THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239028. April 10, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.NICASIO VERON y VILLA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 10, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239028 (People of the Philippines vs. Nicasio Veron y Villa). — Before this Court is an appeal 1 filed by Nicasio Veron y Villa (accused-appellant), from the Decision 2 dated September 11, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08432. The CA affirmed with modifications the Decision 3 dated March 8, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 16, in Criminal Case No. 3707-M-2004, convicting the accused-appellant with the crime of Rape and three counts of Violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610. 4
The Facts
On December 7, 2004, the accused-appellant was charged with one count of rape and three counts of Violation of Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 in four Informations 5 which read as follows:
Criminal Case No. 3707-M-2004
That on or about the second week of November, 2004, in the _____________________, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with lewd design, have carnal knowledge of [AAA], 6 a minor 13 years of age, against her will and without her consent.
xxx xxx xxx
Criminal Case No. 3708-M-2004
That on or about the third week of November, 2004, in the ____________________, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit the act of sexual intercourse with [AAA], a minor (sic) 13 year old minor exploited in prostitution, in order to satisfy his lust and for monetary consideration, thereby degrading and demeaning the intrinsic worth and dignity of said [AAA] as a human being and providing conditions prejudicial to her development as a child that badly affecting (sic) her physical, psychological and emotional well-being.
xxx xxx xxx
Criminal Case No. 3709-M-2004
That on or about the fourth week of November, 2004, in the ___________________, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit the act of sexual intercourse with [AAA], a minor (sic) 13 year old minor exploited in prostitution, in order to satisfy his lust and for monetary consideration, thereby degrading and demeaning the intrinsic worth and dignity of said [AAA] as a human being, and providing conditions prejudicial to her development as a child that badly affecting (sic) her physical, psychological and emotional well-being. SDHTEC
xxx xxx xxx
Criminal Case No. 3710-M-2004
That on or about the 4th day of December, 2004, in the _____________________, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit the act of sexual intercourse with [AAA], a minor (sic) 13 year old minor exploited in prostitution, in order to satisfy his lust and for monetary consideration, thereby degrading and demeaning the intrinsic worth and dignity of said [AAA] as a human being, and providing conditions prejudicial to her development as a child that badly affecting (sic) her physical, psychological and emotional well-being. 7
Version of the Prosecution
AAA was only 13 years old when the repeated acts of sexual assaults were discovered to have been perpetrated by the accused-appellant, a 58-year-old ice cream vendor, in a vacant lot in _______________________, Bulacan.
It started on the second week of November 2004 when AAA was outside her parents' house buying ice cream from the accused-appellant when he suddenly asked her to join him at ________________. The accused-appellant threatened her that he will kill her and her family if she did not accede to his request. As she was intimidated and terrified for her security and that of her family, AAA went with him in _____________________. Upon reaching the area, the accused-appellant removed AAA's shorts and underwear, and thereafter removed his own shorts. He went on top of her, spread her legs and kissed her breast. The accused-appellant attempted to insert his penis into her vagina, and this caused her pain. AAA recalled that something came out of his penis. 8
AAA obtained external injuries for which her vagina bled. The accused-appellant warned AAA not to tell anyone about the incident, or he will find her and kill her and her family. This threat prompted AAA not to tell anyone as she headed home. 9
The second incident happened on the third week of November 2004, AAA was at the nearby store buying something when again, the accused-appellant approached her telling her to follow him to _________________. Since the accused-appellant threw her dagger looks, she was forced to go with him, where she was molested for the second time. 10
The third assault happened a week after, on the fourth week of November 2004, after AAA arrived home from school. There, when she went outside, she saw the accused-appellant looking at her. She again followed him to _______________, where she was raped. 11
It was on December 4, 2004, at around 5:00 p.m., when AAA saw the accused-appellant again. This time, he was following her after her classes. AAA was still in the company of her friends in school, when the accused-appellant motioned for her not to tell anyone. Fearing for her life and security, she followed the accused-appellant to the _________________ where he finally succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. Coincidentally, CCC, a friend of AAA's mother, saw AAA and the accused-appellant together while the latter was undressed with AAA not having any underwear as her panty was folded. 12
CCC later brought both the accused-appellant and AAA to her mother's house in ___________________ Bulacan and the accused-appellant was thereafter arrested by the police. 13
It was on December 6, 2004 when AAA was brought to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for a medical examination. A Medico-Legal Report was released with the following findings: "Hymen: fleshy with a shallow healed laceration at 3 o'clock position[.]" 14
The following day, the accused-appellant was charged with rape and three counts of Violation of Section 5 (b), Article III, R.A. No. 7610.
