7/21/2021 G.R. No.

113057-58

Today is Wednesday, July 21, 2021

  Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 113057-58 May 29, 1995

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

plaintiff-appellee

vs.
JUAN REMOTO Y FAJELA @ JOHNNY, accused-appellant.

PUNO, J.:

Few crimes can exceed in bestiality the crime of non-consensual sex against children. In the case at bench, the
We use
victims of appellant's lust are two six-year-old cookies
children, to ensure
then you get school.
in Kindergarten the Still in their age of innocence,
their credibility cannot be eroded by obviousbest experience
attempts on Lawphil.net.
at obfuscation. We affirm the conviction of appellant for rape
on two (2) counts. By continuing to browse our site, you
are
agreeing to our use of cookies.
On January 10, 1992, two separate Criminal Complaints
Find outwere
morefiled
Regional Trial Court of Bataan, 1
before the
here.
charging appellant JUAN "JOHNNY" FAJELA REMOTO of raping LESLIE MARRIS SANTOS 2 and CARABELLA J.
VIRAY, 3
when they were both six-years-old, as follows:

That in or about the period from November toOK December, 1989 in Mariveles, Bataan, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused thru force and intimidation, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and succeed to have sexual intercourse with the offended
party Leslie Marris Santos, a six year old minor girl, to her damage and prejudice; 4

and

That in or about April, 1991 in Mariveles, Bataan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused thru force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously lie and succeed to have sexual intercourse with the offended party Carabella J. Viray, a
six year old minor girl, against the will and consent of the latter, to her damage and prejudice. 5

On May 20, 1992, appellant entered not guilty pleas upon arraignment in both cases. Trial proceeded against him.

The records show that complainants Leslie and Carabella lived in the same neighborhood as appellant in Balon
Anito, Mariveles, Bataan. Appellant was well-known to the parents and relatives of the two children. In fact, he was
one of the best friends of Carabella's uncle, defense witness ALLAN MAGLALANG, 6 who eventually married
appellant's sister. 7

For a living, appellant drove and operated his father's tricycle. 8 In 1989, he was commissioned to act as "service" to
Leslie, then a Kindergarten student at A.G. Llamas Elementary School. 9 He was tasked to take the child to school
every morning in his tricycle, and bring her home when classes ended at lunchtime. 10

One day in December, 1989, appellant did not take Leslie straight home from school. 11 Instead, he brought her to a
place near the Mormon Church. The child readily tagged along when he promised her money. At the church
grounds, appellant scattered some coins about and challenged Leslie to pick them up with her eyes closed. He also
instructed her to bend over at the waist. She obliged. 12

As Leslie groped around for the money, appellant stealthily approached her from behind. He raised her skirt,
unzipped his pants, pulled aside the crotch area of her panty, and inserted his penis into her vagina. 13 Pain shot
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/may1995/gr_113057_58_1995.html 1/9
7/21/2021 G.R. No. 113057-58

through Leslie's being as he introduced his manhood deeper into her maidenhood. 14 She felt it most accutely in the
area of her anus. 15

After Leslie's defloration, appellant ordered her to keep silent about the episode. He warned that if she did not, he
would make her lose her way and she could not go back home. 16 Then, he left her at the scene of her shattered
innocence. Thankfully, she knew her way home. 17

Leslie sealed her lips about her violation. Little did she know that sixteen months later, her playmate and friend,
Carabella, would suffer the same cruel fate at the hands of appellant.

Carabella's ordeal happened one night in April, 1991, barely a month after she graduated from Kindergarten. 18 As
was often the case around that time, Balon Anito, Mariveles was plunged into darkness by a power failure. During
the brown-out, appellant approached Carabella and told her that he would buy her a lollipop. Lured by the promise,
she went with him. 19

Unfortunately, appellant was driven by his sexual passion. Instead of bringing Carabella to the candy store, he
brought her to the house next-door to the Virays'. 20 Carabella's maternal grandmother, ESTELLA MAGLALANG,
her second husband JESUS MAGLALANG, and their son, Allan, lived in that house, but none of them was home at
that time. 21

Appellant, a frequent visitor to the Maglalangs' house, 22 was familiar with it. He led Carabella up to Allan
Maglalang's room, 23 which was never locked. 24 There, he took off her short pants and made her lie down on her
uncle's bed. After that, he took off his shorts and bestraddled her. 25 He pierced her sexual organ with his, causing
her pain. 26 When she cried, he warned her that if she told anyone about the incident, she would get a spanking from
him. A few moments later, a white substance trickled out of appellant's penis and fell on her thigh. 27

