THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 236305, March 17, 2021
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOUIE C. VILLENA @ ISIT, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
Rape of an intellectually disabled person whose mental age is below 12 years old is statutory rape punishable under Article 266-A, Paragraph 1(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.1
Before this Court is an appeal2 filed by Louie C. Villena alias "Isit" (Villena) from the Court of Appeals Decision3 which affirmed the Regional Trial Court's4 finding of his guilt under Article 266-A, Paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, but modified the designation of the crime committed from qualified rape to simple rape.
On March 18, 2011, Villena was charged with rape of an intellectually disabled girl before the Regional Trial Court Branch 32 of Agoo, La Union.5 The accusatory portion of the Information reads:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
That on or about March 17, 2011, in the Municipality of Sto. Tomas, Province of La Union, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, of legal age, with lewd designed, and by means of force, violation [sic] and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with AAA with a mentally retarded disorder (sic), to her damage and prejudice.6chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryUpon arraignment on April 4, 2011, Villena pleaded not guilty to the charge.7 Trial on the merits ensued.
[T]here was difficulty in communicating with private complainant because that latter would answer slowly but private complainant could give a good answer when she was asked simple and leading questions; that private complainant was diagnosed to have a mild mental retardation and she has a mental level of a 9-12 [-] year [-] old, meaning private complainant can understand questions that a child between 9-12 years old can understand.23 (Emphasis supplied)Villena appeared as sole witness for the defense. He denied the accusations against him24 and claimed that at around 11:00 a.m. of March 17, 2011, he was drinking at the house of a certain Boy Abordo.25 After three hours of drinking, he felt dizzy and decided to go home. While on his way home,26 he was asked by AAA's uncle to drink outside AAA's house.27 He accepted the invitation and finally went home an hour later.28
WHEREFORE, finding accused Louie C. Villena a.k.a. Isit GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole. He is further ordered to pay [AAA] the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, P75,000.00 as moral damages; and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.chanroblesvirtualawlibraryOn appeal, Villena assailed the trial court's finding of guilt, claiming that the prosecution failed to establish AAA's intellectual disability.40 Assuming AAA was mentally deficient, then the trial court erred in ruling she was a competent witness.41 He insisted that there was a lack of proof showing that AAA was raped, let alone that he was the perpetrator.42
SO ORDERED.39 (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The judgment issued by the Regional Trial Court of Agoo, La Union Br. 32 (RTC) dated January 29, 2013 in Criminal Case No. A-5963 is MODIFIED as follows:Hence, Villena filed this appeal.
Accused-appellant Louie C. Villena is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape. He is ordered to pay the victim [AAA] moral damages in the amount of P75,000.00, exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00 and civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00. Damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
SO ORDERED.49 (Emphasis supplied)
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:For a plausible conviction of rape, it must be established that a man had sexual congress with a woman, or sexually assaulted another, under any of the following conditions:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
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; and 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.
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. (Emphasis supplied)
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;On account of AAA's mental deficiency, both lower courts adjudged accused-appellant guilty of rape under Article 266-A, Paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. However, this Court already clarified in People v. Castillo70 that carnal knowledge with an intellectually disabled person whose mental age is below 12 years old is considered statutory rape punishable under Article 266-A, Paragraph 1(d):chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
b) The victim is deprived of reason;
c) The victim is unconscious;
d) By means of fraudulent machination;
e) By means of grave abuse of authority;
f) When the victim is under 12 years of age; or
g) When the victim is demented.69 (Emphasis supplied)
The question now is under which paragraph does rape of a female retardate with mental age below 12 years old fall?It then follows that apart from the fact of sexual congress between the accused and the victim, the latter's deficient mental condition, corresponding to a mental age of less than 12 years old, should similarly be proven to secure a conviction for statutory rape under Article 266-A, Paragraph 1(d). Here, this Court is convinced that these elements were sufficiently established.