Version of the Defense
The accused-appellant denied the allegations and claimed that he was merely selling ice cream, with his usual routine of plying his regular routes from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., when he was accosted by a couple, one of whom pretended to be a police officer, and accused him of raping AAA. The accused-appellant and AAA were brought to AAA's house where he saw BBB, AAA's mother. CCC, the woman who claims to have seen AAA and the accused-appellant in a compromising situation in __________________, called the police. The accused-appellant was then arrested. 15 AScHCD
The RTC, on March 8, 2016, rendered a Decision 16 finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crimes charged, the dispositive part of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises carefully considered, the Court finds [the accused-appellant] GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by [R.A.] No. 8353, and for three (3) counts of Violation of Section 5(b), Article III of [R.A.] No. 7610. Judgment is rendered in the following manner:
1. In Criminal Case No. 3707-M-2004 for Rape, [the accused-appellant] is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the accessory penalties attached thereto and to indemnify private complainant AAA the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages;
2. In Criminal Case No. 3708-M-2004 for Violation of Section 5 (b), Article III, R.A. [No.] 7610, [the accused-appellant] is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum, and to indemnify private complainant AAA the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages;
3. In Criminal Case No. 3709-M-2004 for Violation of Section 5 (b), Article III, R.A. [No.] 7610, [the accused-appellant] is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum, and to indemnify private complainant AAA the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages;
4. In Criminal Case No. 3710-M-2004 for Violation of Section 5 (b), Article III[,] R.A. [No.] 7610, [the accused-appellant] is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum, and to indemnify private complainant AAA the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
In the service of his sentence, [the accused-appellant] shall be credited with the full term spent in actual commitment during his preventive imprisonment.
SO ORDERED. 17 (Emphases and italics omitted)
On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant on all charges, but modified the civil liability imposed by the trial court. The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision dated March 8, 2016 of the trial court is AFFIRMED, subject to the modifications that:
(i) In Criminal Case No. 3707-M-2004 (For: Rape), the awards of moral damages and exemplary damages in favor of AAA are increased to P75,000.00 each[;]
(ii) In Criminal Case Nos. 3708-M-2004, 3709-M-2004 and 3710-M-2004 (For: Violation of Section 5[b], Article III of R.A. No. 7610 [3 counts]), accused-appellant is meted the indeterminate sentence of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The awards of civil indemnity and moral damages are reduced to P20,000.00 and P15,000.00, respectively. Accused-appellant is also ordered to pay AAA P15,000.00 as exemplary damages and P15,000.00 as fine; and,
(iii) Accused-appellant is ordered to pay interest at the rate of six per cent (6%) per annum on all the damages awarded to AAA, to be computed from date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 18 (Emphases and underlining in the original)
Hence, this appeal. AcICHD
Ruling of the Court
After a careful perusal of the records of this case, the Court finds no reversible error in the findings of the appellate court in upholding the conviction of the accused-appellant for one count of rape and three counts of Violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610.
