12/2/2014

AstorgavsPeople:154130:October1,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

FIRSTDIVISION

[G.R.No.154130.October1,2003]

BENITO ASTORGA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

respondent.
DECISION
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:

ThisisapetitionforreviewunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt,seekingthereversalofa
DecisionoftheSandiganbayaninCriminalCaseNo.24986,datedJuly5,2001,[1]aswellasits
ResolutionsdatedSeptember28,2001andJuly10,2002.
OnOctober28,1998,theOfficeoftheOmbudsmanfiledthefollowingInformationagainst
Benito Astorga, Mayor of Daram, Samar, as well as a number of his men for Arbitrary
Detention:
Thatonoraboutthe1stdayofSeptember,1997,andforsometimesubsequentthereto,atthe
MunicipalityofDaram,ProvinceofSamar,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorable
Court,theabovenamedaccused,apublicofficer,beingtheMunicipalMayorofDaram,Samar,insuch
capacityandcommittingtheoffenseinrelationtooffice,conniving,confederatingandmutuallyhelping
withunidentifiedpersons,whoarehereinreferredtounderfictitiousnamesJOHNDOES,whowere
armedwithfirearmsofdifferentcalibers,withdeliberateintent,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfully
andfeloniouslydetainElpidioSimon,MoisesdelaCruz,WenifredoManiscan,RenatoMilitanteand
CrisantoPelias,DENREmployees,attheMunicipalityofDaram,bynotallowingthemtoleavethe
place,withoutanylegalandvalidgroundstherebyrestraininganddeprivingthemoftheirpersonal
libertyfornine(9)hours,butwithoutexceedingthree(3)days.
CONTRARYTOLAW.[2]
OnSeptember1,1997,RegionalSpecialOperationsGroup(RSOG)oftheDepartmentof
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Office No. 8, Tacloban City sent a team to the
island of Daram, Western Samar to conduct intelligence gathering and forest protection
operations in line with the governments campaign against illegal logging. The team was
composedofForesterIIMoisesdelaCruz,ScalerWenifredoManiscan,ForestRangerRenato
Militante,andTreeMarkerCrisantoPelias,withElpidioE.Simon,ChiefoftheForestProtection
and Law Enforcement Section, as team leader.The team was escorted by SPO3 Andres B.
Cinco,Jr.andSPO1RufoCapoquian.[3]
TheteamstoppedatBrgy.Bagacay,Daram,WesternSamarat2:00p.m.,wheretheysaw
two yachtlike boats being constructed. After consulting with the local barangay officials, the
teamlearnedthattheboatsbelongedtoacertainMichaelFigueroa.However,sinceFigueroa
wasnotaroundatthetime,theteamleftBrgy.Bagacay.[4]
En route to Brgy. Manungca, Sta. Rita, Samar, the team spotted two more boats being
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/154130.htm

1/8

12/2/2014

AstorgavsPeople:154130:October1,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

