FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232488. September 29, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JOSEPH MACARARANGA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 29, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232488 (People of the Philippines v. Joseph Macararanga). — On appeal 1 is the Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated January 20, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07621, which affirmed with modification, the Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 12, ______ City 4 dated April 24, 2015 in Criminal Case No. 5582, finding Joseph Macararanga (Joseph) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). HTcADC
Joseph's conviction by the RTC and CA stemmed from an Information, that reads:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 5582
That at about 11:00 o'clock in the evening of October 10, 2007, in _____________ ____________ Province of Albay, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who was then armed with a bladed weapon (balisong), with lewd an unchaste design, and through force, threat and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have carnal knowledge of [AAA] 5 against her will and consent and while she was fully conscious and when she thereafter lost consciousness, to her damage and prejudice.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW, with the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and of having been committed with the use of a deadly weapon. 6
Upon arraignment, Joseph pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. After termination of the pre-trial, trial on merits ensued. 7
The Antecedents
AAA testified that on October 10, 2007 at around 11:00 o'clock in the evening, she was sleeping with her children when her neighbor, Joseph, forcibly opened the window of their house, which was locked by a rope. 8 Once inside, Joseph switched off the light, immediately went to AAA, and using his left hand, poked a balisong at her neck, while kneeling down in a stooping position facing her. Joseph then ordered AAA not to shout. 9 Using his right hand, Joseph proceeded to caress AAA's vagina, bit her lips, lifted her shirt and licked her nipples. 10 Joseph removed AAA's pajama and panty and inserted his finger into her vagina, while still poking a balisong using his left hand. 11 After that, Joseph inserted his penis into AAA's vagina. 12 Fearing that Joseph might kill her, AAA lost her consciousness. 13 The following day, when her husband, BBB, returned home from fishing, AAA narrated how Joseph had raped her. 14
For his part, BBB testified that on October 11, 2007, he returned to their house from fishing. He noticed that AAA was a bit lethargic. 15 Upon learning from AAA that the latter was raped by Joseph, they went to FFF, the Chief Tanod of _________ and filed a complaint. 16 FFF then advised them to go to the police station of __________. 17 They then went to the said police station, ___________ and had the incident blottered. 18 On the same day, he saw Joseph near the shore. Upon seeing Joseph, BBB had wanted to hit him with a paddle but he restrained himself from doing so, for fear of being incarcerated.
For his defense, Joseph vehemently denied the accusation against him. He denied having any sexual intercourse with AAA on October 10, 2007 and interposed the defense of alibi. Joseph testified that in 2007, he resided at _____________, Albay. However, he left ___________ for _________, Albay, on October 7, 2007, with his live-in partner, Bersabe Laroga, at about 8:00 o'clock in the morning to visit his mother and that he stayed therein until October 20, 2007. 19 Hence, he could not be at the scene of the crime at the time of the alleged rape incident because he was in ___________ with his mother, Lordita Macararanga (Lordita), on the said date. 20 According to him, he stayed in his mother's house to help the latter in her palay business. He only learned of the accusation against him on October 25, 2007 while he was at __________________. 21
To corroborate his claims, he presented his mother, Lordita and his sister, Realina Quedeng (Realina). Lordita testified that Joseph was with her at her house in ___________________, Albay, and that Joseph never left their residence since his arrival on October 7, 2007 until October 20, 2007. 22 On the other hand, Realina testified that on October 10, 2007, she and Joseph were at their mother's house. 23
After trial, the RTC handed a guilty verdict on Joseph for the crime of rape, defined and penalized under Art. 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The dispositive portion of the Decision states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Joseph Macararanga guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE defined and penalized under Art. 266-A, 1(a) and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended, thereby sentencing him to suffer the indivisible penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided therefore by law.
Ordering the accused Joseph Macararanga to pay the private complainant, [AAA], the following sum:
a) Seventy Five Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos as civil indemnity;
b) Seventy Five Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos as moral damages;
c) Seventy Five Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos as exemplary damages to deter similar perversity.
SO ORDERED. 24
The trial court gave credence to the testimony of AAA and found no cogent reason to doubt on her direct and straightforward testimony of her sordid ordeal from the hands of the accused on the night of October 10, 2007. The RTC held that Joseph's defense of alibi is insufficient to exculpate him from the charge against him. The RTC pointed out that it was not impossible for Joseph to go to AAA's house at the night of the rape incident. aScITE
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated April 24, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court XXX City, Branch YYY, is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that interest is hereby imposed on the total amount of damages awarded, at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum, until the same are fully paid.
