SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253651. October 4, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. SAMUEL BULTRON y SOLIS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 04 October 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253651 (People of the Philippines v. Samuel Bultron y Solis). — On appeal is the September 13, 2019 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10279, which affirmed with modification the November 17, 2017 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 54, in Criminal Case No. 15-320946 finding accused-appellant Samuel Bultron y Solis (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.
The Information 3 dated October 23, 2015 reads:
That on or about October 19, 2015, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating with two (2) others, whose true name, real identities and present whereabouts are still unknown, and helping one another, with intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon one ROGER GAMBA y NAVARRO, by then and there shooting the latter's face, thereby inflicting upon the said ROGER GAMBA y NAVARRO @ "TYSON" gunshot wound on his face, which was the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.
Contrary to Law. 4 (Emphasis in the original)
During arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty." 5 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
Evidence for the Prosecution:
On October 19, 2015 at around 1:30 p.m., Isabel Albaytar (Isabel) was tending a pushcart along Gate 8, Parola, Tondo, Manila. While talking to her friend, Zengki, she suddenly heard a loud sound similar to a pikolo. When she looked to her right, she saw the victim Roger Gamba a.k.a. Tyson (Tyson) lying down on a sofa by the sidewalk while a man wearing a black t-shirt, baseball cap and a pair of short pants was pointing a gun at him. Later identified as accused-appellant, the man shot Tyson again. Isabel heard someone shout, "Hoy! Hoy!" before accused-appellant ran away. From a distance of about one and a half arm's length away, Isabel approached Tyson and saw blood oozing from the right side of his face. She immediately called the victim's brother, Errold Gamba (Errold), who arrived at the scene after a few seconds. 6
Meanwhile, Noel Banse (Noel) was having lunch with his children about five meters away from where Tyson was sleeping. After eating, he washed his child behind a kuliglig parked nearby when suddenly, he heard two gunshots. When he looked at the direction where the gunshot came from, he saw a man in a black shirt and short pants walking away while holding a gun which appeared to be a .45 caliber. He also saw Tyson lying on the sofa with a wound on his cheek. He shouted "Si Tyson! Si Tyson!" and called the man saying, "Hoy! Hoy!" The man, later identified by Noel as accused-appellant, looked back before running away. 7
At around 2:00 p.m. of the same day, Police Officer 1 (PO1) Jomar Frias (PO1 Frias), PO1 Timothy John Cruz (PO1 Cruz), and PO1 Phillip de Guzman (PO1 De Guzman) from the Delpan Police Community Precinct (Moriones Tondo Police Station PS-2) of the Manila Police District were conducting Oplan Sita at Gate 2, Parola Compound, Tondo, Manila, when they received a radio message regarding a shooting incident at 75 Leonel Compound, Balut, Tondo, Manila. Upon arrival thereat, they saw the lifeless body of a man lying on the ground with a gunshot wound on his face. Barangay Chairman Arnel Parce informed them of the identity of the victim as Roger Gamba and introduced witnesses Isabel and Errold, who confirmed the identity of the victim. The witnesses also gave information regarding the suspect. 8
As a follow-up operation, the police officers proceeded to Gate 4, Parola Compound, Tondo, Manila where the witnesses identified accused-appellant as the suspect. Errold also pointed to two other men, Joseph Mamarado (Joseph) and Richard Retarino (Richard), as accused-appellant's companions during the commission of the crime. The suspects ran away upon approach of the police officers, resulting in a pursuit. Eventually, PO1 Frias caught accused-appellant while PO1 Cruz and PO1 De Guzman caught Richard and Joseph, respectively. The suspects were informed of the offense imputed against them and were brought to Gat Andres Bonifacio Memorial Medical Center for medical examination. At Police Station 2, Isabel and Noel positively identified the suspects as the assailants. 9
The Medico-Legal Report 10 prepared by Police Chief Inspector Jesille Cui Baluyot (PCI Baluyot) of the Manila Police District Crime Laboratory indicated that Tyson died of gunshot wounds on the head. 11 Specifically, the point of entry of one gunshot wound is at the medial side of the head, while the entry point of the other gunshot wound is at the lateral side of the right cheek of the victim. 12
Evidence for the Defense:
For his part, accused-appellant interposed the defense of denial. On the said date, he claimed that he was resting with his children at home at 1088 Area A, Parola, Gate 8, Tondo, Manila. Sometime between 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m., he left and went to the house of his kumpare, Totoy Evangelista (Totoy) at Gate 5, Maybunga, Tondo, Manila to pay his debt of P300.00. He then proceeded to the house of Joseph near Gate 4, Parola Compound, Tondo, Manila to borrow a digital video disc (DVD). Suddenly, police officers arrived and arrested Joseph. While Joseph and the police officers were waiting for the service vehicle to arrive, accused-appellant overheard the barangay chairman saying that someone was killed. Then, a police officer approached him and raised his shirt. Upon seeing accused-appellant's tattoos, the police officer said, "positive" and arrested him. Meanwhile, the barangay tanod called for Richard and arrested him as well. 13
