FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 234943, January 19, 2021
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARLOS TAMAYO Y UMALI, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
CARANDANG, J.:
This is an appeal1 from the Decision2 dated July 17, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07651 finding accused-appellant Carlos Tamayo y Umali (Tamayo) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Rape and Attempted Homicide.
According to the prosecution witnesses, at around 9:00 p.m. of April 18, 2010, AAA was heading to her house in Gatbuca, Calumpit, Bulacan when she saw an individual, later identified as Tamayo, urinating at the side of a tawiran or footbridge located at the boundary of Santo Nino and Santa Monica. While AAA was already near the Sta. Monica side of the footbridge, Tamayo suddenly put his arms around her shoulder and poked a knife on her side. Tamayo instructed AAA not to shout and to just bow her head.8 Tamayo brought AAA back to the dark portion of the Sto. Nino side of the footbridge where he was previously seen urinating. AAA claimed that he made her sit and took her personal belongings which include a Louis Vuitton wallet given to her by her aunt containing more or less P3,000.00, identification cards, a cellular phone, and a USB with approximately P500.00.9Criminal Case No. 2711-M-2010
(Robbery with Rape)
That on or about the 18th day of April, 2010, in the municipality of Hagonoy, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation, take, rob and carry away the bag with cellphone, USB, wallet and cash worth P3,000.00 owned by one [AAA],4 that on the occasion of the said robbery and by reason thereof accused Carlos Tamayo y Umali feloniously touch (sic) the breasts and vagina of said AAA, forcibly laid her down on a cemented floor and inserted his finger on (sic) and lick her vagina.
Contrary to law.5chanrobleslawCriminal Case No. 2712-M-2010
(Frustrated Homicide)
That on or about the 18th day of April, 20 10, in the municipality of Hagonoy, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a bladed instrument and with intent to kill one [BBB]6 did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with the said bladed instrument the said BBB, hitting him on his chest, thereby inflicting upon him serious physical injuries, which ordinarily would have caused the death of the said BBB, thus performing all acts of execution which should have produced the crime of homicide as a consequence, but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of their will, that is, by the timely and able medical assistance rendered to said BBB which prevented his death.
Contrary to law.7
Meanwhile, BBB was hospitalized for two days for the stab wound he sustained on his chest.21 The Discharge Summary reflecting the final diagnosis on BBB stated "SOFT TISSUE INJURY 20 STABBING."22
PHYSICAL FINDING -(+) Hematoma lower lip area. -(+) Abrasion both knee. -(+) Abrasion left leg. -(+) Abrasion right foot.20
VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, as regards Criminal Case No. 2711-M-2010, accused Carlos Tamayo y Umali is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Rape. The Court imposes upon the accused the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the private complainant Php 4,500.00 actual damages, Php 50,000.00 moral damages and Php 50,000.00 civil indemnity.The RTC held that the prosecution was able to prove the crime of Robbery with Rape. The RTC gave credence to the testimony of AAA and rejected the Sweetheart Theory Tamayo invoked. The RTC described Tamayo's testimony as scripted and rehearsed. For the RTC, Tamayo was not able to substantiate his defense as he does not even know the mobile number of AAA.35
With respect to Criminal Case No. 2712-M-2010, accused Carlos Tamayo y Umali is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of the crime of Attempted Homicide and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six months of Arresto Mayor as minimum to six years of Prision Correccional as maximum and to pay private complainant Php 20,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.34
Tamayo argued that the inconsistent and incredible testimony of AAA casts doubt on her credibility. He claimed that AAA stated in her Sinumpaang Salaysay that she took off her pants upon the order of Tamayo. However, during AAA's direct examination, AAA testified that it was Tamayo who pulled down her pants.39 Tamayo also pointed out that the allegation that he inserted his penis into AAA's vagina was not reflected in the Police Blotter nor in her Sinumpaang Salaysay. This allegation was only introduced during AAA's direct examination.40 For Tamayo, the reason given by the RTC for AAA's reluctance to admit that he inserted his penis into her vagina, that she was ashamed to disclose such fact in the presence of many people and BBB at the police station, was not supported by evidence. In fact, AAA admitted that she went to the police station with her mother and the friends of her brother while BBB was rushed to the hospital.41I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE INCONSISTENT AND INCREDIBLE TESTIMONIES OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANTS, AND DISREGARDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S DEFENSE.II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2711-M-2010, DESPITE THE INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM.III.
IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2712-M-2010, ASSUMING THAT THE PROSECUTION'S VERSION OF THE EVENTS ACTUALLY TRANSPIRED, THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF INTENT TO KILL.38
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 30 June 2015 of Branch 9, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Bulacan in Criminal Case Nos. 2711-M-2010 and 2712-M-2010 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that.In Criminal Case No. 2711-M-2010, the CA found that Tamayo committed the special complex crime of Robbery with Rape as his acts revealed that he was initially motivated by animus lucrandi. The CA noted that he first took the belongings of AAA before molesting AAA by touching and licking her breasts, inserting his finger in her private part, inserting his penis in her vagina, and forcing her to perform oral sex on him.46
1. In Criminal Case No. 2711-M-2010, accused-appellant Carlos Tamayo y Umali is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole pursuant to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346, He is ORDERED to pay AAA the following amounts: P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages;
2. In Criminal Case No. 2712-M-2010, accused appellant Carlos Tamayo y Umali is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Attempted Homicide and is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of one (1) month and one (1) day of arresto mayor as minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum. He is ORDERED to pay BBB the amounts of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity and P20,000.00 as moral damages; and
3. Accused-appellant Carlos Tamayo y Umali is further ORDERED to pay interest on all damages awarded at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the time of finality of this decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.45 (Emphasis and italics in the original)
1. whether Tamayo is guilty of Robbery with Rape; and
2. whether Tamayo is guilty of Attempted Homicide.
In Criminal Case No. 2711-M-2010, the lower courts committed error in convicting Tamayo of the special complex crime of Robbery with Rape. |
Article 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons - Penalties. - Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:The elements of the special complex crime of Robbery with Rape are as follows: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is done with animus lucrandi; and (4) the robbery is accompanied by rape.
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed; or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.
x x x x.
04/19/10 12:35AMApproximately a week after the incident or on April 25, 2010, AAA executed her Sinumpaang Salaysay57 describing the incident on April 18, 2010.
DUMULOG SA HIMPILAN ITO SI Bb. AAA, 24 TAONG GULANG, AT RESIDENTE NG PUROK 4, BRGY. STA. MONICA, HAGONOY BULACAN AT KANIYANG IPINAGSUSUMBONG ANG ISANG LALAKI NA HINDI NAKILALA NA SA MUKHA LAMANG NALALA DAHIL SA GINAWANG PANGHUHULDAP AT TANGKANG PANGHAHALAY AYON SA NAGPATALA AY PAPA-UWI SIYA SA KANILANG BAHAY NG NAGDAAN SAPARAAN SA TULAY PAPUNTANG STA. MONICA AT STO NINO NG NAGLALAKAD NA ANG NAGPATALA AY BIGLANG INAKBAYAN AT TINUTUKAN NG PATALIM SA LEEG SAKA PINAGHAHALIKAN AT NG MAGAWANG MAKATAKBO NG NAGPATALA AY HINABOL PARIN ITO AT NG MADAPA ANG NAGPATALA AY INABUTAN ITO AT KINUHA ANG MGA GAMIT (sic) CELPHONE AT BAG NA NAGLALAMAN NG PERA AT MAHAHALAGANG BAGAY AT SINABIHAN PA ANG NAGPATALA NA LALASLASIN ANG LEEG AT IHUHULOG SA ILOG AT DUMATING ANG BOYFRIEND NG NAGPATALA AT NG SIYA AY TUTULUNGAN AY SINALUBONG ITO NG SAK-SAK AT INIHULOG NAGPATALA SA PUNO NG TULAY AT ANG BOYFRIEND NG NAGPATALA AY INIHULOG DIN x x x.56
08). T: Ano pa ang mga sumunod na nagapanap?It must be highlighted that AAA only introduced her new claim that Tamayo forced her to have sexual intercourse with him during her direct examination as shown in the following exchange:cralawred
S: Nang mahubad ko na po ang aking pantalon ay agad po niyang pinaghahawak ang maseselang bahagi ng aking katawan mula sa aking dibib pababa sa aking ari at hindi pa siya nasiyahan ay hinubad pa niya ang aking panty at pilit po niya akong pinahiga sa may semento at matapos ay ipinasok niya ang kanyang daliri sa aking ari habang nakatutok pa sa aking tagiliran ang hawak niyang patalim.