SO ORDERED.25
The CA agreed with the findings of the RTC that AAA's testimony is credible. She was able to describe how the charge of rape was committed by Joseph. 26 Her narrations of the incident were clear and detailed as she vividly remembered the harrowing experienced that she had in the hands of Joseph. The CA found that in rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony, as and when sufficiently credible, given by the rape victim. In contradiction to the positive declaration of AAA, accused-appellant merely offered denial and alibi as a defense, which are inherently weak. 27
Hence, Joseph brought the instant appeal.
In the Resolution 28 dated November 29, 2017, the Court required both parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs. On February 21, 2018, accused-appellant filed a Manifestation 29 averring that he would adopt his arguments in his Appellant's Brief 30 filed before the CA. On July 10, 2019, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation 31 which stated that they would no longer file a supplemental brief, as their Appellee's Brief filed with the CA 32 had substantially and exhaustively responded to and refuted the issues raised by accused-appellant.
Assignment of Errors
In his Brief, accused-appellant raised the following assignment of errors, to wit:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME OF RAPE BY RELYING SOLELY ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S TESTIMONY
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE MEDICO-LEGAL REPORT SUPPORTED PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S CLAIM THAT SHE WAS SEXUALLY MOLESTED 33
Our Ruling
The appeal is bereft of merit.
Article 266-A of the RPC which defines and penalizes rape, enumerates the circumstances under which rape is deemed committed, thus:
ARTICLE 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. — Rape is committed:
(1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
For the successful prosecution of the crime of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) of the RPC, the prosecution must establish: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that such act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation. 34 In the instant case, We hold that the prosecution sufficiently established that all the elements of the crime of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) are present.
A perusal of the records shows that the prosecution was able to prove that accused-appellant forced himself upon AAA and succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her. In rape cases, the conviction of the accused rests heavily on the credibility of the victim. 35 Here, the RTC and the CA found AAA's testimony to be credible as it was made in a candid and straightforward manner. In People v. Malana, 36 this Court ruled that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, thus:
In reviewing rape cases we are guided by the following well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility: it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove it; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
The determination of the credibility of the offended party's testimony is a most basic consideration in every prosecution for rape, for the lone testimony of the victim, if credible, is sufficient to sustain the verdict of conviction. As in most rape cases, the ultimate issue in this case is credibility. In this regard, when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the question as it heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial. The exceptions to the rule are when such evaluation was reached arbitrarily, or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstance of weight and substance which could affect the result of the case. None of these circumstances are present in the case at bar to warrant its exception from the coverage of this rule. 37 HEITAD
In the case at bar, We find no reason to deviate from the findings and conclusions of the RTC and CA as to the credibility of AAA. Indeed, when a woman says that she was raped, in effect, she says all that is necessary to show that she had been raped, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. 38 In her testimony, AAA was categorical in her statement as to what happened, thus:
PROS. GUERRERO:
Q: Madam witness, do you remember of any incident that happened involving the accused Joseph Macararanga and you?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: What was that?
A: On October 10, 2007 at around 11:00 p.m. while we were sleeping.
Q: What happened next while you were sleeping?
A: I was with my children CCC, DDD and EEE.
Q: What happened next while you were sleeping with your children CCC, DDD and EEE?
A: I was awaken (sic).
Q: When you were awaken, what happened next?
A: I saw Joseph Macararanga forcibly opened our window.
Q: After he forcibly opened the window, what happened next?
A: He entered our house and switch off the light.
Q: What did you do when he switched off the light?
A: He immediately went near me and poked the knife or "balisong" at my neck.
Q: Will you describe to us what was your position when Joseph Macararanga poked a knife at your neck?
A: I was still lying.
Q: Who were the persons with you at that time?
A: My three (3) children.
Q: Then, what happened next when Joseph Macararanga poked his knife at your neck?
A: He told me not to shout.
Q: What was the position of Joseph Macararanga in relation to you when he was poking the knife and at the same time telling you not to shout?
A: He was kneeling down in a stooping position.
Q: Facing whom?
A: Facing me.
