FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 254807. November 18, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. MELBERT POBLEO y AGUILLON, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 18, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 254807 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Melbert Pobleo y Aguillon, accused-appellant).
This Appeal 1 seeks to reverse and set aside the August 25, 2020 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02602. The CA affirmed, with modification, the May 23, 2017 Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City, Branch 7 (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 2010-03-160, finding Melbert Pobleo y Aguillon (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Statutory Rape under paragraph 1 (d), Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353, and Rape by Sexual Assault under Art. 266-A in relation to Art. 266-B of the RPC.
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of statutory rape and rape by sexual assault in the Information 4 dated March 18, 2010, which reads:
That on or about the 16th day of March, 2010 in the City of Tacloban, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design and taking advantage of the tender age of the victim, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had (sic) carnal knowledge with (sic) her and committed acts of sexual assault by inserting his penis into the mouth of AAA, 5 a child four (4) years of age.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
During his arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. Accused-appellant also failed to move for the quashal of the duplicitous information or to interpose any objection thereto. Thus, trial on the merits ensued. 6
Evidence for the Prosecution
The prosecution presented as witnesses: AAA; BBB, the victim's mother; Police Officer III Maria Lorena Pacheco (PO3 Pacheco); Dr. Alexander Capoquian (Dr. Capoquian); and Dr. Clara Rosa Britt (Dr. Britt).
On March 16, 2010, at around 3:00 a.m., BBB woke up to do the laundry and went outside to fetch water. On her way out, she encountered accused-appellant, who was her husband's nephew. Accused-appellant lived with BBB's mother-in-law, whose house was just about four meters away from AAA and BBB's house. 7
Afterwards, BBB went back to their house and made some coffee. Accused-appellant joined her and also sat down at the table. At around 4:00 a.m., AAA, who was four years old at that time, woke up and sat at the table with BBB and accused-appellant. After drinking some of her mother's coffee, AAA went to the balcony. 8
After doing the laundry, BBB decided to rest and looked for AAA. Although it was still slightly dark at that time, BBB saw AAA outside with accused-appellant. AAA and accused-appellant were both sitting down and facing each other, with accused-appellant lifting AAA in a "push and pull motion." BBB approached them and asked accused-appellant what he was doing, and the latter replied that they were only playing. BBB grabbed AAA and brought her back inside the house. 9
At around 1:00 p.m. of the same day, while talking to her neighbors on the balcony, BBB remembered that she had to lay AAA down for a nap. As BBB went inside, she heard AAA say "agi-agi!" which meant "ouch! ouch!" BBB quickly went towards the bedroom to check on her. As she opened the door, BBB saw AAA and accused-appellant lying down and facing each other, with accused-appellant's shorts removed. One of accused-appellant's hands was holding down AAA's hand to his penis and his other hand was pushing AAA's head down towards it. BBB screamed and cursed at accused-appellant, who quickly fled. 10
BBB took AAA to the police station to report the incident. After verifying the report, Police Senior Inspector Evelyn Perpiñan (PS/Insp. Perpiñan) and PO3 Pacheco of the Women and Children Protection Desk accompanied BBB to look for accused-appellant. They found accused-appellant at BBB's mother-in-law's house and arrested him. 11
Meanwhile, BBB brought AAA to Eastern Visayas Regional Medical Center for a medical examination. Dr. Capoquian and Dr. Britt conducted the examination and stated in their medico-legal report that AAA had healed and complete hymenal lacerations at the 3 o'clock position. 12
On March 17, 2010, PS/Insp. Perpiñan interviewed AAA about the incident. AAA narrated to PS/Insp. Perpiñan that accused-appellant inserted his penis in her vagina three times in the early morning of March 16, 2010, and also forced her to suck his penis later that day:
Q: Do you have something to tell me?
A: There is.
Q: Please narrate it to me.
A: He [referring to Kuya Melbert, herein accused-appellant] told me to suck his penis.
Q: When did your Kuya Melbert let you suck his penis?
A: Last night but the mother told the investigator that it was in the early morning of March 16, 2010 and was followed at around 1:45 P.M. of the same date.
Q: x x x "What else did Kuya Melbert do to you?"
A: He inserted his penis inside my vagina.
Q: How many times did he [insert] his penis inside your vagina?
A: Thrice.
Q: Is there something Kuya Melbert gave you?
A: Nothing.
Q: Where did he let you suck his penis?
