inflicted the wounds on the victim’s
body. It further ruled that the killing was qualified to murder by
abuse of superior strength and by their scoffing at the body of the
victim. It also appreciated the presence of the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender. The pertinent dispositive
portion of the said decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding Ramon, Sotero,

Bienvenido, Marciano and Noel, all surnamed Regalario, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Par. 1, of Art. 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, with the aggravating circumstance of
scoffing at the corpse of the victim. However, accused are entitled to the
benefit of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender which offset
the aggravating circumstance of scoffing at his corpse, hence, are hereby
sentenced to suffer the Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua together with the
accessory penalties provided for by law.
The accused are hereby ordered to indemnify jointly and severally the
heirs of the late Rolando Sevilla the amount of P50,000.00 and another sum
of P50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018aeb85c0614e518a40000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/22
10/1/23, 9:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 582

Pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 2-92 the

P200,000.00 bail bond put up by accused Marciano Regalario is hereby
cancelled and is ordered recommitted to jail.
SO ORDERED.”

The record of this case was forwarded to this Court for automatic
review, in view of the penalty imposed.
In our Resolution6 of August 13, 2001, We accepted the appeal
and directed the Chief of the Judicial Records Office, to send notices
to the parties to file their respective briefs. The Court also required
the Jail Warden, Municipal Jail, Polangui, Albay to transfer accused-
appellants to the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, and make
a report of such transfer within ten (10) days from notice. Likewise,
the Director of the Bureau of Corrections was required to confirm
the

_______________
6 Id., at p. 97.

744

744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Regalario

detention of accused-appellants. Accused-appellants filed their

Appellants’ Brief 7 on December 4, 2001, while the People, thru the
Office of the Solicitor General, filed its Appellee’s Brief 8 on July
30, 2002.
Pursuant to our pronouncement in People v. Mateo9 which
modified the provisions of the Rules of Court insofar as they provide
for direct appeals from the RTC to this Court in cases where the
penalty imposed by the trial court is death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, this case was referred for appropriate action and
disposition to the CA where it was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 01556.
The evidence for the prosecution is summarized by the Office of
the Solicitor General, as follows:

“Accused-appellants, all surnamed Regalario, are barangay officials of

Natasan, Libon, Albay and related to one another by consanguinity.
Marciano, barangay chairman, Sotero, barangay kagawad and Ramon,
barangay tanod, are brothers while Bienvenido Regalario, also barangay
tanod, is their cousin and Noel is the son of Marciano. (TSN, November 16,
1998, p. 9; RTC Order dated October 9, 1998, pp. 115-117)
On the night of February 22, 1997, a dance and singing contest was
being held in the barangay pavilion of Natasan, Libon, Albay. At around ten
o’clock that evening, Rolando Sevilla and Armando Poblete were enjoying
the festivities when appellant Sotero Regalario approached them (TSN,
December 7, 1998, p. 4). To avoid trouble, the two distanced themselves

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018aeb85c0614e518a40000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/22
10/1/23, 9:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 582

from Sotero. Nevertheless, a commotion ensued. (ibid., p. 5). Appellants

Sotero and Bienvenido Regalario were seen striking Rolando Sevilla several
times with their respective nightsticks, locally known as bahi. (TSN,
November 16, 1998, pp. 13-17, 32, 34, 36-37). The blows caused Sevilla to
fall down in a sitting position but after a short while he was able to get up
(ibid., pp. 16-17). He ran away in the direction of the house of appellant
Mariano Regalario, the barangay captain (ibid., pp. 18-38). Bienvenido and
Sotero Regalario chased Sevilla (ibid., p. 38, TSN,

_______________

7 Id., at pp. 113-127.

8 Id., at pp. 189-227.
9 G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 4, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.