Q: What happened next when Joseph Macararanga knelt in front of you with a knife in his hand?
A: He molested me.
Q: What do you mean by "he molested me"?
A: He caressed my vagina.
Q: Which hand was used by Joseph Macararanga in poking his knife?
A: His left hand.
Q: Which hand was caressing your vagina?
A: Right hand.
Q: What happened next after he caressed your vagina?
A: He bit my lips.
Q: What happened next?
A: He lifted my T-shirt upward and licked my nipple. (Witness is crying)
Q: What happened next?
A: He removed my pajama and panty.
Q: Using which hand?
A: Right hand.
Q: How about the other hand?
A: It was holding the knife.
Q: Was he able to remove your pajama?
A: Yes, ma'am up to my knees.
Q: What happened next?
A: He inserted his finger into my vagina.
Q: Thereafter, what happened next?
A: I felt that he inserted his penis into my vagina.
Q: What happened next after that, Mr. Witness? ATICcS
A: I lost my consciousness because of fear.
Q: What fear is that you are referring to?
A: I was afraid that he might kill me.
Q: You said that you became unconscious, when was the time you came or regained your consciousness?
A: When I regained my consciousness[,] I switched on the light but Joseph Macararanga was no longer there and my pajama and panty were at the mat where we were sleeping.
Q: Madam witness, what did you do when you regained consciousness and found out that accused was no longer inside your house after abusing you?
A: I closed the window then wore my panty and pajama. 39
The straightforward narration of the victim, accompanied by her categorical identification of accused-appellant as the malefactor, sealed the case for the prosecution. 40 In the absence of evidence of improper motive on the part of AAA to falsely testify against accused-appellant, AAA's testimony deserves great weight and credence. Consequently, considering that AAA categorically narrated how accused-appellant, by poking a balisong at her and ordering her not to shout, succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her, it follows that all the elements of the crime of rape had been properly established by the prosecution.
Accused-appellant argues that it was not proper for the CA to dismiss his defense of denial and alibi, as the same were corroborated by the testimonies of his mother and sister, who each testified as to his whereabouts on the night of the incident, making it physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.
We are not persuaded.
Time and again, this Court has held that bare assertions of denial and alibi cannot overcome the categorical testimony of the victim. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. 41 On the other hand, for the defense of alibi to be appreciated in favor of an accused, it must be demonstrated that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene and that his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense is established. 42 In the instant case, it was established during trial that it was not physically impossible for accused-appellant to have been at, or near the scene of the crime. As accused-appellant himself stated, the distance between _________ and ________, Albay, can be travelled for half an hour only or [thirty (30) minutes]. 43 Verily, accused-appellant's claim that he was with his mother at __________, Albay, at the time AAA was raped, did not preclude the possibility of his presence at the place of the crime at the time of its commission. Thus, considering that the defense failed to proffer evidence for accused-appellant's physical impossibility to be present at the time of the commission of the offense, We find that the RTC and CA are correct in holding that the evidence of the defense did not rule out the presence of accused-appellant on the date and place of the commission of the crime.
Further, accused-appellant contends that the Medico-Legal Report does not support the allegation that he forced himself on AAA.
We disagree.
Among those who testified for the prosecution was Dr. Marivic O. Alcantara (Dr. Alcantara), Rural Health Physician of Rural Health Unit of ____________ who conducted AAA's medico-legal examination. The Medico-Legal Report 44 dated October 22, 2007 reads:
FINDINGS:
No sign of external injury
Porous vagina, with wide gaping hymen and healed perineal scar
The testimony of Dr. Alcantara sheds light on the matter:
Q: In this case, what did you elicit from the victim, AAA, who was accompanied to your clinic by the In-charge of the Women Section, PNP _____?
A: According to the patient, there was an alleged rape.
Q: After getting that information, what did you do next?
A: So, I asked consent from the patient to perform physical examination on her and she consented.
Q: Then when she consented, what did you do?
A: I examined the patient and on examination, I noticed there was no sign of external injury. It has a porous vagina with wide gaping hymen and healed perineal scar. TIADCc
Q: Will you kindly explain what do you mean by porous vagina?
A: It means that the patient had already given birth previously.
Q: How about this wide gaping hymen?
A: It means that the hymen is far apart. There is a noted opening in the center.
