SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253181. October 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.XXX, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 October 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253181 (People of the Philippines v. XXX). — This is an appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated February 21, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10264, which affirmed with modification the Judgment 3 dated October 6, 2017, of the Regional Trial Court, _______________________ (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 15046. The CA Decision sustained the conviction of XXX for the crime of Rape penalized under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The Antecedents
An Information 4 was filed dated August 3, 2015, charging XXX with the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A of the RPC. 5 The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
That on or about August 1, 2015, in __________________ Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused by means of force, threat and intimidation did then and there succeed in having sexual intercourse with AAA, 6 15-year old girl, against the latter's will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7 AScHCD
Assisted by counsel de officio, XXX was arraigned on October 7, 2015, and pleaded not guilty 8 to the crime charged. Pre-trial conference was held on April 15, 2016, where the prosecution and the defense agreed to the following stipulations:
1) That accused XXX is the same person named and charged in the criminal information;
2) The existence and due execution of the medico legal certificate of the victim; and
3) That the victim was only 15 years old at the time of the incident subject of this case, with the presentation of the original certificate of birth issued by the local civil registrar. 9
Trial on the merits' thereafter ensued. 10
Evidence for the Prosecution
The prosecution presented as its witness the minor victim, AAA. The testimonies of other prosecution witnesses, Dr. Cecille Louise I. Cercado (Dr. Cercado) and Police Officer 2 Joseph Tela (PO2 Tela), were dispensed with as the parties agreed to stipulate on the subject matter of their respective testimonies. 11
During trial, AAA testified that at around 5:00 p.m. on August 1, 2015, her friend BBB sent her a text message inviting her to a drinking session at the house of XXX; and that AAA arrived there at 30 minutes later to join XXX, BBB, and CCC. AAA stated that their drinking session lasted until 10:00 p.m. after consuming a bottle of Emperador Light. Having already been drunk, AAA stayed at XXX's house for fear that her uncle and grandfather would get mad at her for going out drinking. According to AAA, BBB and CCC went home, leaving her alone to sleep on a 'papag' outside XXX's house. 12
AAA testified that while she was asleep, she felt someone, who turned out to be XXX, touching her breasts. She also recognized XXX's voice when he told her that he merely wanted to embrace her. XXX asked her if she wanted a massage, to which she refused. However, XXX managed to make her lie face down, massaged her back, then touched her breasts and vagina. XXX held both her hands, lowered her shorts and panties, and ordered her to hold his genitals. AAA refused, but that XXX remained persistent and told her not to tell anyone what he was doing. 13
Thereafter, XXX lifted her shirt and turned her over, with her now facing XXX while lying on her back. AAA testified that at that point, XXX had been able to completely remove her shorts and panties, and had again ordered her to touch his penis. 14 AAA alleged that by then, XXX had removed his shorts, went on top of her, and inserted his penis inside her vagina, which caused her great pain. 15
AAA testified that XXX threatened to kill her if she would tell anyone what he was doing. AAA alleged that XXX removed his penis when she fought back, but managed to insert it again, and told her not to make any noise as there were other people inside the house. AAA, pleaded for XXX to stop, but to no avail. XXX only stopped raping her when she was able to kick his penis. After these, XXX just slept beside her. 16 AcICHD
AAA claimed that she cried herself to sleep beside XXX, and that she woke up at around 4:00 a.m. the following day. 17 She asked permission from XXX to leave the house, who in turn gave her P10.00 for her transportation, after which she left. Before leaving, XXX once again threatened to kill her if she told anybody about what had transpired. Nonetheless, AAA claims that she told BBB and CCC about what had happened. BBB and CCC did not believe her because BBB had previously slept at XXX's house without any ward incident. 18
AAA reported the incident to her siblings, her mother, and an uncle. Thereafter, they all went to her grandfather to inform him about what had happened. AAA's uncle and grandfather proceeded to the police station where she executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay detailing the events subject of this case. 19
As the parties agreed to stipulate on the subject matter of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Dr. Cercado and PO2 Tela, the presentation of these witnesses was dispensed with. The parties stipulated on the following: 20
With respect to the testimony of Dr. Cercado:
1) the expertise and qualification of Dr. Cercado as an Ob-Gyne Perinatology of the __________________;
2) that Dr. Cercado examined the victim on August 2, 2015 as per the hospital records which was brought to her by her representative DDD;
3) that after the examination of AAA, Dr. Cercado issued a Medico Legal Certificate with the findings of a positive abrasion at the posterior fourchette and fresh hymenal laceration at 4 and 8 o'clock positions, as indicated therein which were admitted by the parties;
4) the parties admitted the existence, due execution and authenticity of the Medico Legal Certificate;
5) that if presented, Dr. Cercado would be able to identify the Medico Legal Certificate that she signed; and
6) that Dr. Cercado does not have any personal knowledge as to who caused the injuries stated in her Medico Legal Certificate and that she also does not have any personal knowledge as to the circumstances surrounding the alleged rape incident.
