THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232370. September 13, 2017.]
ROMMEL ROTAERO y ROSAROSO, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 13, 2017, which reads as follows: AIDSTE
"G.R. No. 232370 (Rommel Rotaero y Rosaroso vs. People of the Philippines). — Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal of the March 15, 2017 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 38667 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Rommel Rotaero y Rosaroso" and its June 5, 2017 Resolution 2 denying reconsideration thereof.
The Facts
In an Information dated May 17, 2013 filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 5, Manila, petitioner Rommel Rotaero (Rotaero) was charged with the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5, Article III, of Republic Act No. (RA) 7610, otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. Docketed as Criminal Case No. 14-305330, 3 the said Information reads:
That on or about April 9, 2013, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, with lewd designs, did then and there willfully and unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of lasciviousness upon the person of [AAA], 4 by then and there suddenly touching and fondling her legs, holding her hand and leading it to touch his penis while displaying his penis to her, thereby gravely endangering the normal growth and development of said [AAA], against her will and consent.
Contrary to law. 5
On arraignment, Rotaero pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial on the merits ensued thereafter.
Evidence for the Prosecution
Two (2) witnesses were presented by the prosecution, namely: complainant AAA and child psychiatrist Dr. Katherine B. Camus (Dr. Camus).
According to the prosecution, sometime in 2013, AAA, who was then eight (8) years old having been born on June 26, 2004, stayed at her grandmother's house in Manila for a vacation. The unfortunate incident happened during her stay thereat.
On April 9, 2013, AAA was playing with her friends when, at around 3:00 p.m., she saw Rotaero lying on a folding bed placed underneath a tree near a school. When her friends were plucking out white hair from Rotaero's mustache, he called AAA to join them. He then gave AAA's friends Php20.00 and asked them to leave, thus leaving him alone with AAA. She then continued plucking out white hair when Rotaero reached and touched her thigh, stroking it four (4) times. AAA trembled and tried to leave, but Rotaero pulled her back and told her not to leave just yet because he would show her something. He then got Php20.00 from his belt bag. At the same time, he pulled down his shorts and briefs and exposed his penis. As he handed her the Php20.00 bill, he held her hand and pulled it towards his penis. Before her hand could touch Rotaero's penis, AAA was able to pull it away. He then asked her to go to his house but AAA left immediately.
Using the money Rotaero gave her, AAA bought soft drinks. Her grandmother saw AAA with the beverage and asked her where she got the money for such. That is the time when AAA told her about Rotaero stroking her thigh. However, due to fear that she would be called vulgar, AAA did not tell her that Rotaero also showed her his penis. Furious, her grandmother then took the change from AAA, went to Rotaero and threw it at him. Thereafter, they proceeded to the barangay hall and then to the police station to report the incident.
AAA underwent psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Camus who interviewed her thrice from December 2013 to February 2014. There, AAA stated that Rotaero touched her thigh and told her to touch his genitals. She also reported that on two (2) previous occasions, he touched her breasts and upper thighs. Dr. Camus noted that AAA was able to relate the incidents consistently — a sign that she was telling the truth. She also noted that AAA exhibited signs of nervousness associated with fear from the perpetrator during the first interview. Her findings were contained in her Psychiatric Evaluation Report dated February 12, 2014. 6
Evidence for the Defense
For the defense, Rotaero was presented as the sole witness.
Interposing the defense of denial, Rotaero admitted that he was indeed at the place of the incident, having his white hair plucked by AAA's friends while AAA was playing with her cousin. After giving them money, they left. AAA then approached him and asked him for money, but, according to him, he simply ignored her as he was watching a basketball game. She then offered to pluck his white hair but he, once again, ignored her. Her cousin then called her and they left.
