FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202983. August 17, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. DELFIN OMILA Y MONDEJAR, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated August 17, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 202983 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DELFIN OMILA y MONDEJAR, Accused-Appellant.
The accused-appellant Delfin Omila y Mondejar (Omila) seeks to reverse the decision promulgated on October 24, 2011 in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00585-MIN, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification the judgment 2 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, in YYY City (RTC) 3 finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of five counts of rape committed against AAA, then a minor 14 years of age.
On May 6, 2003, Omila was charged under five separate informations for rape (docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 9964, 9965, 9966, 9967, and 9968), all similarly worded except for the dates of the commission of the rapes in each instance, viz.:
That on or about the evening of September 23, 2002 at YYY City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with the use of force, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one AAA, a minor, 14 years of age, against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW: (Article 266-A, par. 1 (a) in relation to Article 266-B, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353). 4
The Prosecution presented three witnesses, namely: (1) victim AAA herself; (2) BBB, AAA's mother; and (3) Dr. Edgar S. Savella, NBI Medico Legal Officer of XXX Region. 5 In contrast, the Defense relied on the testimonies of Omila himself, Bryan Baslot (Baslot), and Weil Ann Velasco (Velasco).
The CA summarized the evidence adduced by the parties in its assailed decision, as follows:
On 23 September 2002 at about 7:00 o'clock in the evening, AAA was fetching a gallon of water from her neighbor. Because she was tired, she rested for awhile along the road. Suddenly, accused-appellant appeared and dragged her towards his house. He covered her mouth using his left hand and punched her thighs using his right hand. He then brought her to his bedroom and forcibly undressed her, tearing her short pants in the process. He continued punching her thighs, which at that time, had rendered her weak. He then removed his pants and brief and inserted his penis into her vagina. She was not able to shout because he covered her mouth and she felt weak. Thereafter, he let her go out and warned her not to tell anyone about the incident, otherwise he will kill her family.
Accused-appellant again raped AAA the second time on 26 September 2002 at 8:00 o'clock in the evening. AAA was fetching her younger siblings at her grandmother's house when accused-appellant suddenly waylaid her, covered her mouth and dragged her to his house. While inside the said house and still covering her mouth, accused-appellant raised her skirt, removed her panty, and inserted his penis into her vagina. Accused-appellant again threatened AAA telling her not to disclose the incident to anyone.
On 01 October 2002, AAA was sent by her mother on an errand to buy medicine. On her way home, accused-appellant again waylaid her, covered her mouth and dragged her to his house. He boxed her thighs until she became weak, and he undressed her and inserted his penis into her vagina. Thereafter, she went home and was again threatened by accused-appellant not to tell anyone about the incident.
The same thing happened to AAA on 08 October 2002 at about 10:00 o'clock in the evening. She was along the road resting after carrying a gallon of water when accused-appellant appeared from nowhere. He covered her mouth and dragged her to his house. He boxed her thighs, undressed her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. He again threatened her not to tell anyone. DETACa
On 18 October 2002, AAA was throwing garbage at the river when accused-appellant appeared from nowhere. He brought her to a grassy area where he made her lie down. He boxed her thighs to weaken her and inserted his penis into her vagina.
On 10 March 2003, AAA's mother, BBB, was informed by her (BBB's) aunt that AAA was raped by accused-appellant. When BBB confronted AAA, the latter started crying and narrated her ordeal in the hands of accused-appellant. They immediately went to the police station to report the rape incidents. On the same day, AAA was medically examined by Dr. Edgar S. Savella, NBI Medico Legal Officer, XXX Region, YYY City. The Medical Certificate dated 10 March 2003 revealed that AAA's hymen was tall, thick with a complete old healed laceration at 4:00 o'clock corresponding to the face of a watch.
On 13 March 2003, with the assistance of SPO4 Florenda Edio of the Women and Children's Protection Desk, Central Police Precinct, WWW City Police Office, YYY City, AAA filed a Complaint for Rape against accused-appellant. A warrant for the arrest of accused-appellant was subsequently issued and on 23 July 2003, he was apprehended by the police authorities.
On the other hand, the defense presented accused-appellant, Bryan Baslot and Weil Ann Velasco in order to establish the following:
Accused-appellant moved to Manila after his acquittal of the crime of murder in 2001. He worked at the Maynilad Water Company for six (6) months. He thereafter worked at the Mayon Blumentritt Construction until September 2002, and later on as a banana vendor in Sauyo, Novaliches which lasted, however, for only one (1) month because he learned that their parcel of land was about to be sold. He immediately went back to YYY City on 25 October 2002 to get his share of the proceeds from his siblings.