constructed in the vicinity of Brgy. LucobLucob, Daram, Samar, between 4:305:00 p.m.,
promptingthemtostopandinvestigate.Thus, Maniscan and Militante disembarked from the
DENRsservicepumpboatandproceededtothesiteoftheboatconstruction.There,theymet
MayorAstorga.Afterconversingwiththemayor,Militantereturnedtotheirboatforthepurpose
offetchingSimon,attherequestofMayorAstorga.[5]
WhenSimon,accompaniedbydelaCruz,SPO3Cinco,andSPO1Capoquian,approached
Mayor Astorga to try and explain the purpose of their mission, Simon was suddenly slapped
hard twice on the shoulder by Mayor Astorga, who exclaimed, Puwede ko kamo
papaglanguyonpagulihaTacloban.Ano,dikamaaramnganatupaako?Natupabayaako.
Dirikamomakauliyanakaypuwedekameechargehamisencounter.(Icanmakeyouswim
back to Tacloban. Dont you know that I can box? I can box. Dont you know that I can
declare this a misencounter?)[6] Mayor Astorga then ordered someone to fetch
reinforcements,andfortyfive(45)minuteslater,orbetween5:006:00p.m.,abancaarrived
bearingten(10)men,someofthemdressedinfatigueuniforms.ThemenwerearmedwithM
16andM14rifles,andtheypromptlysurroundedtheteam,gunspointedattheteammembers.
[7]
Atthis,SimontriedtoexplaintoAstorgathepurposeofhisteamsmission.[8]Hethentook
outhishandheldICOMradio,sayingthathewasgoingtocontacthispeopleattheDENRin
Catbalogan to inform them of the teams whereabouts. Suddenly, Mayor Astorga forcibly
grabbedSimonsradio,saying,Maupayngawaraykamoradiobisdirisomabutaniyoopisina
konhainkamo,bisdirikamomakaarohinbulig.(Itsbetterifyouhavenoradiosothatyour
officewouldnotknowyourwhereaboutsandsothatyoucannotaskforhelp).[9]MayorAstorga
againslappedtherightshoulderofSimon,adding,KongsigakamohaLeyteayawpagdada
dinhihaSamarkaydirikamopuwedehaakon.(IfyouaretoughguysinLeyte,donotbringit
toSamarbecauseIwillnottolerateithere.)[10]SimonthenaskedMayorAstorgatoallowthe
teamtogohome,atwhichMayorAstorgaretortedthattheywouldnotbeallowedtogohome
andthattheywouldinsteadbebroughttoDaram.[11]MayorAstorgathenaddressedtheteam,
saying, Kon magdakop man la kamo, unahon an mga dagko. Kon madakop niyo an mga
dagko, an kan Figueroa dida ha Bagacay puwede ko liwat ipadakop an akon. (If you really
wanttoconfiscateanything,youstartwiththebigtime.IfyouconfiscatetheboatsofFigueroa
at Brgy. Bagacay, I will surrender mine.)[12] Simon then tried to reiterate his request for
permissiontoleave,whichjustsucceededinirkingMayorAstorga,whoangrilysaid,Dirikamo
makauliyanakaydadonkokamohaDaram,paradidtokitamaguroistorya.(Youcannotgo
homenowbecauseIwillbringyoutoDaram.Wewillhavemanythingstodiscussthere.)[13]
Theteamwasbroughttoahousewheretheyweretoldthattheywouldbeserveddinner.
The team had dinner with Mayor Astorga and several others at a long table, and the meal
lastedbetween7:008:00p.m.[14]Afterdinner,Militante,ManiscanandSPO1Capoquianwere
allowedtogodownfromthehouse,butnottoleavethebarangay.[15]Ontheotherhand,SPO3
Cinco and the rest just sat in the house until 2:00 a.m. when the team was finally allowed to
leave.[16]
Complainants filed a criminal complaint for arbitrary detention against Mayor Astorga and
hismen,whichledtothefilingoftheabovequotedInformation.
MayorAstorgawassubsequentlyarraignedonJuly3,2000,whereinhepleadednotguilty
to the offenses charged.[17] At the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of SPO1
Capoquian and SPO3 Cinco, as well as their Joint Affidavit.[18] However, the presentation of
Simonstestimonywasnotcompleted,andnoneofhisfellowteammemberscameforwardto
testify.Instead,themembersoftheteamsentbytheDENRRSOGexecutedaJointAffidavit
ofDesistance.[19]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/154130.htm

2/8

12/2/2014

AstorgavsPeople:154130:October1,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

