3Republic of tbe flbilippines

$>upreme <!ourt
;§manila

FIRST DIVISION

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a
Resolution dated March 24, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 220752 - (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

plaintiff-appellee v. NOYER BELARMA y LUCHAVEZ, accused-
appellant). - This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated February 25,
2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR. HC. No.
01738 which affirmed the Judgment2 dated August 13, 2013 of
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ormoc City, Branch 35, in Criminal
Case Nos. R-ORM-07-00100-HC and R-ORM-07-00101-HC. The CA
Decision sustained the conviction of Nover Belarma y Luchavez
(Nover) for the crimes of: (1) Statutory Rape penalized under Article
266-A(d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 8353, in relation to R.A. No. 7610; and (2) Rape by
Sexual Assault penalized under the second paragraph of Article 266-A
of the RPC, as amended.

The Antecedent Facts

Two separate Informations were filed charging Nover with the

crimes of statutory rape and rape by sexual assault, committed as
follows:

Criminal Case No. R-ORM-07-00100-HC

That on or about the 2l51 day of May 2007 at around 8:30

o'clock [sic] in the evening at x x x Ormoc and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
NOVER BELARMA y Luchavez by means of force, threat and

- over - fourteen ( 14) pages ...

198

Rollo, pp. 4-15. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles with the concurrence of
Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a Member of this
Court).
Id. at 46-61. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Rogelio R. Joboco.

\
RESOLUTION 2 G.R. No. 220752
March 24, 2021

intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and

feloniously have carnal knowledge of the victim AAA, a minor, 6
years of age, by inserting his penis into the victim's vagina which
sustained several lacerations even if the hymen remains intact,
Medical Certificate hereto attached, making the push and pull
motion until he consummated his lustful desire, without her
consent, against her will, and prejudicial to her development and
well-being as a child.

In violation of Article 266-A(d) of RPC as amended by RA 8353

in relation to RA 7610. 3

Criminal Case No. R-ORM-07-00101-HC

That on or about the 2l51 day of May 2007 at around 8:30

o'clock [sic] in the evening at x x x Ormoc City and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused
NOVER BELARMA y Luchavez, by means of force threat and
intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously sexually assaulted the victim AAA, a minor, 6 years of
age, by inserting his penis into the victim's mouth and
consummated his lustful desire without her consent, against her
will, and prejudicial to her development and well-being as a child.

In violation of Article 266-A, par. 2 of RPC as amended by RA

8353 in relation to RA 7610. 4

Nover was arraigned on September 3, 2007 and pleaded not

guilty to both charges. Trial on the merits ensued. 5

Evidence for the Prosecution

The prosecution presented as its witnesses the victim, AAA, 6

her father-BBB, Dr. Marilyn Pascual (Dr. Pascual), Police Officer
(PO) 3 Nova Tan (PO3 Tan), and Makabayan Fiel.

BBB and Nover were co-workers for a construction company

based in Ormoc City. 7 Upon the advice of their employer, BBB
brought his family, including AAA, to reside temporarily near the

- over -
198

Id. at 5.
Id.
Id.
In line with the Court's ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006); citing the Rule
on Violence Against Women and their Children, Sec. 40; Rules and Regulations
Implementing Republic Act No. 9262, Rule XI, Sec. 63 , otherwise known as the "Anti-
Violence Against Women and their Children Act," the real name of the rape victim will not
be disclosed. The Court will instead use fictitious initials to represent her throughout the
decision. The personal circumstances of the victim or any other information tending to
establish or compromise her identity will likewise be withheld.
7 Rollo, pp. 5-6.
RESOLUTION 3 G.R. No. 220752
March 24, 2021

construction site in Ormoc City. 8 AAA was only six (6) years old at
that time. 9

On the evening of May 21, 2007, Nover brought AAA to the

comfort room located outside her family's temporary house. 10 He
undressed himself and AAA, then put his penis inside her mouth
which made her cry. He then inserted his penis into her vagina
causing her great pain. 11 He thereafter fled and left her in the comfort
room.