Rotaero further testified that after the game, he went home. He was then surprised when later that day, AAA's grandmother confronted him and accused him of doing something bad to AAA. He then approached AAA and asked her what is going on, to which AAA replied that she does not know. Rotaero claims that the instant case was instigated by AAA's grandmother because she held a grudge against his family, her daughter-in-law being in an illicit relationship with his brother. 7 AaCTcI
Ruling of the RTC
Not giving credence to Rotaero's defense, the RTC 8 found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, disposing of the case in this wise:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisition, the Court finds accused ROMMEL ROTAERO y ROSAROSO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610.
He is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as MINIMUM, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
He is further adjudged to PAY complainant (a) civil indemnity of P30,000.00, (b) moral damages of P30,000.00, (c) exemplary damages of P30,000.00, and the (d) costs.
SO ORDERED. 9
According to the trial court, the clear and straightforward testimony of AAA cannot be overcome by Rotaero's uncorroborated defense. The RTC likewise did not believe the defense's allegation that the touching of AAA's thigh was merely accidental.
Ruling of the CA
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC's findings with modification as to damages. The CA held that, as correctly found by the RTC, the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness are present in the instant case.
The CA likewise ruled that the RTC correctly accorded credence to the testimony of AAA after finding her answers to the questions on direct and cross-examination to be intelligible, candid, and unwavering. As for Rotaero's attempt to discredit AAA's testimony by a motive to testify falsely against him, that is, that her grandmother held a grudge against his family, the CA noted that such is unsubstantiated. The appellate court emphasized that no evidence, testimonial or otherwise, was presented to prove that indeed AAA's grandmother held a grudge against his family which would prompt her to testify falsely against him. 10
Furthermore, the CA highlighted that AAA's age at the time of the incident and when she testified, that is eight (8) and ten (10) years old, respectively, gives the court more reason to believe that AAA is telling the truth since youth and immaturity are considered badges of truth and sincerity. 11
As for Rotaero's defense that the prosecution failed to prove that he coerced, intimidated, or influenced AAA, the appellate court held that said defense must fail. 12 To the CA, coercion, influence, or intimidation is not necessary considering that AAA was only eight (8) years old at the time of the incident. Being less than twelve (12) years of age, the law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own. 13
The CA thus concluded that Rotaero's bare denial, the weakest of all defenses in criminal law, set against AAA's positive, direct, and categorical assertions, is not worthy of belief. 14
As for the damages awarded, the CA modified those given by the RTC to conform with prevailing jurisprudence. The awards were decreased thusly: 1) civil indemnity from P30,000.00 to P20,000.00; 2) moral damages from P30,000.00 to P15,000.00; and 3) exemplary damages from P30,000.00 to P15,000.00. 15 Furthermore, the CA ordered Rotaero to pay AAA P15,000.00 as fine, pursuant to Section 31 (f), Article XII of RA 7610. 16
The fallo of the assailed Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated April 7, 2016 of the [RTC], Branch 5, Manila is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that [Rotaero] is ordered to pay [AAA] the following: Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as civil indemnity; Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) as moral damages; Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) as exemplary damages; and Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) as fine. All award of damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.17 (words in brackets Ours)
His motion for reconsideration having been denied in the questioned Resolution, Rotaero seeks exculpation from this Court via the instant petition.
The Issue
The sole issue for Our resolution is whether or not Rotaero is guilty of the crime charged.