Meanwhile, Carabella's ten-year-old sister, BRENDALYN VIRAY, 28 went to the Maglalang residence to look for her.
She heard someone crying in her Uncle Allan's room. She went up to investigate and saw appellant lying on top of
Carabella, both of them naked from the waist down. 29 Carabella was unaware of the presence of her older sister,
who stood frozen in her tracks. Appellant,
We however, got aware
use cookies of Brendalyn's
to ensure presence and immediately stood up.
you get the
30
Hurriedly, he put on his shorts and scampered down the stairs.
best experience on Lawphil.net.
By continuing to browse our site, you
are
It was only then that Carabella saw Brendalyn, who succeeded in making her younger sister stop crying. Appellant's
agreeing to our use of cookies.
semen which stuck to Carabella's thigh caught the interest of the children.
They went downstairs to the kitchen
Find out
where Brendalyn, with the aid of a gas lamp, examined themore
white,here.
sticky liquid more closely. It was then that their
31
grandmother arrived home.

Estella Maglalang asked her grandchildren what they were doing and why Carabella had no panties on. Neither girl
OK
said anything. 32 The old woman did not pursue her line of questioning and merely gave the children binatog. The
two stayed at the Maglalang residence until they were called home by their mother.33 Neither told their parents what
had transpired earlier that night. 34

Months passed, and the complainants' silence on the matter of their abuse remained unbroken. Had it not been for
an overheard conversation between them, the matter may have remained their dark secret.

On January 4, 1992, there was a celebration held at Leslie's residence, with Carabella as one of their guests. During
the party, the two girls discussed what appellant did to them. 35 They did not know that Leslie's cousin, CYRIL
LACUNA, was within their earshot and listening. 36 Cyril approached Leslie's mother, RUBYLINE SANTOS, 37
presumably to tell her what he heard. However, Carabella cried and prevented him from doing so. 38

Carabella's actions raised Rubyline's suspicions, so she asked her daughter about it. At first, Leslie balked. With
some prodding, however, the child finally poured her heart out to her mother. She narrated what happened to her at
the Mormon Church, as well as what Carabella suffered at the hands of appellant at the Maglalang residence. 39
Rubyline wept as she listened to her young child's revelation. She could not fathom how appellant, whom they had
known for a long time, could do such an atrocious thing to Leslie. She and her husband agreed to file a case against
appellant. 40

That night, Rubyline told Carabella's mother, CARMELA VIRAY, 41 what she had learned from Leslie. 42 After the
story was confirmed by her daughter, Brendalyn, Carmela cried a river at the realization that Carabella's future was
irrevocably ruined. 43 She and her husband felt very weak. Neither could believe that Carabella could suffer such a
cruel fate at her tender age. They decided to seek redress in our courts of justice. 44

On January 6, 1992, a Monday, Leslie and Carabella were brought to DR. WILLIE CALIMBAS, for physical and
internal examinations. 45 He found a healed laceration at the nine o'clock (9:00) position, on Leslie's hymen. 46 He
discovered no laceration on Carabella's private organ, but found her hymenal hole to be enlarged. 47

https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/may1995/gr_113057_58_1995.html 2/9
7/21/2021 G.R. No. 113057-58

For his part, appellant put forth the defenses of denial and alibi. He denied that he was ever hired to transport Leslie
to and from school, 48 and likewise denied that he had abused the two complainants. 49 He theorized that the
accusations against him were concocted by Leslie's mother, who was mad at him for refusing to be the child's
"tricycle service,"50 and Carabella's father, who once beat him up while in a drunken stupor. 51

Two other defense witnesses took the stand. Carabella's uncle and appellant's brother-in-law, Allan Maglalang,
testified that during the entire month of April, 1991, he never left his bedroom to go anywhere else. On the other
hand, he testified that, since February, 1991, he has been working as a factory worker in an export enterprise. The
other witness, JANE PENALOZA, 52 told the court that appellant had been residing at her house — which is twelve
to thirteen kilometers from Balon Anito, Mariveles, Bataan — since August, 1989 until the time of his arrest in
January, 1992. According to her, appellant did not leave her house, except to deliver money to his parents in Balon
Anito. 53 He usually left for Balon Anito at ten o'clock in the morning (10 a.m.), and was back at witness's house by
one or two o'clock in the afternoon (1:00 or 2:00 p.m.).54

