SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

REPORTS OF CASES

SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES

________________

No. L-36840. May 22, 1973.

PEOPLE'S CAR,INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs. COMMANDO

SECURITY SERVICE AGENCY, defendant-appellee.

Obligations and Contracts; Contracts; Security and

Investigation Agencies; Interpretation of Contracts; Liability of a
security and investigation agency to the employer for damages
incurreed by the latter's customer as a result of guard's intentional
act.—The contract between the security agency and the employer
provides as follows:

41

VOL. 51, MAY 22, 1973 41

People's Car, Inc. vs. Commando Security Service Agency

"Par. 4.—Party of the Second Part (defendant) through the

negligence of its guards, after an investigation has been
conducted by the Party of the First Part (plaintiff) wherein the
Party of the Second Part has been duly represented, shall assume
full responsibilities for any loss or damages that may occur to any
property of the Party of the First Part for which it is accountable,
during the watch hours of the Party of the Second Part, provided
the same is reported to the Party of the Second Part within
twenty four (24) hours of the occurrence, except where such loss

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 1 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

or damage is due to force majeure, provided however that after

the proper investigation to be made thereof that the guard on post
is found negligent and that the amount of the loss shall not exceed
ONE THOUSAND (P1,000.00) PESOS per guard post.
"Par. 5.—The party of the Second Part assumes the
responsibility for the proper performance by the guards employed,
of their duties and (shall) be solely responsible for the acts done
during their watch hours, the Party of the First Part being
specifically released to the former's employee or to the third
parties arising from the acts or omissions done by the guards
during their tour of duty."

On the basis of the foregoing contract provisions, it was

held that where during guards hours, a guard of the
security agency (defendant) employed in the plaintiff's
premises took, without permission, a car belonging to one
of the latter's customers, drove it outside and while thus
driving it lost control of the car resulting in actual damages
amounting to P8,489.10 which was paid by the plaintiff to
its customer, the security agency is liable to the plaintiff to
the full amount of P8,489.10 under par. 5 of the above
contract and not under par. 4 thereof as said par. 4 is by its
own terms applicable only for loss or damage "through the
negligence of its guards . . . during the watch hours". Here,
the defendant's own guard on duty unlawfully and
wrongfully drove out of plaintiff's premises a customer's car
causing damages thereto.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of

Davao.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

TEEHANKEE, J.:

In this appeal from the adverse judgment of the Davao

court

42

42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People's Car, Inc. vs. Commando Security Service Agency

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 2 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

of first instance limiting plaintiff-appellant's recovery

under its complaint to the sum of P1,000.00 instead of the
actual damages of P8,489.10 claimed and suffered by it as a
direct result of the wrongful acts of defendant security
agency's guard assigned at plaintiffs premises in pursuance
of their
"Guard Service Contract", the Court finds merit in the
appeal and accordingly reverses the trial court's judgment.
The appeal was certified to this Court by a special division
of the Court of Appeals on a four-to-one vote as per its
resolution of April 14, 1973 that "since the case was
submitted to the court a quo for decision on the strength of
the stipulation of facts, only questions of law can be
involved in the present appeal." The Court has accepted
such certification and docketed this appeal on the strength
of its own finding from the records that plaintiff's notice of
appeal was expressly to this Court 1
(not to the appellate
court) "on pure questions of law" and its record on appeal
accordingly prayed that "the corresponding records be 2
certified and forwarded to the Honorable Supreme
3
Court."
The trial court so approved the same on July 3, 1971
instead of having required the filing of a petition for review
of the judgment sought to be appealed from directly with
this Court, in accordance with the provisions of Republic
Act 5440. By some unexplained and hitherto undiscovered
error of the clerk of court, furthermore, the record on
appeal was erroneously forwarded to the appellate court
rather than to this Court.
The parties submitted the case for judgment on a
stipulation of facts. There is thus no dispute as to the
factual bases of plaintiff's complaint for recovery of actual
damages against defendant, to wit, that under the
subsisting "Guard Service Contract" between the parties,
defendant-appellee as a duly licensed security service
agency undertook in consideration of the payments made
by plaintiff "to safeguard and protect the business premises
of (plaintiff) from theft, pilferage, robbery, vandalism and
all other unlawful acts of any person or persons

_________________

1 Rec. on appeal, p. 39.

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 3 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

2 Idem, pp. 40-41.

3 Idem, p. 42.

43

VOL. 51, MAY 2, 1973 43

People's Car, Inc. vs. Commando Security Service Agency
4
prejudicial to the interest of (plaintiff)."
On April 5, 1970 at around 1:00 A.M., however,
defendant's security guard on duty at plaintiff's premises,
"without any authority, consent, approval, knowledge or
orders of the plaintiff and/or defendant brought out of the
compound of the plaintiff a car belonging to its customer,
and drove said car to a place or places unknown,
abandoning his post as such security guard on duty inside
the plaintiff's compound, and while so driving said car in
one of the City streets lost control of said car, causing the
same to fall into a ditch along J.P. Laurel St., Davao City
by reason of which the plaintiff's complaint for qualified
theft against said driver, was blottered in the office of the
5
Davao City Police Department."
As a result of these wrongful acts of defendant's security
guard, the car of plaintiff's customer, Joseph Luy, which
had been left with plaintiff for servicing and maintenance,
"suffered extensive damage in the total amount of
6
P7,079.10" besides the car rental value "chargeable to
defendant" in the sum of P1,410.00 for a car that plaintiff
had to rent and make available to its said customer to
enable him to pursue his business and occupation for the
period of forty-seven (47) days (from April 25 to June 710,
1970) that it took plaintiff to repair the damaged car, or
total actual damages incurred by plaintiff in the sum of
P8,489.10.
Plaintiff claimed that defendant was liable for the entire
amount under paragraph 5 of their contract whereunder
defendant assumed "sole responsibility for the acts done
during their watch hours" by its guards, whereas defendant
contended, without questioning the amount of the actual
damages incurred by plaintiff, that its liability "shall not
exceed one thousand (P1,000.00) pesos per guard post"
under paragraph 4 of their contract.