Bryan Baslot (Baslot for brevity) corroborated accused-appellant's story. He testified that he stayed at accused-appellant's house for two (2) years where there were about ten (10) boarders renting at the same time. He would usually go home to accused-appellant's house at 7:00 o'clock in the evening. The other boarders would likewise go home at about the same time. He categorically declared that he knew that accused-appellant arrived from Manila on 25 October 2002 at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon because he saw the latter's Super Ferry ship ticket showing the date of accused-appellant's arrival. Baslot also testified that there are thirty (30) neighboring houses located near accused-appellant's house, the nearest of which is only one meter away. Their place was well-lighted even at 7:00 o'clock in the evening.
Weil Ann Velasco (Velasco for brevity) testified that accused-appellant is her uncle. She, together with her husband and three (3) children, lived in the house of accused-appellant, which is actually owned by her grandmother. After giving birth to her second child, which was around the same time of the alleged rape incidents, she stayed at home most of the time. She also testified that she knows AAA but she has never seen accused-appellant bring the former inside the said house. She confirmed that accused-appellant had been staying in Manila on the date of the alleged rape incidents and it was only on 25 October 2002 that accused-appellant returned to YYY City to get his share of the proceeds from the sale of their land. She added that AAA's parents had pinpointed to accused-appellant as the one responsible for the loss of some checks. AAA's father then filed a case for grave oral defamation before their barangay against accused-appellant, to which the latter allegedly filed countercharges as well. 6
After trial, the RTC handed down its decision dated October 25, 2007, 7 and pronounced Omila guilty as charged for each of the five counts of rape charged, disposing:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Delfin Omila y Mondejar guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape and hereby sentences him as follows:
(1) In Criminal Case No. 9964, penalized under Article 266-A, par. (a) in relation to Article 266-B, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 8353, sentence him to suffer a penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the offended party, AAA the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages;
(2) In Criminal Case No. 9965, penalized under Article 266-A, par. (a) in relation to Article 266-B, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 8353, sentence him to suffer a penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the offended party, AAA the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages;
(3) In Criminal Case No. 9966, penalized under Article 266-A, par. (a) in relation to Article 266-B, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 8353, sentence him to suffer a penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the offended party, AAA the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages:
(4) In Criminal Case No. 9967, penalized under Article 266-A, par. (a) in relation to Article 266-B, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 8353, sentence him to suffer a penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the offended party, AAA the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages;
(5) In Criminal Case No. 9968, penalized under Article 266-A, par. (a) in relation to Article 266-B, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 8353, sentence him to suffer a penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the offended party, AAA the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages.
He shall serve his sentence at the Davao Prison and Penal Farm, Panabo City, Davao del Norte.
SO ORDERED.8
On appeal, Omila insisted upon the lone error that:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 9
In its assailed decision promulgated on October 24, 2011, the CA affirmed the convictions with modification, 10 decreeing:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 25 October 2007 of the Regional Trial Court, 10th Judicial Region, Branch 1, YYY City in Criminal Case Nos. 9964, 9965, 9966, 9967 and 9968, is AFFIRMED in all respects except that the accused-appellant Delfin M. Omilia is further ORDERED to pay AAA interest on all damages awarded at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.11
Hence, this appeal, whereby the accused reiterates that the convictions were erroneous. aDSIHc
Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
The elements of rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code are that: (1) the offender is a man who had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) he accomplished such act through force or intimidation upon her; or when she is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; or when she is under 12 years of age or is demented.
AAA fully narrated her ordeal at the hands of Omila, as borne out by the following record of her testimony, viz.:
Pros. Salise:
Q Do you know the accused Delfin Mondejar Omila?
A Yes, sir.
Q Why do you know him?
A Because he is our neighbor.
Q Where, at what place?
A In XXX, YYY City, sir.
Q If he is inside this chambers, can you point out him? (sic)
A I can, sir.
Q Please do so.
A That person, sir. (witness pointing to a person in white polo shirt who[,] when asked his name[,] answered Delfin Mondejar Omila).
Q Are you aware that there are five counts of rape which you filed against Delfin Mondejar Omila and I want you to be candid and honest, do you understand?
A Yes, sir.
Q On September 23, 2002 at about 7:00 o'clock in the evening, where were you?
A At that time, I was fetching water from our neighbor and because I was tired, so I rested on the road and I put down the gallon of water.
Q When you put down the gallon of water which you fetched, what happened?
A Delfin appeared suddenly and he dragged me and covered my mouth.
Q Were there people around aside from the two of you?
A None, sir.
Q You said that he covered your mouth, what hand did he use, the left or the right hand?
