9/18/2016

PeoplevsEspina:13232526:July26,2001:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

FIRSTDIVISION

[G.R.Nos.13232526.July26,2001]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. ROMEO ESPINA, accused

appellant.
DECISION
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran, Branch 47, in Criminal
CaseNos.8194and8155convictingaccusedappellantofthecrimeofMurderqualifiedbyIllegalPossessionof
Firearms under P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
ReclusionPerpetuaandtopaytheheirsofthedeceasedthesumofP50,000.00andthecosts.
Theinformationforthecrimeofmurderalleged:
Thatonoraboutthe30thdayofSeptember,1992,inthemunicipalityofTubigon,provinceofBohol,
PhilippinesandwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccusedwithoutjustifiable
motive,withtreacheryandabuseofsuperiorstrength,theaccusedbeingthenarmedwithashortfirearmand
withoutgivingopportunitytothevictimtodefendhimself,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyand
feloniouslyattack,assaultandshootoneRomeoBulicatin,withtheuseofsaidfirearm,hittingthelatteronthe
vitalpartofhisbodyresultingtohisdeathtothedamageandprejudiceoftheheirsofthedeceased.
ActscommittedcontrarytotheprovisionsofArticle248oftheRevisedPenalCodewiththeaggravating
circumstanceofnighttimebeingpurposelysoughtforortakenadvantageofbytheaccusedtofacilitatethe
commissionofthecrime.[2]
ForIllegalPossessionofFirearms,theinformationstated:
Thatonoraboutthe30thdayofSeptember,1992,inthemunicipalityofTubigon,provinceofBohol,
PhilippinesandwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,withintenttopossess
firearmandammunitiondidthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandcriminallykeep,carryandhaveinhis
possession,custodyandcontrolashortfirearmandammunitionwithoutfirstobtainingthenecessarypermitor
licensetopossessthesaidfirearmandammunitionfromcompetentauthority,whichfirearmandammunition
werecarriedbytheaccusedoutsideofhisresidenceandusedbyhimincommittingthecrimeofMurderof
whichoneRomeoBulicatinwasthevictimtothedamageandprejudiceoftheRepublicofthePhilippines.Acts
committedcontrarytotheprovisionsofPresidentialDecreeNo.1866.[3]
UponarraignmentonJune27,1994,accusedappellantpleadednotguiltytobothcharges[4]thereaftertrial
followed.
ThefactsasadducedbytheprosecutionaresynthesizedinthePeoplesBrief,thus
IntheafternoonofSeptember30,1992,themembersofanassociationlocallyknownastheriparipawentto
thehouseofEufroniaPagaslocatedatsitioBatic,Tanawan,Tubigon,Boholfortheirscheduledcontributionto
afundintendedforaweddingcelebration.(p.3,August23,1996,TSNp.3,January21,1997,TSN)Among
thosepresentthereatwereRomeoBulicatin,RogelioEspina,SamsonAbulocwhowerehavingadrinkingspree
andplayingchikika,acardgame.(p.4,May9,1995,TSN).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132325_26.htm

1/6

9/18/2016

PeoplevsEspina:13232526:July26,2001:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