It is an oft-stated doctrine that the factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of their probative weight is given high respect, if not conclusive effect, unless the trial court ignored, misconstrued, misunderstood or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance, which, if considered, will alter the outcome of the case. 19
Criminal Case No. 3707-M-2004
The prosecution was able to sufficiently establish the facts on record. The victim, AAA, clearly and categorically testified as follows:
"FISCAL:
Q You identified on December 13, 2005, the accused and stated that the accused raped you for four times, I would like to clarify please tell us in the second week of November, 2004 how did the accused rape you?
A He undressed me, ma'am.
Q Where were you then on that date and before you saw the accused?
A I was outside our house, ma'am.
Q How were you able to see the accused that day?
A He was selling ice cream, ma'am.
Q Were you already outside your house when the accused passed by your house and he sell (sic) ice cream?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Now, upon seeing the accused, what did the accused do, if any?
A He asked me to go with him, ma'am.
Q Did you go with him?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Why did you go with him?
A Because he told me that he is going to kill me, ma'am.
Q Were there other persons from that place when the accused told you demanded (sic) to come with him and threaten you he will kill you?
A None, ma'am.
Q What was your reaction when the accused uttered those words when the accused threaten you?
A I go (sic) mad, ma'am.
Q Despite that did you still go with the accused?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Why did you go with him?
A Because he told me that he is going to kill me, ma'am.
Q Where did the accused bring you?
A He brought me in (sic) a compound in a grassy place, ma'am.
Q How far is that compound from your house the place when you saw the accused first?
A It is far, ma'am. TAIaHE
Q If (sic) it require to go with him to ride any vehicle in going to that place?
A No[,] ma'am.
Q So you just walked?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q If you estimate (sic), how many minutes they (sic) did walk in going to that place from your house?
A From half an hour about thirty minutes (sic), ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Now, it took you thirty minutes in walking, did you shout or at least asked for help for anybody else while you are walking?
A No, ma'am.
Q Why?
A Because he was at my back, ma'am.
Q What was he doing while you were walking and why he was (sic) at your back?
A He was driving his back looking at me, ma'am.
Q Why are you saying that he was riding his back while you were walking?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q He was merely riding his bike, why you did not ran (sic)?
A Because he told me if I'm going to run he will kill me, ma'am.
Q What did the accused do if any when you reached that compound that grassy place?
A He undressed me, ma'am.
Q Before undressing you where exactly in that compound did the accused bring you?
A ______________________, ma'am.
Q Is it inside the compound or is it a building, or open space or what?
A There is a gate, ma'am.
Q Were there any people around who were there in that compound?
A None, ma'am.
Q You stated that he undressed you did you fight back why you did not resist while the accused was undressing you?
A He tied my both hands, ma'am.
Q Was that done to you by the accused before the accused undress (sic) you?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q In what exactly when you (sic) hands tied by the accused?
A Inside the ______________________, ma'am.
Q Where you (sic) hands tied?
A In a tree, ma'am.
Q Did you not fight back while the accused was tying?
A I was struggling ma'am.
Q Where (sic) you not able to resist him?
A No, ma'am.
Q After the accused tied your hands, what happened next?
A First he removed my short and then my panty, ma'am.
Q How about the accused, what was he wearing?
A He was (sic) removed his t-shirt, ma'am[.]
Q He was wearing underwear? cDHAES
A Yes, ma'am.
Q What was he doing if any to you?
A He removed it, ma'am.
Q After the accused undressed you, and undressed himself, what happened next?
A He pushed me, ma'am.
Q He pushed you and your hands already tied in a tree?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q How was he able to push you when your hands already tied in a tree?
A He can lower the rope, ma'am.
Q After the accused pushed you, what happened next?
A He went on top of me, ma'am[.]
Q What did you do when he (sic) top on you?
A He opened my thighs, ma'am.
Q After that what happened next?
A And then he lied down again, ma'am.
Q And then after that what was he doing while he (sic) top on you?
A He was kissing my breast, ma'am.
Q You stated that he raped you, how he raped (sic) you?