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 4 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

The parties thus likewise stipulated on this sole issue

submitted by them for adjudication, as follows:

______________

4 Annex A , complaint, Rec. on app., pp. 8-13.

5 Par. 1, Stipulation of Facts, Rec. on app., p. 24.
6 Par. 2, idem.
7 Par. 3, idem.

44

44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People's Car, Inc. vs. Commando Security Service Agency

"Interpretation of the contract, as to the extent of the liability of

the defendant to the plaintiff by reason of the acts of the
employees of the defendant is the only issue to be resolved.
"The defendant relies on Par. 4 of the contract to support its
contention while the plaintiff relies on Par. 5 of the same contract
in support of its claims against the defendant. For ready reference
they are quoted hereunder:

' Par. 4.—Party of the Second Part (defendant) through the negligence of
its guards, after an investigation has been conducted by the Party of the
First Part (plaintiff) wherein the Party of the Second Part has been duly
represented, shall assume full responsibilities for any loss or damages
that may occur to any property of the Party of the First Part for which it
is accountable, during the watch hours of the Party of the Second Part,
provided the same is reported to the Party of the Second Part within
twenty-four (24) hours of the occurrence, except where such loss or
damage is due to force majeure, provided however that after the proper
investigation to be made thereof that the guard on post is found negligent
and that the amount of the loss shall not exceed ONE THOUSAND
(P1,000.00) PESOS per guard post.'
'Par. 5—The party of the Second Part assumes the responsibility for
the proper performance by the guards employed, of their duties and
(shall) be solely responsible for the acts done during their watch hours,
the Party of the First Part being specifically released from any and all
liabilities to the former's employee or to the third parties arising from the
8
acts or omissions done by the guards during their tour of duty.' "

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 5 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

The trial court, misreading the above-quoted contractual

provisions, held that "the liability of the defendant in favor of the
plaintiff falls under paragraph 4 of the Guard Service Contract"
and rendered judgment "finding the defendant liable to the
plaintiff in the amount of P1,000.00 with costs."

Hence, this appeal, which, as already indicated, is

meritorious and must be granted.
Paragraph 4 of the contract, which limits defendant's

________________

8 Rec. on app., pp. 26-27; notes in parentheses supplied.

45

VOL. 51, MAY 22, 1973 45

People's Car, Inc. vs. Commando Security Service Agency

liability for the amount of loss or damage to any property of

plaintiff to "P1,000.00 per guard post," is by its own terms
applicable only for loss or damage "through the negligence
of its guards . . . during the watch hours" provided that the
same is duly reported by plaintiff within 24 hours of the
occurrence and the guard's negligence is verified after
proper investigation with the attendance of both
contracting parties. Said paragraph is manifestly
inapplicable to the stipulated facts of record, which involve
neither property of plaintiff that has been lost or damaged
at its premises nor mere negligence of defendant's security
guard on duty.
Here, instead of defendant, through its assigned security
guards, complying with its contractual undertaking "to
safeguard and protect the business premises of (plaintiff)
from theft, robbery, vandalism and all other unlawful acts
of any person or persons," defendant's own guard on duty
unlawfully and wrongfully drove out of plaintiff's premises
a customer's car, lost control of it on the highway causing it
to fall into a ditch, thereby directly causing plaintiff to
incur actual damages in the total amount of P8,489.10.
Defendant is therefore undoubtedly liable to indemnify
plaintiff for the entire damages thus incurred, since under

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 6 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

paragraph 5 of their contract it "assumed the responsibility

for the proper performance by the guards employed of their
duties and (contracted to) be solely responsible for the acts
done during their watch hours" and "specifically released
(plaintiff) from any and all liabilities . . . to the third
parties arising from the acts or omissions done by the
guards during their tour of duty." As plaintiff had duly
discharged its liability to the third party, its customer,
Joseph Luy, for the undisputed damages of P8,489.10
caused said customer, due to the wanton and unlawful act
of defendant's guard, defendant in turn was clearly liable
under the terms of paragraph 5 of their contract to
indemnify plaintiff in the same amount.
The trial court's approach that "had plaintiff understood
the liability of the defendant to fall under paragraph 5, it
should have told Joseph Luy, owner of the car, that under
the Guard Service Contract, it was not liable for the
damage but the defendant and had Luy insisted on the
liability of the plaintiff,

46

46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People's Car, Inc. vs. Commando Security Service Agency

the latter should have challenged him to bring the matter

to court. If Luy accepted the challenge and instituted an
action against the plaintiff, it should have filed a third-
party complaint against the Commando Security Service
Agency. But if Luy instituted the action against the
plaintiff and the defendant, the9 plaintiff should have filed a
crossclaim against the latter," was unduly technical and
unrealistic and untenable.
Plaintiff was in law liable to its customer for the
damages caused the customer's car, which had been
entrusted into its custody. Plaintiff therefore was in law
justified in making good such damages and relying in turn
on defendant to honor its contract and indemnify it for such
undisputed damages, which had been caused directly by
the unlawful and wrongful acts of defendant's security
guard in breach of their contract. As ordained in Article
1159, Civil Code, "obligations arising from contracts have