In the 2016 case of People v. Rodriguez, the Court held that carnal knowledge of a female mental retardate with the mental age below 12 years of age is rape of a woman deprived of reason. Thus, the accused's rape fell under paragraph 1(b), Article 266-A of the RPC.
Citing People v. Montivalco, the Court, in Rodriguez, declared that:chanroblesvirtualawlibraryParagraph 1, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, provides for two (2) circumstances when carnal knowledge of a woman with mental disability is considered rape. Subparagraph (b) thereof refers to rape of a person "deprived of reason" while subparagraph (d) refers to rape of a "demented person." The term "deprived of reason" has been construed to encompass those suffering from mental abnormality, deficiency or retardation. The term "demented," on the other hand, means having dementia, which Webster defines as mental deterioration; also madness, insanity. Dementia has also been defined in Black's Law Dictionary as a "form of mental disorder in which cognitive and intellectual functions of the mind are prominently affected; x x x total recovery not possible since cerebral disease is involved." Thus, a mental retardate can be classified as a person "deprived of reason," not one who is "demented" and carnal knowledge of a mental retardate is considered rape under subparagraph (b), not subparagraph (d) of Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.In the 2017 cases of People v. Deniega and People v. Niebres, however, the Court held that sexual intercourse with a mental retardate whose mental age is below 12 years old constitutes statutory rape. These cases cite People v. Quintos, which provided for the distinctions between "deprived of reason," "demented" and "mental retardation." To quote:The term, "deprived of reason," is associated with insanity or madness. A person deprived of reason has mental abnormalities that affect his or her reasoning and perception of reality and, therefore, his or her capacity to resist, make decisions, and give consent.Following these developments, it is clear that as regards rape of a mental retardate, the Court now holds that, following People v. Quintos, when the victim is a mental retardate whose mental age is that of a person below 12 years old, the rape should be classified as statutory rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (d) of the RPC, as amended.
The term "demented," refers to a person who suffers from a mental condition called dementia. Dementia refers to the deterioration or loss of mental functions such as memory, learning, speaking, and social condition, which impairs one's independence in everyday activities.
We are aware that the terms, "mental retardation" or "intellectual disability," had been classified under "deprived of reason." The terms, "deprived of reason" and "demented," however, should be differentiated from the term, "mentally retarded" or "intellectually disabled." An intellectually disabled person is not necessarily deprived of reason or demented. This court had even ruled that they may be credible witnesses. However, his or her maturity is not there despite the physical age. He or she is deficient in general mental abilities and has an impaired conceptual, social, and practical functioning relative to his or her age, gender, and peers. Because of such impairment, he or she does not meet the "socio-cultural standards of personal independence and social responsibility."
Thus, a person with a chronological age of 7 years and a normal mental age is as capable of making decisions and giving consent as a person with a chronological age of 35 and a mental age of 7. Both are considered incapable of giving rational consent because both are not yet considered to have reached the level of maturity that gives them the capability to make rational decisions, especially on matters involving sexuality. Decision-making is a function of the mind. Hence, a person's capacity to decide whether to give consent or to express resistance to an adult activity is determined not by his or her chronological age but by his or her mental age. Therefore, in determining whether a person is "twelve (12) years of age" under Article 266-A(1)(d), the interpretation should be in accordance with either the chronological age of the child if he or she is not suffering from intellectual disability, or the mental age if intellectual disability is established.
Statutory rape is committed when (1) the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age, and (2) the accused had carnal knowledge of her, regardless of whether there was force, threat or intimidation, whether the victim was deprived of reason or consciousness, or whether it was done through fraud or grave abuse of authority. What the law punishes in statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old Thus, force, intimidation and physical evidence of injury are not relevant considerations; the only pertinent concern is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge indeed took place.71 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Pros. Valdez, Jr.:It was explained in People v. Dalandas77 that one's mental deficiency, as well as its degrees, may manifest in their appearance or conduct. Thus, the same may be attested to by those whom he or she had contact with:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Q: In the conduct of your psychiatric evaluation with patient [AAA], how did you try to communicate with her?