A: Inside our bedroom. 13
Evidence for the Defense
Accused-appellant chose not to present any evidence or testimony in his defense. 14
The RTC Ruling
In its May 23, 2017 Judgment, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of statutory rape and rape by sexual assault. The dispositive portion of the judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, premises well considered, judgment is hereby rendered:
1.) FINDING the accused Melbert Pobleo y Aguillon, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape, with the qualifying circumstance that the victim was below 7 years old at the time of the commission of the felony. Conformably with RA 9346, he is hereby sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole;
2.) FINDING the accused Melbert Pobleo y Aguillon, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of rape through sexual assault, and applying the indeterminate sentence law, he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment ranging from 8 years and 1 day of Prision Mayor minimum as the minimum to 17 years and 4 months of Reclusion Temporal medium as the maximum of the term;
3.) ORDERING the said accused to pay AAA in the amount of Php100,000.00 as and for civil indemnity, Php100,000.00 representing moral damages and Php100,000.00 as exemplary damages, all carrying interest of Six percent (6%) per annum to be reckoned from the date of finality of this decision until the same is fully paid; and
4.) ORDERING the said accused to suffer all the accessory penalties under the law. Costs against the accused.
SO ORDERED. 15
The RTC noted the duplicity of offenses charged in the information and accused-appellant's failure to raise any objection thereto or to quash the information before entering his plea. The RTC, thus, ruled that accused-appellant was considered to have waived any objection to the duplicitous information. The RTC also observed that AAA had a vivid recollection of her ordeal and that her testimony was credible and consistent with ordinary human experience. It gave credence to AAA and BBB's positive identification of accused-appellant as AAA's assailant, who inserted his penis in her vagina and forced her to suck his penis. The RTC also noted that the account narrated by AAA in open court was identical to the narration of facts contained in her sworn statement before PS/Insp. Perpiñan. In qualifying the offense to statutory rape, the RTC took into account the certificate of live birth submitted by the prosecution in evidence indicating AAA's birthday as December 2, 2005, which confirmed AAA's tender age at the time of the incident.
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its August 25, 2020 Decision, the CA affirmed, with modification, accused-appellant's conviction for the offense charged, to wit:
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the present appeal is DISMISSED. The Judgment dated May 23, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Tacloban City, in Criminal Case No. 2010-03-160, entitled People of the Philippines v. Melbert Pobleo y Aguillon, finding accused-appellant Melbert Aguillon Pobleo guilty beyond reasonable doubt for statutory rape and rape by sexual assault is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the award of damages for the crime of rape by sexual assault.
Accused-[a]ppellant is ORDERED to pay an additional Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (PhP75,000.00) as civil indemnity, Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (PhP75,000.00) as moral damages, and Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (PhP75,000.00) as exemplary damages for the crime of rape by sexual assault.
SO ORDERED. 16
The CA upheld the RTC's ruling that accused-appellant waived his right to object on the duplicitous information for failing to quash the information before his arraignment, thus, satisfying the constitutional guarantee that an accused be informed of the nature of the offense charged. The CA also found that all the elements of statutory rape and rape by sexual assault were present and duly proven by the prosecution. AAA clearly and concisely recounted the two rape incidents, which were corroborated by the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence presented. The CA, however, modified the damages awarded by the RTC, in that it awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, in the amount of P75,000.00 each, for the charge of rape by sexual assault.
Hence, this appeal.
Issue
WHETHER ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S GUILT FOR THE CRIMES CHARGED WAS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
In its March 1, 2021 Resolution, 17 the Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. Accused-appellant filed his Manifestation 18 and stated that he was adopting his Brief for the Accused-Appellant 19 dated October 22, 2018, as his supplemental brief. The appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General, averred in its Manifestation 20 dated May 19, 2021, that it would no longer file a supplemental brief as it had adequately discussed the issues of the case in its Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee 21 dated February 27, 2019.
Accused-appellant reiterates the arguments in his Brief for the Accused-appellant 22 filed before the CA, where he harped on AAA's credibility. Accused-appellant argued that AAA did not understand what "rape" and "sexual intercourse" meant since she did not cry despite saying that she felt pain. Moreover, AAA's testimony lacked details as to how she was ravished by accused-appellant, and merely stated that accused-appellant inserted his penis in her vagina. BBB's testimony also had inconsistencies, specifically on the positions of AAA and accused-appellant when BBB found them in the bedroom.