Accused-appellant, Joseph, and Richard were taken to the Delpan Police Station where the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report 14 were prepared. When Isabel and Noel arrived at the police station, they told the police officers, "Wala diyan ang pumatay." The witnesses left the police station but returned shortly after and suddenly pointed to accused-appellant as the person who shot Tyson. Accused-appellant claimed that the barangay chairman, with whom he had a misunderstanding, paid the said witnesses to testify against him. 15
To corroborate accused-appellant's defenses of denial and alibi, Richard testified that at about 12:00 noon on October 19, 2015, Joseph asked him to sell his cellular phone. Thus, he proceeded to the house of his neighbor at Gate 5, Parola Compound, Tondo, Manila to sell the phone to their neighbor. When he came back to remit the proceeds of the sale, he saw Joseph and accused-appellant having a conversation outside Gate 4. He approached them and handed over the money to Joseph. Later on, he learned that Joseph fetched accused-appellant to collect money from someone who owed to Joseph. Suddenly, some police officers arrived with the barangay chairman asking for Joseph and Richard. After confirming their identities, Joseph and Richard were invited to the police station for questioning.
Meanwhile, one of the police officers asked accused-appellant to remove his shirt. Upon seeing accused-appellant's tattoos, the police officer also arrested him and took him to the police station with Joseph and Richard, without any explanation as to why they were arrested. Upon arrival at the police station, they were immediately detained. Some witnesses arrived but they told the police, "Hindi po sila" and left. However, when they returned, they pointed to accused-appellant as the assailant. Afterwards, they were taken to the Moriones Police Station. 16
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In its November 17, 2017 Decision, 17 the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of Murder, viz.:
WHEREFORE, all premises considered, accused Samuel Bultron y Solis is found GUILTY of murder by proof beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of Roger Gamba the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages plus legal interest on all damages awarded at the rate of 6% from the date of the finality of this decision.
Furnish the Public Prosecutor, the private complainant, the accused and his counsel copies of this decision.
SO ORDERED. 18
The trial court held that all the elements of the crime of Murder were present. It rejected accused-appellant's defense of denial and gave more weight to the prosecution witnesses' positive and clear identification of accused-appellant as the assailant. It also noted the conflicting testimonies of the defense witnesses. Lastly, the RTC appreciated treachery as an aggravating circumstance since Tyson was sleeping when accused-appellant shot him, making it impossible for the victim to defend himself. However, it held that the prosecution failed to prove the attending circumstance of evident premeditation.
Undeterred, accused-appellant appealed his conviction before the CA. 19 He argued that the testimonies of Isabel and Noel are doubtful. First, he claimed that it is contrary to human experience for Isabel not to immediately report the incident to the authorities. Second, Noel did not categorically state that he saw the face of accused-appellant when the crime took place. Due to the distance and suddenness of the incident, accused-appellant asserted that it is highly probable that Noel's perception was impaired. Moreover, he maintained that Richard's testimony corroborated his version of the story. 20
Accused-appellant further argued that the prosecution failed to prove the attending circumstance of treachery. He posited that if he deliberately planned to kill Tyson, he should have also eliminated Noel, the eyewitness, in order to execute his plan without getting caught. 21
On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintained that accused-appellant's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. It argued that the trial court correctly gave weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who positively identified accused-appellant as Tyson's killer. Contrary to what accused-appellant claimed, Isabel immediately called for Tyson's brother after witnessing the shooting. As to Noel's testimony, the OSG pointed out that accused-appellant only considered a portion of his testimony. In truth, Noel testified that he actually saw the shooting incident and positively identified accused-appellant as the assailant. 22
Moreover, the OSG alleged that the prosecution successfully established all the elements of Murder and the existence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. It argued that treachery is present since accused-appellant shot Tyson while the latter was sleeping leaving him with no chance to resist or escape such attack. 23
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In its September 13, 2019 Decision, 24 the CA sustained the finding of the RTC that the prosecution successfully established all the elements of the crime of Murder beyond reasonable doubt. Contrary to accused-appellant's argument, it found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to be simple, candid, and consistent. Thus, it rejected accused-appellant's defense of denial. More importantly, it accorded great weight to the RTC's finding that the supposed corroborative testimony of Richard was inconsistent with accused-appellant's testimony.