09). T: Ano pa ang umunod na naganap?
S: Masakit man pong sabihin na pambababoy po ang ginawa niya sa akin ni Carlos Tamayo dahil hindi pa siya nasiyahan sa pagmomolestiya sa akin DINILAAN AT KINAIN pa po niya aking ari (PUKE).
x x x x
13.) T: Ano pa ang ginawa niya sa iyo?
S: Matapos po ang kalapastanganan ginawa niya sa akin ay pinaupo po niya ako sa semento, na ang pag-aakala ko na tapas na ang nagging kalbaryo ko ng gabing iyun ay hindi pa pala tumayo po siya sa harapan ko at hinubad niya ang suot niyang patalon at umupo sa aking tabi.
14.) T: Ano pa ang sumunod na nangyari?
S: inilabas po niya ang kanyang ari (titi) at ipinakita sa akin at inutusan po niya akong isubo ko daw iyun.
15.) T: Sumunod ka ba sa kanyang kagustuhan?
S: Ayaw ko pong sumunod subalit sa aking hindi pagsunod ay sa leeg ko naman niya itinutok ang hawak niyang patalim at sinabihan ako na kapag hindi ko ginawa ay tutuluyan niya akong patayin at sabay hawak sa aking buhok sa likuran at sapilitan niyang isinubsub ang aking mukha sa kanyang ari.60 (Emphasis supplied)
We find that the reasons advanced by the RTC for AAA's alleged reluctance to admit that Tamayo inserted his penis into her vagina are not supported by evidence. In the Decision of the RTC, it was stated that AAA "was ashamed as there were a lot of people in the police station"62 and BBB was also present.63 If she were truly hesitant to reveal how she was molested, there is no logical reason why she would mention in her Sinumpaang Salaysay that Tamayo licked her vagina, inserted his finger into her vagina, and forced her to suck his penis yet leave out the information that she was forced to have sexual intercourse with him as all these acts are equally humiliating. It is also difficult to understand why she would leave out such a vital piece of information when she reported to the authorities. Although it may be mortifying to talk about the alleged sexual molestation she experienced, it is contrary to ordinary human experience to omit such a pivotal piece of information which could later help in prosecuting Tamayo if the charges against him are really true.
Q How about the accused, what was his position in relation to your position? A He was in front of me. Q In front or in [sic] top? A Nasa may baba ko siya nung dinidilaan niya ang aking ari at pumaibabaw siya ng pinasok niya yung ari niya sa ari ko. Q While the accused was doing that, what was your reaction? A I just cried and prayed, I cannot do anything at that time. Q Tell us the reason why you cannot do anything? A Because he told me that he will kill me, sir. Q So, you mentioned that the accused inserted his penis into your vagina, what happened after that? A I tried to prevent this man from inserting his penis to my vagina but he overpowered me, sir. Q So, what happened after that? A At that point he was able to insert his penis to my vagina; and at that point a man passed by and he stood up and told me that "nahihiya siya," tapos tumatawa pa po siya parang walang nagyayari.61 (Emphasis supplied)
AAA claimed that she was molested for approximately three hours with passersby occasionally crossing the footbridge and witnessing the alleged molestation yet not even once did she try to seek help. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that not even one passerby would intervene upon discovering them in a compromising position.