On the other hand, the appellee emphasized the observations of the courts a quo on AAA's credibility. The appellee asserted that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses corroborated the documentary evidence on the material points which proved all the elements of the crimes charged.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
Accused-appellant's conviction for the two crimes charged was proper, notwithstanding the defective and duplicitous information filed against him. Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, only one offense can be charged in the information. 23 Nonetheless, when an accused fails to file a motion to quash within the time prescribed under Section 1, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, he is deemed to have waived the defect in the information. 24 Consequently, an accused may be convicted for as many offenses as charged in the information and proved by the prosecution's evidence. 25
Here, accused-appellant did not file a motion to quash the information before entering his plea of not guilty. Thus, he is deemed to have waived any objection to such defect and can be convicted of both statutory rape and rape by sexual assault.
Having established the validity of the information, the Court is now tasked to examine the merits of the case.
For statutory rape under par. 1 (d), Art. 266-A, in relation to Art. 266-B of the RPC, the prosecution must prove: (a) the age of complainant; (b) the identity of the accused; and (c) the sexual intercourse between the accused and complainant. 26 In statutory rape, proof of force, intimidation, or consent is unnecessary, considering that the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of 12. At that age, the law presumes that the victim does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. 27
On the other hand, rape by sexual assault is committed by any person who shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person, and in any of the circumstances enumerated in the first par. of Art. 266-A is present. 28
Here, it is undisputed that AAA was merely four years old at the time of the rape incidents, as shown by her Certificate of Live Birth. AAA also positively identified accused-appellant as her assailant, which BBB corroborated. AAA testified that, in the early morning of March 16, 2010, accused-appellant inserted his penis in her vagina three times and felt pain as he did so:
Q: [AAA], do you know what is bad and what is good; do you know that to tell a lie is bad?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Do you know your birthday?
A: December 2.
Q: [AAA], do you know of one Melbert Pobleo?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: How do you call him?
A: Kuya.
Q: Is he bad or good?
A: Bad.
Q: Why do you say that Kuya Melbert is bad?
A: (The witness made a gesture of her head being pulled down.)
Q: What else did Kuya Melbert do to you when he pulled down your head?
A: He did this (the witness made a gesture of touching her finger on the table).
Q: What was your position when Kuya Melbert did this to you; were you sitting down?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And your Kuya Melbert was also sitting down?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And you were facing Kuya Melbert?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: You mean, [AAA], you were sitting on the lap of Kuya Melbert?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: When you were sitting down on the lap of Kuya Melbert, what did Kuya Melbert do to you?
A: He held his penis and then placed it [in] my vagina.
Q: Was it painful when he placed his penis in your vagina?
A: I felt pain.
Q: What else did he do?
A: He did it to me three times.
Q: You mean he placed his penis three times to your vagina?
A: Yes, ma'am. 29
AAA also recounted that accused-appellant placed his penis inside her mouth while he held her head down later that day. Accused-appellant even told AAA to suck his penis as he put it inside her mouth:
Q: Aside from placing his penis inside your vagina, where else did he place his penis?
A: Into my mouth.
Q: And when he placed his penis into your mouth, what was your position?
A: I was lying down.
Q: How about Kuya Melbert, was he also lying down when he placed his penis [into] your mouth? You said a while ago that your head was being pulled down. Was it the time that your Kuya Melbert was putting his penis inside your mouth that he tried to pull down your head?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Do you recall when this incident happened?
A: No, I don't.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: You said Kuya Melbert placed his penis inside your mouth; what did you do with his penis while inside your mouth?
A: He was the one who inserted his penis into my mouth.
Q: What did you do while his penis was inside your mouth?
A: He covered my n mouth.
Q: He covered your mouth while placing his penis inside your vagina?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: But at the time he placed his penis into your mouth, did you suck it?
A: No, I did not.
Q: But you were told by Kuya Melbert to suck his penis?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Could you identify Kuya Melbert; could you point him out?
A: Yes, he is there. (The witness pointed to a man inside the courtroom who when asked, gave the name Melbert Pobleo.) 30
BBB also witnessed the vile and despicable acts of accused-appellant which led to her discovery of AAA's molestation. BBB testified:
Q: What happened next?
A: In a short while I rested then I looked for [AAA] in the house of my parents-in-law.
Q: And what have you found out?
A: When I peeped through the gate, I saw [AAA] and Melbert Pobleo sitting.
Q: What was the position of [AAA] relative to the position of your child?
A: Melbert was facing the gate and my daughter was facing him.
