SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 208617. September 15, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MARK ARELLANO y ORTIZ AND DOMINGO GIANAN y TORRES, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated15 September 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 208617 (People of the Philippines v. Mark Arellano y Ortiz and Domingo Gianan y Torres). — This resolves the appeal 1 filed by accused-appellants Mark Arellano y Ortiz (Mark) and Domingo Gianan y Torres (Domingo) (collectively, accused-appellants), praying for the reversal of the February 8, 2013 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04704. The CA affirmed with modification the September 27, 2010 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Taguig City Station, Branch 163 in Criminal Case Nos. 132161 to 132162, convicting the accused-appellants of robbery with homicide, and frustrated homicide.
Antecedents
In an Amended Information 4 dated January 31, 2007, accused-appellants were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Section 9 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7659, as follows:
Criminal Case No. 132161
That, on or about the 4th day of February 2005, in the City of Taguig, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused Mark Arellano y Ortiz and Domingo Gianan y Torres alias Dominic conspiring and confederating and mutually helping one another, while armed with a 22 caliber revolver, as deadly weapon, with intent to gain entered the E-Channel Computer Shop owned by Dionisia Trocio and by means of violence and intimidation, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away [sic] an undetermined amount of money and cellular phones, and on the occasion of the robbery, the said accused with the use of the gun, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one Calixto Trocio and Ryan Macatuggal, thereby inflicting upon them fatal injuries which directly caused their deaths [sic] to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said Calixto Trocio and Ryan Macatuggal.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
In separate Amended Information 6 dated January 31, 2007, accused-appellants were also charged with the crime of frustrated homicide under Article 249 in relation to Article 6 (2) of the RPC, viz.:
Criminal Case No. 132162
That on or about the 4th day of February 2005, in the City of Taguig, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused Mark Arellano y Ortiz and Domingo Gianan y Torres alias "Dominic" conspiring and confederating and mutually helping one another, while armed with a 22 caliber revolver, as deadly weapon, with intent to kill, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and sho[o]t one DIONISIA TROCIO, hitting her in face, thereby inflicting upon her serious physical injuries which ordinarily would have caused her death, and thus, the accused performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony of Homicide as a consequence but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of cause/s independent of [their] will that is due to the timely and able medical assistance rendered unto said DIONISIA TROCIO, which prevented her death, to the latter's damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
On April 4, 2006, Mark was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the charges. Meanwhile, on April 16, 2007, Domingo likewise pleaded not guilty to the charges. 8 Trial on the merits ensued thereafter. 9
During the trial, prosecution witness Aldrin Salvador (Aldrin) related that at around 12 a.m. of February 4, 2005, he was playing computer games at the E-Channel Computer Shop (computer shop) in Cuasay St., Signal Village, Taguig City with his cousin Ryan Oscar Macatuggal (Ryan), and friends Russel, Jeff and Sonny. Aldrin was seated beside Ryan. 10
Suddenly, three male persons barged in the computer shop, and declared a hold-up. They were later identified as accused-appellants, and one John Doe. Mark was armed with a gun, while Domingo and the unidentified man were holding a knife. Domingo frisked Aldrin and the other customers. 11
One of the customers ran outside. This alarmed Mark, so he shot Ryan. Thereafter, Mark poked his gun at Calixto Trocio (Calixto), and took the latter's mobile phone. Calixto pleaded for his life, but his pleas fell on deaf ears and Mark shot him. 12
Meanwhile, Calixto's wife Dionisia Trocio (Dionisia) was ironing clothes at the second floor of the computer shop when she heard the gun shots. She rushed down and saw Calixto, leaning on the wall, apparently lifeless. 13 She ran to Calixto and asked for help, but Mark shot her too. The bullet entered through her nose and went out of her right neck. 14 Then, she saw Mark point his gun at the other customers and pull the trigger three times, but the gun did not fire. The accused-appellants, together with the unidentified assailant, dashed out of the computer shop and fled. 15
Aldrin and his companions rushed Ryan to Taguig-Pateros Hospital. However, due to lack of facilities, he was transferred to the Rizal Medical Center. Unfortunately, he died after three (3) days. Calixto was taken to Cruz-Rabe Hospital but was declared dead on arrival. Meanwhile, Dionisia was brought to Medical City for treatment, and was confined for two (2) days. 16
On the other hand, accused-appellants vehemently denied the charges leveled against them. Mark claimed that he was at home taking care of his one-year old child at the time of the incident, while Domingo denied killing Calixto and Ryan, and hurting Dionisia. He also denied robbing the computer shop. 17
Ruling of the RTC
On September 27, 2010, the RTC convicted accused-appellants of Robbery with Multiple Homicide, and Frustrated Homicide. The RTC declared that the prosecution proved all the elements for robbery with homicide committed against Ryan and Calixto. It opined that accused-appellants conspired with each other. They entered the computer shop and declared a hold-up. While inside, accused-appellant Mark took Calixto's mobile phone, and shot Ryan and Calixto. Meanwhile, Domingo frisked the customers and poked a knife at Aldrin.
