SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238456. September 15, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.XXX, 1 accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated15 September 2021 which reads as follows: HEITAD
"G.R. No. 238456 (People of the Philippines v. XXX). — Challenged in this appeal is the November 27, 2017 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06353 which upheld the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20 of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, finding accused-appellant XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt for two counts of Rape under Article 266-A and Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 8353 3 and RA 7659, 4 in relation to RA 7610. 5
In addition, the appellate court affirmed the RTC's ruling finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one count of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, in relation to RA 7610.
The Antecedent Facts:
Accused-appellant was initially charged in three separate Informations with Rape. The accusatory portion of each Information reads:
Criminal Case No. 4888-V
That on or about the 30th day of March, 2000, in the _________________, 6 Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one [AAA], 7 a seventeen (17) year old minor, 8 against the latter's will and consent by means of force and intimidation.
Contrary to law. 9
Criminal Case No. 4889-V
That on or about the 2nd day of April, 2000, in the _________________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one [AAA], a seventeen (17) year old minor, against the latter's will and consent by means of force and intimidation.
Contrary to law. 10
Criminal Case No. 4890-V
That on or about the 20th day of May, 2001, in the _____________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one [AAA], a seventeen (17) year old minor, against the latter's will and consent by means of force and intimidation.
Contrary to law. 11
Upon arraignment, XXX pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged against him. Thereafter, pre-trial and trial on the merits ensued. 12
The prosecution presented three witnesses, namely: private complainant AAA herself, her sister BBB, and Dr. Judilyn Eugenio. On the other hand, the defense presented accused-appellant himself and his wife, YYY. 13
Version of the Prosecution:
On March 30, 2000, at around 8:30 in the morning, private complainant was sweeping the yard of their house when accused-appellant arrived and went inside their kitchen. She resided in her parent's house, which was two houses away from XXX's, who was her uncle, the latter being married to her aunt, YYY. 14 After entering private complainant's house, XXX called her and the latter approached him. At that instance, he pulled private complainant towards him and repeatedly kissed her on the lips. She struggled but could not free herself because accused-appellant was strong. XXX then dragged her upstairs and brought her into her room. While inside her room, accused-appellant forced her to lie down and undressed her. He went on top of private complainant and inserted his penis into her vagina and did a pumping motion for 30 minutes, while mashing her breasts and kissing her. Thereafter, XXX left private complainant and went home. 15
The second incident occurred on April 2, 2000. On said date, private complainant was washing clothes at their yard, while accused-appellant was at the kitchen of their house. He then called on private complainant. She approached accused-appellant, who right then and there kissed private complainant and dragged her upstairs to her room. Inside her room, accused-appellant removed his shirt and shorts as well as her clothes. He went on top of private complainant and inserted his penis into her vagina and made a pumping motion. While accused-appellant was doing the pumping motion, private complainant struggled to break free, but was unable to do so. She felt pain when accused-appellant was inside her. After the incident, accused-appellant went home. 16
The third incident happened on May 20, 2001. At around nine o'clock in the morning, private complainant was standing inside their kitchen when accused-appellant began to mash her breasts from behind. Private complainant struggled and cried. Private complainant's sister, BBB, arrived and shouted at them. Upon seeing BBB, accused-appellant hurriedly left and went home. BBB went to the fields and reported the incident to their parents. Private complainant's father then summoned accused-appellant and asked him if anything happened between him and private complainant. XXX answered that nothing happened. After hearing accused-appellant's reply, private complainant's father reported the incidents to the barangay captain and to the police. 17
On May 21, 2001, Dr. Judylyn Eugenio (Dr. Eugenio), Medical Officer of the Integrated Provincial Health Office in ________________ conducted a physical and internal examination on private complainant and issued a Medical Certificate with the following findings:
Hymen-Old lacerations at 4, 6, 9 o'clock positions
Introitus admits 2 fingers w/ ease. 18
Version of the Defense:
Accused-appellant vehemently denied the accusations against him. He claimed that he had a relationship with private complainant that started sometime in the year 2000 when the latter went to his house and he told her that he loved her. She answered positively and they had sexual intercourse that day. Their sexual encounters took place in his house, in private complainant's house and sometimes in the fields. All of these happened while his wife was out of the house and also when private complainant had no companion at home. The latter always returned his embraces and kisses in all these instances. The affair went on for more than a year but it ended on May 20, 2001 when private complainant's sister caught them embracing in the latter's house. Her sister then scolded and reprimanded her. Accused-appellant did not know that private complainant was a minor at that time. 19
YYY, accused-appellant's wife, 20 and an aunt of private complainant, was a vegetable vendor and was often out of their house. When she came home from selling vegetables in _______________ on May 20, 2001, she was told by her sister that her husband was arrested. YYY went to the house of her niece to ask for forgiveness. She already had a feeling that her husband and private complainant were having an affair. Her feelings were based on the fact that her niece kept on asking for her husband and there was even a time when she saw private complainant at the door of their house when she came home from the market. She got nervous and asked why the child was there and private complainant replied that she came to see the baby, YYY's son. 21
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court: aDSIHc
In its July 30, 2013 Decision, 22 the trial court found accused-appellant guilty of two counts of Rape in Crim. Case No. 4888 which occurred on March 30, 2000, and in Crim. Case No. 4889 that transpired on April 2, 2000. However, in Crim. Case No. 4890 that happened on May 20, 2001, the trial court held that the prosecution only proved the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness. Thus, the fallo of said Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime of Rape in Crim. Case No. 4888-V and Crim. Case No. 4889-V defined under Article 266-A (2) 23 and penalized under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code[,] as amended by Republic Act 8353 and Republic Act 7659, in relation to Republic Act 7610. Accordingly, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA in each case. He is hereby ordered to pay the victim [AAA] the sum of 50,000.00 as Civil indemnity and Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages for each of the two (2) counts of rape.