Q: And what were they doing at that time?
A: I approached them and asked Melbert what he was doing to [AAA], because I noticed, although it was quite dark, but there was illumination coming from the light house, that Melbert was some sort of lifting my daughter and doing some push and pull motion.
Q: What did you say to Melbert again when you saw him with your daughter, [AAA]?
A: I asked him what he was doing to my child.
Q: And what was his answer?
A: He said, nothing, he was just playing with her, shaking his legs up and down.
Q: And what did you do to [AAA]?
A: I grabbed her and said, why was she outside when it was already late.
Q: And what [did] you do next?
A: I brought her home.
Q: In the afternoon, of March 16, 2010, the day, do you recall if there was an unusual incident that transpired?
A: Yes, after I fed my children that noon, at about 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, I had a talk with female friends in the balcony of our house. And because it was already past 1:00 o'clock, I told them I would send my children to sleep.
Q: And after that, what did you do?
A: I went inside the house and took a drink from the faucet.
Q: And after drinking what happened?
A: I was to take a sip of the water and I heard my daughter saying "agi-agi!" (ouch-ouch!).
Q: What did you do upon hearing the voice of your daughter?
A: I went inside the bedroom to see what was happening.
Q: Where in particular did you go?
A: I peeped through the door of the bedroom.
Q: And what have you [seen], if any?
A: At that time I saw Melbert Pobleo putting down the head of my daughter towards his penis, sitting face to face.
Q: Upon seeing this incident, [what] did you say to Melbert?
A: I got terribly mad at him.
Q: What did you actually say to him?
A: I told him to go out and uttered different kinds of invectives. 31
According to the CA, the categorical and straightforward testimony of AAA and BBB as to the rape incidents clearly proved that accused-appellant had sexual intercourse with, and sexually assaulted, AAA. Dr. Capoquian and Dr. Britt's finding that AAA suffered a hymenal laceration corroborated AAA's testimony that accused-appellant raped her. Although a medical examination is not indispensable in a rape case, it is nonetheless a veritable corroborative piece of evidence which strongly bolsters the victim's testimony. 32
Anent accused-appellant's claim that AAA's credibility is doubtful, the Court has ruled that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a task within the domain of trial courts. As such, the findings of the trial court carry great weight and respect due to the unique opportunity afforded to them to observe the witnesses when placed on the stand. Thus, appellate courts will not overturn the factual findings of the trial court in the absence of facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case. Said rule finds an even more stringent application when the said findings are sustained by the CA. 33
Here, the courts a quo observed that AAA's testimony was clear, consistent, and categorical. Accused-appellant's claim that AAA is not credible for lacking a complete understanding of the meaning of rape or sexual intercourse is nothing but a futile and desperate attempt to reverse his conviction. AAA's narration of the rape incidents clearly demonstrated accused-appellant's bestial desires against a 4-year-old girl. Indeed, AAA need not know the exact meaning of the words rape or sexual intercourse in order to describe in detail the harrowing ordeal she suffered in accused-appellant's hands. Even assuming that AAA did not understand the full meaning of said words, AAA categorically described the acts committed by accused-appellant that substantially proved the elements of statutory rape and rape by sexual assault.
AAA's credibility is also unimpaired by her failure to cry when she claimed to have felt pain as accused-appellant inserted his penis in her vagina. The Court has repeatedly recognized that there is no clear-cut behavior expected of a person who is being raped or has been raped, 34 since the workings of the human mind, when placed under emotional stress, are truly unpredictable. Some people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may yet appear to welcome the intrusion. 35 It is, thus, unreasonable to demand a standard rational reaction to an irrational experience, especially from a young victim. 36
The purported inconsistency of BBB's testimony as to the position she supposedly found accused-appellant and AAA when she entered the bedroom also fails to overcome the evidence presented by the prosecution. The alleged inconsistency does not even negate the material fact that accused-appellant inserted his penis in AAA's mouth and forced her to suck his penis while holding her head down.
Verily, the prosecution successfully established beyond reasonable doubt accused-appellant's guilt for the crimes of statutory rape and rape by sexual assault. The Court, thus, upholds accused-appellant's conviction but deems it proper to modify the designation of both offenses charged, as well as the penalty imposed and the damages awarded for the charge of rape by sexual assault.