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 7 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

the force of law between the contracting parties and should

be complied with in good faith."
Plaintiff in law could not tell its customer, as per the
trial court's view, that "under the Guard Service Contract
it was not liable for the damage but the defendant"—since
the customer could not hold defendant to account for the
damages as he had no privity of contract with defendant.
Such an approach of telling the adverse party to go to
court, notwithstanding his plainly valid claim, aside from
its ethical deficiency among others, could hardly create any
goodwill for plaintiff's business, in the same way that
defendant's baseless attempt to evade fully discharging its
contractual liability to plaintiff cannot be expected to have
brought it more business. Worse, the administration of
justice is prejudiced, since the court dockets are unduly
burdened with unnecessary litigation.
ACCORDINGLY, the judgment appealed from is hereby
reversed and judgment is hereby rendered sentencing
defendant-appellee to pay plaintiff-appellant the sum of
P8,489.10 as and by way of reimbursement of the
stipulated actual damages and expenses, as well as the
costs of suit in both instances. It is so ordered.

_______________

9 Decision, Rec. on App., pp. 29-30.

47

VOL. 51, MAY 22, 1973 47

People's Car, Inc. vs. Commando Security Service Agency

Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Barredo,

Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed.

Notes.·Rules on interpretation of contracts.—Where

the provisions of a contract are ambiguous, such ambiguity
must be construed against the party who drafted the same.
(Coscolluela vs. Valderama, 2 SCRA 1095). Where the
provisions of a contract are ambiguous, and there is

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 8 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

sufficient evidence showing the existence of other

agreements collateral thereto, such parol evidence is
admissible to prove the real agreement of the parties
(Ibid.).
The previous, simultaneous and subsequent acts of the
contracting parties are properly cognizable indicia of their
true intention (Bacordo vs. Alcantara, 14 SCRA 730).
The term "accident" and "accidental" as used in
insurance contracts, have not acquired any technical
meaning and they are construed by the courts in their
ordinary and common acceptation (De la Cruz vs. Capitol
Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., 17 SCRA 559).
To ascertain the meaning of the provisions of a contract,
its entirety must be taken into account and not merely its
last two sentences (Ruiz vs. Sheriff of Manila, 34 SCRA
83).
The interpretation of contracts involves a question of
law since the contract is in the nature of the law between
the parties and their successors-in-interest (Melliza vs. City
of Iloilo, 23 SCRA 477).

LEGAL RESEARCH SERVICE

See SCRA Quick Index-Digest, volume 1, page 453 on

Contracts.
See also SCRA Quick Index-Digest, volume 2, page 1643
on Obligations.
Caguioa, E.P., Comments and Cases on Civil Law,
volume 4,

48

48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Llamera

1968 Edition.
Jurado, D.P., Comments and Jurisprudence on
Obligations and Contracts, 1969 Edition.
Padilla, A.., Obligations and Contracts, volume 4, Civil
Code, 1967 Edition.
Tolentino, A.M., Obligations and Contracts, volume 4,
Civil Code, 1972 Edition.

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 9 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

--------------o0o--------------

Nos. L-21604-5-6. May 25, 1973.

THE PEOPLE OP THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. TOMAS LLAMERA, GERARDO LLAMERA, COLETO
LLAME-RA and RUBENCIO LLORCA, defendants-
appellants.

Criminal Law; Conspiracy; Clear and Convincing Evidence

necessary to establish existence of conspiracy.—Conspiracy must
be shown to exist, by direct and circumstantial evidence, as
clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself.
Same; Aggravating Crcumstances; Cruelty; When considered
as an aggravating circumstance. For cruelty to be considered an
aggravating circumstance, it is essential that the wrong done was
intended to prolong the suffering of the victim, causing him
unnecessary moral and physical pain.
Same; Justifying Circumstances; Self Defense; Burden of proof
rests upon accused to establish self-defense with sufficient and
convincing evidence.—It is a well-settled rule that one who admits
the infliction of injuries which caused the death of another has
the burden of proving self-defense with sufficient and convincing
evidence. If such evidence is of doubtful veracity, and is not clear
and convincing, the defense must necessarily fail, for "having
admitted that he was the author of the death of the deceased, it
was incumbent upon appellant, in order to avoid criminal
liability, to prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him"
without relying on the weakness of that of the prosecution but on
the strength of his own evidence, for even if the evidence of the
prosecution were weak "it

49

VOL. 51, MAY 25, 1973 49

People vs. Llamera

could not be disbelieved after the accused himself had admitted

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 10 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

the killing."