In Crim. Case No. 4890-V, the court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness defined and penalized under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 and hereby sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as maximum and orders him to pay [AAA] civil indemnity in the amount of P20,000.
SO ORDERED.24
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed before the CA. In its November 27, 2017 Decision, the appellate court affirmed the findings of the RTC with modification as to the damages awarded in view of prevailing jurisprudence. The dispositive portion of its Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed July 30, 2013 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Vigan, Ilocos Sur, in Criminal Case Nos. 4888-V to 4890-V, is MODIFIED in that:
(1) In Criminal Case Nos. 4888-V and 4889-V, appellant shall be INELIGIBLE for parole and the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages shall all be INCREASED to P75,000.00 each for each count of rape;
(2) In Criminal Case Nos. 4890-V, appellant is ORDERED TO PAY moral damages in the amount of P15,000.00; exemplary damages in the amount of P15,000.00; and a fine of P15,000.00; and
(3) INTEREST at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all monetary awards from date of finality of this decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 25
The Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged.
Our Ruling
We affirm with modification accused-appellant's conviction.
The gravamen of the crime of Rape is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will. 26 The following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt for the conviction of the accused in the crime of Rape: (i) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (ii) the act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation; or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or (c) when the victim is 12 years of age, or is demented. 27
In the instant case, the foregoing elements were all established by the prosecution. The victim testified that accused-appellant had sexual intercourse with her, against her will, accompanied with force and intimidation by accused-appellant.
Private complainant clearly narrated the incident that transpired on March 30, 2000, to wit:
Atty. Quintal (Q):
When you said on that particular day of March 30, 2002 at around 8:30 in the morning can you tell the honorable court who were your companions if any inside your house?
A: None.
Q: And when he called you[,] madam witness[,] what did he do if any?
A: I went near him.
Q: When you said you went near him, you went in front of him?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And when you went in front of him what did the accused [XXX] do if any?
A: He pulled me repeatedly.
Q: When he pulled you repeatedly[,] madam witness[,] to what particular portion of your house [did] he [try] to pull you?
A: Upstairs.
Q: Was he able to pull you upstairs?
A: Yes.
Q: And while he was able to pull you upstairs, what did he do next to you, if any?
A: He forced me to lie down.
Q: And when he forced you to lie down, what did he do?
A: He went on top of me.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: When he pulled you upstairs, he removed his short pants?
A: Yes
Q: Now when he pulled you upstairs what hand did he use in pulling you?
A: Right hand.
Q: And what hand did he use in removing his short pants?
A: Left hand.
Q: Now, how about you madam witness, were [you] also naked when the accused went on top of you?
A: No, sir.
Q: And when you said, Madam Witness, when he went on top of you what did he do next if any? ATICcS
A: He repeatedly mashed my breast.
Q: What else?
A: He repeatedly kissed me.
Q: After that what else did he do?
A: He went on top of me.
Q: And when he went on top of you what did he do next [. . .]?
A: He inserted his penis to my vagina. 28
Likewise, private complainant testified that on April 2, 2000, the following acts occurred:
Q: Now, when you saw [XXX] inside your house on April 2, 2002, what did you do if any?
A: He called for me and I went near him, sir.
Q: And can you tell this Honorable Court, madam witness, if you have any relation (sic) with the accused [XXX]?
A: None, sir.
Q: When he called you madam witness, to come inside your house, what did you do then?