Whenaccusedappellantarrived,Romeoaskedthree(3)bottlesofkulafuwinefromhimandheaccededby
buyingthree(3)bottlesofkulafuwinefromthestoreofEufroniaPagas.Lateron,ataround4:00ofthat
afternoon,Romeoagaindemandedanotherbottleofkulafuwinefromaccusedappellantbutthistime,thelatter
refusedtogiveintothedemand.(p.4,January21,1997,TSN)Romeothenproceededtowhereaccused
appellantwasplayingcardsandwithoutanywarning,urinatedonthelatterandclippedhimunderhis(Romeo)
arms.(p.4,August23,1996,TSN)Accusedappellantgotangry.HehoweverdidnotengageRomeoinany
altercationbutinsteadturnedawayandwenthome.(p.5,May9,1995,TSN)
Lateronintheevening,atabout9:00p.m.,whileRomeo,RogelioandSamsonwerestillhavingadrinking
spreeatthestoreofEufroniaPagas,theyheardaccusedappellantcallingRomeofromoutside,saying,Borgs,
getoutbecauseIhavesomethingtosay.Thetriocamedownfromthehouse.Rogeliowentdownfirst,followed
bySamsonandRomeo(pp.56,ibid.)WhenRogelioreachedtheground,accusedappellanttoldhimtodrop
downwhileSamsonalsodroppedhimselftothegroundwhenhesawaccusedappellantabouttodrawhis
firearm.Atthatjuncture,Romeowasstillatthestairwayandwhenheturnedhisbacktowardsaccused
appellant,thelattershothim,hittinghimattheback.Romeoranawaybuthewaschasedbyaccusedappellant
whofiredtwo(2)moreshotsathim.(p.5,March19,1996,TSNp.7,May9,1995)
SamsonranawayfromthesceneoftheincidentanduponreachingthehouseofPoloyConcha,hesawRomeo
outsidethehouseaskingforhelp.SamsonaskedsomeofresidentstohelphimbringRomeotobarangay
Cawayanan.(pp.1415,March19,1996,TSN)TheyloadedRomeoinarattancradleanduponreachingthesaid
barangayatabout3:00oclockofthefollowingmorning,theytransferredhimtothevehicleownedbyacertain
EmilianoFucanan.Fromthesaidbarangay,RomeowastakentothehouseofMayorPlacingMascarinasin
Poblacion,Tubigon,BoholwherehewastransferredtotheambulancewhichtookhimtotheCelestinoGallares
MemorialHospitalinTagbilaranCity.Onthewaytothehospital,FelixCelmaraskedRomeowhathappenedto
himandthelatteransweredthathewasshotbyaccusedappellant.(pp.48,July29,1996,TSN)Romeowas
broughttotheemergencyroomandunderwentoperation.Hehoweverdiedatabout5:00p.m.ofOctober2,
1992,duetosepticshockirreversible,generalizedperitonitis,gunshotwound,perforatingileum.(pp.7&11,
June18,1996,TSN)[5]
Thedefensepresentedfourwitnesses,namely:RogelioEspina,Dr.HaroldB.Gallego,MaximianoDormal
andaccusedappellanthimself.
ThetestimoniesofaccusedappellantandMaximianoDormalmaybesummarizedasfollows:
At around 1:00 oclock in the afternoon of September 30, 1992, accusedappellant was in the house of
EufroniaPagastorepresenthisfatherinameetingtoprepareforaweddingcelebration.Amongthosepresentin
the said gathering were accusedappellants brother, Rogelio Espina, and the deceased, Romeo Bulicatin who
werehavingadrinkingspree.Whenaccusedappellantarrivedthereat,Bulicatinaskedhimtobuy3bottlesof
kulafu wine to which he acceded. At around 4:00 oclock of the same afternoon, Bulicatin again demanded
anotherbottleofkulafuwinefromaccusedappellant.Thelatter,however,refusedtoobey,promptingBulicatin
tourinateonaccusedappellant.Thisinfuriatedaccusedappellant,butinsteadofassaultingBulicatin,heturned
hisbackandwalkedawaybecauseheknewthatBulicatinalwayscarriedaknife.Whenaccusedappellantwas
about 12 meters away from the house of Eufronia Pagas, Bulicatin pursued him. Accusedappellant tried to
evadeBulicatinbutthelattercaughtupwithhimandstabbedhimonhisside.Consequently,accusedappellant
sustainedadeeppuncturedwoundbutwasfortunatelyabletoescapeuntilhepassedout.[6]
At around 6:00 oclock p.m. of the same day, Maximiano Dormal who was then on his way home, saw
accusedappellantwoundedandlyingontheground.Recognizingthelatter,Dormalimmediatelyinformedand
accompaniedaccusedappellantsparentswholostnotimeinbringinghimtothehospital.[7]
Ontheotherhand,defensewitnessRogelioEspina(Rogelio),declaredthatintheafternoonofSeptember
30, 1992, he was in the house of Eufronia Pagas, having a drinking spree with Romeo Bulicatin and Samson
Abuloc, while his brother, herein accusedappellant, was playing cards. At around 3:00 oclock p.m., he saw
Bulicatin approach accusedappellant and forthwith urinated on him. Thereafter, Bulicatin grabbed accused
appellantunderhisarmsbutthelatterwasabletoextricatehimselffromtheholdofBulicatinandranaway.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132325_26.htm