On July 5, 2001, the Sandiganbayan promulgated its Decision, disposing of the case as
follows:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,judgmentisherebyrenderedfindingaccusedBENITOASTORGA
YBOCATCATguiltyofArbitraryDetention,andintheabsenceofanymitigatingoraggravating
circumstances,applyingtheIndeterminateSentenceLaw,heisherebysentencedtosufferimprisonment
offour(4)monthsofarrestomayorasminimumtoone(1)yearandeight(8)monthsofprision
correctionalasmaximum.
SOORDERED.[20]
Theaccusedfiled aMotion for Reconsiderationdated July11,2001[21]whichwasdenied
by the Sandiganabayan in a Resolution dated September 28, 2001.[22] A Second Motion for
Reconsideration dated October 24, 2001[23] was also filed, and this was similarly denied in a
ResolutiondatedJuly10,2002.[24]
Hence,thepresentpetition,whereinthepetitionerassignsasoleerrorforreview:
5.1.ThetrialcourtgrievouslyerredinfindingtheaccusedguiltyofArbitraryDetentionasdefinedand
penalizedunderArticle124oftheRevisedPenalCode,basedonmerespeculations,surmisesand
conjecturesand,worse,notwithstandingtheAffidavitofDesistanceexecutedbythefive(5)complaining
witnesseswhereinthelattercategoricallydeclaredpetitionersinnocenceofthecrimecharged.[25]
Petitioner contends that the prosecution failed to establish the required quantum of
evidence to prove the guilt of the accused,[26] especially in light of the fact that the private
complainantsexecutedaJointAffidavitofDesistance.[27]Petitionerassertsthatnowhereinthe
records of the case is there any competent evidence that could sufficiently establish the fact
thatrestraintwasemployeduponthepersonsoftheteammembers.[28]Furthermore,heclaims
thatthemerepresenceofarmedmenatthescenedoesnotqualifyascompetentevidenceto
provethatfearwasinfactinstilledinthemindsoftheteammembers,totheextentthatthey
wouldfeelcompelledtostayinBrgy.LucobLucob.[29]
Arbitrary Detention is committed by any public officer or employee who, without legal
grounds,detainsaperson.[30]Theelementsofthecrimeare:
1.Thattheoffenderisapublicofficeroremployee.
2.Thathedetainsaperson.
3.Thatthedetentioniswithoutlegalgrounds.[31]
That petitioner, at the time he committed the acts assailed herein, was then Mayor of
Daram,Samarisnotdisputed.Hence,thefirstelementofArbitraryDetention,thattheoffender
isapublicofficeroremployee,isundeniablypresent.
Also, the records are bereft of any allegation on the part of petitioner that his acts were
spurredbysomelegalpurpose.Onthecontrary,headmittedthathisactsweremotivatedby
his instinct for selfpreservation and the feeling that he was being singled out.[32] The
detention was thus without legal grounds, thereby satisfying the third element enumerated
above.
Whatremainsisthedeterminationofwhetherornottheteamwasactuallydetained.
InthecaseofPeoplev.Acosta,[33]whichinvolvedtheillegaldetentionofachild,wefound
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/154130.htm

3/8

12/2/2014

AstorgavsPeople:154130:October1,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