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of

Surigao.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

ANTONIO, J.:

Appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of

Surigao convicting appellants Tomas Llamera, Gerardo
Llamera, Coleto Llamera and Rubencio Llorca in Criminal
Cases Nos. 3654, 3655 and 3656 after a joint trial, of the
crime of murder, for the slaying of Celso Degamo, Manuel
Degamo and Egenio Degamo and sentencing them, in spite
of its finding that the crime was attended by the
aggravating circumstance of cruelty (ensañamiento) as
regards the appellants Tomas Llamera, Gerardo Llamera
and Rubencio Llorca and recidivism with respect to the
appellant Coleto Llamera, to suffer for each case, the
penalty of reclusión perpetua and to indemnify jointly and
severally the heirs of each of the victims in the sum of
P3,000.00 each and to pay the costs.
During the pendency of this appeal, appellant Coleto
Llamera died of "enteritis" on October 19, 1972 in the New
Bilibid Prison Hospital, Muntinglupa, Rizal, and
consequently on December 11, 1972 this Court dismissed
the case against him, but only with respect to his criminal
liability.
There appears to be no dispute that this tragic
denouement was the culmination of a controversy between
the victims and the appellants, over the possession of a
piece of riceland situated near the house of Manuel
Degamo at Sitio Dapia, of the town of Albor, Province of
Surigao del Norte. According to the evidence of the
prosecution, Tomas Llamera had previously wrested from
the Degamos, the possession of the riceland. This led to the
filing by the Degamos of an action of forcible entry against
Tomas Llamera with the municipal court of Albor, and this
suit resulted in a judgment for the Degamos. While Tomas
Llamera admits of the filing of the case, he however
claimed that he was not aware of its result. At any rate a
few days prior to the incident in question, the Llameras

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 11 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

had encroached upon

50

50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Llamera

another portion of the land of the Degamos by plowing it.

The Degamos countered this encroachment by having the
plowed land trampled by their carabaos on December 8,
1972 in preparation for their planting thereon the following
day. It was therefore for the purpose of planting thereon
that the Degamo brothers, Manuel, Celso and Egenio,
proceeded to the disputed riceland in the early morning of
December 9, 1962. And it was on their return from the
ricefields, that the tragedy occurred.
Thus at about 6:00 o'clock on the morning of that day,
Carmen Degamo Torillo was in the house of her brother
Manuel, waiting for their return. She declared that at that
hour when she looked out of the window of the house, she
saw in the adjacent house of Gerardo Llamera, appellants
Gerardo and Coleto Llamera at the steps of the ladder of
the house. At this precise moment, Manuel Degamo, Celso
Degamo and Egenio Degamo emerged from the landing
place walking in single file, proceeding towards the house
of Manuel. As they were walking in that manner she heard
a gun report coming from the house of Gerardo Llamera,
and saw Egenio fall to the ground. As she looked towards
the direction where the gun report came from, she saw
appellant Coleto Llamera, by the window of the house,
holding a long gun, in a bending position, from which
source two successive gun reports subsequently emanated.
Celso and Manuel Degamo who had momentarily earlier
turned their faces towards the direction of appellant Coleto
Llamera after the first gun report, fell one after the other,
as an aftermath of the two successive shots—Celso
staggering momentarily, then falling flat on his face near a
carabao's wallowing place, while Manuel collapsed on the
left side of the road.
After the collapse of Manuel, Carmen Degamo Torillo
saw appellants Tomas Llamera and Gerardo Llamera both
armed with bolos, descend from the stairs of Gerardo's

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 12 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

house, followed by Romualda Llamera, holding a piece of

wood in her hands. Appellants Tomas and Gerardo
Llamera proceeded to the place where Celso and Egenio
Degamo had fallen, and stabbed the two victims with their
bolos. Romualda Llamera in turn hit the fallen Manuel
Degamo with the piece of wood. A few minutes later Coleto
Llamera, still holding the long gun together with appellant
Rubencio Llorca with a revolver in his hands, came down
the same house, and after looking briefly at

51

VOL. 51, MAY 25, 1973 51

People vs. Llamera

the three fallen victims, left the scene of the crime, and
proceeded towards the direction of the landing place at the
creek in Tobongan.
According to the Chief of Police of Albor, appellants
Tomas and Gerardo Llamera arrived at the municipal
building at about 7:30 a.m. that same day, and admitted to
him that they killed the three Degamo brothers and
delivering at the same time to said official, the bolo of
Egenio Degamo (Exh. D-4) and two other bolos (Exhibits E
and F) which they allegedly used in the commission of the
crime. Carmen Degamo Torillo also arrived at the office of
the Chief of Police, to inform him that his three brothers
were killed by the four appellants.
After receiving the report, the Chief of Police arrested
Coleto Llamera and Rubencio Llorca in their respective
houses in the poblacion and later together with the Mayor
of Albor, proceeded to sitio Dapia which they reached after
20 minutes by paddle boat. Near a group of three houses at
Tobongan, adjacent to a trail, he saw the bodies of the
three deceased. According to the sketch prepared by the
Chief of Police at the scene of the incident (Exhibit H) the
bodies of the three victims were lying in a triangular
position, with the bodies of Egenio Degamo and Manuel
Degamo about 17 meters apart forming the base of the
triangle, and the body of Celso Degamo lying in the
ricefields and which was 7 meters from the feet of Egenio
and 18 meters from the side of Manuel, at the apex of the

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 13 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

triangle. The bodies of Egenio and Manuel Degamo which

were nearer the house of Gerardo Llamera were 13 meters
and 16 meters respectively from Gerardo's house. A few
meters to the east of the place where the three had fallen
was the house of Manuel Degamo. Behind the houses of
Gerardo Llamera and Felix Llamera was a wide creek.
On December 11, 1962, Dr. Jose R. Mandapat, Rural
Health Officer of Loreto, arrived at the town of Albor to
conduct a post mortem examination of the cadavers of the
three deceased. His post mortem findings (Exhibit A) are as
follows:
In Criminal Case No. 3654 (L-21604):
"This is to certify that I examined the dead body of Celso

52

52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Llamera

Degamo, 36 years of age, married and presently residing at Albor,

Surigao del Norte.
"He was found to be suffering from the following wounds
caused by:

a— Bolo wound lacerated on the right occipital region down to

the nuchal region measuring about 8 inches in length and
6 inches in width.
b— Gunshot wound on the right hypochondriac region
penetrating to the right scapular region measuring about
7 inches in length and 4 inches in width.
c— Abrasion on the hypochondriac and scapular region, right.