With respect to the testimony of PO2 Tela:
1) that the contents of the Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Pag-Aresto which PO2 Tela executed with PO1 Sammy Galdores would be the subject of his direct testimony;
2) that he merely acted as an arresting officer in relation to this case;
3) that he would be able to identify the Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Pag-Aresto that he executed in relation to this case; and
4) that he does not have any personal knowledge as to the actual circumstances of the alleged rape incident. 21
Evidence for the Defense
For the defense, accused XXX identified his judicial affidavit which constituted his direct testimony, and presented minor witness CCC. 22
XXX asserted his defense of denial. He stated in his affidavit that on August 1, 2015, at around 5:00 p.m., he was outside his house having a drinking session with CCC and BBB who were his trainees in volleyball. He alleged that prior to that, he did not know AAA, who only came to his house upon the invitation of CCC and BBB. XXX alleged that at around 10:00 p.m., at the end of their drinking session CCC decided to leave but not before asking if AAA could sleep in his house as AAA was already drunk. XXX stated that he allowed AAA to sleep on a sofa outside his house, and that his wife even gave AAA a pillow. He further claimed that he slept on the floor of his house and, at around 5:00 a.m. the following day, his wife woke him up to clean the area where the drinking session took place. 23 ICHDca
XXX also testified that when he woke up, AAA was no longer around. After waking up, he allegedly cooked breakfast for his children. He claimed that at around 7:00 p.m. later that day, while playing with his children, some people arrived, and handcuffed him upon verifying his identity. He claimed that he was informed that there was a rape complaint against him, after which he was brought to a police precinct. 24
On cross-examination, XXX claimed that when the alleged incident occurred, his wife, his four children, and his mother-in-law were all inside his house. He suited that they all sleep together on a makeshift bed, and that if someone outside was to make a sound, everyone could have easily heard what was happening. Finally, accused XXX surmised that AAA may have been offended when he allegedly told AAA not to court BBB whose parents were abroad. 25
Meanwhile, CCC testified that she was indeed at XXX's house before the alleged incident transpired. After their volleyball training, there was indeed a drinking session which took place among her, accused XXX, and BBB who invited AAA, who was not part of their volleyball team, to join. CCC testified that AAA arrived soon after BBB invited her through a text message. She stated that BBB left at around 7:00 p.m., while she was waited for AAA to become sober. However, CCC claimed that at around 10:00 p.m., AAA was still drunk and did not want to leave the place. According to CCC, AAA asked her if she could sleep at XXX's house, but she informed AAA that she would not be able to do so, as she was not allowed to sleep in other people's houses. 26
The RTC Ruling
The RTC issued its Judgment dated October 6, 2017, 27 convicting XXX of the crime of Rape under Article 266-A of the RPC, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, accused [XXX] is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of RAPE under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code and [is] hereby [sentenced] to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and is ordered to pay the (sic) AAA the amount of (sic) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000) as civil indemnity, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000) as moral damages and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages.
All damages awarded in this case should be imposed with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the judgment until fully paid.
Being a detention prisoner, the accused [XXX] is entitled to full credit of the entire period of his preventive imprisonment in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6127, provided he had agreed in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, otherwise, with only four-fifths (4/5) thereof.
SO ORDERED. 28
The RTC ruled that between the categorical statements of AAA as a credible witness on one hand, and the bare denial of the accused-appellant on the other, the former must definitely prevail. 29 The RTC gave greater weight to the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses over the bare denial of accused-appellant, the latter failing to show any ill motive for the prosecution witnesses to testify against him.
