SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238205. September 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.XXX, 1accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 September 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238205 (People of the Philippines v. XXX). — This appeal under Rule 124 2 of the Rules of Court challenges the August 31, 2017 Decision 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02098 which affirmed the July 15, 2015 Decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of ______________, Branch 43, in Crim. Case No. 06-29449 finding the accused-appellant guilty of Rape with Homicide.
The Antecedents:
At around 1 P.M. on June 20, 2006, the police received a phone call from a concerned citizen that an 8-year old boy found a body floating on a creek. The police proceeded to the area where the body of 16-year old AAA, 5 who had been missing for two days already. 6
The Investigation Report 7 dated July 3, 2006 indicated that the following items were found nearby: one orange-colored cap, one flat iron, one piece of yellow-colored baby's panty, one piece of light blue-colored towel, one piece of baby's sando, and one pair of slippers. Several persons were invited by the police for questioning which included XXX.
On June 30, 2006, XXX purportedly signified his willingness to execute an extrajudicial confession. Thus, he was escorted to the place where AAA's body was discovered. In the presence of the crew of ABS-CBN, XXX re-enacted what happened. The next day or on July 1, 2006, XXX, assisted by Atty. Enrique Olmedo (Atty. Olmedo), confessed how he sexually assaulted AAA. 8
XXX's extra-judicial confession 9 is summarized as follows:
XXX was staying at the rented house of his brother, YYY x x x. With them were CCC, 10 YYY's wife, and her sister, DDD.
On that fateful day, 18 June 2006, XXX plied his trisikad and went home at around ten in the morning. XXX, however, went out again to watch a basketball game nearby. There, he saw AAA conversing with her other sister, EEE. 11 XXX heard EEE instructing AAA to fetch from her house a flat iron and some panties for EEE's baby.
On her way to her sister's house, AAA was being followed by XXX. Although the two never spoke to each other while walking, AAA was not oblivious of XXX's presence. AAA collected the things from her sister's house, as instructed, and on her way back, XXX continued to walk behind AAA at a distance of about an arm's length. When they reached Sugarcane No. 13, XXX suddenly hugged AAA from behind and told her, "Mag jamming-jamming anay tang duha!"
XXX dragged the struggling AAA towards the field where she fell on the ground. There, he held both her arms and kissed her lips. AAA shouted for help but he punched her in the stomach. After AAA lost consciousness, XXX again kissed her and in his sexual excitement, bit her lips. He pulled up AAA's clothes, took off her bra, and kissed and bit her left breast. He unzipped AAA's pants, pulled it down to her knees together with her white panty. XXX also pulled his pants down to his knees and thereafter, started raping AAA. acEHCD
After this, XXX put back on AAA her panty, pants and belt and kept in his hand her bra. He carried AAA towards a creek situated in the next sugarcane field. He then placed AAA's body beside the creek, with her feet near the water and her head in the upper portion of the creek. He then placed at the right side of AAA's body her bra. AAA was still unconscious when he left her.
When AAA's family started looking for her that night, XXX offered to help, but when he went back to where he left AAA, she was no longer there. 12
On July 4, 2006, assisted by Atty. Olmedo, accused-appellant filed a Request for Preliminary Investigation and Waiver of Article 125 13 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The Office of the City Prosecutor, in its Resolution 14 dated July 31, 2006, found probable cause to charge XXX with Rape with Homicide. Thus, in an Information 15 dated August 2, 2006, XXX was charged with Rape, the accusatory portions of which read:
That on or about the 18th day of June, 2006 in the __________________________________________ 16 and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who is detained, by means of force, threat and/or intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with AAA, sixteen (16) years old, minor, against her will, and that by reason and on occasion thereof, herein accused, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously assault, attack and box the said minor victim and deliberately [placed] her body beside a creek, thereby inflicting upon the latter victim the following injuries, to wit:
1. Contusion hematoma, forehead with lacerated wound multiple skin deep 1cm, 2cm "V" shape, 0.5cm and 1.5cm, right.
2. Contusion hematoma, with abrasion, 4cm x 4cm, anterior auricular area, left. With protrusion of eyes, bilateral.
3. Contusion hematoma, 5cm x 5cm, with abrasion 4cm x 4cm, antero inferior mandibular area, midline.
4. Contusion hematoma, 0.3cm x 15cm, inferior breast, left. With protrusion of the tongue, [swollen], face.
5. Contusion hematoma, 4cm x 6cm supero anterior iliac area, left.
6. Contusion hematoma, 4cm x 20cm, superior inguinal to superior iliac area, right.
7. Labia majora and minora contused, congested with hematoma severe bilateral, moderated. Hymen multiple fresh laceration with oozing sanguineous fluid. Congested urethral [vestibule] with hematoma.