At trial's end, the court a quo promulgated a Joint Decision, dated November 24, 1993, finding appellant "guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as defined and penalized under Article 335, par. 3 of the Revised
Penal Code," 55 and sentenced him as follows:

In Criminal Case No. ML-626 — to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with all the
accessory penalties provided for by law, to pay complainant-victim CARABELLA VIRAY the amount of
P50,000.00 as and by way of indemnification, and to pay the costs; and

In Criminal Case No. ML-627 — to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with all the
accessory penalties provided for by law, to pay the complainant-victim LESLIE MARRIS SANTOS the
amount of P50,000.00 as and by way of indemnification, and to pay the costs. 56

Appellant now avers that "the trial court gravely erred in finding (him) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime(s)
charged," 57 considering that it "failed to see the infirmities in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses." 58

The appeal is without merit. We use cookies to ensure you get the
best experience on Lawphil.net.
By continuing
When a witness testifies, the visual dimension to browse
of his testimony our site,
is best
areappreciated by the observant eye
youand
caught
of the trial judge. For this reason, appellateagreeing
courts pay obeisance
to our use of to the general rule that findings of fact of trial
cookies.
courts, especially with respect to the credibility ofFind
witnesses personally
appeared and testified before them,
whohere.
out more
must be given great weight and should not be disturbed by appellate courts. Our review of the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses — particularly Leslie's and Carabella's — leaves us with a good impression. We agree
wholeheartedly with the observations of the trial court, to wit:
OK
The offended parties while they are still guileless children of tender age, have recounted their own
ravishments in a starkly simple and spontaneous, yet coherent and candid manner as to preclude
prevarication or evasiveness. It is a revelation of innocent children whose virtues were abused by the
accused. All throughout their court testimony, they remained as assertive and steadfast about the
despicable assault on their chastity as well as the identity of the accused as their rapist. They could not
have been mistaken in identifying the accused as they knew him too well, being their neighbor and
tricycle service driver. The Court is more than satisfied that they were the unwilling victims of grievous
outrages committed by a paraphiliac predator. To the mind of the Court, (the complainants) with their
perceptiveness, as well as their full understanding of the obligations of an oath and what they were
testifying to, are thus competent to testify and fall outside the ambit of the disqualification of a "child-
witness of tender age" as contemplated by Rule 30, Section 19, sub. par. (b) of the Rules of Court.

xxx xxx xxx

In the course of the trial of these two cases, the Court has observed the refined and dignified demeanor
exhibited by the offended parties. Individually, when they testified, each answered the questions
propounded on (sic) them promptly, spontaneously and forthrightly. Each recounted her harrowing
experience vividly and with sincere feeling as only a guileless girl of tender age who has actually
undergone such (an) ordeal can describe. They were subjected to a rigorous cross-examination but
they stood firm and were able to weather it down, thereby discounting the possibility that they have
been tutored or rehearsed before taking the witness stand. 59

and, hence, will not deviate from the rule that "testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature are credible;
the revelation of an innocent child whose chastity was abused deserves full credence." 60 We also grant the badge
of credibility to the testimony of the third minor witness, Brendalyn Viray, who was consistent and straighforward in
answering questions propounded to her.

https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/may1995/gr_113057_58_1995.html 3/9
7/21/2021 G.R. No. 113057-58

Not unnaturally, inconsistencies exist in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. However, these hardly relate
to matters material to the commission of statutory rape, for which appellant was convicted. Such superfluous lapses
do not weaken the probative values of the testimonies. On the contrary, they strengthen the credibility and show the
sincerity of those who testified. Imperfect senses cannot be the source of perfect testimonies. 61 This is a rule that
resonates with reality.

Firstly, we are not persuaded by appellant's posturing that neither Carabella nor Brendalyn could have seen what
they testified on because of the brown-out that occurred on the night of Carabella's rape. He has no basis for
assuming that the power outage threw the Maglalang residence into darkness so absolute as to preclude anyone
from seeing anything, for neither counsel queried the Viray sisters about the degree of queried the Viray sisters
about the degree of illumination then available inside Allan Maglalang's room. On the contrary, both girls testified
that they saw and observed things and events that occurred inside the room on that night. Brendalyn, for instance,
testified, inter alia:

xxx xxx xxx

FISCAL TARIO:

Q Can you describe to this honorable court what kind of abuse Johnny Remoto did to your
sister Carabella?