Aggrieved, XXX filed a Notice of Appeal 30 with the RTC, which gave his appeal due course in the Order 31 dated October 18, 2017. Accused-Appellant filed his Brief dated August 16, 2018, 32 while the People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), likewise filed its Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee, dated September 27, 2018. 33
The CA Ruling
The CA issued its Decision denying XXX's appeal and affirming his conviction with modification: ASEcHI
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated 06 October 2017 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION as to the civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages which the RTC awarded Php50,000.00, Php50,000.00, and Php30,000.00, respectively are all increased to Php75,000.00.
SO ORDERED. 34
The CA held that the evidence for the prosecution established all the elements of the crime charged, and that it found no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the RTC. The CA stated that XXX merely offered a bare denial of the rape charge, which was a flimsy excuse, in light of AAA's positive and categorical testimony. Denied anew, XXX appealed to the Court.
Issue
The issue in this case is whether or not the CA decided in a manner contrary to facts, law, and applicable jurisprudence when it affirmed with modification XXX's conviction for Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.
The Ruling of the Court
The instant appeal is denied. The Court affirms the conviction of accused-appellant.
Both parties filed Manifestations before this Court stating that they would be adopting their respective appeal briefs filed with the CA in lieu of their Supplemental Briefs. 35
XXX argues that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt considering the "incredible testimony" of the private complainant which was grossly inconsistent with the common experience of man. XXX stated that AAA's admission of kicking XXX's penis would in fact show that there was no penetration of her vagina. 36
To further cast doubt on the testimony of the AAA, XXX states that it would be absurd for a supposed rape victim to simply wake up at 4:00 a.m. the following morning, instead of immediately leaving and asking for help. He also states that AAA's failure to scream for help only casts greater suspicion on her testimony considering that the accused-appellant's children, mother, and wife, were only a few meters away from the 'papag' inside a house built like a nipa hut. XXX states that these details show that the elements of the crime of rape were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. 37
XXX also argues that the physical evidence subject of Dr. Cercado's testimony could hardly corroborate the testimony of AAA since Dr. Cercado had no personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the supposed incident. He notes that this makes the medical certificate highly irrelevant in the determination of accused-appellant's guilt. 38
At the outset, this Court rejects XXX's arguments which try to diminish AAA's testimony as a credible witness. Both the RTC and the CA Decisions gave full weight and credence to AAA's testimony as she testified in a straightforward and candid manner, corroborated by the testimony of the examining physician. Settled is the rule that when the credibility of the witnesses is at issue, appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court, the latter being in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial, unless certain facts of substance and value had been overlooked which, if considered, might affect the results of the case. 39 There is nothing in the instant appeal that indicates the need to depart from this rule.
AAA was 15-year old minor at the time of the alleged rape, as noted by both the RTC and the CA. No woman, least of all a child, would concoct a story of defloration, allow examination of her private parts, and subject herself to a public trial or ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim of rape and is impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her being. 40 ITAaHc
That AAA did not immediately leave or scream for help, as pointed out by XXX, does not immediately negate rape. There is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident, especially if the assailant is physically near. The workings of the human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable. In a given situation, some may shout, others may faint, and still others may be frozen into silence. Consequently, the failure of complainant to run away or shout for help at the very first opportunity cannot be construed as consent to the sexual intercourse. 41
XXX mainly anchors his arguments against the credibility of AAA's testimony on the common experience of man. In emphasizing the tumultuous state of mind of minor rape victims during and after a rape incident, the CA, citing People v. Malones, 42 aptly pointed out that:
Rape victims, especially child victims, should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation. It is not proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone traumatic experience by the norms of behavior expected from adults under similar circumstances. The range of emotions shown by rape victims is yet to be captured even by calculus. It is, thus, unrealistic to expect uniform reactions from rape victims. Indeed, we have not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been abused. This experience is relative and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt. Different people act differently to a given stimulus or type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience." 43
Anent XXX's assertions that the medical certificate prepared by Dr. Cercado has no direct link between the charge against him and the injuries suffered by AAA, the CA emphasized that the existence, due execution, and authenticity of such medical certificate were admitted by the defense. 44 Said medical certificate indicated that AAA's hymen had fresh lacerations at the 4 and 8 o'clock positions, which strengthens AAA' assertion that XXX did indeed have sexual intercourse with her. Settled is the rule that when the victim's testimony is corroborated by the physician's finding of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude that carnal knowledge took place. 45
XXX is Guilty of Rape.