Finally, the CA modified the monetary awards by increasing the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to P75,000.00 each, and temperate damages to P50,000.00 in line with recent jurisprudence.
Aggrieved, accused-appellant elevated the case before Us, raising the same issues presented before the CA. 25
Issues
I.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN RELYING ON THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONIES OF THE WITNESSES OF THE PROSECUTION AND IN DISREGARDING THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WHICH WAS CORROBORATED ON MATERIAL POINTS.
II.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
III.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT TREACHERY ATTENDED THE SUBJECT KILLING. 26
Our Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
It is a well-settled rule that the trial court's evaluation and conclusion on the credibility of witnesses are generally accorded great weight and respect, and are binding and conclusive or even accorded finality if affirmed by the appellate court. 27 This is because the trial court has the first-hand opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses, placing it in the best position to assess their credibility. 28 Unless there is a clear showing that certain facts or circumstances of weight, substance or value were overlooked, misapprehended or misappreciated by the lower court which could alter the result of the case, its factual findings shall not be overturned. 29 In the case at bar, we find no reason to reverse the findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA.
As correctly found by the courts a quo, the testimonies of Isabel and Noel were candid and straightforward. Isabel and Noel positively identified accused-appellant as the person who shot Tyson while the latter was sleeping.
Isabel testified as follows, viz.:
Q: What unusual incident, if any, occurred in that afternoon where you were tending the store owned by Ate Leng?
A: I heard gunshots, Sir.
Q: How many gunshots did you hear?
A: Two (2) gunshots, Sir.
Q: So, what was your reaction, Madam Witness, when you heard the first gunshot?
A: At first, Sir, I thought it was a firecracker only; but when I look[ed], I heard another gunshot.
Q: So, to which direction did you look, Madam Witness, when you heard the first gunshot?
A: To my right side, Sir.
Q: And what did you see when you looked at your right side?
A: I saw a person who was lying down and another person who was point[ing] a gun, Sir.
Q: So, what was the distance between you and that person you saw lying and another person who was pointing a gun at that person lying?
A: One and one half arms[-]length, Sir.
Q: Do you know who was that person who was lying [down]?
A: Roger Gamba, Sir.
Q: Why do you know Roger Gamba?
A: He was a friend of my husband, Sir.
Q: For how long have you known Roger Gamba?
A: About three (3) years, Sir.
Q: How about the person you saw pointing a gun at Roger Gamba, do you know his name?
A: No, Sir.
COURT
Q: You don't know his name?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: What about his face?
A: I know his face, Your Honor.
SACP Ramos:
Q: If you see that person who was pointing a gun at Roger Gamba again, will you be able to identify him?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Is the person pointing a gun at Roger Gamba inside the court room?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Madam Witness, may I ask you to stand up and point to that person you saw pointing a gun at Roger Gamba?
A: Him, sir.
Witness pointing to a male person who when asked answered to the name Samuel Bultron y Solis.
Q: So, after you heard the second gunshot, what happened next?
A: I saw blood coming from Kuya Tyson (Roger Gamba), and then I saw a man [walk] away.
Q: Who was that man who walked away?
A: Him, Sir. (Witness pointing to the accused) 30
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Did you actually see the accused [shoot] Tyson?
A: Yes, Sir.
COURT
Q: So you were already looking at their direction when you heard the second shot?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: But that man you said who was the accused was wearing a hat?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: So how did you recognize his face?
A: Because he even looked at us, Your Honor.
Q: Do you mean that with the hat, you can clearly see his face?
A: Yes, Your Honor, because the sun was shining bright. 31
Noel, on the other hand, testified as follows:
Q: How sure are you that the noise that you heard [were] gunshots?
A: I saw a person who was walking holding a gun.
Q: How many gunshots did you hear, Mr. Witness?
A: Two (2), sir.
Q: You mentioned that you saw a man who [was] walking while holding a gun, my question is how far was that person from you when you saw him?
A: From my position to the door (which the parties agreed to be about eight (8) meters).
Q: Was that person who was walking a male or a female?