2/6

9/18/2016

PeoplevsEspina:13232526:July26,2001:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

RogeliowantedtofollowaccusedappellantbutwasprevaileduponbyBulicatintostay.They then continued

theirdrinkingspreeuntil9:00oclockp.m.Whentheywereabouttogohome,Rogelioheardsomebodycalling
Bulicatin,sayingGetout,Borgs,asIhavesomethingtotellyou.AccordingtoRogelio,heiscertainthatthe
voicewasnotthatofaccusedappellant.Whentheydecidedtogohome,hewasthefirstonetogodownstairs,
followed by Samson Abuloc, and then by Bulicatin.Upon reaching the ground, Rogelio heard a gunshot and
immediatelyscamperedawaywithoutlookingbacktoseewhowasshot.Heclaimedthatitwasonlytwodays
after the incident that he came to know who the victim of the shooting incident was.He added that from the
house of Eufronia Pagas, he directly went home where he was told by his mother that accusedappellant was
stabbedandwasbroughttothehospital.
OnAugust25,1997,thetrialcourtrenderedtheassaileddecision,holdingasfollows:
WHEREFORE,PremisesConsidered,theCourtfindstheaccused,RomeoEspina,guiltybeyondreasonable
doubt,forthecrimeofMurderdefinedandpenalizedbyArticle248oftheRevisedPenalCodeandQualified
IllegalPossessionofFirearmsunderPresidentialDecreeNo.1866,asamendedbyRepublicActNo.8294and
sentenceshimtosufferthestraightpenaltyofimprisonmentofRECLUSIONPERPETUAwiththeinherent
accessorypenaltiesprovidedbylaw,therebeingamitigatingcircumstanceofvindicationforagraveoffense
committedontheaccusedtoindemnifytheheirsofthedeceased,RomeoBulicatin,intheamountofFifty
Thousand(P50,000.00)Pesosandtopaythecosts.
SOORDERED.[8]
Hence,thisappealonthefollowinggrounds:
I

THATTHELOWERCOURTHASOVERLOOKEDORMISINTERPRETEDTHESIGNIFICANCEOF
SOMEFACTSORCIRCUMSTANCESOFWEIGHTANDINFLUENCEAPPEARINGINTHE
RECORDINFINDINGTHEACCUSEDGUILTYOFTHEOFFENSESCHARGED.
II

THATTHELOWERCOURTHASGRAVELYABUSEDITSDISCRETIONINFINDINGACCUSED
GUILTYBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBTOFTHEOFFENSESCHARGED.[9]
In particular, accusedappellant points to the following facts and circumstances that had been allegedly
overlookedbythetrialcourt,towit
1)Theresolutionsofthe2ndMunicipalCircuitTrialCourtofTubigon,BoholinCriminalCaseNos.1245and
1246totheeffectthattherewasnosufficientevidencethataccusedappellanthadcommittedthecrimes
charged
2)ThenonpresentationofEufroniaPagas(theownerofthehousewherethevictimandhiscompanionshada
drinkingspree),despitebeinglistedintheinformationasoneofthewitnessesfortheprosecution.
3)ThetestimonyofprosecutioneyewitnessSamsonAbuloc,thathedoesnotknowFelixCelmarwhoclaimed
tobeoneofthepersonsaskedbytheformertohelphimbringthevictimtothehospital.
4)TheincredibilityofthetestimonyofSamsonAbulocasregardshishavingidentifiedaccusedappellant
throughhisvoiceandthetypeoffirearmusedbythelatterinshootingthevictimaswellashishavingseenthe
victimbeinghitatthebackbythefirstgunshotfiredathimbyaccusedappellant
5)Thefactthatatabout6:00oclockintheeveningofSeptember30,1992,accusedappellantwasfoundbyone
MaximianoDormallyingwoundedandgroaningnearapathwayleadingtothelattershouseand