Rape is penalized under Article 266-A (1) of the RPC, as amended:
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 otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination;
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.
The gravamen of Rape under Article 266-A (1) is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will or without her consent. 46 In the instant case, the information filed against the accused alleges that he, by means of force, threat and intimidation, succeeded in having sexual intercourse with AAA, a 15-year old girl, against the latter's will and consent. Thus, to sustain a conviction, the following elements must be present: 1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim, and 2) that said act was accomplished through the use of force, threat, or intimidation. 47
First, based on the evidence presented before the lower courts, the first, element of carnal knowledge is present. The existence, due execution, and authenticity of Dr. Cercado's medical certificate, which indicated fresh hymenal lacerations at the 4 and 8 o'clock positions, was admitted by the defense. As correctly pointed out by both the RTC and the CA, this lends credence to the assertion that XXX did indeed have sexual intercourse with the victim. Again, settled is the rule that when the victim's testimony is corroborated by the physician's finding of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge. 48 Lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration. 49 On the other hand, the absence of spermatozoa in the genitalia of complainant does not negate the finding of rape since ejaculation is not an element thereof. 50
Second, the presence of force, threat, and intimidation, was correctly recognized by the lower courts. AAA categorically testified that XXX threatened to kill her if she would report the incident to anyone. 51 The fact that AAA did not immediately leave after the harrowing incident, and even sought XXX's permission before doing so, indicate that AAA felt sufficiently threatened by XXX's direct threat, and his mere presence.
AAA's testimony was clear and credible. It sufficiently showed the kind of force, threat, and intimidation exerted by XXX in committing the act of sexual intercourse without the victim's consent. This was established through the following testimony before the RTC: 52
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And what did the accused do when you told him not to touch your breast
WITNESS:
A: He told me that he would embrace me ma'am.
PROS. BUENAVENTURA:
Q: And then what happened next? cHDAIS
A: He asked me if I want to be massaged ma'am.
Q: And what did you tell him?
A: I told him I do not want ma'am.
Q: And what did you do when you told him that you do not want to be massaged?
A: He made me lie face down and then he started massaging me, my back and then until he was touching other parts of my body.
Q: And what other parts of your body did the accused touched?
A: My breast and vagina ma'am.
Q: How was he able to touch your vagina?
PROS. BUENAVENTURA:
May we make it of record Your Honor that the victim is crying.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: After he was on top of you what did he do next?
A: He raped me and he held both of my hands and I told him not to do that to me, but he told me that if I would report about the incident he would kill me ma'am.
PROS. BUENAVENTURA:
Q: What did you feel when the accused penis was inside your vagina?
A: It was painful ma'am."
xxx xxx xxx
As observed by the CA, the testimony of AAA categorically establishes that she refused and resisted XXX's advances. 53 Her refusal, coupled with XXX's threat of harm against the minor plaintiff-appellee, shows that force, threat, and intimidation were applied by the accused, and were sufficient to consummate the crime of rape.
It bears noting that the force and violence required in rape cases is relative and need not be overpowering or irresistible when applied. For rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force or intimidation be so great or be of such character as could not be resisted — it is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. Further, it should be viewed from the perception and judgment of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime. What is vital is that the force or intimidation be of such degree as to cow the unprotected and vulnerable victim into submission. Force is sufficient if it produces fear in the victim, such as when the latter is threatened with death. 54
In People v. Galagati, We similarly ruled that in rape through force or intimidation, the force employed by the guilty party need not be irresistible. It is only necessary that such force is sufficient to consummate the purpose for which it was inflicted. Similarly, intimidation should be evaluated in light of the victim's perception at the time of the commission of the crime. It is enough that it produced fear in the mind of the victim that if she did not yield to the bestial demands of her ravisher, some evil would happen to her at that moment or even thereafter. Hence, what is important is that because of force and intimidation, the victim was made to submit to the will of the appellant. 55 ISHCcT
Considering the foregoing, We find that all elements to sustain a conviction were established by the prosecution in this case.