The cause of death of Celso Degamo is Hemorrhage, Internal."

(Folder of Exhibits, p. 50.)
In Criminal Case Nase No. 3655 (L-21605):
"This is to certify that I examined the dead body of Manuel
Degamo, 31 years of age, married and presently residing at Albor,
Surigao del Norte.
"He was found to be suffering from the following wounds
caused by:

a— Gunshot wound with an entrance to the right mammary

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 14 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

region measuring one inch in length and 1/2 inch in width

penetrating from the right scapular region measuring
about 5 and half inches in length and 5 inches in width.
b— Abrasion on the mammary and scapular region, right.
c— Swelling with hematoma caused by a piece of wood on the
right superior labial region with a wound on the lower lip
measuring about l/2 inch in width.

The cause of death of Manuel Degamo is Hemorrhage,

Internal. (Folder of Exhibits, p. 35.)
"This is to certify that I examined the dead body of Egenio
Degamo, 34 years of age, married and presently residing at Albor,
Surigao del Norte.
He was found to be suffering from the following wounds caused
by:

a— Gunshot wound with an entrance to the umbilical region

53

VOL. 51, MAY 25, 1973 53

People vs. Llamera

penetrating to the left lumbar region causing the large

intestines to protrude and the large intestine that is
protruded was found to have holes. With this the small
intestine is also protruded measuring about 8 inches in
length, on the left lumbar region.
b— Abrasion on the lumbar region and umbilical region, right.
c— Wound lacerated caused by a bolo involving the skin,
superficial fascia, muscles and causing the radial and
ulnar nerve, vein, artery cut off measuring about 7 inches
in length and 3 inches in width on the ulnar antibrachial
region, right.
d— Bolo wound lacerated on the dorsal surface of the right
hand measuring 2 inches in length and one inch in width
involving the skin, superficial fascia and the muscle.

The cause of death of Egenio Degamo is also Hemorrhage,

Internal." (Folder of Exhibits, p. 31.)

The Chief of Police of Albor on the basis of his investigation

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 15 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

filed a complaint for multiple murder against Tomas

Llamera, Gerardo Llamera, Coleto Llamera, Rubencio
Llorca and Romualda Llorca. The case was subsequently
remanded to the Court of First Instance of Surigao del
Norte where the Provincial Fiscal in accordance with his
opinion that three different crimes were committed on the
same occasion, filed three separate informations for murder
against the five accused which were docketed as Criminal
Cases Nos. 3654, 3655 and 3656. The Court of First
Instance conducted a joint trial of the three cases and after
the prosecution rested its case, on motion of the defense,
dismissed the case with respect to the accused Romualda
Llorca. The trial continued with respect to the remaining
four accused. On June 5, 1963 the trial court promulgated
the judgment in the three cases, which is now the subject of
this appeal.
On June 20, 1963, Tomas Llamera, Gerardo Llamera,
Coleto Llamera and Rubencio Llorca, appealed to this
Court from said judgment.
The thrust of the brief of the counsel de oficio, for the
appellants, is that Tomas Llamera and Gerardo Llamera
should only be held liable for the crime of Homicide with
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, but
not of Murder, and there being no convincing proof of
conspiracy, Rubencio Llorca should be acquitted.
Appellants' counsel thus places implicit reliance on the
testimony of Tomas Llamera and

54

54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Llamera

Gerardo Llamera, that said appellants killed the three

Degamo brothers, in the course of a fight, where the latter
were the aggressors.
Thus, according to Tomas Llamera, an old man of 72
years of age, on the early morning of December 9, 1962, he
was under the house of his son Gerardo Llamera at
Tobongan, sitio Dapia, removing the mud from his plow. It
was on that occasion when Manuel, Celso and Egenio
Degamo passed by walking abreast of each other. Upon

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 16 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

nearing the house of Gerardo, Egenio Degamo shouted:

"McArthur, come here", and simultaneously approached
him and asked: "Why is it that you do not stop working in
our land here?" To which he replied: "Why should I stop
working here when this is my own land". Egenio however
retorted: "Yes, you are that confident because you are a
good fighter," and without much ado boloed him injuring as
a result thereof his left forearm. When Egenio hacked him
again he ducked and parried the blow with his left arm, at
the same time shouting to his son for assistance. As Egenio
continued to hack him, he proceeded to the interior of the
lower story of the house and took a bamboo spear which
was tucked below the second floor and with the spear, faced
Egenio who by that time had followed him and as Egenio
tried to bolo him, he parried the blow and pushed the
pointed end of the spear thru the stomach of Egenio. At
that moment Gerardo Llamera had already gone down the
house and upon seeing Egenio, Gerardo went behind him
and boloed the latter. When Egenio sustained the injury in
his stomach, Manuel and Celso Degamo were 15 meters
and 20 meters away from the Llameras. Manuel Degamo,
upon seeing his brother injured went near Tomas Llamera
and tried to bolo him. According to Tomas he successfully
parried the bolo attack of Manuel with the spear and
succeeded in spearing the lower jaw of Manuel. When
Manuel Degamo attempted to bolo him again for the third
time, he thrust the spear through Manuel's right mammary
region. At this instant Gerardo Llamera hacked Manuel at
the back several times, causing Manuel to fall to the
ground. Celso Degamo then joined the fray by attacking
Gerardo with his bolo but the latter was able to parry all
the blows. After Gerardo's small finger was injured he
allegedly "began to fight in earnest".
It was while Celso and Gerardo were fighting with each
other