745

VOL. 582, March 31, 2009 745

People vs. Regalario

December 7, 1998. p. 6). When Sevilla was already near Marciano’s house,
he was waylaid by appellant Ramon Regalario and at this point, Marciano
Regalario and his son Noel Regalario came out of their house (TSN,
December 7, 1998, pp. 7-9 and 35). Noel was carrying a seven-inch knife.
The five appellants caught the victim in front of Marciano’s house. Armed
with their nightsticks, they took turns in hitting the victim until he slumped
to the ground face down (ibid., pp. 8, 35 and 38). In that position, Sevilla
was boxed by Marciano in the jaw. After a while, when Sevilla was no
longer moving, Marciano first ordered the others to kill the victim and to tie
him up (ibid., pp. 36-37). Upon hearing the order, Bienvenido, with the help
of Sotero, tied the neck, hands and feet of the victim with a nylon rope used
by farmers for tying carabao. The rest of the group just stood by watching.
(ibid., pp. 37-38).
In the early morning of February 23, 1997, Cynthia Sevilla, the victim’s
widow, after she was informed of her husband’s death, went to the
poblacion of Libon to report the incident at the town’s police station (TSN,
December 8, 1998, pp. 7-8). However, her statements were not entered in
the police blotter because appellant Marciano Regalario had earlier reported
to them, at two o’clock in the morning, a different version of the incident,
i.e., it was the victim Sevilla who shot Marciano’s brother Ramon and that
Sevilla, allegedly still alive, was placed under the custody of the barangay
tanods. (ibid., p. 7; TSN, November 20, 1998 [A.M. Session], pp. 9-10). At
around eight o’clock of the same morning, SPO4 Jose Gregorio, with some
other police officers and Cynthia Sevilla, left the police station on board a
truck and proceeded to the crime scene in Natasan. SPO4 Gregorio
conducted an investigation of the incident. (TSN, November 20, 1998 [A.M.
Session], pp. 10-12). Thereafter, the policemen took the victim’s cadaver to
the police station in the poblacion (ibid., p. 26) where pictures were taken
showing the victim’s hands and legs tied behind him [Exhibits ‘C’ and ‘D’]
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018aeb85c0614e518a40000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/22
10/1/23, 9:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 582

(ibid., pp. 14-15; TSN, December 8, 1998, p. 10; TSN, November 20, 1998
[P.M. Session], pp 5-7). On that same day, SPO4 Gregorio requested the
Libon’s Rural Health Unit to conduct an autopsy on the victim’s body but
since the municipal health officer was not around, it was only performed the
next day, February 24 (TSN, November 20, 1998 [A.M. Session], p. 26; TSN,
December 8, 1998, pp. 10-11; TSN, November 20, 1998 [P.M. Session], p.
11). After Dr. Mario Cerillo, Municipal Health Officer of Libon conducted
the autopsy, he forthwith issued a Medico-Legal

746

746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Regalario

Report dated February 24, 1997 (Exhibit ‘B’), the pertinent portions of
which read:

Findings:
Head : Lacerated wound 4 cm
frontal area, Right.
: Lacerated wound 8 cm.
occipital area, Right.
: Lacerated wound 4 cm.
with fractured skull
(post auricular area),
Right.
: Abrasion 4 x 2 cm.
eyebrow, Right.
: Abrasion 2 cm. x 1 cm.
with lacerated wound
1 cm. eyebrow, Left.
: Periorbital Hematoma
Left and Right eye.
: Lacerated wound 1 cm.
lower lip, Left.
Neck : Stab wound 2 cm.
penetrating lateral base
of the neck just above
the clavicle, Right.
: Stab wound 2 cm., 6 cm.
depth lateral base of the
neck just above the
clavicle, Right.
Trunk : Hematoma 10 x 8 cm.
clavicular area, Right.
: Multiple abrasion chest
: Contusion 7 x 2 cm.,
7th Intercorsal space and
clavicular line, left.
Extremities : Multiple abrasion and
contusion on both Right
and Left arm and forearm.
: Abrasion (Ropemark)
around Right and Left wrist.
: Abrasion (Ropemark) around

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018aeb85c0614e518a40000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/22
10/1/23, 9:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 582

747

VOL. 582, March 31, 2009 747

People vs. Regalario

distal 3rd of both Right and Left leg.

xxx xxx xxx xxx
Cause of Death:
Sever blood loss secondary to stab wound and multiple lacerated
wound, probably secondary to intracranial hemorrhage.