A: Male, Sir.
Q: To which direction was he heading, was it towards your direction or he was walking away from you?
A: He was walking away from me, Sir.
Q: On what hand was he carrying or holding a firearm?
A: Right hand, Sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: So, you saw that man holding a caliber .45 firearm who was walking away from you, my question is, do you know that man who was walking?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Why do you know that person?
A: I looked at him and he looked at me.
Q: So, is that person whom you saw holding a firearm and walking away from you inside the court room?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: May I ask to please point to that man whom you saw holding a firearm?
A: That person at the last bench, Sir, 4th man from the left. (Witness pointing to the person seated at the last bench inside the court room, 4th person from left who when asked answered to the name Samuel Solis Bultron. 32
Clearly, the witnesses pointed to accused-appellant as the assailant during trial. In both their Judicial Affidavits, 33 they also identified the accused-appellant as the killer. Moreover, accused-appellant's contention that Isabel's testimony is doubtful due to her failure to immediately report the incident to the authorities fails to persuade this Court. We echo the CA's pronouncements in this wise:
It is settled that there could be no hard and fast gauge for measuring a person's reaction or behavior when confronted with a startling, not to mention horrifying, occurrence, as in this case. Witnesses of startling occurrences react differently depending upon their situation and state of mind, and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience. The workings of the human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable, and people react differently to shocking stimulus — some may shout, some may faint, and others may be plunged into sensibility. Here, Isabel mentioned that she was shocked at the shooting she witnessed. Considering her state of mind at that moment, Isabel cannot be faulted if her initial reaction to the situation was to go to Tyson's brother, Errold, and inform him of the incident instead of reporting to the police authorities. It is not uncommon for a witness to approach the relatives of the victim first before anyone else. Hence, Isabel's actuations did not destroy her credibility as a witness in this case. 34 (Citations omitted)
In the same vein, accused-appellant's attempt to make it appear that Noel did not really see his face deserves scant consideration. Noel's categorical declaration that accused-appellant looked back at him when he called him out deserves more weight and consideration over accused-appellant's bare assertion to the contrary. In any case, there is no evidence to prove that Isabel and Noel had any ill motive to testify against accused-appellant. Absent any showing that the witnesses for the prosecution were impelled by improper motive to testify against the accused, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit. 35
Accused-appellant's defense of alibi cannot prevail over the categorical statements of the prosecution witnesses 36 since an alibi can be easily fabricated and is inherently unreliable. 37 For alibi to prosper, accused-appellant must prove: (a) his presence at another place at the time of the commission of the crime; and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity through clear and convincing evidence. 38 Here, accused-appellant stated that on the day of the incident, he was at his neighbor's house in Gate 5, Parola, Tondo, then at Joseph's house in Gate 4, Parola, Tondo to borrow a DVD. He further testified that on the way to Joseph's house, he was alone. 39
Considering that the crime took place in Gate 8, Parola, Tondo, it was not physically impossible for the accused-appellant to be at the scene of the crime. In fact, he was in the immediate vicinity thereof since Gate 8 and Gate 4 are located in close proximity to each other. To make matters worse, Richard's testimony contradicted accused-appellant's testimony. While accused-appellant stated that he was alone on his way to Joseph's house, Richard testified that Joseph went to fetch him in order to collect some money. 40 Thus, accused-appellant's defense of alibi deserves no consideration.
Accused-appellant's contention that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt must also fail. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) states:
Article 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusión perpetua to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, x x x
xxx xxx xxx
5. With evident premeditation.
Jurisprudence further dictates that the elements of murder are as follows: (a) a person was killed; (b) the accused killed him; (c) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and (d) the killing is not parricide nor infanticide. 41
In the case at bar, the death of Tyson is undisputed and it is clear that neither parricide nor infanticide were committed. The prosecution likewise proved through the testimony of eyewitnesses Isabel and Noel, that accused-appellant shot Tyson while the latter was sleeping. Thus, We find no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the courts a quo that all the elements of Murder qualified by treachery are present in this case.
Treachery exists "when the offender commits any of the crimes against a person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make." 42 For such attending circumstance to be appreciated, the following must be established: (a) the employment of means, methods, or manner of execution that would ensure the safety of the malefactor from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim, no opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the means, method, or manner of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender. 43
Here, Tyson was sleeping when accused-appellant shot him twice, causing his instantaneous death. Certainly, a victim who is sleeping cannot defend oneself or retaliate against the offender or even escape. 44 Indeed, the circumstances under which accused-appellant made the attack ensured the execution of the crime without any risk to himself. Contrary to accused-appellant's contention, the fact that he did not eliminate Noel for being an eyewitness does not negate the presence of treachery. As held in People v. Pulgo, 45 "the essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack on the victim which renders the latter unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack." 46 Indubitably, treachery is present when the assailant attacks his victim while the latter is sleeping.