55

VOL. 51, MAY 25, 1973 55

People vs. Llamera

that appellant Tomas Llamera allegedly thrust his spear

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 17 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

thru the right armpit of Celso Degamo, causing the latter

to stagger in a "twisting manner". It was at that moment
when Gerardo succeeded in stabbing Manuel Degamo with
his bolo. After disposing of their three victims, Tomas
bandaged his left forearm, ordered his son to pick up the
bolo of Egenio, then the two proceeded to the poblacion
where they surrendered to the Chief of Police, delivering to
him on the same occasion the bolo of Egenio Degamo, and
two other bolos, one used by Gerardo Llamera and the
other his own. The spear was allegedly thrown away by
appellant Tomas, when they were passing by the creek on
their way to the poblacion. This was also in substance, the
testimony of appellant Gerardo Llamera.
Dr. Jaime Go, Junior Resident Physician of the Surigao
Provincial Hospital, also testified that on the evening of
December 15, 1962, he treated the injured left forearm of
appellant Tomas Llamera, which injury consisted of an
incised wound 5 inches in length, from the region of the left
elbow to the region of the left wrist, with an incomplete
compound fracture of the proximal third of the left ulna,
and compound fructure of the left radius.
Coleto Llamera and Rubencio Llorca, both interposed
the defense of alibi, claiming that at the time of the
incident, they were both in their respective homes inside
the poblacion of Albor. It is however conceded that Dapia is
only 20 minutes by boat from the poblacion of Albor.
On rebuttal Carmen Degamo Torillo declared that after
her three brothers were shot, and when the two appellants
went near them to stab them with their bolos, Egenio
Degamo was still able to rise in a kneeling position to bolo
Tomas Llamera wounding the latter on the left forearm.
We agree with the trial court that the theory of the
defense is not persuasive.
1. The absence of dents, cuts or any bolo marks on the
smooth surface of the bamboo spear, or any signs of
bloodstains or discoloration on the sharpened portion of
said spear, negates and renders improbable the claim that
said

56

56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 18 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

People vs. Llamera

bamboo was hit by the blade of the bolos of the three

victims, when they allegedly hacked said appellant or that
said bamboo was used to inflict the deep and penetrating
wounds in the bodies of said deceased. As a matter of fact
even as early as the time when Cpl. Detilles found the
bamboo spear lying on the ground a meter from the banks
of the creek, it was devoid of dirt or any form of
discoloration or stain.
2. It is contrary to the physical facts. It has been fully
established that the three victims sustained gunshot
wounds. Thus Dr. Jose B. Mandapat testified that the three
victims sustained gunshot wounds: Manuel Degamo
—"gunshot wound with an entrance to the right mammary
region measuring one inch in length and 1/2 inch in width,
penetrating from the right scapular region measuring
about 5-1/2 inches in length and 5 inches in width" (Exhibit
A); Egenio Degamo—"gunshot wound with an entrance on
the umbilical region penetrating to the left lumbar region
causing the large intestines to protrude and the large
intestines that protruded was found to have holes
....
the small intestines also protruded measuring about 8
inches in length on the left lumbar region" and Celso
Degamo—"gunshot wound on the right hypochondriac
region penetrating the right scapular region, measuring
about 7 inches in length and 4 inches in width." According
to Dr. Mandapat the gunshot wound on the breast of
Manuel Degamo was at the point of entry circular in shape
with burnt and rough edges, the direction of the wound
traversing the body downwards thru and thru until its
point of exit at the back of the victim between the region of
the hips and shoulder. The direction of the wound indicated
that the victim was shot by an assailant who fired from a
position above the victim. He found also a gunshot wound
on the umbilical region of Egenio Degamo with its point of
entrance circular in form with rough and burnt edges, and
with a point of exit on the left side of the back of the victim.
The wound at the point of exit was bigger and the edges
inverted. He also discovered a gunshot wound on the right
hypochondriac region of Celso Degamo, with the point of

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 19 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

entry circular in form with rough edges, traversing the

body and had its point of exit on the back of the victim just
a little to the right of the spinal column. According to the
aforesaid medical officer the stab and incised wounds
which he saw on the bodies of the three victims were
apparently inflicted on them after they

57

VOL. 51, MAY 25, 1973 57

People vs. Llamera

were successively shot.