Q: Is that more or less, for that kind of condition of hymen if the woman has given birth?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And this healed perineal scar, what do you mean by that?
A: It means that the patient has previous delivery of a baby. There is an initial tear in the lower portion of the vagina which was held subsequently after birth.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: In this case, doctor, would it still possible for a woman who had already given birth to sustain hymenal laceration if she was sexually violated?
A: It is possible.
Q: But is it possible here that it will have no mark?
A: Possible.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: But despite the fact that the hymen is already gaping she can still be a victim of rape?
A: Possible.
It can be gleaned therefrom that while the findings of the Medico-Legal Report indicated: "No sign of external injury; Porous vagina, with wide gaping hymen and healed perineal scar," it does not, in any way, disprove that the crime of rape was committed by accused-appellant against AAA. As Dr. Alcantara clarified, it is still possible that despite the fact that AAA's hymen is already gaping, she can still be a victim of rape. Moreover, it is possible for a woman who had already given birth to sustain hymenal laceration if she was sexually violated and it is possible that it will leave no mark. The absence of any external sign of injury does not necessarily negate rape, because proof of injury is not an element of the crime. 45 Thus, accused-appellant's allegation that the medico-legal report does not support the contention that he forced himself on AAA is without merit.
At any rate, the paramount consideration in rape cases is the victim's testimony and not necessarily the medical findings. 46 In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. 47 This is so because from the nature of the offense, the only evidence that can oftentimes be offered to establish the guilt of the accused is the complainant's testimony. 48 Here, We find that the direct, positive and categorical testimony of AAA, absent any showing of ill-motive, prevails over accused-appellant's defense of denial. 49 After all, in rape cases, the accused may be convicted based on the sole testimony of the victim as long as her testimony is clear, positive, and convincing, as in this case. 50
Evidently, all the elements for the crime of rape under paragraph 2 (a) of Article 315 of the RPC are present in this case. Hence, We affirm accused-appellant's conviction for the crime of rape.
However, We modify the penalty imposed by the CA.
Well-settled is the rule that the filing of an appeal in criminal cases throws open the entire case for review and it becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct any error, as may be found in the appealed judgment, whether assigned as an error or not. 51 In the present case, it bears emphasis that the Information alleged that the aggravating circumstance of dwelling and use of a deadly weapon attended the commission of rape.
As regards the use of a deadly weapon, Article 266-B of the RPC, explicitly provides:
ARTICLE 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
Jurisprudence dictates that in order for the qualifying circumstance of "use of a deadly weapon" to be appreciated, it must be: (1) sufficiently alleged in the Information; and (2) proven that the deadly weapon was used to make the victim submit to the will of the offender. 52
In People v. Tagle, 53 the Court elucidated that:
Even the act of holding a bladed instrument, by itself, is strongly suggestive of force or, at least, intimidation, and threatening the victim with the same is sufficient to bring her into submission. In People v. Dumadag, 54 the Court ruled that:
The intimidations made by the appellant are sufficient since it instilled fear in her mind that if she would not submit to his bestial demands, something bad would befall her. "Well-settled is the rule that where the victim is threatened with bodily injury, as when the rapist is armed with a deadly weapon, such as a pistol, knife, ice pick or bolo, such constitutes intimidation sufficient to bring the victim to submission to the lustful desires of the rapist." 55
Here, the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish that accused-appellant poked a balisong at AAA's neck to commit the horrendous act of rape against the latter. As such, AAA lost her consciousness due to her fear that accused-appellant might kill her. Since the presence of the aggravating circumstance, i.e., the use of a deadly weapon qualifies the crime, under Article 266-B of the RPC, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. AIDSTE
Further, the information alleged dwelling as an aggravating circumstance. Dwelling aggravates a felony if it is committed in the victim's home without the latter's provocation. It is an aggravating circumstance because of the sanctity of privacy which the law accords to the human abode. 56 Here, the prosecution sufficiently established during trial that accused-appellant barged inside the dwelling of AAA while the latter was sleeping with her children and committed the crime of rape therein. Hence, We shall consider dwelling as an aggravating circumstance.
In accordance with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that in all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the greater penalty shall be applied when an aggravating circumstance, such as dwelling in this case, is present in the commission of the offense. 57 The penalty imposable in this case is death. However, pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9364, 58 it is the penalty of reclusion perpetua, in lieu of death that shall be imposed. Further, in view of A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, 59 the qualification of without eligibility for parole shall be used in order to emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced to suffer the death penalty had it not been for R.A. No. 9346.