8. Contusion hematoma, 5cm x 8cm, anterior middle 3rd thigh, left.
Causes of death:
I. A. Asphyxiation.
B. Drowning.
C. Multiple contusion hematoma, with laceration head and mandibular area.
II. Moderate hematoma of severe labia majora, minora vestibule and vagina.
With bleeding (RAPE).
Multiple contusion hematoma anterior iliac bilateral and anterior thigh, left.
all resulting to the death of said victim.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 17
During his arraignment, XXX entered a plea of "not guilty." 18
The defense filed a Motion for Psychiatric Examination 19 but it was denied by the trial court in an Order 20 dated November 9, 2006. The trial court made the following observations: "[the judge] found XXX not only sane but also a very intelligent person as he argued that he ought not to be apprehended as there was no presentation of a Warrant of Arrest. Further, XXX, except for not having recalled the date of his apprehension, have (sic) answered correctly all the questions propounded and have (sic) already formed his defense as regards the accusations against him and has even disowned his confession as according to him, he does not know how to read." 21
As indicated in the Pre-Trial Order 22 dated August 10, 2007, the parties stipulated on the following: 1) jurisdiction of the court; 2) identity of the accused-appellant; 3) that the incident happened in ___________________________ on July 18, 2006; 4) that the accused-appellant personally knew the victim because his elder brother, YYY is married to the sister of the victim, CCC; and 5) that the accused-appellant is a tricycle driver. SDHTEC
Version of the Prosecution:
Atty. Olmedo testified that the Commander of the Police Precinct 3, Captain Joeresty Coronica (Cpt. Coronica), requested him to assist XXX during the investigation and in taking his (XXX's) extrajudicial confession. Atty. Olmedo then proceeded to the police station where he saw XXX near a policeman who sat by a typewriter. Cpt. Coronica was also present with two other policemen. 23 Atty. Olmedo stated that accused-appellant stressed that he (XXX) was willing to undergo the process, provided that his penalty would be reduced. 24 The lawyer asserted that XXX narrated the details of the incident without any manifestation of fear. Likewise, he did not notice any visible mark which would suggest that XXX was subjected to physical abuse or any indication that he was being threatened. 25 Moreover, Atty. Olmedo emphasized that he repeated the contents of the document, paragraph by paragraph, to XXX, to ensure that the latter understood the consequences of his confession. 26
Dr. Eli Cong (Dr. Cong), Medico-Legal Officer of the _________ City Health Office, explained that after examination of the body, he observed that there was a penetration in the victim's vagina by an object bigger than the hymen (possibly by a male organ) which may have caused the lacerations. 27 Likewise, Dr. Cong averred that the victim's head sustained multiple contusions, suggesting that it may have been smashed on the ground or on a hard surface. He also declared that the cause of the victim's death was asphyxiation and drowning, 28 the details of which were indicated in the Autopsy Report 29 dated June 21, 2006.