Rotaero argues that the CA erred when it affirmed the RTC's judgment of conviction. According to him, the prosecution failed to prove that the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC and RA 7610 are indeed present in the case at hand. He insists that there is doubt as to whether lascivious conduct indeed happened and that the element of coercion, intimidation, or influence is absent. 18
Our Ruling
Preliminarily, this Court finds it imperative to point out what seemed to have been missed by the trial and appellate court in deciding the case at hand — the age of the victim is not indicated in the Information filed against Rotaero. Said Information reads:
That on or about April 9, 2013, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, with lewd designs, did then and there willfully and unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of lasciviousness upon the person of [AAA], by then and there suddenly touching and fondling her legs, holding her hand and leading it to touch his penis while displaying his penis to her, thereby gravely endangering the normal growth and development of said [AAA], against her will and consent. EcTCAD
Contrary to law. 19 (words in brackets Ours)
An information is an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court 20 and in all criminal prosecutions, the accused is entitled to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. 21 Corollary thereto, a complaint is deemed sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed. 22
Compliance with the above requires that the complaint or information state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. 23
Thus, as a general rule and applying the above principles to the instant case, for the victim's age to be considered against Rotaero and for the crime to fall under RA 7610, it is necessary that it be alleged in the Information. Here, as earlier pointed out, AAA's age does not appear in the Information against Rotaero. Applying the general rule, in absence of the declaration in the information that AAA is below 18 years old, Rotaero cannot be convicted for a violation of Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 which requires the concurrence of 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; and
3. That child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.24
A review of jurisprudence, however, reveals that such is not an absolute rule.
In Olivarez v. Court of Appeals, 25 this Court painstakingly discussed the numerous and various instances where the Court excused the non-specification of an element of the crime charged considering that there was substantial compliance with the rule. To summarize:
1. In People v. Rosare, 26 the information did not allege that the victim was a mental retardate which is an essential element of the crime of statutory rape. This Court however sustained the trial court's judgment of conviction holding that the resolution of the investigating prosecutor which formed the basis of the information, a copy of which is attached thereto, stated that the offended party is suffering from mental retardation.
2. In People v. Villamor, 27 the information failed to allege the age of the offended party. However, a copy of the order issued by the investigating judge was attached in the record of the preliminary investigation clearly stating that the complainant was nine years old. There was, therefore, substantial compliance with the mandate to inform the accused of the nature of the accusation. It was also declared that the defense cannot invoke the element of surprise as to deprive it of the opportunity to suitably prepare for the accused's defense.
3. In People v. Galido28 and People v. Mendez, 29 the information for rape failed to allege the element of force or intimidation. The Court ruled that this omission is not fatal since the complaint specifically charged the accused with three counts of rape committed by means of force and intimidation.
4. In People v. Torellos, 30 the Court treated the information for rape which failed to allege force and intimidation as merely defective and that the deficiency was cured by the failure of the accused to assail the insufficiency of the allegations in the Information and by competent evidence presented during trial.
Thus, as this Court clarified in Olivarez, 31 while it is necessary to allege the essential elements of the crime in the information, the failure to do so is not an irremediable vice. As a matter of fact, in People v. Palarca, 32 citing People v. Lopez, 33 this Court, in no uncertain terms, held that an information which lacks certain essential allegations may still sustain a conviction when the accused fails to object to its sufficiency during the trial, and the deficiency was cured by competent evidence presented therein.
Here, Rotaero failed to include the omission of AAA's age in the Information as part of his defense. Nor did he question said omission at any stage of the trial. As a matter of fact, said ground was not even raised in the instant petition. As such, following this Court's pronouncement in the above-cited cases, Rotaero is deemed to have waived his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation 34 against him insofar as the age of the victim is concerned.
With that, We shall now proceed to discuss the issue presented before Us.
Well-settled is the rule that, absent any clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness or capriciousness committed by the lower court, its findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon this Court. 35 This is so because the observance of the deportment and demeanor of witnesses are within the exclusive domain of the trial courts. Thus, considering their unique vantage point, trial courts are in the best position to assess and evaluate the credibility and truthfulness of witnesses and their testimonies. 36
Anent the finding of both the RTC and the CA that the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of the crime charged and that it was Rotaero who committed such, We find no reason to disturb it.
Art. 336 of the RPC, provides:
Art. 336. Acts of lasciviousness. — Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned on the preceding article, shall be punished by prision correccional.
As for Sec. 5 (b) of RA 7610, the pertinent portion thereof reads:
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. HSAcaE
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 subject 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.