A He undressed me, he went on top of me, he kissed my breast and inserted his private parts (sic) in my private parts, (sic) ma'am." 20
Clearly, all the elements of rape were established pursuant to Article 266-A, paragraph 1, which provides:
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 is 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.
In order to convict a person charged with the crime of rape, the prosecution must establish the presence of all the elements beyond reasonable doubt. The basic elements of rape are: "the commission of sexual intercourse by the accused against complainant, with the use of force and intimidation, without her consent and against her will." 21
In fact, time and again, it has been held that: ASEcHI
Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. A young girl's revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out the details of an assault on her dignity, cannot be so easily dismissed as mere concoction. 22
It is of no moment that AAA did not offer resistance. Rape victims react differently. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. There is no standard form of reaction for a woman when facing a shocking and horrifying experience such as a sexual assault. "The workings of the human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable, and people react differently; some may shout, some may faint, and some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may openly welcome the intrusion." 23 "It is improper to judge the actions of children who are victims [of] traumatic experiences by the norms of behavior expected under the circumstances from mature people." 24
Criminal Case Nos. 3708-M-
In the same light, the Court affirms the conviction of the accused-appellant for the three charges for Violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610.
Section 5 (b), Article III of the R.A. No. 7610 reads:
Sec. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. —
Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; Provided, that when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be, Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; x x x
xxx xxx xxx
The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610 are the following:
1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct;
2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
The CA, in its Decision dated September 11, 2017, is thus correct in stating that jurisprudence teaches that R.A. No. 7610 covers not only a situation in which a child is abused for profit but also one in which a child, through coercion or intimidation, engages in any lascivious conduct. It is settled that "[a] child is deemed subjected to 'other sexual abuse' when he or she indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult." 25
Based on evidence submitted by the prosecution, there is no iota of doubt that the accused-appellant sexually abused 13-year-old AAA through coercion or intimidation. ITAaHc
In Quimvel v. People of the Philippines, 26 it was held:
To the mind of the Court, the allegations are sufficient to classify the victim as one "exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse." This is anchored on the very definition of the phrase in Sec. 5 of [R.A. No.] 7610, which encompasses children who indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit, or any other consideration; or (b) under the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group.
Correlatively, Sec. 5 (a) of [R.A. No.] 7610 punishes acts pertaining to or connected with child prostitution wherein the child is abused primarily for profit. On the other hand, paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct committed on a child subjected to other sexual abuse. It covers not only a situation where a child is abused for profit but also one in which a child, through coercion, intimidation or influence, engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. Hence, the law punishes not only child prostitution but also other forms of sexual abuse against children. 27 (Emphasis Ours)
AAA's failure to seek help or report the four incidents does not negate rape. The failure of the victim to immediately report the rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge and does not detract from the fact that rape was committed. 28 AAA's failure to report has been fully and satisfactorily explained. She testified that the accused-appellant threatened to kill her and her companions. The Court's ruling in People v. Domingo29 is instructive:
To begin with, let it be emphasized that delay in reporting a case of rape is not always to be taken as an ostensible badge of a fabricated charge. A rape charge becomes doubtful only when the delay in revealing its commission is unreasonable and unexplained. In this case, AAA's reluctance and hesitation in breaking her agonizing silence were sufficiently established by her testimony that appellant was able to instill fear in her by threatening to kill her mother should the incidents be made known to anyone. Such intimidation is sufficient to cower AAA and make her choose to suffer privately instead of disclosing her sordid tale of abuse in the hands of appellant. Settled is the theory that delay or hesitation in reporting the abuse due to the threats of the assailant is justified and must not be taken against the victim, since it is not uncommon that a rape victim conceal for some time the assault against her person on account of fear of the threats posed by her assailant. 30 (Emphasis Ours)
Although AAA's testimony may have been marred by a number of inconsistencies as found by the lower court, these discrepancies refer only to minor details and collateral matters, and not to the central fact of the crime. As such, it does not affect the veracity and credibility of witnesses, as long as their testimonies are coherent and intrinsically believable as a whole. For a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as a basis for acquittal, it must establish beyond reasonable doubt the innocence of the accused-appellant for the crime charged. It cannot be overemphasized that the credibility of a rape victim is not diminished, let alone impaired, by minor inconsistencies in her testimony. 31
Moreover, the accused-appellant failed to prove that it was impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime on the dates specified by the prosecution. It is a time-honored principle in jurisprudence that positive identification, more so when corroborated by other pieces of evidence, prevails over alibi since the latter can easily be fabricated by the accused. For the defense of alibi to hold water, the accused must establish, by clear and convincing evidence: (a) his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense; and (b) the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility means that the accused was at such other place for such a length of time that it was impossible for him to have been at the crime scene, either before or after the time he was at such other place. 32
The accused-appellant's defense of denial cannot overcome the categorical and positive testimony of AAA, who identified him as the person who raped her. The Court, in a catena of cases, 33 has held that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her. Thus, the Court finds no reason to reverse the accused-appellant's conviction.