A: There was difficulty in communicating with the patient because she answers my questions very slowly and you need to be really patient with how she answer[s] the questions.
Q: How about Madam Witness if [AAA] [were to be] ask[ed] of simple and leading questions, could you say that [AAA] could give a good answer?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And in fact, with these simple questions that you asked to [AAA], you could get a reliable answer [from] her?
A: Yes sir.
Q: And, [was] that exactly what you did in your psychiatric evaluation of [AAA]?
A: Yes, sir.
....
Pros. Valdez, Jr.:
Q: Madam Witness, with your testimony on cross, could you say that simple question[s] could be answered by [AAA] accurately, but complex questions that there could be a problem concerning getting the answer? [sic]
A: Yes, sir.
Q: So we could still rely on [the] testimony of [AAA] as long as [it's] simple and direct?
A: Yes, sir.
....
Court:
....
Q: Ok[a]y. Madam Witness, the private complainant in this case is suffering from mental retardation?
A: Yes, your Honor.
Q: Is it slight or serious mental retardation?
A: Mild, your Honor.
Q: And, you equate her mind to a child who is 9-12 years old?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Do I understand it correct from you that the question should be phrased to a child who is 9-12 years old?
A: Yes, your Honor.
Q: If the kind of question you will ask the private complainant is simple, that a 9[-]year[-]old can understand, a 9[-]year[-]old who is normal can understand then definitely, the private complainant can also understand that such kind of question, is that what you are saying?
A: Yes, your Honor.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
....
Pros. Valdez, Jr.:
Q: Now, you mentioned that the mental age of the witness or rather be [sic] the patient [AAA] is equal to a person who is 9-12?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: With simple questions, could the patient with that mental age narrate to her what happened?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And it could also be possible that she could narrate vividly what happened to her the incident [sic] subject matter of this case?
A: Yes, sir.76 (Emphasis supplied)
The mental retardation of persons and the degrees thereof may be manifested by their overt acts, appearance, attitude and behavior. The dentition, manner of walking, ability to feed oneself or attend to personal hygiene, capacity to develop resistance or immunity to infection, dependency on others for protection and care and inability to achieve intelligible speech may be indicative of the degree of mental retardation of a person. Those suffering from severe mental retardation are usually undersized and exhibit some form of facial or body deformity such as mongolism, or gargolism. The size and shape of the head is indicative of microphaly. The profoundly retarded may be unable to dress himself, or wash or attend to bowel and bladder functions so that his appearance may be very unclean and untidy unless they receive a great deal of nursing care. There may be marked disturbance of gait and involuntary movements. Attempts to converse with a mental retardate may be limited to a few unintelligible sounds, either spontaneous or in response to attempts that are made by the examiner to converse, or may be limited to a few simple words or phrases. All the foregoing may be testified on by ordinary witnesses who come in contact with an alleged mental retardate.78 (Emphasis supplied)Hence, aside from clinical evidence79 or psychiatric report,80 intellectual disability can also be established by means of other proof such as testimonies of other witnesses,81 and the trial judge's personal observation.82
With AAA's candid and unwavering statements, We cannot subscribe to accused-appellant's contention that the charge was uncorroborated just because the other witnesses for the prosecution allegedly failed to prove with moral certainty that he raped AAA.90 When the testimony of the complainant is credible and amply proves the elements of the charge, it suffices as basis for accused's conviction for rape.91 Rape, by its nature, often presents the victim's testimony as the sole evidence to determine the guilt of the accused. Corollary, courts usually give weight to the testimony of the complainant because no one would normally "be willing to undergo the humiliation of a public trial and testify on the details of her ordeal if it be not to condemn an injustice."92