On the witness stand, Dr. Cerillo opined that the victim’s lacerated
wounds could have been caused by a blunt instrument like a hard stick, a
stone or iron bar, his stab wounds by a sharp-edged instrument or knife, his
contusions and hematoma by a fist blow or through contact with a blunt
instrument. Also according to the physician, the sharp object which caused
the victim’s stab wounds could have been a knife 2 cm. wide and 6 cm. long
because they were clean cut wounds. (TSN, November 20, 1998 [P.M.
Session], pp. 14-15).”10

On the other hand, the accused-appellants’ Brief presents a

different story:

“At the time of the incident in question, accused Marciano Regalario was
the incumbent barangay captain of Natasan, Libon, Albay. Accused Sotero
was a kagawad, while Ramon and Bienvenido were barangay tanods of the
same place. Noel Regalario had no public position. He is the son of one of
the other accused.
On the night of February 22, 1997, a public dance and singing contest
was held in their barangay. Naturally, being barangay officials, the accused,
(except Noel who is not an official and whose wife has just given birth)
were at the place of the celebration, discharging their peace-keeping duties.
They were posted at different places in that vicinity.
At first, a fire broke out in the toilet of the Day Care Center. It was
attended to by the persons assigned in that area. A while later, there was
another commotion in the area assigned to accused Ramon Regalario. When
he approached the group where the disturbance was taking place and tried to
investigate, Rolando Sevilla suddenly emerged from the group and without
any ado, fired a shot at him. He

_______________

10 CA Rollo, pp. 197-204.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018aeb85c0614e518a40000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/22
10/1/23, 9:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 582

748

748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Regalario

was hit at the left shoulder. Instinctively, and in order to disable Sevilla from
firing more shots, which might prove fatal, he struck his assailant with his
nightstick and hit him at the back of his head. This is the blow which Nancy
Sara and Zaldy Siglos said were delivered by Sotero and Bienvenido. This
blow caused Sevilla to reel backward and lean on the bamboo fence. To
prevent Sevilla from regaining his balance, Ramon pressed his counter-
attack by continuing to harass him with blows of his nightstick. As Ramon
pressed on forward, Sevilla retreated backward. Ramon kept him busy
parrying the blows which hit his arms and front part of the body, as they
were face to face with each other. But even in the course of such
harassment, Sevilla was able to fire a second shot which missed Ramon.
When they reached the end of the road pavement, Sevilla lost his footing
on edge of the pavement and fell down. At that juncture, Sotero arrived and
shouted to Ramon to stop beating Rolando. But Ramon told him that
Rolando still had the gun. So, Sotero plunged at Rolando and they wrestled
on the ground for the possession of the gun. As they struggled, the gun went
off but no one was hurt. When Rolando raised his arms to move the gun
away from Sotero, Ramon knocked the gun off his hand and it fell near the
place where Jose Poblete was standing. Poblete just arrived at the scene
along with Marciano Regalario who was already told that his brother Ramon
was shot by Sevilla. Poblete picked up the gun. He was instructed by
Marciano to keep it until it is turned over to the authorities.
The wounded Ramon Regalario was brought to town for treatment and
later to the provincial hospital. Marciano and Sotero proceeded to the police
station to report the shooting of Ramon.
Bienvenido Regalario, the barangay tanod, arrived at the scene after the
fact. He was instructed by Marciano, the barangay captain to effect the
arrest of Rolando Sevilla for the crime of shooting Ramon. According to
Bienvenido, they were taught in their training seminar to just use a rope in
lieu of handcuffs because they could not be supplied with it. So, he tied the
hands and feet of Rolando Sevilla for fear that he might be able to escape.
On the early morning of February 23, a team of policemen went to
Natasan and found the dead body of Rolando Sevilla. Jose Poblete also
turned over to the police, Rolando Sevilla’s gun. Meanwhile, Noel
Regalario, after learning of the incident, scoured the place where the third
shot was fired during the struggle between

749

VOL. 582, March 31, 2009 749

People vs. Regalario

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018aeb85c0614e518a40000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/22
10/1/23, 9:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 582

Sotero and Rolando. He found a .38 caliber slug which was also turned over
to the police.”11

On May 31, 2006, the CA promulgated the herein challenged

decision affirming for the most part the decision of the trial court
with modification as to the penalty imposed. Unlike the trial court,
the CA did not appreciate the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender in favor of the accused-appellants. Thus, the penalty was
changed from reclusion perpetua to death, and an additional award
of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages was likewise imposed.
Pertinently, the CA decision reads in part:

“WHEREFORE, the assailed decision is AFFIRMED with

MODIFICATION. The accused-appellants are hereby sentenced to suffer
the penalty of DEATH and to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of Rolando
Sevilla the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Let the entire records of this case be elevated to the Supreme Court for
its review, pursuant to AM No. 00-5-03-SC (Amendments to the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure to Govern Death Penalty Cases) which took
effect on October 15, 2004.
SO ORDERED.”12

As can be gleaned from the above quote, the CA elevated the

instant case to this Court in view of the penalty imposed. In our
Resolution13 dated November 14, 2006, we required the parties to
simultaneously submit their respective supplemental briefs. On
December 12, 2006, the people filed a manifestation14 stating that it
is waiving the filing of a supplemental brief. Accused-appellants
filed their supplemental brief 15 on February 15, 2007.