A Yes, sir.

Q Then, please tell it to this honorable court.

A I went inside the house of my grandmother and then I heard somebody crying. What I
did was I went upstairs and there I saw Johnny Remoto on top of my sister, sir.

Q When you say on top, what do you mean?

We use cookies to ensure you get the
A I cannot understand,
best sir.
experience on Lawphil.net.
By continuing to browse our site, you
are
Q Is Johnny Remoto fully clothed
agreeing while
to our useon
of top of your sister?
cookies.
Find out more here.

A No, sir.

Q What was his condition then as regards his clothing?

A I am not sure, sir. Because thereOK

was a brown-out.

Q Was he naked?

ATTY. NAVARRO:

Very leading, your honor.

FISCAL TARIO:

I have already laid the basis, your honor.

COURT:

Witness may answer.

A His clothes are on his shoulder, sir. He has no pants on, sir.

Q How about your sister, was she fully clothed?

A She has her clothes on, sir, but without her panty.

xxx xxx xxx

FISCAL TARIO:

Q You said that you saw Johnny Remoto on top of your sister inside the room of your
Uncle Allan. Did Johnny or your sister see you?

ATTY. NAVARRO:

https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/may1995/gr_113057_58_1995.html 4/9
7/21/2021 G.R. No. 113057-58

Very leading, your honor.

COURT:

Witness may answer.

A Only Johnny Remoto, sir.

FISCAL TARIO:

Q When Johnny saw you, what did Johnny do, if any?

A He stood up and wore his pair of shorts that has a hole on the right buttock, sir.

Q And after pulling up his shorts, what did Johnny Remoto do, if any?

A He ran going downstairs, sir.

xxx xxx xxx 62

Secondly, the rhetorical statement in the appeal brief that "if indeed (Carabella) was raped by (appellant), why would
he choose her grandparent's house, of all places . . . (when he) was aware that anytime, one of the occupants of the
house would arrive," 63 is plain sophistry. In the recent case of People v. Guibao, 217 SCRA 64, 74 (1993), this
Court shot down the contention that it is inconceivable for a person to commit a crime of rape in the house in front of
the victims house at daytime, in this wise:

We have ruled that it is quite possible for an experienced man to consummate rape in just one minute,
without attracting the attention of the people inside the apartment . . . . In several cases, the Court has
held that rape can be committed even in places where people congregate: in parks, along the roadside,
within school premises, andWe evenuseinside a house
cookies whereyou
to ensure there
getare
theoccupants . . . .While the defense
would feign incredulity that the crime could take place
best experience at daytime in the house of appellant which is just
on Lawphil.net.
in front the victim's house,Byit continuing
is not impossible that such
to browse brutish
our site, you
act
areof a depraved man was actually
committed there. Lust, it has been repeatedly said, is no
agreeing to our use of cookies. respecter of time and place. (Citations
omitted.) Find out more here.

Thirdly, when Carabella testified that Brendalyn did not see appellant on that fateful night, she did not contradict her
older sister's claim that she saw appellant on top of Carabella on Allan Maglalang's bed. It must be noted that
Brendalyn narrated to the trial court that as she witnessed appellant
OK bestraddling Carabella, only appellant saw her.
It was only after appellant had fled that Carabella saw Brendalyn.

Fourthly, appellant's argument that Leslie's rape could not have been perpetrated since Rubyline was not surprised
to see her coming home alone and crying after it happened, deserves the scantest attention. His thesis is drawn
from the assumptions that Leslie had arrived home after the incident crying, and that her mother, Rubyline, was at
home when she got there. These assumptions, however, are without any factual basis. Hence, appellant's argument
is erroneously presumptuous.

Fifthly, that neither of the victims "suffered shock, serious bleeding, extreme pain as well as loss of consciousness
as a consequence of the sexual assaults" 64 does not mean that they were not raped. It is settled that neither
complete penetration nor ejaculation is necessary to constitute rape. What is essential is that there be penetration of
the female organ, no matter how slight. 65 In the case at bench, the medico-legal findings that Leslie's hymen bore a
healed laceration and that Carabella's hymenal hole was enlarged evidence the occurrence of at least some degree
of penetration into their vaginal orifices. Consistently with this, both minors testified on the matter, to wit:

FISCAL TARIO:

You also said that you were crying, what were you crying about?