A He was using his left hand, sir.
Q What was his right hand doing when he covered your mouth with his left hand?
A While his left hand was covering my mouth, his right hand was punching my thighs and then he brought me to his house.
Q When he brought you to his house, what happened?
A Delfin Omila brought me inside his house and he undressed me, sir.
Q You mean in his bedroom, is that what you mean?
A In the house where he brought me is a house for rent. It is a two-storey house and he was occupying the ground floor and it is there where he brought me.
Q Meaning there was only two of you at about 7:00 P.M. On September 23, 2002 inside the ground floor of that house?
A Yes, sir.
Q We will proceed with this Criminal Case 9964. Please describe what happened after that?
A He undressed me. At that time I was wearing short pants and it was torn by the accused. He continued punching my thighs and at that time I was weaken[ed].
Q Meaning he took off your short pants and your panty?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was he doing when he undressed your short pants and your panty?
A He also took off his pants and brief, sir.
Q And he took off his pants and brief, what did he do to you?
A He then raped me. He inserted his penis into my vagina, sir.
Q Was his penis able to penetrate your vagina?
A Yes, sir.
Q How did you feel?
A I felt pain, sir.
Q Did you shout or you did not?
A I was not able to shout because he covered my mouth and I felt weak because he boxed my thighs.
Q That was on September 23, 2002?
A Yes, sir.
Q After he raped you, what did you do?
A He let me go out of the house and he said that if I will tell anybody, he will kill all of us.
Q Let us proceed with Criminal Case No. 9965 on September 26, 2002 at 8:00 o'clock in the evening, what happened?
A At that time I fetched my younger siblings from my grandmother's house.
Q What is the name of your grandmother?
A Matilde Salvaleon, sir.
Q Where was she living at that time?
A Also in XXX, YYY City, sir.
Q A neighbor of accused Delfin Omila, is that what you mean?
A Yes, but our house is a little bit far from them because she stayed on the road side.
Q That was September 26, 2002 at about 8:00 o'clock in the evening, you were fetching your younger siblings at the house of your grandmother. After fetching your younger siblings, what happened then?
A The same, Delfin waylaid me and he covered my mouth and brought me to his house.
Q Will you describe what did the accused Delfin Omila do to you on September 26, 2002 at about 8:00 o'clock in the evening. Describe blow by blow.
A He again brought me inside his house. At that time I was wearing a skirt. He covered my mouth. He raised my skirt and took off my panty and he inserted his penis into my vagina.
Q You testified a while ago in the first case 9964 that he boxed your thighs, did he do it to you on September 26?
A Yes, sir.
Q After the rape, where did you go?
A I went home to our house and again, he threatened me not to tell anybody or else he will kill all of us.
Q In these two incidents on September 23 and 26, 2002, where was your mother at that time?
A She was working as a cook at VVV Office and she usually goes late at night. My father is a driver and he usually renders overtime.
Q Driver of what vehicle? ETHIDa
A Tricycle driver going from YYY City to ZZZ and vice versa.
Q Let us go to Criminal Case No. 9966, the incident of October 1, 2002 at about 9:00 o'clock in the evening, where were you?
A I was buying medicine, sir.
Q What medicine, if you can still recall?
A Medicol.
Q Who sent you to buy medicine?
A My mother.
Q Where did you buy medicine?
A Near the house of my grandmother because it is located near the highway.
Q After buying medicine, what happened then?
A On my way back home, again Delfin Omila waylaid me and he covered my mouth and brought me to his house.
Q When he brought you to his house, what happened?
A He boxed my thighs until I became weak and then he undressed me and took off my panty and he inserted his penis into my vagina.
Q After the rape, where did you go?
A I went home and he again threatened me.
Q Let us proceed with Criminal Case No. 9967, the incident on October 8, 2002 at about 10:00 o'clock in the evening, where were you?
A I was fetching water from the water pump, sir.
Q What happened when you were fetching water from the artesian well (bomba).
A After fetching water from the artesian well and I was already carrying the gallon of water, I rested on the road and again Delfin Omila suddenly appeared from nowhere and he covered my mouth and dragged me to his house.
Q This incident took place at about 10:00 o'clock in the evening. How were you able to recognize Delfin Omila when it was about 10:00 o'clock in the evening?
A I saw him because there was a light and I am familiar with his height.
Q This Delfin Omila also brought you to his house on this October 8 incident?
A Yes, sir.
Q While inside the house of Delfin Omila, what transpired?
A He boxed my thighs, took off my dress and panty and he inserted his penis into my vagina.
Q Then he allowed you to go or leave?
A Yes, sir.
Q The same, he also threatened you just like the previous incidents?