Q According to the Information, the incident happened at 9:00 in the evening, do you remember that? A Yes, ma'am. ATTY. GADDI Q Now, from the moment that the accused got hold of you, how many minutes or hours elapsed before he ran away? A He ran away at pass (sic) 12:00, ma'am. Q You men to tell us that from 9:00 in the evening up to pass 12:00 of midnight you were there in that public area, correct? A Yes, ma'am. Q During that almost three (3) hours nobody passed or walked in that area? A Meron po madalang po kasi gabi na. Q Those people who passed did not even bother to see what is happening between you and the accused? A Tumitingin po sila pero siya po pinapayuko po niya ako nakatutok po talaga yung kutsilyo bale po hostage niya po ako. Q How many people passed by during that time? A Nakalimutan ko na po dahil po nakayuko po ako nuon. Q You mentioned that accused "dinilaan at kinain ang iyong ari" for how long did the accused to (sic) that to you? A Five (5) to ten (10) minutes, ma'am. Q And what was your position during that time? A Nakahiga po sa side.64
However, AAA never mentioned in the police blotter and in her Sinumpaang Salaysay that Tamayo punched her.
AHostage niya po ako. Sinuntok niya po ako. Hindi ko po siya kaya napakalaki niya po.65 [Emphasis supplied]
S: Nagmamakaawa po ako sa kanya na huwag po niyang kuhanin ang aking bag dahil nandoon po ang perang pang gastos ng aking pamilya subalit hindi po siya nakinig sa aking pagmamakaawa itinutok pa din niya ang kutsilyo sa aking tagiliran at inutusan po niyang akong hubarin ko ang aking suot na pantalon at kung hindi ko daw huhubarin ay isaksak niya ang hawak niyang patalim sa akin at binulungan niya akong huwag sisigaw dahil sasamain daw aka at dahil po sa takot ay nagging sunod-sunuran ako sa kanya at habang hinuhubad ko ang aking pantalon ay nagpakilala siya sa pangalang MARK at residente daw siya ng Brgy San Miguel, Tampok, San Pascual lahat po ay sa Hagonoy, Bulacan.70 (Emphasis supplied)Meanwhile, during her direct examination, she introduced another version of her story, the pertinent portion of which is quoted below:cralawred
We cannot simply consider these glaring inconsistencies as merely trivial and disregard them in Our appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution. These contradicting statements involve an essential aspect of the crime charged, the manner by which Tamayo allegedly sexually assaulted AAA. Her failure to give a consistent and coherent narration as to how she was undressed leads us to question whether the alleged molestation ever happened during the alleged robbery.
Q So, you also mentioned that the accused ordered you to take off your pants, what was your reaction to that? A I cannot do anything, I became his puppet because of that deadly instrument poked at my side, sir, (the witness starting (sic) shedding tears). Q Were you able to pull down your pants? A It was he who pulled down my jeans. Q Was the accused successfully removing (sic) your pants? A Yes, sir, because nobody at that time passed that place, sir.71 (Emphasis supplied)
Section 4. Duty of the Police Officer. - Upon receipt by the police of the complaint for rape, it shall be the duty of the police officer to:In addition, ordinary human experience dictates that, even without knowledge of the cited provisions, the attending physician and the police investigator with whom AAA allegedly confided would have adopted reasonable protective measures to ensure proper treatment and documentation of the injuries she sustained allegedly as a result of the assault.
(a) Immediately refer the case to the prosecutor for inquest/investigation if the accused is detained; otherwise, the rules of court shall apply; (b) Arrange for counselling and medical services for the offended party; and (c) Immediately make a report on the action taken.