Furthermore, the RTC convicted accused-appellants of frustrated homicide against Dionisia. It declared that Mark shot Dionisia in the face, while the latter was trying to help Calixto. It noted that Dionisia's injury would have been fatal, if not for timely medical intervention. Overall, it gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, and rejected accused-appellants' defenses of denial and alibi. 18
The RTC disposed the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, taking all the foregoing into consideration, it is hereby adjudged that:
1. In Criminal Case No. 132161, accused Mark Arellano y Ortiz and Domingo Gianan y Torres are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Multiple Homicide, and, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, are hereby sentenced each to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without the benefit of parole and with all the other effects thereof as provided by law.
They are further ordered to jointly and severally pay:
a. the heirs of Calixto Trocio Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity and Php50,000.00 by way of moral damages.
b. the heirs of Ryan Macatuggal Php36,400.00 as actual damages; Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity and Php50,000.00 by way of moral damages.
and to pay the costs, all at the legal rate of interest from the time of the filing of the Information, until fully paid and to return to the heirs of all victims, the stolen items.
2. In Criminal Case No. 132162, accused Mark Arellano y Ortiz and Domingo Gianan y Torres are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated Homicide, defined and penalized under Article 249, in relation to Article 6, 2nd paragraph of the Revised Penal Code, and, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, are hereby sentenced each to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum, with all the effects thereof as provided by law.
They are further ordered to jointly and severally pay the victim Php52,436.81 as actual damages; Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity; Php50,000.00 by way of moral damages and to pay the costs, all at the legal rate of interest from the time of the filing of the Information, until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 19
Dissatisfied with the ruling, accused-appellants filed a Notice of Appeal 20 with the RTC.
Ruling of the CA
On February 8, 2013, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling with modification. In Criminal Case No. 132161 for robbery with multiple homicide, the CA found that the accused-appellants conspired with each other to rob and kill the victims. However, it clarified that the proper nomenclature for the crime is simply robbery with homicide, regardless of the number of persons killed during the commission of the robbery. Likewise, the CA granted the heirs of Calixto P25,000.00 as temperate damages, in addition to the award of civil indemnity and moral damages given by the RTC.
Meanwhile, in Criminal Case No. 132162, the CA downgraded the conviction from frustrated homicide to attempted homicide. It declared that the accused-appellants conspired and intended to kill Dionisia by shooting her on the face. However, it observed that the prosecution failed to prove that Dionisia's wound would have been fatal if not for timely medical intervention. It noted that the Medical Certificate vaguely stated that Dionisia sustained a gun shot wound, without explaining the nature of said injury. Worse, Dionisia's attending physician did not testify on the nature of her wounds.
Finally, the CA adjusted the reckoning point for the computation of legal interest to run from September 27, 2010, the date of the RTC Decision, until full payment.
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is hereby DENIED. The September 27, 2010 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City (Taguig City Station), Branch 163 in Criminal Case Nos. 132161 and 132162 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accordingly, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 132161, Accused-Appellants are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused-Appellants are also ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of:
(a) Calixto Trocio, the following: (i) Php50,000.00 n as civil indemnity; (ii) Php25,000.00 as temperate damages and (iii) Php50,000.00 as moral damages;
(b) Ryan Macatuggal, the following: (i) Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (ii) Php36,400.00 as actual damages and (iii) Php50,000.00 as moral damages;
2. In Criminal Case No. 132162, Accused-Appellants are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted homicide and are sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum.
Accused-Appellants are also ordered to pay, jointly and severally, Dionisia Trocio, actual damages in the amount of Php52,236.81.
3. In both cases, Accused-Appellants are further ordered to pay interest on damages at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of the assailed Decision, that is, September 27, 2010, until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 21
Aggrieved, the accused-appellants filed a Notice of Appeal 22 with the CA.
The parties filed separate Manifestations 23 indicating that they are dispensing with the filing of their respective Supplemental Briefs, and are adopting the arguments raised in their respective Briefs 24 with the CA.