After a while, at around 8:30 p.m., BBB went down from the
second floor of the site to eat. He came across his son who told him
that AAA was still somewhere outside. He started looking for AAA
who soon appeared walking towards him while crying and holding her
vagina. BBB immediately asked her what was wrong and she told him
how "Kuya Nover" forced himself upon her in the comfort room. 12

BBB went to Nover' s house to confront him but he could not be

found. 13 The following day, BBB reported the incident to the police.14
PO3 Tan prepared AAA's affidavit and afterwards endorsed her to an
officer of the Department Social Welfare and Development who
assisted in helping AAA get a medical examination. 15

Dr. Pascual, the Municipal Health Officer III of the Ormoc City
Health Office, testified on the results of AAA's medical examination.
As stated in the Medical Certificate issued by her office, there were
lacerations in AAA's hymen at the "1 o'clock, 11 o'clock, 9 o'clock,
10 o'clock, 2 o'clock and 3 o'clock position [which] means that there
were tears and abrasion in the area and that the victim was raped and
the foreign object manipulated in those areas." 16 Further examination
revealed that the specimen taken from AAA's vaginal canal tested
positive for human spermatozoa which was conclusive that AAA was
sexually abused. 17

- over -
198

CA rollo, p. 38.
9 Rollo, p . 6.
°
1
11
CA rollo, p. 50.
Rollo, p. 6.
12 Id.
13 CA rollo, p. 41 .
14 Id.
15
CA rollo, p.48.
16 Id.
11 Id.
RESOLUTION 4 G.R. No. 220752
March 24, 2021

Evidence for the Defense

The defense presented as its witnesses Nover and his father,

Rodolfo Belarma (Rodolfo).

Nover asserted his defenses of alibi and denial. He claimed that

on May 21, 2007, at around 8:30 p.m., he was at home watching
television with his parents, wife, siblings, and co-worker Oscar
Bustamante. He was thus surprised when he returned to Brgy., Bliss to
get scaffolding that there were police officers who arrested him. He
also surmised that BBB charged him for allegedly assaulting to AAA
because BBB and Rodolfo had some kind of atrocity in work. 18

Rodolfo testified to corroborate the claim that on the night of

the incident Nover was in their house watching television with their
family until they went to bed at around 9:00 p.m. However, contrary
to Nover's assertion, he posited that Nover was charged for assaulting
AAA because Nover and BBB were the ones involved in some
altercation at work. 19

RTC Ruling

The RTC issued its Judgment20 dated August 13, 2013

convicting Nover of both statutory rape and rape by sexual assault:

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the

prosecution having proven the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt in both Criminal Case No. R-ORM-07-00100-HC
and Criminal Case No. R-ORM-07-00101-HC, judgment is hereby
rendered as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. R-ORM-07-00100-HC, this

Court finds the accused, NOVER BELARMA y Luchavez,
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Statutory
Rape by having carnal knowledge of AAA who is below 12
years of age at the time of the commission of the offense as
defined and penalized under letter (d) paragraph 1 of
Article 266-A of R.A. 8353 with the qualifying
circumstance under number 5 of Art. 266-B of Republic
Act 8353 that the victim is a child below seven years old as
charged in the Information and hereby sentences him to
suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua; and to indemnify
the victim, "AAA," the amount of P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00
as exemplary damages.

- over -
198

18 Rollo, p. 6.
19 Id.
°
2
CA rollo, pp. 46-61.
RESOLUTION 5 G.R. No. 220752
March 24, 2021

2. In Criminal Case No. R-ORM-07-00101-HC, this

Court finds the accused, NOVER BELARMA y Luchavez,
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Rape by
Sexual Assault as defined and penalized under paragraph 2
of Article 266-A of Republic Act 8353 with the qualifying
circumstance under number 5 of Article 266-B of Republic
Act 8353 that the victim is under 7 years of age as charged
in the Information and hereby sentences him to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of
prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight
(8) months and one (I) day of reclusion temporal, as
maximum and to indemnify the offended party, "AAA,"
civil indemnity of P30,000.00, moral damages of
P30,000.00 and exemplary damages of P30,000.00.

In the service of his sentence, the accused being a detention

prisoner is entitled to be credited with the full time during which
he had undergone preventive imprisonment if he voluntarily agree
[sic] in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed
upon convicted prisoners, otherwise, he shall be credited with only
4/5 thereof, in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal
Code.

SO ORDERED. 21

The RTC appreciated AAA's testimony as clear, credible, and

sufficient to sustain Nover's conviction. AAA positively identified
Nover as the perpetrator of the crime and vividly narrated his acts
done against her. AAA's minor mistake in not being able to remember
the year when the incident occurred did not discredit her testimony
and is not an essential element of the crime. Moreover, AAA's
medical findings were never rebutted by the defense and are
conclusive that she was sexually abused. 22

The RTC noted that defense witness Rodolfo was not a

disinterested witness. As a father, he would naturally testify to try and
exonerate his son from the charges. This was fatal to the defense's
position since an alibi must be sufficiently supported in order to be
credible.23