As to the matter of civil indemnity and damages imposed by the CA, the Court resolves to modify it insofar as the accused-appellant's conviction for violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 is concerned. Following the Court's pronouncement in the recent case of People of the Philippines v. Salvador Tulagan, 34 when the victim of sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 is 12 years of age or older but not over 18 and the penalty imposed is within the range of reclusion temporal medium, the amount of indemnity and damages should be: (1) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2) P50,000.00 as moral damages; and (3) P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated September 11, 2017 of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08432, finding accused-appellant Nicasio Veron y Villa GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and three counts of Violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610, is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATION: CHTAIc
Accused-appellant Nicasio Veron y Villa is ordered to pay victim AAA: (a) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P50,000.00 as moral damages; and (c) P50,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count. In addition, the civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages payable by the accused-appellant are subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. (Peralta, J., no part as his spouse penned the assailed CA decision; Gesmundo, J., designated as additional Member per Raffle dated June 18, 2018; Leonen, J., Acting Chairperson; Carandang, J., designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2624 dated November 28, 2018.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 155-156.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Carmelita Salandanan Manahan, concurring; id. at 127-153.
3. Rendered by Presiding Judge Sita Jose Clemente; id. at 52-77.
4. AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES approved on June 17, 1992.
5. CA rollo, pp. 52-53.
6. The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family, or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy, and fictitious initial shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]) and the Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.
7. CA rollo, pp. 52-53.
8.Id. at 55-56.
9.Id. at 56.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 129.
12.Id. at 60.
13.Id. at 130.
14. Id. at 63.
15. Id. at 65-66.
16. Id. at 52-77.
17. Id. at 76-77.
18. Id. at 152-153.
19. People v. Cajurao, 465 Phil. 98, 107 (2004).
20. CA rollo, pp. 69-71.
21. People v. Sabredo, 387 Phil. 682, 689 (2000).
22. People v. Garcia, 695 Phil. 576, 588-589 (2012).
23. People v. Palanay, 805 Phil. 116, 126-127 (2017).
24. People v. Gacusan, 809 Phil. 773, 784 (2017).
25. People v. Alhambra, 737 Phil. 440, 454 (2014).
26. G.R. No. 214497, April 18, 2017, 823 SCRA 192.
27. Id. at 227-228.
28. People v. Casil, 311 Phil. 300, 310 (1995).
29. 579 Phil. 254 (2008).
30. Id. at 264-265.
31. People v. Tubat, 680 Phil. 730, 738 (2012).
32. People v. Buban, 541 Phil. 482, 502 (2007).
33. People of the Philippines v. Rafael Agudo y Del Valle, G.R. No. 219615, June 7, 2017; People v. Regalado, 793 Phil. 493, 501-502 (2016); People v. Perez, 595 Phil. 1232, 1251-1252 (2008); People v. Luna, 443 Phil. 782, 802 (2003).
34. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.