3. Such theory is inconsistent with the sworn statement
of appellant Gerardo Llamera before the Justice of the
Peace of Albor (Exhibits J and J-1) on December 10, 1962,
where he declared that he had no participation whatsoever
in the aforesaid bloody affray. Thus according to him when
Celso, Manuel and Egenio Degamo arrived with drawn
bolos at the ricefields where he and his sister Romualda
Llorca were working, he immediately ran away when
Egenio Degamo tried to bolo him. Although pursued by
Egenio and Manuel Degamo the two gave up the chase
when they failed to overcome him. From his hiding place he
allegedly saw several meters away, his father Tomas and
Celso Degamo fighting with bolos and being scared he fled
towards the coconut plantation of Sotero Omandam where
he found her sister Romualda hiding inside the bushes. It
was after a while that he returned to the place where he
last saw his father, and not finding him there he proceeded
to the house of Rubencio Llorca, where he found his father
nursing an injury on the left forearm and the bodies of the
three Degamo brothers lying already dead on the yard of
the house.
It is a well settled rule that one who admits the
infliction of injuries which caused the death of another has
the burden of proving self-defense with sufficient and
convincing evidence. If such evidence is of doubtful
veracity, and is not clear and convincing, the defense must
necessarily fail, for "having admitted that he was the
author of the death of the deceased, it was incumbent upon
appellant, in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove the

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 20 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

justifying circumstance claimed by him" without relying on

the weakness of that of the prosecution but on the strength
of his own evidence, for even if the evidence of the
prosecution were weak "it could not be disbelieved after the
accused himself had admitted the killing" (People v.
Ansoyon, 75 Phil. 772; People v. Talaboc, 30 SCRA 87;
People v. Berio, 59 Phil. 533; People v. Banden, 77 Phil.
105; People v. Cruz, 53 Phil. 635; People v. Gutierrez, 53
Phil. 609; People v. Alvior, 56 Phil. 98; People v. Espanilla,
62 Phil. 264; People v. Apolinario, 58 Phil. 586; People v.
Gimeno, 59 Phil. 509; People v. Jorge, 71 Phil. 451; People
v. Jumauan, 98 Phil. 1).

58

58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Llamera

We have heretofore adverted to the fact that the defense of

Coleto Llamera, was alibi. It is the claim of said appellant
that he was sick on December 8 and 9, 1962 and therefore
had to stay in his house in the poblacion of Albor. Such
alleged sickness of the appellant on those dates is neither
supported by any medical certificate nor corroborated by
any other witness. On the contrary such an alibi is
contradicted by Eulogio Sepa who positively declared that
on the morning of December 9, 1962, he saw Coleto
Llamera at the landing of the ladder to the house of
Gerardo Llamera in sitio Dapia. Eulogio Sepa is related by
affinity to appellant Coleto Llamera, the latter being the
son of the cousin of Eulogio Sepa's wife. No fact or
circumstance had been shown which would in any manner
impair the credibility of his testimony. Apart from this, We
have held in several cases that the defense of alibi, to be
successful, must be proved by positive, clear and satisfying
evidence, reasonably satisfying the mind of the court of the
truth of such defense. Moreover such defense being one
that can easily be fabricated, can not be seriously
considered if there is credible evidence of the presence of
the accused at the time and place of the commission of the
crime or of his participation therein. Since Coleto Llamera,
Tomas Llamera and Gerardo Llamera had directly

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 21 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

participated in the commission of the crime, the first by

shooting with his gun the three Degamo brothers, the
latter two by stabbing the same victims to ensure their
death, there would be no doubt of their criminal liability as
principals by direct participation in the commission of the
crime.
The Solicitor General, however for the purpose of
showing the criminal liability of appellant Rubencio Llorca
contends that said appellants acted in criminal concert.
Thus it is shown that appellant Tomas Llamera is the
father of Gerardo Llamera, uncle of Coleto Llamera and
father-in-law of Rubencio Llorca. Prior to the incident in
question, the Llameras were engaged with the Degamo
brothers in a dispute over the ownership of a parcel of land
in sitio Dapia which led to the filling of an ejectment suit
by the Degamos against Tomas Llamera, for the possession
of the disputed parcel, before the Justice of the Peace of
Albor. Immediately prior to the tragic date, a judgment was
rendered by the Court in favor of the Degamos, ordering
the ejection of Tomas Llamera from

59

VOL. 51, MAY 25, 1973 59

People vs. Llamera

the land. But on December 7, 1962, appellant Tomas

Llamera, his son Gerardo Llamera and his son-in-law
Rubencio Llorca, plowed another rice paddy of the
Degamos, in addition to the parcel involved in the
ejectment case. The following day or on December 8, 1962,
the three Degamo brothers, re-entered the parcel plowed by
the Llameras, had such land trampled by their carabaos so
as to enable them to plant thereon their rice seedlings the
following day. Reliance was also placed in the statements of
Gerardo Llamera contained in his affidavit (Exh. "J")
before the Justice of the Peace, to the effect that on the
night of December 8, 1962, a conference was held in the
house of Coleto Llamera in the poblacion of Albor attended
with his father Tomas Llamera, and Rubencio Llorca in
attendance and that early the following day (December 9,
1962), Gerardo borrowed a boat from one Adriano

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 22 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

Onandam, with which he ferried Coleto Llamera from the

poblacion to sitio Dapia. It was also stressed that although
appellant Tomas Llamera lives in the poblacion of Albor, he
was in sitio Dapia allegedly to work in the land on
December 9, 1962, which was on a Sunday and therefore
not customarily a working day. Then we have the
successive acts of each of the appellants on the morning of
the incident which in the view of the Solicitor General are
circumstances showing conspiracy viz: the sudden shooting
by Coleto Llamera of the three victims from one of the
windows of the house of Gerardo, and soon after the three
had fallen the acts of appellant Tomas and Gerardo
Llamera in stabbing the Degamo brothers apparently to
ensure their death. Then the acts of appellant Rubencio
Llorca in following Coleto Llamera down the house, holding
a revolver in his hands and, after looking at the bodies of
the victims, of going away with Coleto Llamera.
While there can not be any question, that when the
separate acts of Coleto Llamera, Tomas Llamera and
Gerardo Llamera are linked together they show that the
apparently isolated acts spring from a common purpose—
the death of the Degamo brothers, upon the other hand we
cannot deduce the same conclusion with respect to
appellant Rubencio Llorca. There is no iota of proof that
said appellant knew of the criminal design of his co-
appellants. There is no showing that he performed any act
in pursuance of said criminal purpose. As a matter of fact
the trial court conceded that said appellant never
performed