It shall be the duty of the police officer or the examining physician, who must be of the same gender as the offended party, to ensure that only persons expressly authorized by the offended party shall be allowed inside the room where the investigation or medical or physical examination is being conducted.
For this purpose, a women's desk must be established in every police precinct throughout the country to provide a police woman to conduct investigation of complaints of women rape victims. In the same manner, the preliminary investigation proper or inquest of women rape victims must be assigned to female prosecutor or prosecutors after the police shall have endorsed all the pertinent papers thereof to the same office.
Section 5. Protective Measures. - At any stage of the investigation, prosecution and trial of a complaint for rape, the police officer, the prosecutor, the court and its officers, as well as the parties to the complaint shall recognize the right to privacy of the offended party and the accused. Towards this end, the police officer, prosecutor, or the court to whom the complaint has been referred may, whenever necessary to ensure fair and impartial proceedings, and after considering all circumstances for the best interest of the parties, order a closed-door investigation, prosecution or trial and that the name and personal circumstances of the offended party and/or the accused, or any other information tending to establish their identities, and such circumstances or information on the complaint shall not be disclosed to the public.
The investigating officer or prosecutor shall inform the parties that the proceedings can be conducted in a language or dialect known or familiar to them.
Na ako kasama ang ilang confidential asset ng aming himpilan ay nagpatuloy na nagsagawa ng follow-up operation sa sakop ng Brgy. San Agustin Hagonoy, Bulakan na kung saan kami ay nakakuha ng impormasyon na doon bumaba ang suspek matapos ang insidente na ito ay sumakay sa isang trisikel at doon nagpahatid.77Noticeably, PO3 Salamat failed to narrate definitively how the information that the culprit boarded an unidentified tricycle and the composite sketch led to his location approximately seven days after the incident. It is difficult to believe that a composite sketch of a person AAA claims she does not know and the follow-up operation resulted to Tamayo being readily identified.
The maxim or rule "falsus in unos, falsus in omnibus" does not lay down a categorical test of credibility. It is not a positive rule of law or of universal application. It should not be applied to portions of the testimony corroborated by other evidence, particularly where the false portions could be innocent mistakes. Moreover, the rule is not mandatory but merely sanctions a disregard of the testimony of a witness if the circumstances so warrant. To completely disregard all the testimony of a witness on this ground, his testimony must have been false as to a material point, and the witness must have a conscious and deliberate intention to falsify a material point.83In this case, We are not compelled to accept the findings of the trial court where the inconsistencies and falsities in the statements of the prosecution witness is substantial enough to impair the veracity of the prosecution evidence against Tamayo.
Affidavits are usually abbreviated and inaccurate. Oftentimes, an affidavit is incomplete, resulting in its seeming contradiction with the declarant's testimony in court. Generally, the affiant is asked standard questions, coupled with ready suggestions intended to elicit answers, that later turn out not to be wholly descriptive of the series of events as the affiant knows them. Worse, the process of affidavit-taking may sometimes amount to putting words into the affiant's mouth, thus allowing the whole statement to be taken out of context.However, in the present case, the inconsistencies and falsities observed in the testimony of AAA are not mere innocent mistakes or errors in the recollection of the incident that We can simply brush aside. The subsequent statements given by AAA after the initial blotter entry in her Sinumpaang Salaysay and her testimony in court do not even complement nor furnish supporting details tending to elaborate on her initial statements. As has been discussed, AAA appears to be embellishing her story, adding new information not previously alleged every time her statement is taken, from the police blotter until her cross-examination. AAA's conduct manifests a deliberate intention to concoct a story that is different from what actually took place on the date of the incident. We are convinced that Tamayo and AAA were in a relationship at the time of the incident, thus negating the claim that he robbed and raped her.