11 Id., at pp. 119-121.

12 Rollo, p. 25.
13 Id., at p. 38.
14 Id., at p. 42.
15 Id., at pp. 50-61.

750

750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Regalario

In their Brief, accused-appellants raise the following assignment

of errors:

1. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ALL OF THE

ACCUSED PARTICIPATED IN THE KILLING OF ROLANDO SEVILLA
AND BASING ITS DECISION, NOT ON DIRECT EVIDENCE BUT ON
ITS OWN SUPPOSITIONS, CONJECTURES AND INFERENCES;

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018aeb85c0614e518a40000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/22
10/1/23, 9:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 582

2. THE TRIAL COURT GRIEVOUSLY MISAPPRECIATED THE

EVIDENCE AND DISPLAYED BIAS WHEN IT LEANED IN FAVOR OF
THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE DESPITE THEIR VITAL
CONTRADICTIONS AND OBVIOUS FALSEHOODS;
3. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS
CONSPIRACY AMONG THE ACCUSED AND THAT THE
COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE WAS ATTENDED BY THE
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF ABUSE OF SUPERIOR
STRENGTH AND SCOFFING AT THE BODY OF THE VICTIM;
4. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE
DECEASED WAS KILLED IN SELF-DEFENSE AND/OR DEFENSE OF
RELATIVE;
5. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING DAMAGES TO
THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED.16

We begin our evaluation with accused-appellant Ramon

Regalario’s claim of self-defense. Both the CA and the trial court
gave no credence to this theory of self-defense.
When self-defense is invoked by an accused charged with murder
or homicide he necessarily owns up to the killing but may escape
criminal liability by proving that it was justified and that he incurred
no criminal liability therefor. Hence, the three (3) elements of self-
defense, namely: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
(b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel
the aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself, must be proved by clear and
convincing

_______________

16 CA Rollo, pp.121-122.

751

VOL. 582, March 31, 2009 751

People vs. Regalario

evidence. However, without unlawful aggression, there can be no

self-defense, either complete or incomplete.17
Accused-appellant Ramon contends that the victim Rolando
Sevilla committed an act of unlawful aggression with no
provocation on his [Ramon’s] part. Ramon testified that he was
trying to investigate a commotion when, without warning, Rolando
emerged from the group, thrust and fired his gun at him, hitting him
in the left shoulder. To disable Rolando from firing more shots,
Ramon struck the victim’s head at the back with his nightstick,
causing the victim to reel backward and lean on the bamboo fence.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018aeb85c0614e518a40000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/22
10/1/23, 9:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 582

He continued hitting Rolando to prevent the latter from regaining his

balance and, as he pressed on farther, the victim retreated backward.
By Ramon’s own account, after he was shot, he hit the victim at
the back of the latter’s head and he continued hitting the victim who
retreated backward. From that moment, the inceptive unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim ceased to exist and the
continuation of the offensive stance of Ramon put him in the place
of an aggressor. There was clearly no longer any danger, but still
Ramon went beyond the call of self-preservation. In People v.
Cajurao,18 we held:

“…The settled rule in jurisprudence is that when unlawful aggression

ceases, the defender no longer has the right to kill or even wound the
former aggressor. Retaliation is not a justifying circumstance. Upon the
cessation of the unlawful aggression and the danger or risk to life and limb,
the necessity for the person invoking self-defense to attack his adversary
ceases. If he persists in attacking his adversary, he can no longer invoke the
justifying circumstance of self-defense. Self-defense does not justify the
unnecessary killing of an aggressor who is retreating from the fray.”
(Emphasis supplied)

_______________
17 People v. More, et al., G.R. No. 128820, December 23, 1999, 321 SCRA 538,
543-544.
18 G.R. No. 122767, January 20, 2004, 420 SCRA 207, 214-215.