theaccusedappellantthereinguiltyofkidnappingdespitethelackofevidencetoshowthatany
physical restraint was employed upon the victim.However, because the victim was a boy of
tender age and he was warned not to leave until his godmother, the accusedappellant, had
returned,hewaspracticallyacaptiveinthesensethathecouldnotleavebecauseofhisfearto
violatesuchinstruction.[34]
In the case of People v. Cortez,[35] we held that, in establishing the intent to deprive the
victim of his liberty, it is not necessary that the offended party be kept within an enclosure to
restrictherfreedomoflocomotion.Atthetimeofherrescue,theoffendedpartyinsaidcase
wasfoundoutsidetalkingtotheownerofthehousewhereshehadbeentaken.Sheexplained
that she did not attempt to leave the premises for fear that the kidnappers would make good
theirthreatstokillhershouldshedoso.Weruledthereinthatherfearwasnotbaselessasthe
kidnappers knew where she resided and they had earlier announced that their intention in
lookingforhercousinwastokillhimonsight.Thus,weconcludedthatfearhasbeenknownto
renderpeopleimmobileandthatappealstothefearsofanindividual,suchasbythreatstokill
orsimilarthreats,areequivalenttotheuseofactualforceorviolence.[36]
The prevailing jurisprudence on kidnapping and illegal detention is that the curtailment of
thevictimslibertyneednotinvolveanyphysicalrestraintuponthevictimsperson.Iftheacts
and actuations of the accused can produce such fear in the mind of the victim sufficient to
paralyze the latter, to the extent that the victim is compelled to limit his own actions and
movementsinaccordancewiththewishesoftheaccused,thenthevictimis,forallintentsand
purposes,detainedagainsthiswill.
In the case at bar, the restraint resulting from fear is evident. Inspite of their pleas, the
witnessesandthecomplainantswerenotallowedbypetitionertogohome.[37]Thisrefusalwas
quickly followed by the call for and arrival of almost a dozen reinforcements, all armed with
militaryissuerifles,whoproceededtoencircletheteam,weaponspointedatthecomplainants
and the witnesses.[38] Given such circumstances, we give credence to SPO1 Capoquians
statementthatitwasnotsafetorefuseMayorAstorgasorders.[39]Itwasnotjustthepresence
of the armed men, but also the evident effect these gunmen had on the actions of the team
whichprovesthatfearwasindeedinstilledinthemindsoftheteammembers,totheextentthat
they felt compelled to stay in Brgy. LucobLucob. The intent to prevent the departure of the
complainantsandwitnessesagainsttheirwillisthusclear.
RegardingtheJointAffidavitofDesistanceexecutedbytheprivatecomplainants,sufficeit
to say that the principles governing the use of such instruments in the adjudication of other
crimes can be applied here. Thus, in People v. Ballabare, it was held that an affidavit of
desistanceismerelyanadditionalgroundtobuttressthedefensesoftheaccused,notthesole
consideration that can result in acquittal. There must be other circumstances which, when
coupledwiththeretractionordesistance,createdoubtsastothetruthofthetestimonygivenby
thewitnessesatthetrialandacceptedbythejudge.Here,therearenosuchcircumstances.[40]
Indeed, the belated claims made in the Joint Affidavit of Desistance, such as the allegations
that the incident was the result of a misunderstanding and that the team acceded to Mayor
Astorgasordersoutofrespect,arebeliedbypetitionersownadmissionstothecontrary.[41]
TheJointAffidavitofDesistanceoftheprivatecomplainantsisevidentlynotaclearrepudiation
ofthematerialpointsallegedintheinformationandprovenatthetrial,butamereexpressionof
thelackofinterestofprivatecomplainantstopursuethecase.Thisconclusionissupportedby
oneofitslatterparagraphs,whichreads:
11.ThatthisaffidavitwasexecutedbyusifonlytoproveoursincerityandimprovingDENR
relationswiththelocalChiefsExecutiveandotherofficialofDaram,Islandssothat
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/154130.htm

4/8

12/2/2014

AstorgavsPeople:154130:October1,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