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132325_26.htm

3/6

9/18/2016

PeoplevsEspina:13232526:July26,2001:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

6)ThelengthoftimethatelapsedbeforeFelixCelmarrevealedthatthevictimtoldhimthataccusedappellant
wastheonewhoshothim.[10]
Accusedappellant makes capital of the November 23, 1992 Resolutions[11] of the 2nd Municipal Circuit
TrialCourtofTagbuinClarinBohol,whichfoundtheevidenceagainstaccusedappellanttobeinsufficientafter
conductingthepreliminaryinvestigation.Wenote,however,thatsaidresolutionswerereversedandsuperseded
by the February 2, 1993 Omnibus Resolution[12] of the Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, who, after
conducting a reinvestigation of the instant case, found probable cause to hold accusedappellant for trial and
accordinglyfiledthecorrespondinginformationsagainstaccusedappellant.
Moreover,thebasisoftheinvestigatingjudgeindeclaringinsufficiencyofevidencedoesnotappeartobe
substantial.Pertinentportionofsaidresolutionreads:
Upontheforegoingfacts,thecourtfindsandissatisfiedthattheoffensecomplainedofhasbeencommitted,but
thereisinsufficiencyofevidencethatthehereinaccusedRomeoEspinacommittedthecrimeforthesimple
reasonthataccordingtothedeclarationofEufroniaPagaswhoisanunbiasedwitnessascomparedtothe
declarationofSamsonAbulocwhowasaclosebarcadaofthevictim,thehereinaccusedRomeoEspinawasnot
inherhousewherethedrinkingspreewasheldfrom6:00to9:00oclockintheeveningofSeptember30,1992.
[13]
Clearly,thefactthatEufroniadidnotseeaccusedappellantinherhousebetween6:009:00oclockinthe
evening of September 30, 1992, does not in any way contradict or refute the claim of the prosecution that
accusedappellantleftthehouseofEufroniaataround4:00intheafternoonafterbeingurinatedonbythevictim
andthereafterreturnedatabout9:00p.m.andshotthevictimoutsidethehouseofEufronia.
Thentoo,thenonpresentationofEufroniaPagasasaprosecutionwitnessisnotdamagingtothecaseofthe
prosecution. In Eufronias affidavit, she declared that after Rogelio Espina, Samson Abuloc and the deceased
wentoutofherhouse,sheheardthreegunshotsbutbotherednottogooutsidebecauseoffear.[14] Evidently,
EufroniaPagasisnotaneyewitnessandhertestimonywouldnotdomuchfortheprosecution.Atanyrate,itis
the prosecutions prerogative to determine who should be presented as witnesses on the basis of its own
assessmentoftheirnecessity.[15]Hence,itschoiceofwitnessescannotbesuccessfullychallengedbyaccused
appellant.
Whether or not prosecution witness Samson Abuloc knew Felix Celmar who claimed to be one of the
persons asked by the former to help him bring the victim to the hospital, is of no consequence. As correctly
pointed out by the Solicitor General, it is possible that Felix Celmar, a resident of another barangay, is not
knownbynametoAbuloc,especiallysosincetheirmeetingonthatfatefuldaywasonlycasual.
NeitherdowefindimprobablethetestimonyofSamsonAbulocthatherecognizedthevoiceofaccused
appellant.Beingafriendandasecondcousinofaccusedappellant,heisexpectedtobefamiliarwithhisvoice.
So also, we find no reason to doubt the testimony of Abuloc that he was able to identify the pistol used by
accusedappellantaswellaswitnessedthestabbingofthevictimattheback.NotonlywasAbuloconlythreeto
fourmetersawayfromaccusedappellant,[16]theprosecutionwaslikewiseabletoestablishthatthemoonlight
illuminating the locus criminis afforded the witness a clear view of the shooting incident.[17] The Court has
previously held that the light from the stars or the moon, an oven, or a wick lamp or gasera can give ample
illuminationtoenableapersontoidentifyorrecognizeanother.[18]Underthecircumstances,therefore,Abuloc
couldnothavefailedtorecognizeaccusedappellantwhoisnotonlyhisbarkadabutasecondcousinaswell.
Contrarytotheclaimofaccusedappellant,thetrialcourtdidnotoverlookhiscontentionthathecouldnot
have committed the offenses charged because at around 4:00 oclock p.m. of September 30, 1992, he was
unconsciousduetoastabwound.Infact,thetrialcourttreatedthesameasadefenseofdenialandalibi.Indeed,
thesedefensescannotprevailoverthecategoricalandpositiveidentificationofaccusedappellantbyprosecution
witnessAbulocwhowasnotshowntohaveanyillmotivetotestifyfalselyagainsthim.[19]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132325_26.htm