In Quimvel v. People, 37 this Court held that before an accused can be held criminally liable for lascivious conduct under Sec. 5 (b) of RA 7610, the requisites of Acts of Lasciviousness as penalized under Art. 336 of the RPC must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Sec. 5 (b) of RA 7610. Said elements are:
Under 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; and
3. That the offended party is another person of either sex.
And under RA 7610:
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. That child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
In the case at bar, the following have been sufficiently established by the prosecution and were, in fact, admitted — or not denied — by the defense, thus:
1. The offended party, AAA, is a girl of the tender age of eight (8) years old at the time of the incident; and
2. Rotaero touched AAA's thighs.
As a matter of fact, the only elements of the crime questioned by Rotaero are those pertaining to the character of his conduct — he insists that his act of touching AAA's thigh was merely accidental and was neither intentional nor lascivious. Additionally, Rotaero denies the allegation that he showed her his penis and even tried to force her to touch it buy pulling her hand towards it. We find otherwise.
Foremost, AAA's testimony that Rotaero touched her and tried to force her to touch his penis, weighed against Rotaero's bare, uncorroborated denial thereof, is worthy of belief. We find it proper to defer to the findings of both the trial court and the CA with respect to the credibility of the witnesses and whether their testimonies are worthy of belief or not. Indeed, the testimony of a child of such tender and innocent age deserves great weight and credence, especially if it is positive, candid, and unwavering, as here. Even more so when the offender can only present the defense of denial — the weakest form of defense — in hopes that it would be sufficient to exculpate him. As the Court emphatically stated in People v. Estrada, 38 "[t]here is no showing at all that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied facts or circumstances of weight which would have affected the outcome of the case. We therefore defer and give highest respect to the findings of the trial court because it is in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of the witnesses. Because of its vantage position, it can detect a guilty blush, a slight hesitation, a fearful glance, and an anguished cry."
Additionally, as further correctly held by the RTC and the CA, Rotaero's attempt at imputing malice upon AAA and her grandmother, saying that the latter had reason to falsely accuse him because of the illicit relationship between her daughter-in-law and his brother cannot hold water. This is so for the simple reason that Rotaero did not even bother presenting any witness to testify to the truth of said claim. Basic is the rule that he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence. 39 In this case, the defense miserably fell short in proving this alleged source of ill-motive.
This leaves Us to settle the question whether the acts complained of can be considered as "lascivious," and therefore, punishable under the RPC and RA 7610.
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7610, particularly Section 2 (h) thereof, gives Us the definition of "lascivious conduct." It is "the 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 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 genitals or pubic area of a person." 40
Without question, pursuant to said definition, the act of touching a young girl's thigh, showing her a grown man's private parts, and attempting to get her to touch it, all amount to lascivious conduct punishable under the law.
Rotaero's claim that the act complained of was merely accidental, to Us, is a feeble attempt at laying a defense. Taking into consideration AAA's age, the series of events that transpired, and the fear and discomfort felt by AAA towards Rotaero's conduct which prompted her to leave and to muster enough courage and strength to report the incident and to testify in court, strongly convinces this Court that nothing in his actuations was accidental. These will in no case be sufficient to convince this Court that he is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
Lastly, Rotaero's allegation that the prosecution failed to prove that he coerced, intimidated, or influenced AAA to succumb to his alleged lustful desires is misplaced. As correctly held by the trial court and the CA, force, intimidation, or coercion is unnecessary in view of AAA's age at the time of the incident. HESIcT
Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
ART. 336. Acts of lasciviousness. — Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by prision correccional.
Again, for an accused to be convicted of acts of lasciviousness under the foregoing provision, the prosecution is burdened to prove the confluence of the following essential elements:
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; and
3. That the offended party is another person of either sex. 41 (emphasis Ours)
Based on the above, it is clear that meeting the element of age renders unnecessary the presence of force, coercion, or intimidation.
With these, We agree with the trial court and the CA that Rotaero's guilt has been successfully established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
On the prison term imposed
As for the penalty, the RTC and the CA sentenced him to suffer indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. We note however that the maximum period of fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal is erroneous.
