That on or about the 27th day of June 2001, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Antonio Manuel Uy y Suangan and John Doe, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, with intent to gain, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and carry away the following jewelry, to wit:
QTY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 3 Star ruby brooch 7 x 9 mm P1,920.00 5 Star ruby pendant plain 8 x 10 mm 825.00 4 Star ruby pendant plain 10 x 14 mm 1,220.00 6 Star ruby pendant w/ zircon 12 x 16 mm 4,170.00 2 Star ruby pendant w/ zircon 10 x 14 mm 1,730.00 4 Star ruby pendant plain 3,020.00 3 Star ruby bracelet 12 x 16 mm 4,500.00 3 Star ruby bracelet w/ zircon 8 x 10 mm 2,025.00 2 Star ruby bracelet w/ zircon 6 x 8 mm 1,050.00 7 Star ruby bracelet plain 8 x 10 mm 4,375.00 2 Star ruby ring w/ zircon medium stone 1,760.00 2 Star ruby ring w/ zircon 10 x 12 mm 1,510.00 2 Star ruby ring w/ zircon large stone 2,010.00 1 Star ruby ring plain 10 x 15 mm 905.00 1 Star ruby ring plain 9 x 11 mm 680.00 9 Star ruby ring plain 10 x 14 mm 7,110.00 6 Star ruby ring plain yg 4,350.00 1 Star ruby ring plain wg 685.00 5 Star ruby ring plain 11 x 15 mm 5,200.00 8 Star ruby ring plain 10 x 12 mm 2,320.00 7 Star ruby ring plain 12 x 16 mm 2,800.00 1 Star ruby ring plain 8 x 10 mm 165.00 6 Star ruby pendant small stone 4,140.00 1 Star sapphire earring pierced 10 x 12 mm 830.00 3 Star sapphire brooch 6 x 8 mm 1,965.00 26 Star sapphire tie tack 8 x 10 mm 4,180.00 1 Star sapphire tie tack & cufflinks set 6 x 8 mm 525.00 1 Star sapphire pendant 12 x 16 mm 390.00 1 Star sapphire earring pierced 6 x 8 mm 165.00 1 Star sapphire earring plain 6 x 8 mm 445.00 1 Star sapphire bracelet 360.00 11 Star sapphire tie pin wg 8 x 10 mm 2,090.00 3 Star sapphire tie tack & cufflinks set 1,380.00 3 Star sapphire tie tack & cufflinks set 2,745.00 1 Emerald ring 1,260.00 1 Diamond earring 4,450.00 1 Diamond earring 10,285.00 1 Diamond earring 5,970.00 1 Diamond earring 7,700.00 1 Diamond earring 7,150.00 1 Diamond earring 9,970.00 1 Diamond earring 6,700.00 1 Diamond earring 8,700.00 1 Diamond ring 5,850.00 1 Diamond ring 4,800.00 1 Diamond ring 4,120.00 1 Diamond ring 4,020.00 1 Diamond ring 2,820.00 1 Diamond ring 3,500.00 1 Diamond ring 6,200.00 1 Diamond ring 4,250.00 1 Diamond ring 5,450.00 1 Diamond ring 5,000.00 1 Diamond ring 4,120.00 1 Diamond ring 5,450.00 1 Diamond ring 5,450.00 1 Diamond ring 2,950.00 1 Diamond pendant w/ china jade 31,200.00 2 Italian gold bangles 3,000.00 2 Italian gold bangles 2,700.00 1 Italian gold bangles 1,200.00 1 Italian gold bangles 1,200.00 1 Italian gold necklace 4,600.00 1 Italian gold bracelet 5,700.00 1 Italian gold bracelet 7,250.00 1 Italian gold bracelet 6,250.00 1 Italian gold bracelet 3,500.00 1 Italian gold bracelet 3,450.00 1 Italian gold bracelet 3,400.00 1 Italian gold bracelet 2,800.00 1 Italian gold bracelet 5,200.00 1 Italian gold bracelet 3,600.00 1 Italian gold bracelet 6,850.00 1 Diamond ring 3,100.00 1 Diamond ring 3,000.00 1 Gold pendant w/ topaz & onyx stone 3,400.00 1 Didien Lamarthe 11,000.00 1 Christian Dior 12,250.00 P 327,390.00
all belonging to JEEPNEY SHOPPING CENTER, represented by RICARDO M. SALVADOR and an ARMSCOR .38 caliber revolver with SERIAL No. 64517 amounting to P9,000.00, more or less, belonging to ENERGETIC SECURITY AGENCY represented by ROMEO SOLANO, to the damage and prejudice of Jeepney Shopping Center in the total amount of P327,390.00 and Energetic Security Agency in the total amount of P9,000.00 more or less; and on the occasion thereof, accused willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stabbed Gilbert V. Esmaquilan and hit on the head with a 2x2 wood Felix Arañez y Gida and Delfin Biniahan y Cahtong, Security Guard, Janitor and maintenance of Jeepney Shopping Center(,) respectively, thereby causing their death; and accused to facilitate their escape thereafter take, steal and drive away a (sic) one (1) Black Honda Civic with Plate No. WFD-891 registered in the name of OLIVER GATCHALIAN.