A Yes, sir.
Q Let us proceed with Criminal Case No. 9968, the incident on October 18, 2002 at about 10:00 o'clock in the evening, where were you?
A I was throwing garbage in the river, sir.
Q After throwing garbage at the river at that time, what transpired?
A He appeared again from nowhere but he did not bring me to his house, instead, he brought to a grassy area, sir.
Q What do you mean by grassy area, will you describe that clearly. Grassy area or banana plants?
A Grassy area with some banana plants, sir.
Q What happened then when he brought you to the grassy area where banana plants abound?
A He lay me down on the grassy area and again he boxed my thighs to weak[en] me and he inserted his penis into my vagina.
Q This is Criminal Case No. 9968, the fifth rape, do you understand that?
A Yes, sir. 12
The RTC declared that AAA's candid narration of how she had been abused and the tears that accompanied her narration were earmarks of credibility, and must be given full faith and credit. The CA absolutely concurred in the findings of credibility by the RTC. We join the conclusions of the two lower courts, because their unanimous findings were binding and conclusive upon the Court, which is not a trier of facts. Also, Omila has obviously not tendered any persuasive basis by which we should disagree with and reject the findings made by the lower courts.
Omila asserted denial and alibi. He insisted that he could not have raped AAA on the alleged dates because he had moved to Manila following his acquittal in the prosecution against him of murder in 2001; that he had then worked at the Maynilad Water Company for six months, and at the Mayon Blumentritt Construction until September 2002; that thereafter he had been a banana vendor in Sauyo, Novaliches, Quezon City for a month; and that he had returned to YYY City only on October 25, 2002 to receive his share in the sale of real property that had been sold by the family. He discredited AAA by claiming that her testimony had been tainted by material inconsistencies; that during the course of her testimony she had been coached by her mother BBB; that her identification of him was doubtful; that the complaints for rape were but a ploy to counter the charge of grave oral defamation he had filed against AAA's father; and that AAA had taken a long time to report the rape incidents.
In rejecting the assertions of Omila, the CA punctiliously stated:
Contrary to the said contentions, however, the alleged inconsistencies are minor for they do not affect the credibility of the victim. The purported inconsistencies were too trivial to merit consideration. These matters are not material to AAA's positive identification of accused-appellant as the person who raped her five (5) times. As long as the inconsistencies are immaterial or irrelevant to the elements of the crime and do not touch on material facts crucial to the guilt or innocence of the accused as in the present case, these are not valid grounds to reverse a conviction.
Accused-appellant next avers that his identity as the person who raped AAA remains doubtful. He claims that AAA first accused Leopoldo Omila, as the one who raped her five (5) times. Later, AAA changed her complaint and instead pointed to him (accused-appellant) as the one who committed the said crimes. Accused-appellant denies having a brother named Leopoldo Omila. He, however, has an uncle named Leopoldo Mondejar.
Accused-appellant's argument is misleading.
True, AAA first charged a certain Leopoldo Omila as the one who raped her five (5) times. But AAA explained that all the while, she thought that accused-appellant is Leopoldo Omila. AAA insisted that accused-appellant has a brother name Leopoldo Omila because the said information was provided by no less than accused-appellant's sister, Ana, and his friends. Apparently, AAA was provided with the wrong information regarding the real name of accused-appellant to confuse her later on in identifying accused-appellant as the one who exploited her.
Be that as it may, identification of a person is not established solely through the knowledge of the name of a person. As elucidated by the Supreme Court in People v. Versoza, viz.:
Identification of a person is not established solely through knowledge of the name of a person. Familiarity with physical features particularly those of the face, is actually the best way to identify a person. One may be familiar with the face but not necessarily the name. It does not follow, therefore, that to be able to identify a person, one must first know his name. Moreover, it is completely illogical to equate and limit positive identification to a knowledge of the real names of the culprits since more often than not, robbers victimize people who are complete strangers to them and who do not know them by face or name purposely to avoid being recognized and positively identified.
It is, therefore, enough that an eyewitness positively identify the culprits in a crime by means of their faces or physical features. Experience shows that precisely because of the unusual acts of bestiality committed right before their eyes, eyewitnesses, especially the victims of a crime, can remember with a high degree of reliability the identity of criminals. The natural reaction of victims of criminal violence is to strive to see the appearance of their assailants and observe the manner the crime was committed. Most often, the face and the body movements of the assailants create an impression that cannot be erased easily from their memory.