SPO1 Jessie Baylon (SPO1 Baylon) asserted that a certain Pastor Boy called the police station to inform them that a boy and two of his companions who were collecting scrap materials found a body near the creek. The police officers proceeded to the scene then cordoned the area and started their investigation. 30 Afterwards, the victim's brother identified the body. 31
SPO1 Baylon averred that XXX was seen at the memorial chapel where the victim's remains were brought. This was also where he (XXX) was heard by a police officer making a remark that the victim had a bite mark on her left breast. 32 Upon further investigation, it was discovered that accused-appellant was seen driving his trisikad towards the house of AAA's sister on the day she disappeared. 33 Thus, on June 30, 2006, the police brought XXX in for questioning. XXX's relatives were requested to accompany him to the station but they refused and instead informed the police that they were entrusting the accused-appellant to the authorities. 34
In the police station, the officers apprised XXX of his constitutional rights and asked him if he had a lawyer, to which he replied in the negative. 35 Thereafter, the police asked Atty. Olmedo, who lived nearby, to assist him. 36 After consulting with Atty. Olmedo, XXX narrated what happened, the details of which were reduced in writing in the Ilonggo dialect. 37 SPO1 Baylon asserted that XXX confessed since his (XXX's) conscience was bothering him and because he became afraid when the victim's body was found. 38 Furthermore, SPO1 Baylon stated that Atty. Olmedo assisted the accused-appellant and guaranteed that his (XXX's) answers were true, 41 and that the lawyer reviewed the contents of the extrajudicial confession before XXX signed it voluntarily. 42
During his cross-examination, SPO1 Baylon averred that while XXX was being subjected to a follow-up investigation, he was given food and water and allowed to tend to his personal needs. 43 Additionally, he confirmed that after XXX confessed, they (XXX and the police) went to the creek with the crew of ABS-CBN to re-enact the incident. 44
Version of the Defense:
XXX denied the charge and claimed that the contents of the extrajudicial confession were not true as he was tortured and forced to sign the document. 45
He averred that on the day of the incident, he plied his trisikad and later on learned that AAA was raped and killed. 46 He supposedly helped with the search, found the slippers and the cap in the sugarcane field, then informed the victim's family. 47 He stated that although he assisted in bringing the victim's body to the funeral, he did not attend the burial because AAA's mother sent him on an errand. 48 Moreover, he asserted that while he was staying in the house of his uncle in ________, SPO1 Baylon invited him for a drink. 49 After they finished drinking, SPO1 Baylon brought him to the police station where he was mauled and tortured by a group of police officers, including SPO1 Baylon, a certain Villanueva, and another police officer from Iloilo. 50
He claimed that he was brought to a sugarcane field and forced to admit to the commission of the felony. When he refused, the police officers dug a pit, threw him inside, and started to dump soil back in. 51 Terrified, XXX purportedly agreed to confess. 52 Thereafter, the police officers brought him back to the police station where he was made to sign the extrajudicial confession. He further claimed that he does not know how to read and had no idea about the contents of the document. 53 He denied seeing Atty. Olmedo at the police station and claimed that he only met the lawyer inside the courtroom. 54
During his cross-examination, XXX admitted that he could not think of any reason why SPO1 Baylon would allege that he (XXX) confessed and narrated what actually happened. 55
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In a Decision 56 dated July 15, 2015, the RTC ruled that the conditions for the admissibility of an extrajudicial confession were met. Thus, the trial court held that XXX executed the document voluntarily, free from any threat, duress, or intimidation. It found that Atty. Olmedo assisted accused-appellant and testified to the proper observance of the procedure. Similarly, the RTC found that the extrajudicial confession was written and read to XXX by Atty. Olmedo in Ilonggo, the dialect spoken and understood by the accused-appellant. 57 AScHCD
Moreover, the trial court found the extrajudicial confession replete with facts and in accord with the timeline on what happened to the victim. This included the detail that it rained heavily, which made XXX's denial unbelievable. Also, it disregarded his claim of torture for being unsubstantiated and found his recantation unworthy of belief. 58 The dispositive portion of the RTC's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this Court finds the accused, XXX "GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Rape with Homicide in violation of Art. 266-A in relation to Art. 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended, and there being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstances accordingly sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA with all the accessory penalties provided for by law and with no possibility of parole in accordance with [Republic Act] R.A. 9346 prohibiting the imposition of death penalty.
In addition, the accused is ordered to pay the following to the heirs of ___________________:
1. PhP75,000.00 as civil indemnity[;]
2. PhP25,000.00 as temperate damages[;]
3. PhP50,000.00 as exemplary damages[.]
There is no pronouncement as to the cost of the proceedings.