Contrary to law.4
Appellant Antonio Manuel Uy was one of the maintenance crew of the Jeepney Shopping Center located at No. 1913, Taft Avenue, Pasay City, owned by Mr. Jerry Limpe.
Appellant used to be a stay-in employee of the Jeepney Shopping Center. However, appellant could not get along with his co-employees and usually engaged in quarrels with them. In their letter dated March 29, 2001 addressed to Michael Limpe, the son of Jerry Limpe, the co-employees of appellant requested that he be ordered to leave the employees' quarters. Resultantly, appellant was ordered by Michael Limpe to leave the quarters and transfer to another place. Appellant was forced to rent a house in Sandejas St., Pasay City.
When appellant was removed from the employees' quarters, Cecilio Aranez, also a member of the maintenance crew of the Jeepney Shopping Center, heard appellant made a threat, saying "Balang araw makagaganti ako."
Sometime in the first week of June 2001, the co-employees of appellant, including Neptali Tamayo, had a drinking spree at Juz Café along Taft Avenue, Pasay City. The drinking session lasted until 3:00 o'clock in the morning of the following day. On their way home, the group noticed two persons outside the guardhouse of the Jeepney Shopping Center peeping inside. One of these persons was appellant. When the group approached them, they hid themselves inside the guardhouse. Later on, appellant came out from where he hid himself and uttered a joke. Thereafter, appellant and his companion left.
Around 9:00 o'clock in the morning of June 26, 2001, appellant, through a text message, informed Roger Tan, the Supervisor of the Maintenance Department of the Jeepney Shopping Center, that he (appellant) was not feeling well and would not be able to report for work.
Around 11:00 o'clock in the evening, Joel Adol, the security guard of Chang Juat Ltd. Company located at No. 1906, Taft Avenue, Pasay City, saw appellant with a companion standing at the gate of the Jeepney Shopping Center. The security guard had a clear and unobstructed view of the Jeepney Shopping Center as Chang Juat Ltd. Company was just adjacent to it and the Jeepney Shopping Center was brightly lighted. Joel Adol recognized appellant because he used to see him cleaning the premises of the Jeepney Shopping Center and directing traffic in the area. Joel Adol observed that appellant and his companion were looking at his post and were peeping inside the Jeepney Shopping Center. When Joel Adol went inside the building of Chang Juat Ltd. Company around 12:00 o'clock in the evening, he noticed that appellant and his companion were still at the gate of the Jeepney Shopping Center.
Around 5:30 in the morning of June 27, 2001, Carpio Bahatan, a stay-in employee of the Jeepney Shopping Center, discovered the lifeless bodies of Felix Aranez and Delfin Biniahan at the second floor and third floor, respectively, of the main building of the Jeepney Shopping Center. Another stay-in employee, Rico Victor Arbas, discovered the dead body of the security guard, Gilbert Esmaquilan, lying near the guardhouse which was inside the Jeepney Shopping Center compound.
A piece of wood with blood stains was found about three to five meters from the body of Gilbert Esmaquilan. Another blood-stained piece of wood was found in the locker room within the compound but outside the main building of the Jeepney Shopping Center.
At the opening leading to the comfort room in the ground floor of the main building, there were found pieces of jalousie slabs and frames scattered on the ground.