752

752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Regalario

Ramon’s claim of self-defense is further belied by the presence of

two (2) stab wounds on the neck, four (4) lacerated wounds on the
head, as well as multiple abrasions and contusions on different parts
of the victim’s body, as shown in the Medico-Legal Report. Dr.
Mario Cerillo who conducted the post-mortem examination on the
victim revealed that the victim’s lacerated wounds could have been
caused by a blunt instrument like a hard stick, a stone or an iron bar;
his stab wounds by a sharp-edged instrument or knife; his contusions
and hematoma by a fist blow or through contact with a blunt
instrument. He also declared that the sharp object which caused the
victim’s stab wounds could have been a knife 2 centimeters (cms.)
wide and 6 cms. long because they were clean-cut wounds. Indeed,
even if it were true that the victim fired a gun at Ramon, the number,
nature and severity of the injuries suffered by the victim indicated
that the force used against him by Ramon and his co-accused was
not only to disarm the victim or prevent him from doing harm to
others.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018aeb85c0614e518a40000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/22
10/1/23, 9:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 582

The four (4) other accused-appellants, namely, Sotero, Marciano,

Bienvenido and Noel, to exonerate themselves, denied their
involvement in inflicting wounds on Rolando.
Sotero claimed that he arrived at the scene of the crime at the
time when Rolando lost his footing on the edge of the pavement and
fell down. He even shouted at Ramon to stop beating Rolando.
However, when Ramon told him that Rolando still had the gun, he
jumped on Rolando and they wrestled on the ground for the
possession of the gun.
Marciano maintained that he, together with Jose Poblete, arrived
at the crime scene when Ramon had already knocked the gun out of
Rolando’s hand and the gun fell near the place where Jose Poblete
was standing. When he went to that place, he already knew that his
brother (Ramon) had been shot, so, he told the latter to go to the
hospital. Thereafter, he and Sotero proceeded to the police station to
report the shooting incident.

753

VOL. 582, March 31, 2009 753

People vs. Regalario

Bienvenido asserted that he arrived at the crime scene after the

shooting incident. He was asked by Marciano to arrest Rolando.
Lastly, Noel insisted that he was not present when the shooting
incident took place. He was inside their house sleeping, as his wife
had just given birth.
We are not convinced.
Accused-appellants’ denials cannot overcome the positive
identification by the prosecution’s witnesses. Elementary is the rule
that positive identification, where categorical and consistent,
prevails over unsubstantiated denials because the latter are negative
and self-serving, and thus, cannot be given any weight on the scales
of justice.19 The participation of each of the accused-appellants can
be fully ascertained from the clear, categorical and spontaneous
testimony given by prosecution witness, Ronnie Siglos, who was at
the scene of the crime, thus:
PROSECUTOR RESARI:
Q While you were walking on your way home, was there an unusual incident and
can you recall?
A Yes, ma’am
Q What was that incident about?
A While I was on my way towards the house of my parents, I just suddenly saw a
person being beaten on the road.
Q When you first noticed that there was a man being beaten along the road, how
far were you?
A I was about more or less 9 to 10 meters.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018aeb85c0614e518a40000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 14/22
10/1/23, 9:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 582

xxx xxx xxx

Q When you saw a man being beaten what did you do?
A I continue walking, but upon reaching that place near the person being beaten,
I stopped.
Q Why did you stop?

_______________

19 People v. Carullo, G. R. Nos. 129289-90, July 29, 1999, 311 SCRA 680, 691-692.

754

754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Regalario

A To verify and know as to who that person being beaten.

xxx xxx xxx
Q And who was that person being beaten?
A Rolando Sevilla.
Q Who were the persons beating Rolando Sevilla?
A Marciano Regalario, Sotero Regalario, Ramon Regalario, Bienvenido
Regalario, Noel Regalario, Ernani Regalario, Reynante Regalario, Jose
Poblete, Jose Quinno and Virgilio Rebanal.
Q Who else?
A Cecilio Lunas.
Q If some of the persons you saw beating Rolando Sevilla are present in this
court room, will you be able to point and identify them?
A Yes, ma’am.
xxx xxx xxx
PROSECUTOR:
Q You stated that you saw the persons you have just named as beating Rolando
Sevilla. Were there weapons used in beating Rolando Sevilla?
A Yes.
Q What kind of weapons (was) used?
A Sotero was armed with bahi wood, and also Ramon. Bienvenido was also
armed with bahi, as well as Cecilio Lunas, Jose Quinno were also armed with
‘malo-palo.’
xxx xxx xxx
Q What kind of weapon was being held by Noel Regalario?
AA knife.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Now, when you saw Rolando Sevilla being beaten by the persons you
mentioned before, what did you notice on the condition of Rolando Sevilla?
A He was lying on his stomach.
Q Did you see the face of Rolando Sevilla?
A Yes.