DENRprogramsandprojectcanbeeffectivelyimplementedthroughthesupportofthe
localofficialsforthebettermentoftheresidencelivingconditionswhoarefacing
difficultiesandaremuchdependentongovernmentsupport.[42]
Petitioneralsoassailstheweightgivenbythetrialcourttotheevidence,pointingoutthat
the Sandiganbayans reliance on the testimony of SPO1 Capoquian is misplaced, for the
reason that SPO1 Capoquian is not one of the private complainants in the case.[43] He also
makesmuchofthefactthatprosecutionwitnessSPO1Capoquianwasallegedlynotexactly
privyto,andknowledgeableof,whatexactlytranspiredbetweenhereinaccusedandtheDENR
team leader Mr. Elpidio E. Simon, from their alleged confrontation, until they left Barangay
LucobLucobintheearlymorningof2September1997.[44]
Itisatimehonoreddoctrinethatthetrialcourtsfactualfindingsareconclusiveandbinding
uponappellatecourtsunlesssomefactsorcircumstancesofweightandsubstancehavebeen
overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[45] Nothing in the case at bar prompts us to
deviate from this doctrine. Indeed, the fact that SPO1 Capoquian is not one of the private
complainants is completely irrelevant. Neither penal law nor the rules of evidence requires
damningtestimonytobeexclusivelysuppliedbytheprivatecomplainantsincasesofArbitrary
Detention.Furthermore,MayorAstorgasclaimthatSPO1Capoquianwasnotexactlyprivyto
what transpired between Simon and himself is belied by the evidence. SPO1 Capoquian
testifiedthatheaccompaniedSimonwhenthelatterwenttotalktopetitioner.[46]Heheardallof
MayorAstorgasthreateningremarks.[47]HewaswithSimonwhentheywereencircledbythe
men dressed in fatigues and wielding M16 and M14 rifles.[48] In sum, SPO1 Capoquian
witnessedallthecircumstanceswhichledtotheArbitraryDetentionoftheteamatthehandsof
MayorAstorga.
Petitioner submits that it is unclear whether the team was in fact prevented from leaving
Brgy. LucobLucob or whether they had simply decided to while away the time and take
advantageofthepurportedhospitalityoftheaccused.[49]Onthecontrary,SPO3Cincoclearly
andcategoricallydeniedthattheyweresimplywhilingawaythetimebetweentheirdinnerwith
Mayor Astorga and their departure early the following morning.[50] SPO1 Capoquian gave
similartestimony,sayingthattheydidnotusethetimebetweentheirdinnerwithMayorAstorga
and their departure early the following morning to enjoy the place and that, given a choice,
theywouldhavegonehome.[51]
Petitionerarguesthathewasdeniedthecoldneutralityofanimpartialjudge,becausethe
ponenteoftheassaileddecisionactedbothasmagistrateandadvocatewhenhepropounded
veryextensiveclarificatoryquestionsonthewitnesses.Surely,theSandiganbayan,asatrial
court,isnotanidlearbiterduringatrial.Itcanpropoundclarificatoryquestionstowitnessesin
ordertoferretoutthetruth.Theimpartialityofthecourtcannotbeassailedonthegroundthat
clarificatoryquestionswereaskedduringthetrial.[52]
Thus, we affirm the judgment of the Sandiganbayan finding petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Arbitrary Detention.Article 124 (1) of the Revised Penal Code provides
that,wherethedetentionhasnotexceededthreedays,thepenaltyshallbearrestomayorinits
maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, which has a range of four (4)
months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months. Applying the Indeterminate
SentenceLaw,petitionerisentitledtoaminimumtermtobetakenfromthepenaltynextlower
indegree,orarrestomayorinitsminimumandmediumperiods,whichhasarangeofone(1)
monthandone(1)daytofour(4)months.Hence,theSandiganbayanwascorrectinimposing
theindeterminatepenaltyoffour(4)monthsofarrestomayor,asminimum,toone(1)yearand
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/154130.htm

5/8

12/2/2014

AstorgavsPeople:154130:October1,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

eight(8)monthsofprisioncorreccional,asmaximum.
Beforeclosing,itmaynotbeamisstoquotethewordsofJusticePerfectoinhisconcurring
opinion in Lino v. Fugoso, wherein he decried the impunity enjoyed by public officials in
committing arbitrary or illegal detention, and called for the intensification of efforts towards
bringingthemtojustice:
Theprovisionsoflawpunishingarbitraryorillegaldetentioncommittedbygovernmentofficersform
partofourstatutebooksevenbeforetheadventofAmericansovereigntyinourcountry.Those
provisionswerealreadyineffectduringtheSpanishregimetheyremainedineffectunderAmerican
rulecontinuedineffectundertheCommonwealth.EvenundertheJapaneseregimetheywerenot
repealed.ThesameprovisionscontinueinthestatutebooksofthefreeandsovereignRepublicofthe
Philippines.Thisnotwithstanding,andthecomplaintsoftenheardofviolationsofsaidprovisions,itis
veryseldomthatprosecutionsunderthemhavebeeninstitutedduetothefactthattheerringindividuals
happenedtobelongtothesamegovernmenttowhichtheprosecutingofficersbelong.Itishightimethat
everyonemustdohisduty,withoutfearorfavor,andthatprosecutingofficersshouldnotanswerwith
coldshruggingoftheshouldersthecomplaintsofthevictimsofarbitraryorillegaldetention.
Onlybyanearnestenforcementoftheprovisionsofarticles124and125oftheRevisedPenalCodewill
itbepossibletoreducetoitsminimumsuchwantontramplingofpersonalfreedomasdepictedinthis
case.Theresponsibleofficialsshouldbeprosecuted,withoutprejudicetothedetaineesrighttothe
indemnitytowhichtheymaybeentitledfortheunjustifiedviolationoftheirfundamentalrights.[53]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby DENIED.The Decision of
theSandiganbayaninCriminalCaseNo.24986,datedJuly5,2001findingpetitionerBENITO
ASTORGAguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofArbitraryDetentionandsentencing
himtosuffertheindeterminatepenaltyoffour(4)monthsofarrestomayor,asminimum,toone
(1)yearandeight(8)monthsofprisioncorreccional,asmaximum,isAFFIRMEDintoto.
Costsdeoficio.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,(Chairman),Vitug,andCarpio,JJ.,concur.
Azcuna,J.,onleave.
[1]Records,p.255pennedbyAssociateJusticeRodolfoG.Palattao,concurredinbyAssociateJusticesNarciso