A: None, sir.
Q: And how about the accused, madam witness, what did he do when he failed to call you inside the house?
A: He repeatedly kissed me sir.
Q: Where, madam witness?
A: In our kitchen, sir.
Q: So are we made to understand, madam witness, that you went inside the house ultimately?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And what else did he do, if any, madam witness?
A: He pulled me again upstairs, sir.
Q: And was he able to bring you upstairs, madam witness?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And what particular place upstairs, Madam witness, did he bring you?
A: In my room again, sir.
Q: Now, madam witness, while you were already inside your room upstairs, what did the accused [XXX] do to you, if any?
A: He made me lie down and went on top of me, sir.
Q: When he went on top of you, madam witness, were you wearing clothes?
A: I was still wearing my short pants and shirts (sic) then, sir.
Q: How about the accused, madam witness, was he also wearing his clothes when he made you lie down on the bed?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When he succeeded to lie down on your bed, madam witness, what transpired next, if any?
A: He removed his shirts (sic) and short pants and he went on top of me, sir.
Q: And [when] he went on top of you madam witness, were you still in clothes also?
A: Yes, sir and then he removed after, sir.
Q: So are we made to understand madam witness, that first he went on top of you already naked then while on top of you he removed your short pants?
A: Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Now, madam witness, when he went on top of you, what did the accused do to you when he went on top of you?
A: He made some pumping motion from (sic) me sir.
Q: And what particular part of your body madam witness, he made that pumping motion?
A: On my private part, sir. (toy mabagbagik)
Q: When you said 'mabagbagik' in Ilocano dialect, madam witness, are you referring to your vagina?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And how about the accused [XXX], what particular part of his body was he using in pumping your vagina?
A: His penis, sir.
Q: Are we made to understand, madam witness, that the accused [XXX], was able to enter his penis into your vagina, is that what you mean, madam witness?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What did you do madam witness, when the accused was able to put his penis into your vagina?
A: I straggled (sic) to brake (sic) it, sir.
Q: And were you able madam witness, to brake (sic) free?
A: No, sir.
Q: Why, madam witness?
A: Because he is very strong, sir.
Q: And when he was able to enter or put his penis into your vagina, what did you feel, if any? ETHIDa
A: Pain, I felt pain, sir. 29
Private complainant's testimony was likewise corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Eugenio. On May 21, 2001, she examined the victim and found contusion and lacerations which could have been caused by the erect penis of a male person. 30
In view of the foregoing testimonial, documentary and object evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution more than sufficiently proved in evidence that accused-appellant committed the crime of Rape beyond reasonable doubt.
Likewise, We find that the appellate court correctly affirmed the findings of the trial court in ruling that accused-appellant committed Acts of Lasciviousness against complainant on May 20, 2001. However, there is a need to modify the nomenclature of the crime from Acts of Lasciviousness to Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (6) of RA 7610.
In Quimvel v. People, 31 We explained that in order for an accused to be convicted of child abuse through lascivious conduct on a child, 32 the requisites for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under RA 7610.
The following are the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness, as defined in Article 336 of the RPC:
1. That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;
2. That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
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.
3. That the offended party is another person of either sex. 33
Furthermore, lascivious conduct under Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 has the following elements:
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.
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. 34
In the instant case, the foregoing elements were present. During the trial, the prosecution presented the testimony of private complainant's sister, to wit:
Prosecutor Oscar Lorenzo
(Q): While you were at the front door or main door of your house at around 9:20 o'clock of May 20, 2001, do you remember of (sic) anything (sic) unusual incident that happened?
A: I saw [XXX] mashing the breast of my sister, sir.
Q: In what particular place, Madam Witness, where (sic) the accused was then mashing the breast of your sister?
A: In our kitchen, sir.
Q: In relation to the main door of your house and to the place where you saw the accused mashing the breast of your sister, how far?
A: They were then about seven (7) meters, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: When you saw the accused mashing the breast of your sister, can you tell this Honorable Court what was then the clothes being worn by your sister?
A: She was wearing a blouse and short pants, sir.
Q: When the accused was mashing the breast of your sister, what was your sister doing?
A: She was struggling because my sister was facing [with her] back [to] the accused, sir.
Q: Madam Witness, how about the accused what was he wearing then?
A: He was only wearing short pants but he has no upper garment, sir.
Q: How about you Madam Witness, what did you do if any, when your sister was being mashed by the accused?
A: I shouted at them, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What transpired when you shouted at them?