4/6

9/18/2016

PeoplevsEspina:13232526:July26,2001:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

Moreover,itisdoctrinallysettledthattheassessmentofthecredibilityofwitnessesandtheirtestimoniesis
amatterbestundertakenbythetrialcourtbecauseofitsuniqueopportunitytoobservethewitnessesfirsthand
andtonotetheirdemeanor,conductandattitudeundergrillingexamination.[20]Inthecaseatbar,thetrialcourt
did not err in giving credence to the version of the prosecution.The facts and circumstances alleged to have
beenoverlookedbythetrialcourtarenotmaterialtothecaseandwillnotaffectthedispositionthereof.
The alleged dying declaration of the victim should not have been admitted as an ante mortem statement,
consideringthattheprosecutionfailedtoshowthatthesubjectdeclarationwasmadeundertheconsciousnessof
animpendingdeath.Prosecution witness Celmar testified that on the way to the hospital, the victim told him
thatitwasaccusedappellantwhoshothim.Thoughthevictimeventuallydiedtwodaysafterhewasshot,there
is nothing in the records that would show that the victim was under the impression that he was going to die.
However,thedeclarationofthedeceasedpointingtoaccusedappellantastheculpritisadmissibleaspartofres
gestae. Having been made shortly after a startling occurrence and under the influence thereof, the victim
evidentlyhadnoopportunitytocontrive.[21]Furthermore,thedelayofFelixCelmarinrevealingthedeclaration
ofaccusedappellantdoesnotmakeCelmarstestimonyunworthyofbelief.Delayinrevealingtheidentityofthe
perpetrator of a crime does not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness, especially where such witness
gives a sufficient explanation. In the case at bar, such delay was amply explained by the witness. Celmar
testifiedthatittook him four months to reveal what he knew because he thoughthewouldnotbeutilizedas
witnessfortheprosecution.Moreover,aftertheincident,hehadtoleaveforhisworkinAlbay.
Inconvictingaccusedappellant,thetrialcourtappreciatedthespecialaggravatingcircumstanceofuseof
unlicensedfirearm,pursuanttoP.D.No.1866,asamendedbyR.A.No.8294.Consideringthepenaltyprovided
forinArticle248oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamendedbyR.A.No.7659,thetrialcourtimposedthepenalty
ofdeathonaccusedappellant.However,inviewofthesuspensionoftheimpositionofthedeathpenaltythen,
accusedappellantwassentencedtosufferthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.
Thethirdparagraph,Section1,ofR.A.No.8294(whichtookeffectonJuly6,1997),amendingP.D.No.
1866,providesthatIfhomicideormurderiscommittedwiththeuseofanunlicensedfirearm,suchuseofan
unlicensedfirearmshallbeusedasanaggravatingcircumstance.Thisamendment,however,cannotbeapplied
inthepresentcase.ItbearsstressingthatwhentheoffensesatbarwereperpetratedonSeptember30,1992,the
unlicensedfirearmusedintakingthelifeofanotherwasnotyetaspecialaggravatingcircumstanceinmurderor
homicide.Notbeingfavorabletotheaccused,theamendatoryprovisioncannotbeappliedtoaccusedappellant,
lestitacquiresthecharacterofanexpostfactolaw.[22]
Likewise,thetrialcourterredintreatingalevosiamerelyasagenericaggravatingcircumstance,moresoin
offsetting the same by the generic mitigating circumstance of having committed the crime in immediate
vindicationofagraveoffense.Thetreacheryemployedbyaccusedappellantinshootingthevictimisactuallya
circumstancethatqualifiedthekillingtomurder.Suchbeingthecase,treacherycannotbeoffsetbyamitigating
circumstance.
Thetrialcourtcorrectlyappreciatedthemitigatingcircumstanceofhavingactedinimmediatevindication
ofagraveoffense.Astheevidenceonrecordshow,accusedappellantwasurinatedonbythevictiminfrontof
theguests.Theactofthevictim,whichundoubtedlyinsultedandhumiliatedaccusedappellant,camewithinthe
purview of a grave offense under Article 13, paragraph 5, of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, this mitigating
circumstanceshouldbeappreciatedinfavorofaccusedappellant.
Astotheimposablepenalty,theapplicableprovisionisArticle248oftheRevisedPenalCodebeforeits
amendmentbyR.A.No.7659onDecember31,1993,thecrimehavingbeencommittedonSeptember30,1992.
Thereunder,thepenaltyformurderwasreclusiontemporalinitsmaximumperiodtodeath.Withonegeneric
mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance to offset it, the penalty should be imposed in its
minimum period, i.e., reclusion temporal maximum. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, accused
appellantshouldbesentencedtoanindeterminatepenaltyofeight(8)yearsandone(1)dayofprisionmayor,as
minimum,toseventeen(17)years,four(4)months,andone(1)dayofreclusiontemporal,asmaximum.
WHEREFORE,theDecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofTagbilaran,Branch47,inCriminalCaseNos.
8194 and 8195 finding the accusedappellant Romeo Espina guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the accusedappellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132325_26.htm