SO ORDERED.59
Aggrieved, XXX appealed 60 to the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
The CA, in its assailed August 31, 2017 Decision, 61 also held that the extrajudicial confession was admissible. 62 The appellate court found that accused-appellant was ably assisted by an independent and competent counsel, Atty. Olmedo, who also ensured that his constitutional rights were observed. 63 The CA additionally found that:
Atty. Olmedo had repeatedly reminded the accused of the legal ramifications of his resolve to admit to the commission of the crime. Prior to the taking of the extra-judicial confession, Atty. Olmedo was able to confer with XXX, informing him that he may still choose to discontinue the process. Atty. Olmedo likewise attested that after XXX's narration was typewritten, he read to him the contents thereof, explaining each paragraph, particularly, those in which he admitted to raping and killing AAA. Atty. Olmedo further stated he made XXX understand that his confession involved a very serious crime for which he could go to jail for a number of years. He also made it clear to XXX that he could still retract what he had said, but XXX chose to proceed, reiterating that he wanted his penalty lowered. 64
The CA held that XXX voluntarily made the extrajudicial confession as the document graphically narrated (in Ilonggo) how the crime was committed and provided a window to look at the thoughts of the person making the confession. 65 Moreover, it found that XXX was conversant of his rights under the law, as the RTC previously noted that he is sane and intelligent given that he argued that he should not be apprehended since there was no warrant of arrest. Additionally, he already formed his defense and disowned his own confession by alleging that he could not read. 66 Moreover, the appellate court ruled that the allegation of torture had no basis 67 and that his conviction must be sustained. 68
The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC but clarified that the felony should be denominated as a special complex crime of Rape with Homicide punished under Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997. Likewise, it modified the award of damages in line with recent jurisprudence. 69 The dispositive portion of the assailed CA Decision provides:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is DENIED. The Court AFFIRMS the 15 July 2015 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, 6th Judicial Region, Branch 43, ___________, convicting the accused-appellant XXX of the Special Complex Crime of Rape with Homicide. Accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with all its accessory penalties, subject to the following modifications:
1. One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) as Civil Indemnity;
2. One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) as Moral Damages;
3. One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) as Exemplary Damages;
4. Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as Temperate Damages;
5. All damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid[.]
Accused-appellant shall not be eligible for parole, pursuant to Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
SO ORDERED.70
Discontented, XXX appealed 71 his case before the Court.
Issue
Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of Rape with Homicide.
Our Ruling
The appeal has no merit.
The Court has repeatedly ruled that "'questions on the credibility of witnesses should be best addressed to the trial court because of its unique position to observe that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying which is denied to the appellate court.'" 72 In view of this, the Court is inclined to sustain the findings and rulings of the RTC and the CA that XXX committed the felony. Absent any evidence showing that the trial court erred when it accorded greater weight to the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, the Court will refrain from re-assessing their credibility anew. AcICHD
Although the Information's heading charged XXX with Rape only, the body of the Information provided the details of the victim's death on occasion of the Rape. The felony of Rape is described in Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the RPC as follows:
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. 73 (Emphasis supplied)
The penalty for rape committed under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A is reclusion perpetua in accordance with Article 266-B of the RPC. However, the death penalty shall be imposed if the victim was killed by reason or on occasion of the rape, viz.:
ART. 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of [Art. 266-A] shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
xxx xxx xxx
When, by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.
In such a scenario, the felony is considered as a special complex crime of Rape with Homicide, "which is the treatment of two (2) or more crimes as a single indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single criminal impulse." 74 The following are the elements of Rape with Homicide: "'(1) the appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason or on occasion of such carnal knowledge by means of force, threat or intimidation, the appellant killed a woman.'" 75
There is no dispute that the victim was raped, as indicated in the Autopsy Report and testified to by Dr. Cong. Since the victim's untimely demise resulted from the Rape, all the elements of Rape with Homicide are present in this case. This can readily be inferred from XXX's extrajudicial confession.