Aggrieved, Nover appealed the RTC Decision to the CA and

filed his Brief for the Accused-Appellant dated February 3, 2014.24
The People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), likewise filed the Brief for the Plaintiff-
Appellee dated July 21, 2014. 25
- over -
198

21 Id. at 60-61.
22 Id. at 54-55.
23
Id. at 56.
24 CA rollo, pp. 33-45.
25 Id. At 81 -96.
RESOLUTION 6 G.R. No. 220752
March 24, 2021

CA Ruling

The CA issued its Decision26 dated February 25, 2015denying

Nover's appeal and affirming his conviction:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The

Judgment dated August 13, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of
Ormoc City, Branch 35 in Criminal Case Nos. R-ORM-07-00100-
HC and R-ORM-07-00101-HC is hereby AFFIRMED in its
entirety.

SO ORDERED.27

The CA affirmed that AAA' s testimony was direct and

credible. It held that Nover's defenses of denial and alibi were weak
and cannot prevail over AAA's positive identification of him as the
perpetrator of the crime. Further, the inconsistent testimonies of AAA
and BBB on certain matters were trivial and inconsequential, and thus
did not diminish AAA's credibility. 28

Issue

The issue in this case is whether or not the CA committed

reversible error in affirming Nover's conviction for statutory rape and
rape by sexual assault.

Ruling of the Court

The appeal is denied. This Court affirms the convictions with

modification on the penalties imposed.

Both parties filed Manifestations before this Court that they will
adopt their respective appeal briefs filed with the CA in lieu of
Supplemental Briefs.29

Nover argued on appeal that the prosecution failed to prove his

guilt beyond reasonable doubt because AAA' s testimony was not
credible. He alleged that AAA's testimony was inconsistent with
BBB' s. AAA testified that after she told BBB about the incident, BBB
went to Nover' s house and punched him. On the other hand, BBB

- over -
198

26
Rollo, pp. 4-15.
27 Id.atl5.
28 Id. at 12- I 4.
29
Rollo, pp. 26-28, 32-34.
 RESOLUTION 7 G.R. No. 220752
March 24, 2021

testified that he went to Nover's house but could not find him there. 30
He also claimed that AAA' s testimony was not straightforward since
the prosecution needed to ask leading questions to her to elicit the
facts. 31

It was also argued that there could not have been sexual
intercourse since Dr. Pascual gave an opinion during her testimony
that the lacerations in AAA' s hymen could have been caused by a
finger instead of a male organ.

At the outset, this Court rejects Nover's arguments assailing

AAA' s credibility as a witness. It is settled that the determination of
the credibility of witnesses is left to the trial court considering it is in
the best position to determine the truthfulness of witnesses and
observe their demeanour and bodily movements during trial. Absent
any substantial or compelling reasons, the reviewing court is generally
bound by the trial court's findings. This principle is stringently
applied if the CA concurs with the trial court's findings. 32

There is no compelling reason in this case to disturb the RTC' s

appreciation of AAA's testimony as clear, straightforward, and
credible, more so since this was affirmed by the CA. AAA' s
testimony was also corroborated by medical findings which the
defense failed to refute and the testimonies of other witnesses.

It is also established that when offended parties are young and

immature girls, courts are more inclined to lend credence to their
version of what transpired, not only because of their relative
vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment which they
would be exposed by the trial, if the matter about which they testified
were not true. 33 A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of
defloration; publicly admit having been raped; allow the examination
of her private parts; and undergo all the trouble, inconvenience,
trauma, and scandal of a public trial, had she not been truly raped and
moved to protect and preserve her honor, and obtain justice for the
wicked acts committed against her. 34 AAA was only 10 years old
when she was presented as a witness during trial and was such kind of
witness whose testimony is given credence by the court.

- over -
198

3
°
31
CA rollo, p. 41.
Id. at 42-43.
32 People v. Banzuela, 723 Phil. 797, 814(2013).
33 People v. Nachor, 652 Phil. 756, 760 (2010); People v. Magayon, 640 Phil. 121, 135 (2010).
34 People ofthe Philippines v. Chingh, 661 Phil. 208,218 (2011).
RESOLUTION 8 G.R. No. 220752
March 24, 2021

This Court rejects Nover's arguments that AAA's credibility as

a witness was affected by the fact that the prosecution asked leading
questions to elicit information. Section 20 of the Rule on Examination
of Child Witness35 explicitly allows leading questions to be asked to
child witnesses such AAA:

Sec. 20. Leading questions. - The court may allow leading

questions in all stages of examination of a child if the same will
further the interests of justice.