60

60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Llamera

any act in pursuance of the criminal purpose of his co-

appellants. The only reason why he was implicated
according to the court a quo is that he was present on that
occasion "with a revolver or a gun with a sawed off barrel"
and "never did anything to prevent the commission of the
crime by his companions". We are not persuaded however
that on that occasion said appellant carried a revolver in

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 23 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

his hands. On the basis of the evidence on record, there are

indications that Carmen Torillo could not have possibly
recognized with accuracy the article held in Rubencio
Llorca's hands as she was more than 50 meters away, and
said appellant was walking rapidly farther away from her.
Certainly under those circumstances We cannot hold that
he is a co-conspirator, with the grave and far-reaching
consequences that such an involvement implies. It has been
Our constant doctrine, that conspiracy must be shown to
exist, by direct and circumstantial evidence, as clearly and
convincingly as the commission of the offense itself. We are
persuaded that the evidence of the prosecution in so far as
appellant Rubencio Llorca is concerned fails to measure
adequately to such an exacting test.
In resum'e therefore We find that the crime was
committed with the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
The evidence disclose that the three Degamo brothers were
suddenly and without warning shot one after another by
appellant Coleto Llamera, and when they were already
lying prostrate and helpless on the ground, they were
stabbed by appellants Tomas and Gerardo Llamera. We
find however that the stabbing of the three brothers by
appellants Tomas and Gerardo Llamera was not
characterized by the aggravating circumstance of cruelty.
For cruelty to be considered an aggravating circumstance,
it is essential that the wrong done was intended to prolong
the suffering of the victim, causing him unnecessary moral
and physical pain. No such showing has been made for as
aptly stated by the trial court, the purpose of said
appellants was to ensure the death of the three victims and
to tamper with the bullet wounds to make them appear as
bolo wounds in order to conceal the fact that a gun was
used in killing them.
The penalty that should be imposed upon appellants
Tomas Llamera and Gerardo Llamera, should take into
account the

61

VOL. 51, MAY 25, 1973 61

People vs. Llamera

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 24 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, which is

not offset by any aggravating circumstance.
WHEREFORE, the judgment under review is hereby
modified as follows: Tomas Llamera and Gerardo Llamera
are pronounced guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3)
crimes of murder for the deaths of Celso Degamo, Manuel
Degamo and Egenio Degamo, and as a consequence each of
them is hereby sentenced, for each of the three (3) deaths,
to an indeterminate penalty from ten (10) years and one (1)
day of prisión mayor as the minimum, to seventeen (17)
years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal, as the maximum, both of them to jointly and
severally indemnify the heirs of each of the deceased in the
sum of P12,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency, and each to pay one-fourth (1/4) of the
costs. Rubencio Llorca is acquitted on the ground of
reasonable doubt, with his proportionate part of the costs
de oficio.

Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee,

Barredo and Esguerra, JJ., concur.
Makasiar, J., took no part.

Judgment modified.

Notes.·a) Conspiracy as a rule of collectivising criminal

liability.—The convergence of the wills of the conspirators
in the scheming and execution of the crime amply justifies
the imputation to all of them the act of any of them. It is in
this light that conspiracy is generally viewed not as a
separate indictable offense, but a rule for collectivising
criminal liability (People vs. Peralta, L-19069, October 29,
1968).
b) When direct proof of conspiracy not essential.—
Conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence but
may be proven by a number of facts done in pursuance of a
common unlawful purpose (People vs. Alcantara, L-26867,
June 30, 1970).
c) Unusual cruelty.—The act of strangulating his victim

62

62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 25 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051 12/18/24, 1:52 PM

People vs. Llamera

with a rope and setting his body on fire after having struck
him twice on the head is an unusual cruelty which is an
aggravating circumstance (People vs. Develos, L-18866,
January 31, 1966).
See also annotations on Conspiracy, 26 SCRA 761-766;
Criminal Liability and Responsibility for Crime, 31 SCRA
158-178; and Defenses in Criminal Cases, 33 SCRA 445-
464.

LEGAL RESEARCH SERVICE

See SCRA Quick Index-Digest, volume 1, page 369 on

Conspiracy; and page 570 on Criminal Law.
Aquino, R.C., The Revised Penal Code, 2 volumes, 1961
Edition.
Feria, L.R. and Gregorio, A.L., Comments on the Revised
Penal Code, 2 volumes, 1958-1959 Editions.
Padilla, A., Criminal Law-Revised Penal Code
Annotated, 3 volumes 1971-1972 Editions.

------------- o0o-----------------

63

VOL. 51, MAY 25, 1973 63

Variance Between Allegation and Proof

© Copyright 2024 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000193d84a9771e4b3e3d4000d00d40059004a/p/AQQ261/?username=Guest Page 26 of 26