Issue
The main issue in this case is whether or not the accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide, and frustrated homicide.
Seeking their exoneration from the charges, the accused-appellants claim that their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, they question the manner through which they were identified by the prosecution witnesses. Mark bewails that he was identified from a lone photograph presented by the police to Dionisia and Aldrin. Similarly, Domingo laments that he was the only suspect presented for identification. Accused-appellants contend that said techniques are highly suggestive. 25
Moreover, the accused-appellants insist that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt for frustrated homicide. They point to the lack of proof regarding the purported fatality and seriousness of Dionisia's injury. They further argue that Dionisia was discharged after being confined for only two (2) days, which belies the alleged severity of her wound. 26
On the other hand, the People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters that Dionisia and Aldrin positively identified the accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crimes charged. It stresses that said witnesses had no special motive to falsely testify against the accused-appellants. 27 It avers that the prosecution witnesses' positive identification prevails over the accused-appellants' bare denial and alibi. 28
Furthermore, the OSG retorts that the weapon Mark used and the location of Dionisia's wound clearly indicate an intent to kill. 29 It argues that Mark used a revolver, and shot Dionisia at her head, and the latter only survived due to timely medical intervention. 30
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is dismissed.
The accused-appellants are guilty
Essentially, the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is committed when, by reason or on the occasion of robbery, homicide is committed. 31 In this crime, the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt, namely, (i) the offender took personal property with violence or intimidation against persons; (ii) the property taken belongs to another; (iii) the taking was done with animo lucrandi; and (iv) homicide was committed on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof. 32 The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. 33 Although intent is an internal act, it may be inferred from the violent unlawful taking of personal property. 34
Equally important, the homicide is committed by reason of, or on the occasion of robbery if it was done to: "(i) facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (ii) preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (iii) prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or (iv) eliminate witnesses in the commission of the crime." 35
In this case, the prosecution proved all the elements for robbery with homicide. The facts indubitably prove that accused-appellants and an unidentified assailant barged in the computer shop and declared a hold-up. To ensure the success of their nefarious enterprise, Mark armed himself with a gun, while Domingo and the unidentified assailant carried knives. Domingo frisked the customers at the shop, while Mark shot Ryan when a customer escaped. Mark likewise took Calixto's mobile phone and shot him. Then, Mark aimed his gun at the other customers, and pulled the trigger thrice, but the gun did not fire. Thereafter, the three malefactors escaped.
Likewise, it is clear from the events that the accused-appellants conspired with each other. Their collective acts indubitably point to a joint purpose and design. They were animated by one and the same purpose, and acted in concert in robbing the computer shop. Hence, the act of one is the act of all. 36
The CA rightly convicted the
Notably, the accused-appellants intended to kill Dionisia. This is evident from their choice of weapon, and conduct at the time of the attack. Mark shot Dionisia at a vital spot in her body — her face. Additionally, the accused-appellants' joint purpose and common design has been proven through their concerted actions. Thus, the remaining bone of contention is the proper of the execution of the crime.
On this score, Article 6 of the RPC defines the stages in the commission of felonies:
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
To prove frustrated homicide, there must be clear and convincing evidence that the wound inflicted on the victim would have been fatal if not for timely medical intervention. 37 In fact, in Serrano v. People, 38Colinares v. People, 39Etino v. People, 40Gemenez v. People, 41 the Court warned that the accused may not be convicted of frustrated homicide in the absence of clear evidence establishing that the injury would have been fatal without timely and proper medical attention.
As stressed in Serrano v. People, 42 to prove frustrated homicide, there must be evidence regarding the extent of the victim's injury, the victim's age and constitution, the form of the wound, blood vessels, nerves, or organs involved, the entrance of disease-producing bacteria or other organisms into the wound, and the opportunities for administering proper surgical treatment. 43
As correctly observed by the CA, there is a complete paucity of information regarding the nature and severity of Dionisia's wounds. Unfortunately, her medical certificate vaguely stated that she suffered from a gunshot wound. Moreover, her attending physician did not testify in court to explain the nature of her wounds, or to confirm the crucial fact that she would have died if not for timely medical intervention. It cannot be gainsaid that in criminal cases the prosecution must prove each element of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. 44 Otherwise, any doubt shall be resolved in favor of the accused. 45 Verily, the accused-appellants may only be convicted of attempted homicide.
The testimonies of the prosecution
In a bleak attempt to convince the Court of their innocence, the accused-appellants attack the manner of their identification as highly subjective and dubious. Mark laments that the police merely presented a single photograph of him to Aldrin and Dionisia, from which he was identified. 46 In the same vein, Domingo bewails that he was the only person presented for identification by the police. 47
The Court is not persuaded.