The court is not unmindful of these on-the-ground realities. In fact, we have ruled that the discrepancies between the statements of the affiant in his affidavit and those made by him on the witness stand do not necessarily discredit him since ex parte affidavits are generally incomplete. As between the joint affidavit and the testimony given in open court, the latter prevails because affidavits taken ex-parte are generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in court.85
In Criminal Case No. 2712-M-2010, Tamayo should not be held liable for Attempted Homicide. |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 26-27.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Manuel M. Barrios; id. at 2-25.
3 Records, pp. 1, 1A.
4 The real name of the victim and of the members of her immediate family are withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610 otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, and A.M . No. 12-7-15-SC entitled Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions and Finals Orders using Fictitious Names.
5 Records, p. 1.
6 Supra note 4.
7 Records, p. 1A.
8 TSN dated March 8, 2011, p. 7.
9 Id. at 8.
10 TSN dated May 3, 2011, p. 3.
11 TSN dated March 8, 2011, p. 10.
12 Id. at 14.
13 TSN dated November 27, 2012, pp. 6-9.
14 TSN dated September 11, 2012, pp. 13-14.
15 TSN dated November 27, 2012, p. 10.
16 TSN dated May 21, 2013, p. 7.
17 Records, p. 10.
18 Id.; TSN dated May 3, 2011, p. 6.
19 Id. at 31.
20 Id. at 4.
21 Id. at 343.
22 Id.
23 TSN dated October 22, 2013, p. 3.
24 Id. at 4.
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Id. at 5-6.
28 Id. at 6-8; TSN dated June 3, 2014, pp. 3-4.
29 TSN dated June 3, 2014, p. 4.
30 Id.
31 Id. at 4-6.
32 Id. at 11-12.
33 Penned by Presiding Judge Veronica A. Vicente-De Guzman; CA rollo, pp. 57-68.
34 Id. at 68.
35 Id. at 64-67.
36 Id. at 67-68.
37 Id. at 24-25.
38 Id. at 40-41.
39 Id. at 47-48.
40 Id. at 48.
41 Id. at 49-50.
42 Id. at 50.
43 Id. at 51-53.
44 Supra note 2.
45Rollo, pp. 23-24.
46 Id. at 12-16.
47 Id. at 16.
48 Id. at 17.
49 Id. at 20-21.
50 Id. at 26-27.
51 Id. at 32-33.
52 Id. at 38.
53 Id. at 34.
54People v. Villaflores, 685 Phil. 595, 610 (2012).
55 Records, p. 20.
56 Id.
57 Id. at 8-11.
58 Id. at 20.
59 Id.
60 Id. at 9-10.
61 TSN dated March 8, 2011, pp. 12-13.
62 Supra note 33 at 9.
63 Id.
64 TSN dated October 16, 2012, pp. 4-5.
65 Id. at 6.
66 TSN dated September 11, 2012, p. 11.
67 Id. at 19.
68 Records, p. 20.
69 Id. at 8-10; TSN dated May 3, 2011, p. 6.
70 Records, p. 9.
71 TSN dated March 8, 2011, p. 11.
72 TSN dated May 3, 2011, p. 11.
73 TSN dated October 22, 2013, p. 3; TSN dated October 10, 2014, pp. 3-5.
74 TSN dated February 17, 2015, pp. 2-5.
75 Records, pp. 12-13.
76 Id. at 18.
77 Id. at 12.
78 TSN dated October 10, 2014, p. 4.
79 TSN dated March 8, 2011, pp. 15-16; TSN dated May 3, 2011, pp. 2-3.
80 Records, p. 31.
81 Id. at 344.
82 318 Phil. 91 (1995).
83 Id.
84 717 Phil. 670 (2013).
85 Id.
86Serrano v. People, 637 Phil. 319, 333 (2010).
87 Article 12. Circumstances Which Exempt from Criminal Liability. - The following are exempt from criminal liability:
x x x x
5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impul se of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
88 TSN dated June 3, 2014, pp. 4-6.