755

VOL. 582, March 31, 2009 755

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018aeb85c0614e518a40000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 15/22
10/1/23, 9:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 582
People vs. Regalario

Q How were you able to see the face of Rolando Sevilla?

A Because Sotero was holding him by his hair.
Q What was your observation on the condition of Rolando Sevilla?
xxx xxx xxx
WITNESS:
He was already motionless. He is not moving anymore.
PROSECUTOR:
Of the persons you named as holding weapons, you did not mention Marciano
Regalario as holding any weapon. What was Marciano Regalario doing then?
A He boxed Rolando Sevilla and Rolando was hit on his jaw.
Q What else did Marciano Regalario do if any?
A After he boxed Rolando Sevilla, he went inside his house but after about one
(1) minute he again return(ed) back.
Q After Marciano Regalario returned back, what did he do if any?
A He shouted to kill that.
Q After you heard Marciano Regalario (say) to kill “that,” what did you do?
A I proceeded towards home.
Q While you were walking, was there any unusual incident which again
happened?
A Yes.
Q And, what was that incident?
A While I was walking towards home, again I heard Marciano Regalario shouted
to tie him, that is why I again stopped.
Q When you heard Marciano Regalario to tie him how far were you from him?
A More or less 7 meters.
Q You said that upon hearing Marciano Regalario, you stopped. What else
happened?

756

756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Regalario

A Bienvenido Regalario passed by me and went to that sleigh (pababa) which is

on the lower portion and got a rope.
Q What did Bienvenido Regalario do with the rope?
A He tied Rolando Sevilla by placing he rope around his neck and tied his hands.
Q Was there somebody who assisted Bienvenido Regalario in tying Rolando
Sevilla?
A Yes.
Q Who were the persons, if any?
A Sotero Regalario.
Q Aside from Sotero, was there anybody else who helped Bienvenido Regalario
in tying Rolando Sevilla?
A No more.
Q While Rolando Sevilla was being hog tied, where were the persons of
Marciano Regalario, Noel Regalario, Ramon Regalario and the rest of the
persons whom you just mentioned awhile ago?
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018aeb85c0614e518a40000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 16/22
10/1/23, 9:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 582

A They were there standing beside Rolando Sevilla and they were watching.
Q Did you notice whether Rolando Sevilla was still moving when he was still
being tied up by Bienvenido and Sotero?
A He was not moving anymore.20

The aforequoted testimony of Ronnie Siglos is corroborated by

the following testimony of Armando Poblete:
Q While you were standing by the road, what did you notice?
A Then I saw Rolando Sevilla being chased by Bienvenido and Sotero both
surnamed Regalario
Q To what direction was Rolando Sevilla being chased by Sotero and Bienvenido
Regalario?
A Towards the place of Kapitan.

_______________

20 TSN, December 7, 1998, pp. 32-38.

757

VOL. 582, March 31, 2009 757

People vs. Regalario

xxx xxx xxx

PROSECUTOR RESARI:
Q Considering that was already nighttime, how were you able to know that the
person being chased was Rolando Sevilla and the persons chasing him were
the two (2) Regalarios which you have identified?
A Because, I was with Sevilla during that time and it was moonlit night.
Q When the two (2) were chasing Rolando Sevilla, what happened next?
A Ramon waylaid Rolando Sevilla.
xxx xxx xxx
Q After you saw Ramon Regalario waylaid Rolando Sevilla, what else did you
see?
A After that I saw the group of Sotero, Regalario, Marciano, Noel, caught up with
Rolando.
xxx xxx xxx
PROSECUTOR RESARI:
Q Since Bienvenido Regalario and Sotero Regalario were the ones chasing
Rolando Sevilla, from what direction did Ramon Regalario come from when
he waylaid Rolando Sevilla?
A That side, left side going towards the house of Kapitan.
Q And where did Marciano and Noel xxx come from?
A From their house.
Q After the five (5) caught up with Rolando Sevilla, what happened to Rolando
Sevilla?
A They took turns in beating him.
Q Did they use any weapon in beating Rolando Sevilla?