To begin with, it is settled that the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses is best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe them firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination. Indeed, these factors are crucial in evaluating their sincerity and in unearthing the truth. Hence, the trial court's assessment will not be disturbed on appeal unless some facts or circumstances of weight were overlooked or misinterpreted. 48 This exception does not obtain in this case.
Additionally, there exists no doubt regarding the ability of the witnesses to positively identify the accused-appellants. It bears stressing that the former clearly saw the latter at the computer shop, which was well-lit. 49 Specifically, Dionisia positively identified Mark as the one who shot her. 50 She related that she saw his face three times — when she looked around before he shot her in the nose; when he tried to shoot the other customers; and when he was arrested. 51 She vividly remembered his face, and even described him as handsome. 52 She also recalled his outfit, stating that he was wearing a white shirt during the robbery. 53 Hence, when the police showed her Mark's photograph, she immediately recognized him as the person who shot her and the other victims.
Moreover, Aldrin confirmed Mark's identity. He saw Mark's face up close when he looked up from the table, and witnessed him shoot Ryan, Calixto, and Dionisia. 54 He also remembered Domingo because the latter frisked him and pointed a knife at him. 55
Plainly, Dionisia's and Aldrin's testimonies regarding the events that transpired, and the identities of the accused-appellants were vivid and straightforward. They corroborated each other's testimony, and positively identified the accused-appellants and detailed the specific role each played in the commission of the crime.
Furthermore, Aldrin and Dionisia, being relatives of the victims, were clearly motivated by a desire to bring justice to their kin. Aldrin was Ryan's cousin, while Dionisia was not only Calixto's wife, but was also a victim herself. Without a doubt, their identification of the accused-appellants was spurred by an honest desire to have the real perpetrators apprehended. Jurisprudence states that "[t]he natural interest of a witness who is a relative of the victim in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter the witness from implicating a person other than the true culprit." 56
Besides, Aldrin and Dionisia had no malevolent motive to falsely testify against the accused-appellants. In fact, the latter did not attribute any ill-motives against the former. Thus, in the absence of evidence to indicate that the witnesses were actuated by improper motives, it is presumed that they were not so motivated, and thus, their testimonies will be accorded full faith and credit. 57
Verily, the testimonies of Aldrin and Dionisia are truthful and credible. Juxtaposed against their positive identification, the accused-appellants' defenses of denial and alibi clearly falter. Worse, the accused-appellants' defenses, were not substantiated with clear and convincing evidence, and are thus underserving of any weight in law.
Penalty for robbery with homicide in
Article 294, paragraph 1 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, states that the penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death. Applying Article 63 of the RPC, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed on the accused-appellants, in view of the absence of any modifying circumstances. Hence, the CA imposed the correct penalty against the accused-appellants.
However, the damages must be modified to conform with prevailing jurisprudence. 58 Thus, the Court awards civil indemnity of P75,000.00; moral damages of P75,000.00; and exemplary damages of P75,000.00, each to the heirs of Calixto and Ryan.
Likewise, the award of temperate damages and actual damages must be modified and deleted, respectively. It is noted that the CA awarded temperate damages of P25,000.00 to the heirs of Calixto, and granted actual damages of P36,400.00 to the heirs of Ryan. However, as held in People v. Racal, 59 the amount of temperate damages is increased to P50,000.00. Moreover, temperate damages must be granted in lieu of actual damages, if the actual damages proven by receipts during the trial is less than the sum allowed as temperate damages. Otherwise, it would be unfair to the victim's heirs, who tried and succeeded in presenting receipts and other evidence to prove actual damages, to receive an amount that is less than the temperate damages given to those who were not able to present any evidence at all. 60 Accordingly, the temperate damages awarded by the CA to the heirs of Calixto must be increased to P50,000.00, while the amount of actual damages granted to the heirs of Ryan must be deleted, and replaced with temperate damages of P50,000.00.
Penalty for attempted homicide in
Article 51 of the RPC states that "[a] penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit a felony." 61 Relatedly, Article 249 of the RPC prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal for the crime of homicide. Thus, the imposable penalty for attempted homicide is prision correccional, which is two degrees lower than reclusion temporal.
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the imposable penalty of prision correccional, taking into account the modifying circumstances, if any. Without mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in its medium period. As for the minimum penalty, the penalty of prision correccional shall be reduced by one degree, which is arresto mayor. The minimum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the full range of arresto mayor in any of its periods. Hence, the CA correctly imposed an indeterminate sentence of six (6) months of arresto mayor maximum, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium, as maximum.