At the second floor, the lifeless body of Felix Aranez was found, lying face down and with feet and hands tied with yellow plastic straw. A piece of cloth was stuck in his mouth and his nape had an incise wound. A bunch of keys was found inside the display cabinet which was in disarray. It was discovered that some pieces of jewelry inside the display cabinet were missing.
At the third floor, the dead body of Delfin Biniahan was found lying on a folding bed between two glass cabinets. He sustained injuries on the upper part of his body. The glass cabinets were splattered with blood. The door of the Administrative Office had been destroyed and bore some traces of blood.
Police Senior Inspector Emmanuel Reyes, Medico-Legal Officer of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, Southern Police District Crime Laboratory Office, conducted an autopsy on the bodies of the three victims. The examination on the body of Felix Aranez revealed that he sustained a hack wound on the nape, measuring 0.3 cm. x 0.7 cm., which could have been caused by a bladed weapon, and hematoma on the occipital region or on the right side of the head, measuring 8 cm. x 8 cm., and on the frontal region just above the right eye which may have been caused by a blunt object. Delfin Biniahan sustained five lacerated wounds on the frontal region, particularly on the forehead, which could have been caused by the application of a hard object, and his lower jaw was displaced toward the left side, which could have been caused by a hard blow. The cause of death of Felix Aranez and Delfin Biniahan was "intracranial hemorrhages secondary to traumatic injuries of the head." Gilbert Esmaquilan sustained multiple stab wounds on the left mammary region piercing the aorta near its attachment to the heart; the left subcostal region piercing the stomach; the vertebral region piercing the underlying soft tissues; the left posterior rib; the right infrascapular region piercing the 7th right posterior intercostal muscle and the lower and upper lobes of the right lung; and the right costal region piercing the posterior right 8th intercostal muscle and the lower and upper lobes of the right lung. The fatal wounds were those which pierced his heart and lungs. The cause of death of Gilbert Esmaquilan was "hemorrhage and shock secondary to multiple stab wounds of the body."
Around 8:30 in the evening of June 28, 2001, appellant met with his girlfriend, Richlie Ladiana ("Richlie"), in the latter's workplace in Panorama Street, SSS Village, Marikina City and gave her P6,000.00. Appellant was with co-accused Ricky Ladiana ("Ricky"), Richlie's brother. Richlie noticed that at that time, appellant appeared to have a problem, while Ricky looked stern. After giving the money to Richlie, appellant and Ricky immediately left.
Around 8:30 in the morning, of the following day, June 29, 2001, appellant called up Richlie and asked her to drop by the house of Ricky in Cupang, Antipolo City where he was.
At 8:57 that same morning. appellant also sent a text message to their head supervisor, Roger Tan, which read, "Boss, Gud morning. Bukas na ako papasok o kaya Lunes ang sama talaga ng trangkaso nabasa K C ako ng ulan nong Martes pag diliver namin." At 9:57, appellant sent another text message to Roger Tan, which read, "Boss, balita daw na ako ang suspek sa nangyari dyan boss matagal na ako sa companya kahit alam kong inaapi ako nyo wala akong ginawa na masama sa trabaho ko."
When Richlie arrived at the house of Ricky, appellant gave her P500.00 and asked her to buy him some tee-shirts and shorts. Appellant also asked Richlie to return the P6,000.00 which he had earlier given to her because he was leaving for the province.
Around 2:30 in the afternoon, Richlie again dropped by the house of Ricky before going to school. Appellant requested her not to attend her classes anymore because he was leaving for the province. Richlie stayed with appellant in the house of Ricky until 7:00 o'clock in the evening. While appellant was putting on his clothes, Richlie noticed that appellant was wearing a cross pendant. Thereafter, appellant handed to her something wrapped in a newspaper. When she opened the newspaper to look what was inside, she saw 4 pairs of earrings, a pairless earring, and 5 ladies' rings.
Around 9:00 that same evening, appellant and Ricky went to the house of Eduardo dela Cruz ("Eduardo") in Cupang, Antipolo City. Eduardo was the second cousin of the mother of Richlie and Ricky. Ricky looked very nervous and his eyes were reddish, while appellant was very quiet. Ricky told Eduardo that they were in trouble and asked him to accompany appellant to the house of Panfilo dela Cruz, Eduardo's first cousin, in Sitio Tibol, Barangay Salasa, Palauig, Iba, Zambales. Ricky told Eduardo that appellant will be staying in Zambales for two to three days. Eduardo acceded to such request.