S.NarioandNicodemoT.Ferrer.
[2]Records,p.1(italicsandemphasisintheoriginal).
[3]TSN,August14,2000,p.6ExhibitB,p.1.
[4]Id.,pp.78ExhibitB,p.1.
[5]Id.,pp.89ExhibitB,p.1.
[6]Id.,pp.1012ExhibitB,p.1TSN,August15,2000,p.6.
[7]Id.,pp.1416ExhibitB,p.1.
[8]ExhibitB,p.2.
[9]TSN,August14,2000,p.13ExhibitB,p.2.
[10]ExhibitB,p.2.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/154130.htm

6/8

12/2/2014

AstorgavsPeople:154130:October1,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

[11]TSN,August14,2000,p.19.
[12]ExhibitB,p.2.
[13]Id.
[14]TSN,August15,2000,pp.7,39.
[15]Id.,pp.9,22.
[16]Id.,pp.25,36.
[17]Records,pp.129,135.
[18]TSN,August1415,2000ExhibitB.
[19]Records,p.158.
[20]Id.,p.265(emphasisintheoriginal).
[21]Id.,p.271.
[22]Id., p. 306 penned by Associate Justice Rodolfo G. Palattao, concurred in by Associate Justices Narciso S.

NarioandNicodemoT.Ferrer.
[23]Id.,p.315.
[24]Id., p. 370 penned by Associate Justice Rodolfo G. Palattao, concurred in by Associate Justices Narciso S.

NarioandNicodemoT.Ferrer.
[25]Rollo,p.18.
[26]Id.,pp.1819.
[27]Id.,p.35Records,p.158.
[28]Id.,pp.2526.
[29]Id.,p.27.
[30]REVISEDPENALCODE,art.124.
[31]IIREYES,THEREVISEDPENALCODE43(14thed.1998)citingU.S.v. Braganza, 10 Phil. 79 [1908] and

Milov.Salanga,G.R.No.37007,20July1987,152SCRA113(emphasisintheoriginal).
[32]Rollo,pp.3031.
[33]107Phil.360[1960].
[34]Id.emphasissupplied.
[35] 381 Phil. 345 [2000] citing People v. Dela Cruz, 342 Phil. 854 [1997] and People v. Ramos, 358 Phil. 261

[1998].
[36]Id.citingPeoplev.Hope,177N.E.402,257N.Y.147.
[37]TSN,August14,2000,pp.1920TSN,August15,2000,p.17.
[38]Id.,pp.1416ExhibitB,p.1.
[39]TSN,August15,2000,pp.1920.
[40]Peoplev.Ballabare,332Phil.384[1996].
[41]Records,p.158Rollo,pp.27,3031,3233,41.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/154130.htm

7/8

12/2/2014

AstorgavsPeople:154130:October1,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

[42]Id.,p.159.
[43]Rollo,pp.2829.
[44]Id.,p.20.
[45]Peoplev.Torellos,G.R.No.143084, 1 April 2003 citing Peoplev. Daramay, G.R. Nos. 140235 & 142748, 9

May2002.
[46]TSN,August14,2000,p.10ExhibitB,p.1.
[47]Id.,pp.1014,ExhibitB,pp.12.
[48]Id.,p.15ExhibitB,p.1.
[49]Rollo,pp.2425.
[50]TSN,August15,2000,p.36.
[51]Id.,p.26.
[52]Peoplev.Pinuela,G.R.Nos.14072728,31January2003.
[53]Linov.Fugoso,77Phil.983[1947]concurringopinionofJusticePerfecto.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/154130.htm

8/8