Sections 12 and 17, Article III of the Constitution 76 state:
Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
xxx xxx xxx
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
RA 7438 77 further provides:
SEC. 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or under Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers. — a.) Any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel.
b.) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who arrests, detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel x x x. 78
Hence, "[e]xtrajudicial confessions are admissible in evidence provided they are: 1) voluntary; 2) made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel; 3) express; and 4) in writing." 79
As correctly held by the RTC and the CA, XXX voluntarily and freely executed his extrajudicial confession. His allegation of torture was bare and self-serving; he did not present proof that force and intimidation attended the execution of his confession. 80 He did not insist to be examined by a doctor for physical injuries and did not file an action against the police officers who allegedly maltreated him. Relevantly, Atty. Olmedo categorically stated that XXX did not inform him of any form of coercion or that he sustained any wound or visible marks which would suggest physical abuse. Without these circumstances indicating involuntariness, XXX's confession should be considered as done willingly. More importantly, it should be noted that the confession contained details which only the perpetrator of the felony could provide, which signaled "spontaneity and coherence which psychologically cannot be associated with a mind to which violence and torture have been applied." 81 TAIaHE
Moreover, during the investigation at the police station, Atty. Olmedo — a competent and independent counsel — assisted XXX. Notably, XXX did not object to Atty. Olmedo's assistance, and even allowed the lawyer to guide him through the taking of his confession and the filing of his Request for Preliminary Investigation and Waiver of Article 125 of the RPC. "[A] lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he never raised any objection against the former's appointment during the course of the investigation and the accused thereafter subscribed to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer." 82
In the same vein, XXX did not question Atty. Olmedo's independence and competence during the investigation, but belatedly claimed that he only became familiar with Atty. Olmedo during the trial without substantiating such claim. According to Atty. Olmedo, he apprised XXX of his constitutional rights and constantly reminded him of the consequences of his confession.
Accused-appellant has the burden of proof to show that his confession was obtained involuntarily. Failure to overturn this burden would affirm the presumption that the confession was freely and validly made. 83 Since XXX was not able to prove the invalidity of his confession, such document "constitute[s] evidence of a high order because it is presumed that no person of normal mind will knowingly and deliberately confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and conscience." 84
During trial, XXX denied committing the felony and insisted that his confession should be invalidated. "While case law holds that recantations do not necessarily cancel out an earlier declaration, ultimately, it should still be treated like any other testimony and as such, its credibility must be tested during trial." 85 In this case, XXX did not repudiate or recant his extrajudicial confession at the earliest opportunity, or during the investigation before he was formally charged. He only cried foul during the trial. Such tactic was a belated attempt to evade the ramifications of the reprehensible crime he committed. 86
Although XXX denied committing the crime, he did not present a solid alibi. Jurisprudence dictates that "'both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witnesses that the accused committed the crime. Thus, as between a categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be sufficiently convincing as to preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the incident.'" 87 Here, XXX failed to prove that he could not have been physically present at the scene of the crime or the vicinity, as he even had a trisikad to go around the area. Furthermore, his detailed narration of what transpired, which he revealed in his extrajudicial confession, is more than enough proof that he committed the felony. Hence, his denial and lack of alibi cannot support his belated defense.
To stress, XXX's extrajudicial confession is admissible as it was obtained without vitiated consent, intimidation or maltreatment. It was given voluntarily. 88 Consequently, the Court is convinced that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt 89 of committing Rape with Homicide.
With regard to the penalties, the CA correctly affirmed the RTC's imposition of reclusion perpetua, as the penalty of death cannot be imposed in accordance with the prohibition mandated by RA No. 9346. 90 Likewise, the CA's awards for civil indemnity and damages are in accord with recent jurisprudence, 91 including the imposition of legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of the judgment until its full satisfaction. 92
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated August 31, 2017 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02098, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (J. Rosario designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Initials were used to identify the accused-appellant pursuant to Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-15 dated September 5, 2017 Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances.
2. As amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC.
3.Rollo, pp. 4-24; penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig and concurred in by Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap.
4. CA rollo, pp. 61-85; penned by Judge Philadelfa B. Pagapong-Agraviador.
5. "The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its Violation, and for Other Purposes; Republic Act No. 9262, An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children, effective November 15, 2004." (People v. Dumadag, 667 Phil. 664, 669 [2011]).
6.Rollo, p. 5; records, p. 13.
7. Records, pp 13-16.
8.Rollo, p. 5.
9. Records, pp. 4-8 (Ilonggo version); pp. 141-144 (English version).
10.Supra note 5.