Eduardo and appellant proceeded to the bus terminal of Victory Liner in Cubao, Quezon City. When they arrived in Cubao around 11:30 that same evening, the last trip for Zambales had already left. Appellant told Eduardo that they will just get a taxi in going to Olongapo City. They were able to hire a taxi for P1,500.00. They arrived in Olongapo City around 1:00 o'clock in the morning of the following day, June 30, 2001. While waiting for a bus going to Zambales, they drank coffee in a nearby store. During their conversation, Eduardo asked appellant what happened. Appellant confessed to Eduardo that he and Ricky entered a place in Pasay City and they killed two persons and seriously wounded another whom they left fighting for his life. Appellant also told Eduardo about the vault which contained money and that if "he can open the vault, and even if they die their family will live comfortably." Further, appellant told Eduardo that nothing will be traced to him because his hands were wrapped such that no fingerprints would be recovered from the crime scene. They arrived at the house of Panfilo dela Cruz around 6:00 o'clock in the morning. Eduardo introduced appellant to Panfilo dela Cruz and told the latter that appellant will be staying there for about two (2) days. At noontime, Eduardo went back to Manila.
After a week, Eduardo went to SPO3 Rodrigo Urbina of the PNP Regional Mobile Patrol Group. Eduardo told SPO3 Urbina what was confessed to him by appellant and that he brought appellant to Zambales. SPO3 Urbano coordinated with the Pasay City Police Station, Crime Investigation Division, for appellant's arrest.
Around 5:00 o'clock in the morning of July 12, 2001, the joint team of the Regional Mobile Patrol Group, the Pasay City Police Station and the Palauig Police Station arrested appellant in the house of Panfilo dela Cruz. Appellant was frisked and a cross pendant was recovered from his pocket.
The inventory conducted by Cresilda Tigolo, the accounting clerk of Jeepney Shopping Center, revealed that 191 pieces of jewelry in the amount of P304,140.00 and 2 imported bags worth P23,250.00 were stolen. The stolen items had a total value of P327,390.00.
The gold pendant recovered from appellant was worth P3,400.00. Also recovered were a diamond earring worth [P]6,700.00 and a diamond ring worth P5,450.00 which Richlie had pawned through a friend Wilfredo Mazo. Said pawned items were recovered from Villarica Pawnshop, Inc., in Marikina City. Thus, the total amount of the pieces of jewelry recovered was P15,550.00.
The .38 Caliber Armscor revolver service weapon of victim Gilbert Esmaquilan, owned by the Energetic Security Specialist, was recovered by PO3 Edison Cabotaje in the house of Ricky Ladiana.
The Honda VTEC 1999 model car with plate no. WFD 891, owned by a certain Oliver Gatchalian, which had been used as the "getaway" car by appellant, was recovered somewhere in Quezon City.7
WHEREFORE, the Court, after considering the qualifying/aggravating circumstances attending the commission of the crime, finds the accused Antonio Manuel Uy y Suangan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the Special Complex Crime of Robbery with Homicide in violation of paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 7659, and hereby sentences him to suffer the extreme penalty of DEATH by lethal injection. The accused is likewise ordered to indemnify the following:a) the legal heirs of the late Aranez the sum of P50,000.00 as death indemnity;
b) the legal heirs of the late Biniahan the sum of P50,000.00 as death indemnity;
c) the legal heirs of the late Esmaquilan the sum of P50,000.00 as death indemnity;
d) the Jeepney Shopping Center the sum of P311,840.00 as reparation of the damage caused; and
e) the Energetic Security Agency the sum of P49,784.75 for the funeral expenses of guard Esmaquilan.
Considering the penalty imposed, let the records of this case be forwarded for automatic review by the Honorable Supreme Court within twenty (20) days, but not earlier than fifteen days after promulgation of this judgment.
SO ORDERED.14
WHEREFORE, the court AFFIRMS the decision of the Trial Court in convicting Antonio Manuel Uy of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and MODIFIES the penalty imposed from death penalty to reclusion perpetua.