Pros. Valdez, Jr. Q: Do you know Isit? A: Yes, sir. He is our neighbor. Q: Where? A: He is there at the back. Q: Please point at Isit if he is in court? Court Interpreter: (The witness pointed to a male person seated inside the courtroom wearing yellow shirt and when asked, he identified himself as Louie Villena) Q: [AAA], where is your neck? A: Here sir. Court Interpreter: (The witness pointed to her neck.) Q: What did Isit do to your neck? A: He strangled sir. Q: Q: Would you show us through your mother how Isit strangled your neck? [A]: Like this sir. Court Interpreter: (The witness strangled the neck of her mother through his left hand.) Q: And what did you feel when you were strangled? A: It was painful sir. Q: Could you show us your cloth[es] [AAA]? A: This one sir. Court Interpreter: (The witness pointed at her blouse.) Pros. Valdez, Jr.: Q: When Isit strangled your neck, what did he do with your clothes? A: He removed my dress sir. Q: Would you point us your breast? A: This one sir. Court Interpreter: (The witness pointed her breast.) Pros. Valdez, Jr.: Q: When Isit removed your clothes while strangling your neck, what did Isit do with your breast? A: He masked [sic] my breast sir. Q: How about your vagina, what did Isit do to your vagina? A: He inserted his penis into my vagina. Q: Were you hurt? A: Yes sir. Q: What happened to your vagina when he inserted his penis in it? A: I feel painful [sic] sir. Q: Did you see blood? A: Yes sir. Q: Was it [a long] time when he inserted his penis inside your vagina or just a short time? A: It was long sir. Q: Was Isit sober or dr[u]nk at that time? A: He was dr[u]nk sir. Q: Why do you say that he was dr[u]nk? Were you able to smell it? A: Yes sir, I smell liquor from him. Q: In what place did his penis inside your vagina? [sic] A: Inside our house sir. Q: Were you alone at that time inside your house? A: Yes sir. Q: Did you tell your mother what Isit did to you? A: Yes sir. .... Atty. Manansala: Q: You mentioned that Isit inserted his penis, is that correct? A: Yes sir. Q: What is your position when he inserted his penis? A: I was lying down sir. Q: How about your feet, what is the position of your feet? A: He did it like this sir. Court Interpreter (The witness spread her knee.) Court Question: Q: Do you mean to say [AAA], your legs were spread when Isit put his penis inside your vagina? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: Why did you not shout? A: He was strangling me, Your Honor. Q: Did Isit tell you anything while he was raping you? A: No, Your Honor. Q: When Isit was already on top of you and his penis was inserted into your vagina, did he make any movements? A: Yes, Your Honor[.]89
In sum, the [c]ourt appreciates that with complex questions, [AAA] is incompetent to give correct answers but with simple and leading questions, she could narrate what happened to her. Hence, even if AAA is [an intellectually disabled] person, she, nonetheless, qualifies as a competent witness because she can perceive and perceiving, can make known her perception to others[.]102chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryAs to the finding that AAA was "incompetent to stand trial,"103 We emphasize that Dr. Tangalin already made clear in her testimony that the conclusion was merely pertaining to AAA's lack of understanding on what accused-appellant did to her. The following excerpts are on point:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Besides, AAA's defilement was supported by the findings of Dr. Kalaw, whose testimony was dispensed with after the parties decided "to stipulate that she issued a medico-legal certificate saying that there was a clear evidence of blunt force or penetrating trauma inside private complainant's vagina."105 There is enough basis to support the conclusion of carnal knowledge, given that AAA's narration was substantiated by physical evidence showing penetration.106
Atty. Manansala: Q: Madam Witness, you mentioned at [the] last paragraph of your psychiatric evaluation[,] and I quote, "furthermore, [AAA] most likely does not have a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against her because of her inability to comprehend, analyze and answer questions about them and her disabilities due to mental retardation as cited earlier. She is therefore assessed to be incompetent to stand trial. Can you now explain this Honorable Court the difference of your answer during the direct examination and your impression on your psychiatric evaluation? [A]: The first question was, I was asked if [AAA] can answer questions [sic] simple and direct questions. So with