(CARABELLA):

A Because it was painful, sir.

Q Which was painful?

A Because he inserted his thing (ano), sir.

Q Where did he insert his thing?

https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/may1995/gr_113057_58_1995.html 5/9
7/21/2021 G.R. No. 113057-58

A (Witness pointing to her private part) 66

and

(FISCAL TARIO):

Q After he set aside your panty, what happened next?

(LESLIE):

A He opened the zipper of his pants, sir, and inserted his penis.

Q Where?

A On my private part, sir.

Q And what did you feel when he inserted his penis into your private part?

A It is very painful, sir. 67

Penultimately, appellant cannot find support for his appeal in what he describes as the "unnatural" behavior of
minors Carabella, Leslie, and even Brendalyn after the rapes. Suffice to stress, it is not proper to judge the actions
of children who have undergone traumatic experiences by the norms of behavior expected under the circumstances
from mature persons. The range of emotion shown by rape victims is yet to be captured even by the calculus. It is
thus unrealistic to expect uniform reactions from rape victims.

Lastly, appellant's guilt cannot be negated by Leslie's testimony that her cousin, Cyril, had overheard her
conversation with Carabella around Christmas time in 1990, instead of in January, 1992, as Rubyline stated. This is
a minor lapse which cannot exculpate appellant. When Cyril actually heard Leslie speaking with Carabella is not
decisive of his guilt or innocence.
We use cookies to ensure you get the
best experience
Independently of the matters raised by appellant, we find thatonthe
Lawphil.net.
court a quo correctly convicted appellant of two
counts of statutory rape, the gravamen ofBywhich
continuing to browse
is the carnal our site,
knowledge of ayou
are below twelve (12) years of age.
woman
68 agreeing
Both Leslie Marris Santos and Carabella Viray to our use ofboth
— undisputably cookies.
six-years-old at the time of the offenses —
positively identified appellant in open court as theFind
manout
whomore
into each of their sexual organs in
here.his penis
inserted
December, 1990 and April, 1991, respectively. This is rape in any language.

Trite to state, appellant's defenses of denial and alibi cannot prevail over his positive identification by the
OKwitnesses could concretely place him away from the
complainants as their rapist. Neither he nor any of his other
scenes of the crime at the times they were committed. His own testimony runs counter to defense witness Jane
Penaloza's assertion that he was staying with her and her husband, and working for them in their house full-time
from August, 1989 until the time of his arrest. Furthermore, even if he were really residing at Penaloza's house at
the time the two rapes took place, the outcome of the case at bench would not be changed. It is admitted that the
house is a mere twelve kilometers from Balon Anito, and the distance between them can be covered in thirty (30)
minutes.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The convictions of appellant JUAN FAJELA
REMOTO by the Regional Trial Court of Balanga, Bataan, Branch 4 in Criminal Cases No. ML-626 and ML-627 for
rape are AFFIRMED IN TOTO.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Regalado and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Both cases were raffled off to RTC Bataan, Branch 4, presided over by Judge Pedro B. Villafuerte, Jr.
They were, respectively, docketed as Crim. Case No. ML-626 and Crim. Case No. ML-627.

2 Testified on August 18, 1992 and August 18, and September 2, 1992, when she was nine (9) years
old.

3 Testified on August 4, 1992, when she was eight (8) years old.

4 Original Records in Crim. Case No. ML-627, p. 1.

https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/may1995/gr_113057_58_1995.html 6/9
7/21/2021 G.R. No. 113057-58

5 Original Records in Crim. Case No. ML-626, p.1.

6 Defense witness who testified on March 24, 1992, when he was twenty-five (25) years old.

7 TSN of March 24, 1992, p. 7.

8 TSN of June 22, 1993, p. 8.

9 TSN of September 23, 1992, p. 5.

10 TSN of August 18, 1992, pp. 6-7.

11 Ibid., at p. 13.

12 Id., at p. 10.

13 Id.

14 Id., at p. 11.

15 Id., at p. 12.

16 Id.

17 Id., at p. 11.

18 TSN of August 4, 1992, p. 17; TSN of September 10, 1992, p. 3.

19 TSN of August 4, 1992, p. 9.

20 Ibid., at p. 15. We use cookies to ensure you get the

best experience on Lawphil.net.
21 Estella and Jesus were at the Mariveles market, selling meat, while Allan was also out. See TSN of
By continuing to browse10,
our1992,
site,p.
you

August 4, 1992, p. 16; See also TSN of September 8. are

agreeing to our use of cookies.
22 TSN of August 4, 1992, p. 21; TSNFind out more
of March here.p. 8.