Under the RPC, carnal knowledge with a woman who is below 12 years of age constitutes statutory rape. Art. 266-B, however, qualifies said crime and imposes death penalty on the accused when the victim is a child below 7 years old. 37 In this case, AAA's age was sufficiently alleged in the information and duly proved by the prosecution through her certificate of live birth. Thus, the crime committed by accused-appellant as to the first rape incident is qualified statutory rape, which is punishable by death. Nonetheless, the Court notes that the RTC imposed the correct penalty which is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, in accordance with R.A. No. 9346. The awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were also proper and their amounts were in line with the Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta. 38
With respect to the second rape incident described in the information, the correct nomenclature of the offense, as ruled by the Court in People v. Tulagan, 39 is sexual assault under par. 2, Art. 266-A of the RPC, in relation to Sec. 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610. In Tulagan, the Court held that said crime is punishable by reclusion temporal in its medium period, pursuant to Sec. 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610. Applying the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and considering that there is no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the maximum term shall be taken from the medium period of reclusion temporal in its medium period, which is 15 years, 6 months and 20 days to 16 years, 5 months and 9 days; while the minimum term is within the range of the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law, which is 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal in its minimum period. 40 Hence, the appropriate penalty of imprisonment for accused-appellant as to his conviction for sexual assault in relation to Sec. 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 is 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal in its minimum period, as minimum, to 16 years, 5 months and 9 days of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum.
Consequently, the civil indemnity and damages awarded in the charge of sexual assault in relation to Sec. 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 must also be modified in accordance with the Court's ruling in Tulagan. Thus, accused-appellant is ordered to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Finally, all the amounts awarded herein are subject to a legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until its full satisfaction.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the August 25, 2020 Decision of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02602, and finds accused-appellant Melbert Aguillon Pobleo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Statutory Rape under paragraph 1 (d) of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, and Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610.
For the crime of Qualified Statutory Rape, accused-appellant is sentenced to serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, and to pay AAA the amounts of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
In the charge of Sexual Assault in relation to Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610, accused-appellant is sentenced to serve the penalty of 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal in its minimum period, as minimum, to 16 years, 5 months and 9 days of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum, and to pay AAA the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Finally, all the amounts awarded shall be subject to legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum computed from the finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction.
The letter dated April 14, 2021 of CTSSupt. Albert C. Manalo, LLB, Officer-in-Charge, Inmate Documents and Processing Division, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, incompliance with the Resolution dated March 1, 2021, informing the Court that accused-appellant was received for confinement at the Leyte Regional Prison on July 21, 2017 is NOTED.
SO ORDERED." Lopez, M., J., on official leave.
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. 23-24.
2.Id. at 6-22; penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino, with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 46-59; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Lauro A.P. Castillo, Jr.
4. Records, pp. 1-2.
5. The names and personal circumstances of the private complainant and her immediate family are withheld per Republic Act No. 7610 or the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act (1992), R.A. No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, and Office of the Court Administrator Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015.
6.Rollo, pp. 11 and 17.
7.Id. at 8.
8.Id. at 8-9.
9.Id. at 9.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 10.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 10-11.
14.Id. at 14.
15. CA rollo, p. 59.
16.Rollo, pp. 21-22.
17.Id. at 30-31.
18.Id. at 34-36.
19. CA rollo, pp. 33-46.
20.Rollo, pp. 34-35.
21. CA rollo, pp. 69-92.
22.Id. at 33-46.
23. Sec. 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
24.Dimayacyac v. Court of Appeals, 474 Phil. 139, 148 (2004).
25. Sec. 3, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure; People v. Maulion, G.R. No. 230339, June 10, 2020.
26.People v. Garcia, 695 Phil. 576, 587 (2012).
27.People v. Manaligod, 831 Phil. 204, 211 (2018).
28. Revised Penal Code, Art. 266-A, par. 2.
29. CA rollo, pp. 50-51.
30.Id. at 53-54.
31.Id. at 81-83.
32.People v. Apattad, 671 Phil. 95, 115-116 (2011).
33.People v. Gerola, 813 Phil. 1055, 1064 (2017).
34.People v. Pacheco, 632 Phil. 624, 633 (2010).
35.People v. Sagaysay, 367 Phil. 726, 735 (1999).
36.People v. Brioso, 788 Phil. 292, 311 (2016).
37.People v. Fetalco, G.R. No. 241249, July 28, 2020.
38. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
39. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019, 896 SCRA 307.
40.People v. HHH, G.R. No. 248245, August 26, 2020.
n Note from the Publisher: Written as "by" in the official document.