Thus, it matters little that initially AAA was mistaken in providing the name of the person who ravished her for as long as she recognized accused-appellant's face and identified him openly in court. cSEDTC
Accused-appellant also makes a fuss about AAA's delay in reporting the rape incidents, for it took her five (5) months after the last rape that she was able to finally reveal the same to her mother. He avers that AAA's family had an axe to grind against him because AAA only reported the rape incidents after he (accused-appellant) and AAA's father had filed charges and countercharges against each other.
We are not persuaded.
The late reporting by AAA of the rape incidents does not erode her credibility. AAA was obviously cowed by the threats made by accused-appellant that he would kill her family or any person to whom she would disclose the rape incidents. Young as she was, such threat certainly instilled tremendous fear in her mind. She must have been easily overwhelmed by fear and confusion, thus, the delay in reporting the rape incidents. Had it not been for the revelation made by BBB's aunt who told the latter that her daughter was raped by accused-appellant, AAA could have chosen to suffer the ignominy in silence rather than narrate to the whole world the sordid details of her harrowing experience in the hands of accused-appellant. And this is understandably so since accused-appellant is her neighbor, hence, it is not too far-fetched that he will make good the threats he made.
In the same vein, We do not find any merit in accused-appellant's attempt to attribute personal animosities and bad blood between his family and that of the private complainant as the reasons why he was being charged with five (5) counts of rape. This Court finds it quite unconvincing that AAA, then only fourteen (14) years old, had the guile to trump up rape charges against accused-appellant just to exact revenge for the benefit of her family. This position is too tenuous to merit Our attention.
We note that not a few persons accused of rape have attributed similar motives to those who brought the charges against them. It has been held for instance, however, that no mother in her right mind would possibly stoop so low as to subject her daughter to the hardships and shame concomitant to a rape prosecution just to assuage her own hurt feelings; that is unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as an engine of malice, especially if it will subject a daughter to embarrassment and even stigma; that it is hard to believe that a mother would sacrifice her own daughter and present her to be the subject of a public trial if she, in fact, has not been motivated by an honest desire to have the culprit punished. We fail to spot a single circumstance that warrants a deviation from the doctrinal imports of the said rulings. 13
The RTC and the CA were correct in disregarding the denial and alibi of Omila. In the face of his being positively identified as having raped AAA, his denial and alibi were really not worthy of consideration. In addition, the courts have generally viewed denial and alibi with considerable caution by virtue of their being easily made up, and because of their nature of being negative and self-serving. As such, they have been regarded as inherently weak and unreliable. For such defenses to merit serious consideration, they should be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. That was not done herein. We further point out that denial and alibi are to be accorded no greater evidentiary value than that given to the testimonies of credible witnesses who have testified upon affirmative matters. 14
Moreover, the factual findings of the CA, when they affirm those of the trial court, are conclusive and binding on the Court, unless the findings of the trial court and the CA are palpably unsupported by the evidence on record, or unless the judgment of the CA was based on a misapprehension of the established facts. 15 Such conclusiveness derives from the trial court's having the first-hand and direct opportunity to observe the demeanor and manner of the victim when she testified at the trial. 16
We deem it necessary to modify Omila's civil liability to accord with prevailing jurisprudence. 17 Accordingly Omila is ordered to pay the following damages for each of the five counts of rape, to wit: (a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, (b) P75,000.00 as moral damages, and (c) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. In addition, we affirm the CA's imposition of interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all the amounts hereby awarded as civil liability from the finality of this decision until such damages are fully paid. 18
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Decision promulgated on October 24, 2011 subject to the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant Delfin Omila y Mondejar is ORDERED TO PAY the victim AAA for each count of rape: (a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, (b) P75,000.00 as moral damages, and (c) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all such amounts from the finality of this decision until the same are fully paid; and to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-231; penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, with Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. (retired) and Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 32-73; penned by Judge Eduardo S. Casals.
3. The real names, addresses, and personal circumstances of rape victims and their immediate family are withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) and Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004). See People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
4. Rollo, p. 4.
5. Id. at 4-5.
6. Supra note 1, at 5-8.
7. CA rollo, pp. 32-73; penned by Judge Eduardo S. Casals.
8. Rollo, pp. 72-73.
9. CA rollo, p. 13.
10. Supra note 1.
11. Id. at 22.
12. TSN, March 19, 2004, pp. 5-10.
13. Rollo, pp. 17-20.
14. People v. Bensig, G.R. No. 138989, September 17, 2002, 389 SCRA 182, 194.
15. Pangonorom v. People, G.R. No. 143380, April 11, 2005, 455 SCRA 211, 220.
16. People v. Brecinio, G.R. No. 138534, March 17, 2004, 425 SCRA 616, 622; People v. Quimzon, G.R. No. 133541, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 261, 271.
17. People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.
18. See Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439, 458.