A: [XXX] went out to our house and went around the house and after which, he left our premises, sir. 35
In view of the foregoing, this Court finds that the prosecution's evidence established that accused-appellant committed Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 on May 20, 2001 against complainant, indisputably a minor at the time of the commission thereof. Lascivious conduct is defined under Section 2 (h) of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases (Rules on Child Abuse Cases) as:
[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus, or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person. 36
Furthermore, Sec. 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 specifically states the following:
Section 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. 37
Accused-appellant nevertheless argues that there were inconsistencies in complainant's testimonies that would warrant his acquittal. He points out that during her June 15, 2004 testimony, she claimed that the incidents occurred on March 30, 2002, April 2, 2002 and July 2, 2001, contrary to the dates indicated in the three separate Informations, namely — March 30, 2000, April 2, 2000 and May 21, 2001. 38
We find the foregoing argument untenable. As a rule, the date of the commission of the rape and lascivious conduct, as the case may be, is not an essential element of the crime. In People v. Paculba, 39 this Court held that "errors or inconsistencies as to the exact time or date or day of the week when the rape was consummated do not impair the credibility of the complaining witness, for as long as there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailant. Moreover, the exact date is not an essential element of rape. It bears no significance to the actual commission of the crime." 40
Furthermore, accused-appellant raises the defense that she and the private complainant were sweethearts, hence any sexual relationship that occurred between them were consensual. 41
This Court holds that the sweetheart theory does not, by and of itself, negate the commission of rape. Aside from his self-serving testimony, XXX did not present any proof to corroborate his assertion. Moreover, the fact that private complainant was a minor during the foregoing incidents casts serious doubt on the efficacy of the consent purportedly given by her. 42
In sum, We hold that the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that, indeed, accused-appellant is guilty of two counts of Rape and one count of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. The appellate court correctly meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua on XXX and the payment of the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of the Resolution to full satisfaction, for each count of rape. However, the phrase "ineligible for parole" must be deleted as the same is appended only when death is the imposable penalty. However, there is a need to modify the penalty in Criminal Case No. 4890-V for Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 to an indeterminate sentence of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P15,000.00, as well as civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, and exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.
ACCORDINGLY, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The November 27, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06353 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that:
1. In Criminal Case Nos. 4888-V and 4889-V, accused-appellant XXX is found GUILTY of two (2) counts of Rape under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and is accordingly sentenced to suffer, for each count, the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. The phrase "ineligible for parole" is DELETED. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.
2. In Criminal Case No. 4890-V, XXX is found GUILTY of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610 and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P15,000.00, as well the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral damages; and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages. The awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Resolution until full payment. cSEDTC
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 identify the accused-appellants 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 Fictitions Names/Personal Circumstances.
2. CA rollo, pp. 197-217; penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a retired Member of this Court) and Jane Aurora C. Lantion.
3. The Anti-Rape Law of 1997.
4. An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, amending for that purpose the Revised Penal Laws, as amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and for Other Purposes.
5. Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. Republic Act No. 7610, June 17, 1992.
6. Geographical location is blotted out pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Circular No. 83-2015, supra note 1.
7. "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 Penalties for its Violation, and for Other Purposes; Republic Act No. 9262, An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, and 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 14, 2004." (People v. Dumadag, 667 Phil. 664, 669 [2011]).
8. See also Records, p. 41.
9. CA rollo, p. 134.
10.Id. at 134-135.
11.Id. at 135.
12.Id.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 136.
15.Id. at 136-137.
16.Id. at 137.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19.Id. at 87.
20. Records, p. 253.
21. CA rollo, p. 87.
22.Id. at 21-41; penned by Judge Marita B. Balloguing.
23. The appellate court clarified this to refer to Article 266-A (1) of the RPC; See CA rollo, pp. 205-206
24. CA rollo, p. 41.
25.Id. at 216-217.
26.People v. Buca, 770 Phil. 318, 330 (2015).
27. REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 266-A; See also People v. Court of Appeals, 755 Phil. 80, 103 (2015).
28. TSN, October 7, 2003, pp. 4-6.
29. TSN, June 15, 2004, pp. 11-13.
30. CA rollo, p. 202.
31. 808 Phil. 889, 915 (2017).
32. R.A. No. 7610, defines the term Child as follows:
Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. — (a) "Children" refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition:
33.People v. Padlan, 817 Phil. 1008, 1024 (2017).
34.Id. at 1025.
35. TSN, September 2, 2003, pp. 4-5.
36.People v. Padlan, supra note 33 at 1025.
37.Id. at 1025-1026.
38. CA rollo, pp. 92-93.
39. 628 Phil. 662 (2010).
40.Id. at 676-677.
41. CA rollo, p. 99.
42.Balois-Alberto v. Court of Appeals, 711 Phil. 530, 555 (2013).