In addition, the accused-appellants must pay Dionisia (i) P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, and (ii) P20,000.00 as moral damages. 62 Likewise, they must pay Dionisia actual damages of P52,236.81, which represents the proven costs of her hospitalization. 63
Finally, all monetary awards in Criminal Case No. 132161 and Criminal Case No. 132162, shall earn a legal rate of interest of six percent (6%) per annum reckoned from the finality of the Court's Resolution until full satisfaction.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The February 8, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04704 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION:
In Criminal Case No. 132161, accused-appellants Mark Arellano y Ortiz and Domingo Gianan y Torres are declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide, and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. They are ORDERED to PAY, jointly and severally, the Heirs of Calixto Trocio and the Heirs of Ryan Oscar Macatuggal (i) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (ii) P75,000.00 as moral damages; (iii) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (iv) P50,000.00 as temperate damages.
In Criminal Case No. 132162, accused-appellants Mark Arellano y Ortiz and Domingo Gianan y Torres are declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted homicide, and are sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum. They are further ORDERED to PAY Dionisia Trocio (i) P20,000.00 as civil indemnity; (ii) P20,000.00 as moral damages; and (iii) P52,236.81 as actual damages.
All monetary awards shall earn a legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum reckoned from the finality of this Resolution until full payment. aScITE
SO ORDERED." (Rosario, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 142-143.
2.Rollo, pp. 2-14; penned by Associate Justice Fiorito S. Macalino, with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 35-40; penned by Judge Leili Cruz Suarez.
4.Id. at 11-12.
5.Id. at 11.
6.Id. at 16-17.
7.Id. at 16.
8.Rollo, p. 5.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 6.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id.; CA rollo, pp. 106-107.
14.Id.; id.
15.Id.; id. at 107.
16.Id.
17.Id. at 6-7.
18. CA rollo, pp. 93-94.
19.Id. at 94.
20.Id. at 41.
21.Rollo, pp. 13-14.
22. CA rollo, pp. 142-143.
23.Rollo, pp. 21-22; 24-26.
24. CA rollo, pp. 74-87; 100-117.
25.Id. at 80; 82-84.
26.Id. at 86.
27.Id. at 114.
28.Id. at 109.
29.Id. at 115.
30.Id. at 116.
31.People v. Palema, G.R. No. 228000, July 10, 2019, citing People v. Algarme, 598 Phil. 423, 446 (2009).
32.Id., citing People v. Domacyong, 463 Phil. 447, 459 (2003).
33.People v. Casabuena, G.R. No. 246580, June 23, 2020.
34.People v. Palema, supra note 31, citing People v. De Jesus, 473 Phil. 405 (2004).
35.People v. Paran, G.R. No. 241322, September 08, 2020, citing People v. Diu, 708 Phil. 218, 238 (2013).
36.People v. Gerero, 791 Phil. 618, 623 (2016).
37.Serrano v. People, 637 Phil. 319, 329 (2010).
38.Id.
39. 678 Phil. 482 (2011).
40. 826 Phil. 32 (2018).
41. G.R. No. 241518, March 4, 2020.
42.Serrano v. People, supra note 37.
43.Id. at 336, citing People v. Matyaong, 411 Phil. 938, 948 (2001).
44.Gemenez v. People, supra note 41, citing Moster v. People, 569 Phil. 616, 628 (2008).
45.Id., citing Moster v. People, id.
46. CA rollo, p. 82.
47.Id. at 84-85.
48.People v. Macaspac, 806 Phil. 285, 290 (2017), citing People v. Pili, 351 Phil. 1046 (1998).
49. CA rollo, p. 113.
50.Id. at 109-110.
51.Id. at 111.
52.Id. at 113.
53.Id.
54.Id.
55.Id. at 92.
56.People v. Paran, supra note 35, citing People v. Pabillano, 404 Phil. 43, 62 (2001).
57.Id., citing People v. Tabaco, 336 Phil. 771, 796 (1997).
58. See People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
59. 817 Phil. 665 (2017).
60.Id., citing People v. Villanueva, 456 Phil. 14, 29 (2003); Quidet v. People, 632 Phil. 1, 19 (2010); People v. Villar, 757 Phil. 675, 682 (2015).
61. REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 51.
62. See People v. Jugueta, supra note 58.
63.Rollo, p. 12.
n Note from the Publisher: Written as "Php50,000.000" in the official document.