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018aeb85c0614e518a40000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 17/22
10/1/23, 9:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 582

A Yes, their night sticks.

Q When Bienvenido and Sotero caught up with Rolando Sevilla; and the three
(3) other accused also joined the two (2), how far was your distance to them?

758

758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Regalario

A More or less 14 to 15 meters.21

We agree with the findings of the two courts below as to the

presence of conspiracy. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it. Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found, for
criminals do not write down their lawless plans and plots. The
agreement to commit a crime, however, may be deduced from the
mode and manner of the commission of the offense or inferred from
acts that point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and
community of intent. It does not matter who inflicted the mortal
wound, as the act of one is the act of all, and each incurs the same
criminal liability.22 We quote with approval the findings and
observations of the CA, thus:

“The eyewitnesses’ account surrounding Rolando Sevilla’s death shows

that the accused-appellants performed concerted acts in pursuit of a
common objective. Sotero, Bienvenido, and Ramon, armed with nightsticks,
and Noel armed with a knife, seven inches in length, beat Rolando Sevilla.
All five accused-appellants caught up with the victim, blocked all means
through which the victim could escape and ensured the achievement of their
plan to kill Rolando Sevilla even as the latter already fell to the ground.
Accused-appellant Marciano hit the victim on his jaw and later, ordered his
co-accused to kill and tie the victim. Upon hearing Marciano’s instruction,
Bienvenido Regalario tied Rolando’s neck, hands and feet with a rope. The
collective act of the accused-appellants is sufficient to make them co-
principals to the killing.”23

Considering the foregoing, as well as the manner in which the

attack against Rolando was carried out, and the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses positively identifying the accused-appellants
as the assailants, we concur in the rulings

_______________

21 TSN, December 7, 1998, pp. 6-9.

22 People v. Cawaling, G.R. No. 117970, July 28, 1998, 293 SCRA 267, 306-307.
23 Rollo, pp. 14-15.

759

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018aeb85c0614e518a40000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 18/22
10/1/23, 9:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 582

VOL. 582, March 31, 2009 759

People vs. Regalario

of the CA, affirming those of the trial court, in (a) disregarding

Ramon Regalario’s declaration that he attacked the victim in self-
defense and (b) holding that all the accused-appellants acted in
concert and killed Rolando.
We likewise rule that both the CA and the trial court were correct
in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior
strength in killing Rolando Sevilla. To take advantage of superior
strength is to use force out of proportion to the means available to
the person attacked to defend himself. In order to be appreciated, it
must be clearly shown that there was deliberate intent on the part of
the malefactors to take advantage thereof.24 In this case, as testified
to by the prosecution eyewitnesses, accused-appellants Ramon,
Sotero and Bienvenido, with the exception of Marciano, were armed
with nightsticks (bahi) while Noel was holding a knife. Clearly they
took advantage of their superiority in number and arms in killing the
victim, as shown by numerous wounds the latter suffered in different
parts of his body.
Also affirmed is the ruling of both courts appreciating the
presence of the generic aggravating circumstance of scoffing at the
body of the victim. Accused-appellants did not just kill the victim.
They tied him hog-style after rendering him immobilized. This
action constituted outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim.
In this connection, we agree with the trial court’s observation:

“…The concerted acts committed by all the accused mostly armed with
wooden clubs and one with a 7-inch long knife after the victim fell
pummeling him with mortal blows on the forehead and back of his head and
stab wounds on his neck and one of them telling his co-accused to kill the
victim clearly proved that the Regalarios conspired and took advantage of
their strength and number. Not satisfied with delivering mortal blows even
when their hapless victim was already immobile, Bienvenido and Sotero,
upon order of their co-

_______________
24 People v. Tumanon, et al., G.R. No. 135066, February 15, 2001, 351
SCRA 676, 689.

760

760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Regalario

accused Marciano, tied their victim hog style. The manner by which
Rolando was tied as vividly captured in the picture (Exhs. ‘C’ & ‘D’) clearly
speaks for itself that it was nothing but to scoff at their victim.”25

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018aeb85c0614e518a40000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 19/22
10/1/23, 9:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 582