The CA correctly rejected XXX's defense of denial. Accused-appellant's bare-faced defense of denial cannot surmount the positive and affirmative testimony offered by the prosecution. A defense of denial which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and sell-serving, deserving no weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the convincing, straightforward, and probable testimony on affirmative matters.' 56
Thus, this Court finds no convincing reason to disturb the findings of the RTC and the CA which were duly supported by the evidence on record.
Penalties
Rape through force, threat, or intimidation is penalized under Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended, as follows:
Article 266-B. Penalty. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
The Court affirms the penalties imposed by the CA on XXX, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Further, the Court affirms the monetary awards in AAA's favor in the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this ruling until fully paid, in conformity with People v. Jugueta. 57
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated February 21, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10264 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant XXX is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353. Accordingly, he is SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Further, he is ORDERED to pay private complainant AAA civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages at P75,000.00 each.
In line with current jurisprudence, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." (Perlas-Bernabe, J., on official leave;Hernando, J., Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2846 dated October 6, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 16-17.
2. Id. at 3-15. Penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin with Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Walter S. Ong, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 53-64. Penned by Presiding Judge Marion Jacqueline P. Poblete.
4. Rollo, p. 3.
5. Id.
6. Pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, the personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise the identity of the victim, including the names of her family members or relatives, and the barangay and town where the incidents occurred, are withheld. The names of the victim and her family members or relatives are replaced with fictitious initials. Likewise, the real name of the accused-appellant is replaced with fictitious initials be reason of his relationship to the minor victim.
7. Rollo, pp. 3-4.
8. Id. at 4.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 4-5.
12. Id. at 4.
13. Id. at 4-5.
14. Id. at 5.
15. CA rollo, p. 62.
16. Rollo, p. 5.
17. CA rollo, p. 56.
18. Rollo, p. 5.
19. Id. at 6.
20. Id. at 6-7.
21. Id.
22. Id. at 7-8.
23. Id. at 7.
24. Id.
25. Id. at 8.
26. Id.
27. CA rollo, 53-64.
28. Rollo, pp. 8-9.
29. CA rollo, p. 63.
30. Id. at 12.
31. Rollo, p. 9.
32. CA rollo, pp. 38-51.
33. Id. at 65-76.
34. Rollo, p. 14.
35. Id. at 28-30, and 33-36.
36. CA rollo, pp. 43-44.
37. Id. at 44.
38. Id. at 40-50.
39. People v. PFC Malejana, 515 Phil. 584, 593 (2006).
40. People v. Pareja, 724 Phil. 759, 786-787 (2014).
41. Sison v. People, 682 Phil. 608, 625 (2012), citing People v. Sandig, 454 Phil. 801, 811 (2003), and People v. Gecomo, 324 Phil. 297, 313-314 (1996).
42. People v. Malones, 469 Phil. 301 (2004), citing People v. Ibay, 303 Phil. 16 (1994), People v. Montemayor, 444 Phil. 169 (2003), and People v. Talaboc, 326 Phil. 451 (1996).
43. Id. at 326-327.
44. Rollo, p. 13.
45. People v. Brondial, 397 Phil. 663, 688-689 (2000).
46. People v. Rupal, 834 Phil. 594, 604-605 (2018).
47. People v. Baldo, 599 Phil. 382, 388 (2009), citing Revised Penal Code, Art. 266-A as amended by Rep. Act No. 8353; People v. Barangan, 560 Phil. 811, 834 (2007).
48. People v. PFC Malejana, supra note 39 at 596.
49. People v. Brondial, supra at 688-689, citing People v. Acala, 366 Phil. 797, 813 (1999), and People v. Espinoza, 317 Phil. 79, 87 (1995).
50. Id. at 688-689, citing People v. Acala, id. and People v. Borce, 352 Phil. 275, 298-299 (1998).
51. CA rollo, p. 62.
52. Id. at 60-62.
53. Rollo, p. 9.
54. People v. Lucena, 728 Phil. 147, 161 (2014), citing People v. Javier, 370 Phil. 128. 145 (1999), and People v. Canada, 617 Phil. 587, 601-602 (2009).
55. People v. Galagati, 788 Phil. 670, 686 (2016), citing People v. Victoria, 763 Phil. 96, 102 (2015).
56. People v. Villanueva, 807 Phil. 245, 255 (2017), citing People v. Mateo, 582 Phil. 369, 384 (2008).
57. People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).