that, I said yes, but the comprehension and understanding of what being asked of her makes her incompetent to stand trial. The understanding and comprehension, sir. .... Court: Q: Doctor, you said that comprehension [sic], the private complainant cannot comprehend and understand the question that you [sic] were being ask of her? A: Yes, your Honor. Q: Alright. But if you phrase m a simple matter, the private complainant can understand? A: Yes, your Honor. Q: I am confused because when you give question, before a person can answer, he or she should understand first the question before you could give any answer? A: Not in the level of her case your Honor, because the victim is diagnosed to have a mental illness we call as mental retardation. And her level of her [sic] mental retardation is mild which is at the level of a 9-12 [-] year [-] old. So, if a 9-12 [-] year [-] old child can be asked to narrate what happened to her, she can but the foil understanding and comprehension, she cannot. .... Q: When you said that she cannot comprehend and understand the things she was answering, do I understand it from you that she cannot comprehend and understand what happened to her, is that you're telling this Court? A: Yes, your Honor. Q: Q: So, it's not the question that you were asking that the private complainant cannot understand but what happened to her on March 17, 2011 or the act of rape that happened to her, is that what you say? A: Yes, your Honor. x x x Q: A person who is mentally retarded whom you testified a while ago cannot comprehend and understand that thing that happened to her, does it follow that she cannot relate what she underwent to other person? A: No, your Honor. Q: But she cannot understand what she was telling? A: Yes, your Honor. Q: Or what happened to her? A: Yes, your Honor.104 (Emphasis supplied)
Article 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.While it was explicitly provided in the Information that AAA was intellectually disabled,117 a plain invocation of the same without showing that accused-appellant knew of it does not suffice to qualify the offense.118 As a result, accused-appellant cannot be adjudged guilty of qualified rape.
....
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
....
10) When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime. (Emphasis supplied)
Endnotes:
1People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 242276, February 18, 2020 [Per J. J.C. Reyes, Jr., En Banc].
2Rollo, pp. 12-15, Notice of Appeal.
3 CA rollo, pp. 88-97. The August 10, 2017 Decision (Modified Version) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06065 was penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and concurred in by Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Pablito A. Perez of the Special Sixteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4 Id. at 44-57. The January 29, 2013 Judgment in Criminal Case No. A-5963 ("For: Rape of Mentally Retarded Person") was rendered by Acting Presiding Judge A. Florentino R. Dumlao, Jr. of Branch 32, Regional Trial Court, Agoo, La Union.
5 Id. at 44.
6 Id. at 88-89.
7 Id. at 89.
8 Pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-15 (September 5, 2017), the real name of the victim and other information that would establish her identity was either withheld or replaced with fictitious names.
9 CA rollo, pp. 89-91. The following were the documentary evidence presented by the prosecution: "1) Affidavit of Arrest by PO2 Peralta (Exhibit "A"); 2) Sworn Statement of private complainant (Exhibit "B" with submarkings); 3) Affidavit-Complaint of Remelda M. Laranang (Exhibit "C" with submarking); 4) Sworn Statement of Noel M. Laranang (Exhibit "D" with submarkings); 5) MedicoLegal Certificate issued by Dr. Kalaw (Exhibit "E"); 6) Psychiatric Evaluation Report prepared and signed by Dr. Tangalin (Exhibit "F"); 7) Excerpt of the Police Blotter of Sto. Tomas Police Station (Exhibit "G"); and 8) Sworn Statement of Concepcion D. Laranang (Exhibit "H" with submarking)."
10 Id. at 45.
11 Id. at 46.
12 Id. at 89-90.
13 Id. at 90.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id. at 91.
22 Id. at 90-91 and 45.
23 Id. at 91-92.
24 Id. at 92.
25 Id. at 31.
26 Id. at 46.
27 Id. at 92.
28 Id. at 46-47.
29 Id. at 44-57.
30 Id. at 56.
31 Id. at 47.
32 Id.
33 Id. at 47-48.
34 Id.
35 Id. at 52.
36 Id.
37 Id.
38 Id. at 52-56.
39 Id. at 56-57.
40 Id. at 92-93.
41 Id. at 93.
42 Id.
43 Id. at 88-97.
44 Id. at 91-93.
45 Id. at 93-94.
46 Id. at 95.
47 Id. at 96.
48 Id.
49 Id. at 96-97.
50Rollo, p. 1, Transmittal.