The accused is likewise ordered to indemnify the following:a) the legal heirs of the late Aranez the sum of P50,000.00 as death indemnity;
b) the legal heirs of the late Biniahan the sum of P50,000.00 as death indemnity;
c) the legal heirs of the late Esmaquilan the sum of P50,000.00 as death indemnity;
d) the Jeepney Shopping Center the sum of P311,840.00 as reparation of the damage caused; and
e) the Energetic Security Agency the sum of P49,784.75 for the funeral expenses of guard Esmaquilan.
SO ORDERED.17
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.II
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS GUILTY, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY.21
x x x The removal of the jalousies in the restroom of the Jeepney Shopping Center to gain entrance, the destruction of the display cabinet where the items were kept, the destruction of the lock leading to the cashier's office on the third floor of the building; and the inventory of missing items makes the situation possess the first essential element as stated above. In robbery by the taking of the property through intimidation or violence, it is not necessary that the person unlawfully divested of the personal property be the owner thereof, robbery may be committed against a bailee or a person who himself stole it. As long as the taker of the personal property is not the owner, the second element exists. The third element is animus lucrandi or intent to gain which is defined by the Supreme Court as "an internal act which can be established through the overt acts of the offender, and it may be presumed from the furtive taking of useful property pertaining to another, unless special circumstance reveal a different intent on the part of the perpetrator." We agree with the finding of the trial court that: "the intent to steal was likewise proven from accused's statement to Eduardo dela Cruz to the effect that if they were able to open the vault, their families would have lived a good life even if they die in the process." On the other hand, the accused was proven to be a friend of, and was with, Ricky Ladiana right after the commission of the crime as testified to by Richlie Ladiana, his lover. Being so when the firearm of the fallen guard was found from the abandoned house of Ricky, the conclusion is that Ricky and Antonio Uy have been together at the shopping center and presumed the taker of a thing taken or doer in the doing of a recent wrongful act. In the instant case, no special circumstance was present to belie the presumption of the intent to gain of the accused-appellant. The existence of the fourth element is incontestable. The homicide preceded the robbery but committed on the occasion thereof, the purpose is to eliminate an obstacle to the commission of robbery. The grudge of the appellant against his former co-workers Felix Aranez and Delfin Biniahan is not sufficient to overcome the presumption and evidence of intent to gain, it is clear that the victims were killed on the occasion of robbery and to commit robbery. Essential in robbery with homicide is that there is a nexus, an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crimes are committed at the same time.25
x x x We concord with the trial court that the success of the prosecution in discharging its duty to prove the guilt of the accused is anchored in the circumstantial evidence present and proven in this case, to wit:
- Possession of the stolen goods by the accused and his girlfriend was not satisfactorily explained;
- Intent to steal was evident in his confession to Eduardo dela Cruz who had no reason to lie as he even helped him to escape;
- Participation in the commission of the crime was proven by the tracing of the possession of the deceased's firearm at Ricky Ladiana's house, accused Antonio's friend and companion right after the killing;
- Antonio Manuel Uy was seen in person by a guard at the scene of the crime on the night of the robbery and killing;
- Suspicious presence at the place of robbery immediately before the incident;
- Antonio Manuel Uy's cellphone was established as the sender of text messages to at least two co-employees of his; [and]
- Confession/testimony of Richlie Ladiana, acknowledged sweetheart of accused Uy that the latter gave her the jewelries, part of the stolen jewelries from the shopping center.
Another circumstance is the unexplained impromptu vacation of Antonio Manuel Uy. It has been ruled that flight per se cannot prove the guilt of an accused. But if the same is considered in the light of other circumstances, it may be deemed a strong indication of guilt. Considering the surrounding circumstances when he left with Eduardo dela Cruz for Palauig, Zambales, We could draw a conclusion that he is trying to evade something in his work place. Settled is the rule that flight of an accused, when unexplained, is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn. 29
Endnotes:
* Designated as an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, per Raffle dated May 30, 2011.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Enrico A. Lanzanas, with Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Regalado E. Maambong, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 198-222.