11.Id.
12.Rollo, pp. 6-7.
13. Records, p. 9.
14.Id. at 21-22.
15.Id. at 1-2.
16. Geographical location is blotted out pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Circular No. 83-2015, supra note 1.
17. Records, pp. 1-2.
18.Id. at 29-30.
19.Id. at 37-38.
20.Id. at 45.
21.Id.
22.Id. at 60-64.
23. TSN, April 21, 2008, pp. 5-6.
24.Id. at 6-8.
25.Id. at 12-15.
26.Id. at 14-16.
27. TSN, May 19, 2009, p. 9.
28.Id. at 10-11.
29. Records, pp. 11-12.
30. TSN, September 1, 2009, pp. 8-15.
31.Id. at 11-12.
32.Id. at 16-21.
33.Id. at 21-23.
34.Id. at 24-25.
35.Id. at 24-30.
36.Id. at 30-32.
37.Id. at 34-43, 46.
38.Id. at 43-44.
39. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing Footnote Reference and Footnote Text.
40. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing Footnote Reference and Footnote Text.
41.Id. at 44-45.
42.Id. at 47-48.
43. TSN, November 8, 2010, p. 7.
44.Id. at 10-11.
45. TSN, October 21, 2013, pp. 28-29; March 3, 2014, p. 4.
46.Id. at 7-10.
47.Id. at 12-13.
48.Id. at 14-15.
49.Id. at 15-18.
50.Id. at 19-20.
51.Id. at 21-22.
52.Id. at 22.
53.Id. at 25-29.
54.Id. at 23-25.
55. TSN, March 3, 2014, pp. 7-8.
56. CA rollo, pp. 61-85.
57.Id. at 81-84.
58.Id. at 84.
59.Id. at 84-85.
60.Id. at 33-59.
61.Rollo, pp. 4-24.
62.Id. at 15.
63.Id. at 15-16.
64.Id. at 16.
65.Id. at 18-20.
66.Id. at 20-21.
67.Id. at 21.
68.Id. at 22.
69.Id.
70.Id. at 23.
71.Id. at 25-26.
72.People v. Roy, 836 Phil. 920, 929 (2018) citing People v. Barcela, 734 Phil. 332 (2014).
73. REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 266-A, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (1997).
74.People v. Ballon, G.R. No. 240540 (Notice), January 22, 2020 citing People v. De la Cruz, 711 Phil. 566-576 (2013).
75.People v. Villegas, Jr., G.R. No. 218210, October 9, 2019 citing People v. Balisong, 792 Phil. 837, 847 (2016).
76.People v. Canatoy, G.R. No. 227195, July 29, 2019 citing People v. Rapeza, 549 Phil. 378, 391 (2007).
77. "An Act Defining Certain Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or under Custodial Investigation as well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining and Investigating Officers, Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof."
78.See People v. Canatoy, supra note 76.
79.People v. Magayon, G.R. No. 238873, September 16, 2020 citing People v. Canatoy, supra note 76.
80.See People v. Yabut, G.R. No. 234610 (Notice), January 14, 2019.
81.People v. Canatoy, supra note 76 citing People v. Mojello, 468 Phil. 944, 956 (2004).
82.Id. citing People v. Continente, 393 Phil. 367, 397 (2000).
83.Id. citing People v. Bacor, 366 Phil. 197, 212 (1999).
84.Id.
85.People v. Magayon, supra note 79 citing Balois-Alberto v. Court of Appeals, 711 Phil. 530, 556-557 (2013).
86.People v. De Los Reyes, G.R. No. 201835 (Notice), August 16, 2017.
87.People v. Villegas, Jr., G.R. No. 218210, October 9, 2019 citing People v. Batalla, G.R. No. 234323, January 7, 2019.
88.People v. De Los Reyes, supra note 86.
89. REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE, Rule 133, § 2.
90. An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.
91.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 850 (2016).
92.Nissan Gallery-Ortigas v. Felipe, 720 Phil. 828, 840 (2013), citing Nacar v. Gallery Frames and/or Felipe Barley, Jr., 716 Phil. 267, 281-283 (2013) citing BSP-MB Circular No. 799 dated May 16, 2013.