51 Id. at 16.
52 Id. at 18-19.
53 Id. at 20-24, plaintiff-appellee's Manifestation (In lieu of Supplemental Brief); and 28-32, accused-appellant's Manifestation (In lieu of Supplemental Brief).
54 CA rollo, pp. 25-43, Brief for the accused-appellant.
55 Id. at 33-36.
56 Id. at 35.
57 Id. at 36.
58 Id.
59 Id. at 38-39.
60 Id. at 37.
61 Id. at 37-40.
62 Id. at 63-79, Brief for the plaintiff-appellee.
63 Id. at 69-72.
64 Id. at 73-76.
65 Id. at 75.
66 Id. at 76.
67People v. Niebres, 822 Phil. 68, 74 (2017) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
68 Otherwise known as "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997" (September 30, 1997).
69People v. Quintos, 746 Phil. 809, 821-822 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
70 G.R. No. 242276, February 18, 2020 [Per J. J.C. Reyes, Jr., En Banc].
71 Id.
72 CA rollo, pp. 29 and 67.
73 Id. at 46. While AAA's chronological age was undisputed, AAA testified that she was only 12 years old when the incident happened.
74 Draw a House-Tree-Person Test, Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test, and Purdue Non-Language Test
75 CA rollo, p. 52.
76 Id. at 48-51.
77 442 Phil. 688 (2002) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., En Banc].
78 Id. at 696-697.
79See People v. Butiong, 675 Phil. 621, 639 (2011) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
80See People v. Almacin, 363 Phil. 18, 28 (1999) [Per J. Pardo, First Division].
81See People v. Nguyen Dinh Nhan, 277 Phil. 334, 342 (1991) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., Third Division]; and People v. Romua, 339 Phil. 198, 204 (1997) [Per J. Puno, Second Division].
82People v. Dumanon, 401 Phil. 658, 670-671 (2000) [Per C.J. Davide, Jr., First Division].
83 CA rollo, p. 33.
84 Id. at 35-36.
85 Id. at 48.
86 Id. at 50-52.
87 Id. at 56.
88 Id. at 52.
89 Id. at 52-56.
90 Id. at 38-39.
91People v. Quintos, 746 Phil. 809 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
92People v. Abendaño, 312 Phil. 625, 635 (1995) [Per J. Bellosillo, First Division].
93 CA rollo, pp. 56 and 94-95.
94People v. Quintos, 746 Phil. 809, 820 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
95 Id.
96 Id.
97 CA rollo, p. 36.
98 Id.
99People v. Deniega, 811 Phil. 712, 724-725 (2017) [Per J. Peralta, Second Division].
100People v. Padilla, 361 Phil. 216, 222 (1999) [Per J. Mendoza, En Banc].
101 Id.
102 CA rollo, p. 52.
103 Id. at 48.
104 Id. at 48-51.
105 Id. at 90 and 46.
106See People v. Jackson, 451 Phil. 610, 629 (2003) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division].
107 CA rollo, p. 95.
108People v. Almacin, 363 Phil. 18, 32 (1999) [Per J. Pardo, First Division].
109See People v. Abendaño, 312 Phil. 625, 635 (1995) [Per J. Bellosillo, First Division].
110People v. An, 612 Phil. 476, 491 (2009) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
111 Id. at 491.
112 Id. at 491-492.
113See CA rollo, pp. 52, 28, and 67. Nothing in accused-appellant's Brief showed that he disputed the prosecution's claim that he and AAA were neighbors.
114See Id. at 46-47 and 92.
115See Republic Act No. 8353 (1997), art. 266-B.
116People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 242276 (2020) [Per J. J.C. Reyes, Jr., En Banc].
117 CA Rollo, pp. 44 and 88-89.
118People v. Corpuz, 812 Phil. 62, 94 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
119People v. Entrampas, 808 Phil. 258 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
120Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].cralawredlibrary