2 CA rollo, pp. 54-67.
3 Id. at 10-13.
4 Id. at 10-12.
5 Records, p. 25.
6 Id. at 43-46.
7 CA rollo, pp. 157-168
8 TSN, December 12, 2002, pp. 6-13.
9 Id. at 16-21.
10 Id. at 23-32.
11 Id. at 35-41.
12 TSN, January 10, 2003, pp. 13-15.
13 CA rollo, pp. 116-130; Per Judge Vicente L. Yap
14 Id. at 129-130.
15 Id. at 77.
16 G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
17 CA rollo, p. 221.
18 Rollo, p. 28.
19 Id. at 32-33.
20 Id. at 35-37.
21 CA rollo, p. 83.
22 People v. Baron, G.R. No. 185209, June 28, 2010, 621 SCRA 646, 656; People v. De Jesus, 473 Phil. 405, 426-427 (2004), citing People v. Pedroso, 336 SCRA 163 (2000).
23 Id.
24 People v. Baron, supra note 22, citing People v. Dela Cruz, 575 SCRA 412, 436 (2008); People v. Musa, G.R. No. 170472, July 3, 2009, 591 SCRA 619, 641.
25 CA rollo, pp. 216-217.
26 Salvador v. People, G.R. No. 164266, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 461, 469-470; People v. Almoguerra, 461 Phil. 340, 356 (2003).
27 Salvador v. People, supra, at 469-470, citing People v. Padua, 516 SCRA 590, 600-601 (2007).
28 Id. at 470.
29 CA rollo, pp. 217-218.
30 TSN, December 12, 2002, p. 21.
31 Id. at 32.
32 TSN, April 10, 2002, p. 11
33 Id.
34 TSN, April 16, 2002, p. 5.
35 TSN, April 10, 2002 , pp. 10-11.
36 TSN, April 16, 2002, p. 17; TSN, July 4, 2002, pp. 7-8.
37 TSN, March 25, 2003, p. 13.
38 TSN, June 11, 2002, pp. 11-12.
39 TSN, April 10, 2002, pp. 9, 14.
40 People v. Escote, Jr., 448 Phil. 749, 782 (2003).
41 TSN, March 21, 2002, p. 17.
42 Id. at 17; TSN, March 12, 2002, p. 19.
43 TSN, November 29, 2001, pp. 4-24.
44 TSN, December 18, 2001, p. 41.
45 People v. Suela, 424 Phil. 196, 228 (2002), citing People v. Aringue, 263 SCRA 291 (1997), People v. Andan, 269 SCRA 95, (1997) and People v. Tawat, 129 SCRA 431, (1984).
46 Id. at 229, citing Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 33.
47 Id., citing People v. Andan, supra note 45.
48 Id., citing People v. Tawat, supra note 45, at 436-437.
49 People v. Escote, supra, note 40, at 631, citing People v. Cando, 344 SCRA 330 (2000).
50 TSN, February 14, 2002, p. 18.
51 Id. at 20.
52 TSN, December 11, 2001, pp. 50, 53.
53 People v. Dela Cruz, 459 Phil. 130, 137 (2003).
54 TSN, November 20, 2001, p. 11.
55 Id. at 14.
56 Id. at 13.
57 TSN, April 3, 2002, p. 34.
58 Id. at 36.
59 TSN, April 10, 2002, p. 7.
60 Id. at 9.
61 TSN, March 12, 2002, p.
62 Id. at 8.
63 Id. at 9.
64 TSN April 10, 2002, p. 16.
65 People v. Piandiong, 335 Phil. 1028, 1042 (1997), citing People v. Matildo, 230 SCRA 635 (1994) and People v. Dela Cruz, 229 SCRA 754 (1994).
66 Id., citing People v. Saguban, 231 SCRA 744 (1994) and People v. Dolor, 231 SCRA 414 (1994).
67 People v. Ebet, G.R. No. 181635, November 15, 2010.
68 Crisostomo v. People, G.R. No. 171526, September 1, 2010, 629 SCRA 590, 603, citing People v. Musa, 591 SCRA 619, 643-644 (2009).
69 Id. at 603.
70 People v. Buduhan, G.R. No. 178196, August 6, 2008, 561 SCRA 337, 367.
71 People v. Musa, supra note 68, at 644; People v. Piedad, 441 Phil. 818, 839; (2002), cited in People v. Rubiso, 447 Phil. 374, 383 (2003).