24, 1992,

23 TSN of August 4, 1992, p. 9.

24 TSN of October 6, 1992, p. 12. OK

25 TSN of August 4, 1992, p. 10.

26 Ibid., at p. 12.

27 Id., at p. 11.

28 Testified on September 2 and 10, 1992, when she was twelve (12) years old.

29 TSN of September 2, 1992, pp. 4-5; TSN of September 10, 1992, p. 5.

30 Ibid., at p. 6; TSN of September 2, 1992, p. 6.

31 Ibid., at p. 7; TSN of September 10, 1992, p. 7.

32 Ibid., at p. 9.

33 TSN of September 2, 1992, p. 7.

34 Id., at p. 8.

35 TSN of September 23, 1992, p. 5.

36 TSN of September 2, 1992, p. 16.

37 Testified on September 23, 1992, when she was twenty-eight (28) years old.

38 TSN of September 23, 1992, p. 6.

39 Ibid., at p. 7.
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/may1995/gr_113057_58_1995.html 7/9
7/21/2021 G.R. No. 113057-58

40 Id., at p. 12.

41 Testified on October 6, 1992, when she was thirty-three (33) years old.

42 Id., at p. 10; TSN of October 6, 1992, p. 6.

43 Ibid., at p. 9.

44 Id., at p. 6.

45 Id., at p. 7; TSN of September 23, 1992, p. 11; See TSN of July 15 and 21, 1992.

46 Exh. "A", Crim. Case No. ML-627, Original Records of Crim. Case No. ML-627, p. 141.

47 Exh. "A", Crim. Case No. ML-626, Original Records of Crim. Case No. ML-626, p. 224.

48 TSN of June 22, 1993, p. 10.

49 Ibid., at p. 6.

50 Id.

51 Id., at p. 7.

52 Testified on June 9, 1993, when she was thirty-one (31) years old.

53 TSN of June 10, 1993, pp. 4-6.

54 Ibid., at pp. 7-8.

55 Impugned Decision, p. 15;

WeRollo,
usep. 56.
cookies to ensure you get the
56 Ibid.
best experience on Lawphil.net.
By continuing to browse our site, you
are
agreeing
57 Brief For The Accused-Appellant, p. 1. to our use of cookies.
Find out more here.

58 Ibid., at pp. 7-8.

59 Impugned Decision, pp. 7 and 12.

OK
60 People v. Guibao, 217 SCRA 64, 73 (1993), citing People v. San Buenaventura, 164 SCRA 150
(1989), People v. Bruca, 179 SCRA 64 (1989), and People v. Salita, 179 SCRA 438 (1989).

61 People v. Coral, 230 SCRA 499, 511 (1994).

62 TSN of September 2, 1992, pp. 4-6; Original Records in Crim. Case No. ML-626.

63 Brief For The Accused-Appellant, p. 8.

64 Ibid., at p. 10.

65 People v. Mario Fabro y Arquiza, G.R. No. 104954, December 13, 1994, citing People v. Dabon, 216
SCRA 656 (1992); People v. Pomentel, 216 SCRA 375 (1992); People v. Generalao, Jr., 213 SCRA
380 (1992); People v. Castro, 196 SCRA 679 (1991); People v. Bacalzo, 195 SCRA 557 (1991); People
v. Yambao, 193 SCRA 571 (1991); People v. Banayo, 195 SCRA 543 (1991); People v. Castillo, 197
SCRA 657 (1991); People v. Tongson, 194 SCRA 257 (1991); and People v. Genores, 193 SCRA 263
(1991).

66 TSN of August 4, 1992, p. 12.

67 TSN of August 18, 1992, pp. 10-11.

68 See People v. Espino, 230 SCRA 788 (1994).

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/may1995/gr_113057_58_1995.html 8/9
7/21/2021 G.R. No. 113057-58

We use cookies to ensure you get the

best experience on Lawphil.net.
By continuing to browse our site, you
are
agreeing to our use of cookies.
Find out more here.

OK

https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/may1995/gr_113057_58_1995.html 9/9