Nover Is Guilty of Statutory

Rape

Statutory rape 1s penalized under Article 266-A(l)(d) of the

RPC, as amended:

Article 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. - Rape 1s

committed:

1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under

any of the following circumstances:

x xxx

d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of

age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present.

To be convicted of statutory rape, the following elements must

concur: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2)
the victim is below twelve (12) years old. 36

Sexual intercourse with a woman below twelve (12) years of

age is punishable as rape under the law. Any proof of force, threat,
intimidation, or consent becomes immaterial. The law presumes the
absence of free consent because a woman of such tender age does not
possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to
the sexual act. 37 A conviction will lie once sexual intercourse is
proven. 38

In this case, the CA correctly held that the prosecution

sufficiently established the elements of the crime of statutory rape.

- over -
198

35 A.M. No. 004-07-SC, November 2 1, 2000.

36 People v. Bagsic, 822 Phil. 784, 797 (2017).
37 People v. Banz uela, supra note 32 at 817.
38
People v. Magay on, supra note 33 at 133 .
RESOLUTION 9 G.R. No. 220752
March 24, 2021

Firstly, the prosecution presented AAA' s birth certificate which

indicated that she was born on August 25, 2000. This is conclusive
proof that she was only six (6) years and nine (9) months old when
she was raped on May 21, 2007.

Secondly, AAA's testimony was clear and credible, and

sufficiently proved Nover's acts of forcing himself upon her to have
sexual intercourse. The element of carnal knowledge was established
through the following testimony:

Q Do you know the accused in this case in the person ofNover

Belarma?
A Yes, I knew him, sir.

Q Why do you know Nover?

A He told me his name.

Q Does he live near your house?

A Yes, sir.

Q What can you say about Nover, is he a good person?

A The witness is nodding, so it means "no". Shake her head.

Q Why did you shake your head?

A He is "lain mana siya"

Q Did he do something bad to you?

A Yes[,] he did, sir.

Q What did he do to you?

A He brought me to the comfort room.

Q Comfort room of what?

A The last comfort room.

Q Where is this comfort room located?

A It is located inside.

Q Is it near your house or inside your house?

A It is located outside our house.

Q What did he do to you?

A He raped me sir.

Q When you said he raped you, what exactly did he do to you?

A He undressed me.

Q And thereafter what did he do to you?

A He also undressed himself.

- over -
198
RESOLUTION 10 G.R. No. 220752
March 24, 2021

Q Thereafter what happened?

A He raped me.

xxxx

Q Were you able to see his penis at that time?

A Yes, sir.

Q What did he do with his penis?

A He inserted it in my mouth.

Q What was your reaction?

A I was afraid.

Q Did you not cry?

A I cried, sir.

Q What did he do next?

A My father called me.

Q How about inserting his penis to your vagina, did he do that?

A Yes, sir.

Q Is that [before] he put his penis inside your mouth or after?

A He inserted first his penis on my mouth.

Q What did you feel when he inserted his penis to your vagina?
A I felt pain.

Q Where is that portion of your body that you felt pain?

A My vagina. 39

AAA' s testimony was corroborated by the medical findings

which established that she was sexually abused. It was also supported
by the testimonies of BBB and P03 Tan who testified on their
interactions with her after she confided with them.

The CA correctly rejected Nover's defenses of denial and alibi.

Denial and alibi are inherently weak and self-serving defenses which
cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive
declaration of a credible witness. 40 Nover's denial and alibi were
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence and cannot prevail
over AAA's straightforward and credible testimony.

- over -
198

39 Rollo, pp. 52-54.

40 People v. Nachor, supra note 33 at 775.
RESOLUTION 11 G.R. No. 220752
March 24, 2021

Nover Is Guilty of Rape

Through Sexual Assault

Rape by sexual assault is penalized under the second paragraph

of Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended:

Article 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. - Rape is

committed:

xxxx

2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned

in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by
inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or
any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another
person.

Based on the foregoing, this Court enumerated the following

elements of rape by sexual assault:

1. That the offender commits an act of sexual assault;

2. That the act of sexual assault is committed by any of the

following means:

a. By inserting his penis into another person's mouth or

anal orifice; or
b. By inserting any instrument or object into the genital or
anal orifice of another person;

3. That the act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the

following circumstances:

a. By using force and intimidation;

b. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; or
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority; or
d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented.

All the foregoing elements were established by the

prosecution in this case. 41

The first and second elements were established through AAA's

testimony, as quoted above, that Nover intentionally inserted his penis
into AAA' s mouth after undressing her which made the latter cry. The
third element was established through AAA's birth certificate proving

- over -
198

41 People v. Bagsic, supra note 36 at 800. Emphasis and underscoring supplied.

RESOLUTION 12 G.R. No. 220752
March 24, 2021

that she was only six (6) years and nine (9) months old one the date of
the incident.