5/6

9/18/2016

PeoplevsEspina:13232526:July26,2001:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

indeterminatepenaltyofeight(8)yearsandone(1)dayofprisionmayor,asminimum,toseventeen(17)years,
four(4)monthsandone(1)dayofreclusiontemporal,asmaximumandtopaytheheirsofRomeoBulicatin
thesumofP50,000.00asdeathindemnityandtopaythecosts.
SOORDERED.
Puno,Kapunan,andPardo,JJ.,concur.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,(Chairman),onofficialleave.
[1]PennedbyJudgeRanieldoT.Son.
[2]Rollo,p.16.
[3]Rollo,p.15.
[4]Records,Vol.I,p.35.
[5]Rollo,pp.101103.
[6]TSN,January21,1997,pp.25January27,1997,p.3.
[7]TSN,March7,1997,pp.37.
[8]Rollo,p.45.
[9]Rollo,p.63.
[10]Rollo,pp.6870.
[11]Records,Vol.I,p.82,Vol.II,p.80.
[12]Records,Vol.I,p.15.
[13]Records,Vol.II,p.81.
[14]Records,p.4.
[15]Peoplev.Magdamit,279SCRA423,432[1997]citingPeoplev.Bautista,92SCRA465[1979]Peoplev.Tintero,111SCRA
714[1982]Estaciov.Sandiganbayan,183SCRA12[1990].
[16]TSN,March19,1996,pp.34.
[17]TSN,February27,1996,pp.56.
[18]Peoplev.Sabalones,294SCRA751,789[1998]citingPeoplev.Briones,202SCRA708[1991]Peoplev.Vacal,27SCRA24
[1969]Peoplev.Pueblas,127SCRA746[1984]Peoplev.delaCruz,147SCRA359[1987]andPeoplev.Aboga,147SCRA404
[1987].
[19] Bautista v. Court of Appeals, 288 SCRA171, 177 [1998] citing People v. Dinglasan, 267 SCRA 26 [1997] and People v.
Amania,248SCRA286[1995].
[20]Peoplev. Bersabe, 289 SCRA 685, 691692 [1998] citing People v. Adora, 275 SCRA 441 [1997] People v. Caballes, 274
SCRA83[1997]Peoplev.Alimon,257SCRA658[1996]andPeoplev.Castromero,280SCRA421[1997].
[21]Peoplev.Ebrada,296SCRA353,366[1998]citingpeoplev.Salison,Jr.,253SCRA758[1996].
[22]Peoplev.Ringor,Jr.,320SCRA342,356[1999]citingPeoplev.Valdez,304SCRA611[1999].

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/132325_26.htm

6/6