Corollarily, in light of prevailing jurisprudence, 60 We deem it proper to modify the amount of damages and increase the same to P100,000.00, considering the modification in the penalty from reclusion perpetua to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole (in lieu of death). Thus, We modify the indemnities awarded by the CA, as follows: P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. These amounts shall earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The January 20, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07621, which affirmed with modification the April 24, 2015 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, _______ City, in Criminal Case No. 5582 is AFFIRMEDWITH MODIFICATION.
Accused-appellant Joseph Macararanga is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. He is ORDERED to PAY the victim AAA, the amounts of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 by way of exemplary damages, with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 18-19. Amended Notice of Appeal.
2.Id. 2-14. Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon (retired), with Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda (now a Member of this Court) and Pedro B. Corales, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 27-35. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Alben Casimiro Rabe.
4. The city where the crime was committed is withheld to protect the identity of the rape victim pursuant to Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 issued on September 5, 2017.
5. Pursuant to the Court's ruling in People v. Cabalquinto (G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006), the real name of the private offended party and her immediate family members, including any other personal circumstance or information tending to establish or compromise the identity of said party, shall be withheld. The initials AAA shall represent the private offended party and so forth.
6. CA rollo, pp. 25-26.
7.Id. at 28.
8. TSN, September 1, 2009, pp. 4-5.
9.Id. at 5.
10.Id. at 6.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 7.
14.Id. at 8.
15. Records, p. 30.
16. TSN, January 19, 2010, pp. 10-11.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19. TSN, April 17, 2012, pp. 3-4.
20. TSN, April 17, 2012, p. 7.
21. TSN, February 24, 2012, p. 9.
22. TSN, November 5, 2013, pp. 5-6.
23. TSN, November 24, 2011, p. 4.
24.Rollo, p. 35.
25.Id. at 7.
26.Id.
27.Id. at 10.
28.Id. at 25.
29.Id. at 30-32.
30. CA rollo, pp. 55-62.
31.Rollo, pp. 38-41.
32. CA rollo, pp. 93-106.
33.Id. at 55.
34.People v. Bensurto, Jr., 802 Phil. 766, 773 (2016).
35.People v. Villalobos, 833 Phil. 123, 138 (2018).
36.People v. Malana, 646 Phil. 290-311 (2010).
37.Id. at 301-302.
38.People v. Docena, 379 Phil. 903, 913 (2000).
39. TSN, September 1, 2009, pp. 4-7.
40.People v. Macapal, Jr., 501 Phil. 675, 686 (2005).
41.Supra note 34 at 778.
42.People v. Intong, 466 Phil. 733, 745 (2004).
43. TSN, April 17, 2012, p. 5.
44. Records, p. 6.
45.People v. Salazar, G.R. No. 239138, February 17, 2021.
46.Id.
47.Id.
48.Supra note 38 at 914.
49.People v. Galagati, 788 Phil. 670, 688 (2016).
50.People v. Cabilida, Jr., 836 Phil. 144, 153 (2018).
51.People v. Laguerta, 398 Phil. 370, 375 (2000).
52.People v. Tagle y Roqueta, G.R. No. 229348, November 19, 2018.
53.Id.
54.People v. Dumadag, 667 Phil. 664-680 (2011).
55.Id. at 676.
56.People v. Pagkatipunan, G.R. No. 232393, August 14, 2019.
57.People v. Salome, 532 Phil. 368, 383 (2006).
58. Entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines"
xxx xxx xxx
SECTION 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed.
(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.
59. A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC — Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties:
xxx xxx xxx
[T]he following guidelines shall be observed in the imposition of penalties and in the use of the phrase "without eligibility for parole":
(1) In cases where the death penalty is not warranted, there is no need to use the phrase "without eligibility for parole" to qualify the penalty of reclusion perpetua; it is understood that convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole; and
(2) When circumstances are present warranting the imposition of the death penalty, but this penalty is not imposed because of R.A. No. 9346, the qualification of "without eligibility for parole" shall be used to qualify reclusion perpetua in order to emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced to suffer the death penalty had it not been for R.A. No. 9364.
60.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 832 (2016).