The CA was likewise correct in not appreciating the mitigating

circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of accused-appellants.
For said circumstance to be appreciated, it must be spontaneous, in
such a manner that it shows the intent of the accused to surrender
unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges
his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and expense
of finding and capturing him.26 In the case at bar, accused-appellants
remained at large even after Judge Jose S. Sañez issued the warrant
for their arrest on February 6, 1998. Accused-appellants surrendered
only on September 9, 1998 after several alias warrants of arrest were
issued against them. Hence, voluntary surrender cannot be
appreciated in their favor as mitigating circumstance.
The accused-appellants’ acts plainly amount to murder, qualified
by abuse of superior strength. As the generic aggravating
circumstance of scoffing at the body of the victim was alleged and
proven, and as there was no mitigating circumstance, the CA
correctly sentenced accused-appellants to death in accordance with
Art. 248, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, in relation to Art.
63(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
In view, however, of the passage of Republic Act No. 9346,27 the
imposition of the death penalty has been prohibited. Thus, the
penalty imposed upon accused-appellants should be reduced to
reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole.

_______________

25 CA Rollo, p. 83.
26 People v. Maalat, G.R. No. 109814, July 8, 1997, 275 SCRA 206, 213-214.
27 An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.

761

VOL. 582, March 31, 2009 761

People vs. Regalario

While the new law prohibits the imposition of the death penalty,
the penalty provided for by law for a heinous offense is still death
and the offense is still heinous.28 Consequently, the civil indemnity
for the victim is still P75,000.00. In People v. Quiachon,29 we
explained that even if the penalty of death is not to be imposed on
appellant because of the prohibition in Republic Act No. 9346, the
civil indemnity of P75,000.00 is still proper because, following the
ratiocination in People v. Victor (292 SCRA 186), the said award is
not dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty but on
the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of
the death penalty attended the commission of the offense.
As to the award of moral and exemplary damages, the CA
correctly held accused-appellants jointly and severally liable to pay
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018aeb85c0614e518a40000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 20/22
10/1/23, 9:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 582

the heirs of Rolando Sevilla for the same. Moral damages are
awarded despite the absence of proof of mental and emotional
suffering of the victim’s heirs. As borne out by human nature and
experience, a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about
emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim’s family.30 If a
crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either
qualifying or generic, an award of exemplary damages is justified
under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code. This kind of damage is
intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings and as
vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of
an injured, or as a punishment for those guilty of outrageous
conduct.31 However, consistent with recent jurisprudence on heinous
crimes where the imposable penalty is death but

_______________
28 People v. Salome, G.R. No. 169077, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 659, 676. See
also People v. Ranin, Jr., G.R. 173023, June 25, 2008, 555 SCRA 297 and People v.
Entrialgo, G.R. 177353, November 28, 2008, 572 SCRA 729.
29 G.R. No. 170235, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 704, 719.
30 Ibid.
31 People v. Aguila, G.R. No. 171017, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 642, 663.

762

762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Regalario

reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346,

the award of moral damages should be increased from P50,000.00 to
P75,000.0032 while the award of exemplary damages should be
increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00.33
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated May
31, 2006 in CA-G.R. CR No. 01556 is hereby AFFIRMED with the
following modifications: (1) the penalty of death imposed on
accused-appellants is lowered to reclusion perpetua without
eligibility for parole; (2) the monetary awards to be paid jointly and
severally by accused-appellants are as follows: P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as
exemplary damages; and (3) interest on all the damages awarded at
the legal rate of 6% from this date until fully paid is imposed.34
SO ORDERED.

Puno (C.J.), Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-

Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Tinga, Velasco, Jr. and Peralta,
JJ., concur.
Chico-Nazario and Brion, JJ., On leave.
Nachura, J., No part. Signed pleading as Solicitor General.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018aeb85c0614e518a40000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 21/22
10/1/23, 9:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 582

Judgment affirmed with modifications.

_______________

32 People v. Audine, G.R. No. 168649, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 531, 547,
People v. Orbita, G.R. No. 172091, March 31, 2008, 550 SCRA 535; People v.
Balobalo, G.R. No. 177563, October 10, 2008, 568 SCRA 385.
33 People v. Sia, G.R. 174059, February 27, 2009, 580 SCRA 364.
34 People v. Guevarra, G. R. No. 182191, October 29, 2008, 570 SCRA 288.

© Copyright 2023 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018aeb85c0614e518a40000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 22/22