We also affirm the finding that evident premeditation was not successfully proven by the prosecution. To appreciate evident premeditation, the following must be proven: (a) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (b) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and (c) sufficient lapse of time between the decision and the execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act. 47 Here, the evidence on record do not support the presence of evident premeditation.
Thus, the Court finds accused-appellant guilty of the crime of Murder and imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The CA correctly modified the awards of damages by increasing the civil indemnity to P75,000.00, moral damages to P75,000.00, exemplary damages to P75,000.00, and temperate damages to P50,000.00, in line with the Court's pronouncement in People v. Jugueta. 48
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed September 13, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10279 finding Samuel Bultron y Solis guilty of the crime of Murder, is hereby AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and is ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Roger Gamba the amounts of P75,000.00, as civil indemnity, P75,000,00, as moral damages, P75,000.00, as exemplary damages and P50,000.00, as temperate damages. In addition, interest is imposed on all damages awarded at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-15; penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon.
2. Records, pp. 273-281; penned by Presiding Judge Maria Paz R. Reyes-Yson.
3.Id. at 1-2.
4.Id. at 1.
5.Id. at 114.
6. TSN, February 23, 2016, pp. 3-9; see Judicial Affidavit dated October 20, 2015, records, pp. 23-24.
7. TSN, February 10, 2016, pp. 3-10; see id. at 25-26.
8. TSN, January 20, 2016, pp. 3-10.
9. TSN, January 20, 2016, pp. 6-8; TSN, February 16, 2016, pp. 6-9; See Joint Affidavit of Apprehension, records, pp. 28-29.
10. Exhibit K, records, p. 235.
11. See Certificate of Death, records, pp. 18-19.
12. TSN, August 3, 2016, pp. 2-9.
13. TSN, March 14, 2017, pp. 2-7.
14. Records, pp. 35-37.
15. TSN, March 14, 2017, pp. 7-10.
16. TSN, June 7, 2017, pp. 3-8.
17. Records, pp. 273-281.
18.Id. at 280-281.
19. CA rollo, pp. 42-54.
20.Id. at 47-50.
21.Id. at 51-52.
22.Id. 80-85.
23.Id. at 87-89.
24.Rollo, pp. 3-15.
25.Rollo, pp. 16-18.
26. CA rollo, p. 44.
27.People v. Manzano, 827 Phil. 113, 126 (2018).
28.People v. Dayaday, 803 Phil. 363, 370-371 (2017), citing People v. Nelmida, 694 Phil. 529, 556 (2012).
29.Id. at 371, citing People v. Gahi, 727 Phil. 642, 658 (2014).
30. TSN, February 23, 2016, pp. 4-6.
31.Id. at 12-13.
32. TSN, February 10, 2016, pp. 4-6.
33. Records, pp. 23-26.
34.Rollo, p. 10.
35.People v. Pulgo, 813 Phil. 205, 215-216 (2017) citing People v. Aquino, 724 Phil. 739, 755 (2014).
36.People v. Mosquerra, 414 Phil. 740, 748 (2001) citing People v. Benito, 363 Phil. 90 (1999).
37.People v. Pulgo, supra note 36 at 219 (2017).
38.People v. Desalisa, 451 Phil. 869, 876 (2003 ) citing People v. Abundo, 402 Phil. 616 (2001).
39. TSN, March 14, 2017, p. 4.
40. TSN, June 7, 2017, p. 6.
41.People v. Dayaday, supra note 28 at 373, citing People v. De Castro, 762 Phil. 158, 159 (2015).
42.People v. Manzano, supra note 27 at 140, citing People v. Sibbu, 808 Phil. 276, 289 (2017).
43.Id. at 141 citing People v. Bugarin, 807 Phil. 588, 600 (2017).
44. See People v. Caritativo, 451 Phil. 741, 769 (2003).
45. 813 Phil. 205 (2017).
46.Id. at 217.
47.People v. Callet, 431 Phil. 625, 635 (2002) citing People v. Panabang, 424 Phil. 596 (2002).
48. 783 Phil. 806, 853 (2016).