This Court finds no convincing reason to disturb the findings of

the RTC and CA which were duly supported by the evidence on
record.

Penalties

Statutory rape is penalized under Article 266-B of the RPC, as

amended, as follows:

Article 266-B. Penalty. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next

preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

xxxx

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is

committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
circumstances:

xxxx

5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;

In this case, since AAA was only six ( 6) years and nine (9)
months old when she was raped, Nover should have been imposed the
death penalty. However, as the imposition of the death penalty was
prohibited by R.A. No. 9346, this Court modifies the penalty imposed
to reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole.

This Court modifies the amount of damages awarded to AAA

consistent with the guidelines established in People v. Jugueta. 42 The
amount of civil indemnity is increased from P75,000.00 to
Pl 00,000.00. Moral damages are increased from P75,000.00 to
Pl 00,000.00. Exemplary damages are increased from P30,000.00 to
Pl 00,000.00.

Rape through sexual assault is likewise penalized under Article

266-B of the RPC, as amended, as follows:

Article 266-B. Penalty. - xx x

Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be

punished by prision mayor.

- over -
198

42
783 Phil. 806 (2016).
RESOLUTION 13 G.R. No. 220752
March 24, 2021

xxxx

Reclusion temporal shall be imposed if the rape is committed with

any of the ten aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned in
this article.

In People v. Tulagan, 43 this Court established that the

imposable penalty for the crime of sexual assault under paragraph 2,
Article 266-A of the RPC, when committed against a victim who is
below twelve (12) years old or is demented, should be in relation to
Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, and is therefore reclusion
temporal in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty is that which could
be properly imposed under the law, which is fifteen ( 15) years, six (6)
months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal. The minimum
term shall be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree,
reclusion temporal in its minimum period, or twelve (12) years and
one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months.

This Court thus modifies the penalty imposed on Nover to the

indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and
twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fifteen
(15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal,
as maximum.

This Court also increases the damages awarded to AAA

pursuant to Tulagan. The Court awards civil indemnity of P50,000.00,
moral damages of P50,000.00, and exemplary damages of P50,000.00.
All damages awarded shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent
(6%) per annum from the date of finality of the judgment until fully
paid.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is denied. The Decision dated

February 25, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR. HC.
No. 01738 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.

In Criminal Case No. R-ORM-07-00100-HC, accused-appellant

Nover Belarma y Luchavez is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of statutory rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. He is ordered to pay
AAA the amounts of Pl00,000.00 as civil indemnity, Pl00,000.00 as
moral damages, and Pl 00,000.00 as exemplary damages.

In Criminal Case No. R-ORM-07-00101-HC, accused-appellant

Nover Belarma y Luchavez is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
- over -
198

43
G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.
 RESOLUTION 14 G.R. No. 220752
March 24, 2021

rape through sexual assault, in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of

Republic Act No. 7610, and sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and twenty-one (21)
days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6)
months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He
is ordered to pay AAA the amounts of PS0,000.00 as civil indemnity,
PS0,000.00 as moral damages, and PS0,000.00 as exemplary damages.

The amounts of damages awarded shall have an interest of six

percent ( 6%) per annum from the date of finality of judgment until
fully paid.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

. VENA
lerkofCom~

by:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULO

Deputy Division Clerk of Court
198

The Solicitor General Court of Appeals

134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village 6000 Cebu City
1229 Makati City (CA-G.R. CEB CR HC No. 01738)

The Hon. Presiding Judge

Regional Trial Court, Branch 35
Ormoc City, 6541 Leyte
The Superintendent (Crim. Case Nos. R-ORM-07-00100-HC &
Leyte Regional Prison R-ORM-07-00 IO 1-HC)
Abuyog, 6510 Southern Leyte
PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Public Information Office (x) Regional Special and Appealed Cases Unit
Library Services (x) Counsel for Accused-Appellant
Supreme Court 3rd Floor, Taft Commercial Center
(For uploading pursuant to A.M. Metro Colon Carpark
No. 12-7-1-SC) Osmeiia Boulevard, 6000 Cebu City

Philippine Judicial Academy (x) Mr. Nover L. Belarrna

Supreme Court Accused-Appellant
c/o The Superintendent
Judgment Division (x) Leyte Regional Prison
Supreme Court Abuyog, 6510 Southern Leyte

UR

., ,. r.