In Quimvel, 42 citing People v. Santos, 43 the Court held that in the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the maximum term of the sentence for Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC in relation to RA 7610 to be imposed shall be taken from the medium period of reclusion temporal in its medium period, which ranges from fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months and nine (9) days. On the other hand the minimum term shall be taken from the penalty next lower to reclusion temporal medium, that is reclusion temporal minimum, which ranges from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months. 44
To reiterate, reclusion temporal medium in its medium period is fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months and nine (9) days. The minimum term allowed, therefore, is fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days.
On the basis thereof, We find that the term of fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days set by the RTC and the CA is a day shy of the minimum which, once again, is fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days. Being below the minimum, it is undoubtedly outside the allowable range for the maximum term imposable. We, thus, deem it proper to modify such — from twenty (20) to twenty-one (21) days — to conform to the law and jurisprudence.
On the damages awarded
Anent the damages awarded, the CA correctly modified the amounts thereof to moral damages, exemplary damages and fine in the amount of P15,000.00 each as well as P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, applying Quimvel. 45
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 15, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 38667 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Rommel Rotaero y Rosaroso" and its June 5, 2017 Resolution denying its reconsideration, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The fallo of the RTC Decision is hereby modified to read:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisition, the Court finds accused ROMMEL ROTAERO y ROSAROSO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610.
He is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as MINIMUM, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
He is further adjudged to PAY complainant the following: Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as civil indemnity; Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) as moral damages; Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) as exemplary damages; and Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) as fine.
All awards of damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 70-83. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Leoncia R. Dimagiba and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting.
2.Id. at 93-94.
3. Entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Rommel Rotaero y Rosaroso."
4. Pursuant to People v. Cabalquinto, (G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006), the real name of the victim, as well as her personal circumstances, her immediate family or household members, which tend to establish or compromise their identities, shall not be disclosed. Instead, fictitious initials shall be used.
5.Rollo, p. 71.
6.Id. at 73.
7.Id. at 73-74.
8.Id. at 38-54. By Presiding Judge Emily L. San Gaspar-Gito.
9.Id. at 53-54.
10.Id. at 79.
11.Id. at 80.
12.Id.
13.Id., citing People v. Banzuela, G.R. No. 202060, December 11, 2013, 712 SCRA 735.
14.Id. at 81.
15.Id.
16.Id. at 82.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 18.
19.Supra note 5.
20.People v. Ching, G.R. No. 177150, November 22, 2007, 538 SCRA 117.
21. THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Rule 115, Section 1 (b).
22.Id., Rule 110, Section 6.
23.Olivarez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163866, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 465.
24.Quimvel v. People, G.R. No. 214497, April 18, 2017.
25.Supra note 23.
26. G.R. No. 118823. November 19, 1996, 264 SCRA 398.
27. 297 SCRA 262 (1998).
28. G.R. Nos. 148689-92, March 30, 2004, 426 SCRA 502.
29. 335 SCRA 147 (2000).
30. G.R. No. 143084, April 1, 2003, 400 SCRA 243.
31.Supra note 23, at 481.
32. G.R. No. 146020, May 29, 2002.
33. 346 SCRA 469, 475 (2000).
34.People v. Palarca, G.R. No. 146020, May 29, 2002, citing People v. Lopez, 346 SCRA 469, 475 (2000).
35.Supra note 24, citing Uyboco v. People, G.R. No. 211703, December 10, 2014, 744 SCRA 688.
36.Id., citing People v. Pareja, 724 Phil. 759 (2014).
37.Id.
38. G.R. No. 178318, January 15, 2010, 610 SCRA 222, 231.
39.Luxuria Homes, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125986, January 28, 1999, 302 SCRA 315.
40.People v. Fragante, G.R. No. 182521, February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA 566, 585.
41.Quimvel v. People, supra note 24.
42.Id.
43. G.R. No. 205308, February 11, 2015, 750 SCRA 471, 487.
44.Supra note 24.
45.Id.