Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 178607
December 5, 2012
In its May 10, 2006 order,24 the RTC denied the petitioners
motion for reconsideration, finding that the petitioner
merely reiterated arguments in issues that had been finally
decided. The RTC ordered the motion expunged from the
records since the motion did not have the public
prosecutors conformity.
The Petition
The petitioner argues that he has a legal standing to assail
the dismissal of the criminal case since he is the private
complainant and a real party in interest who had been
directly damaged and prejudiced by the respondents illegal
acts; respondent Alamil has no legal standing to seek any
relief from the RTC since she is a fugitive from justice.
The Case for the Respondents
The Issue
The CA Ruling
In its November 23, 2006 resolution, 29 the CA dismissed
outright the petitioners Rule 65 petition for lack of legal
personality to file the petition on behalf of the People of the
Philippines. It noted that only the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) has the legal personality to represent the
People, under Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of
the 1987 Administrative Code. It also held that the
petitioner was not the real party in interest to institute the
case, him not being a victim of the crime charged to the
respondents, but a mere competitor in their recruitment
business. The CA denied30 the motion for
reconsideration31 that followed.
pp. 6-10, TSN, February 6, 2001; pp. 5-10, TSN, July 31,
2001; pp. 2-6, September 5, 2001).
After shooting the Sayson brothers, Eduardo and Edwin
escaped from the scene of the crime (p. 10, TSN, February
6, 2001).6
In turn, the appellants brief filed by the Public Attorneys
Office (PAO) rendered the version of the accused, to wit:
xxx [A]t about 10:00 oclock in the evening, Heidi dela Cruz
(a barbecue vendor) and Noel Valad-on (a tricycle driver)
saw accused Edwin Valdez alight from a bus. The latter
bought P100.00 worth of barbecue from Heidi then
proceeded towards home. He was walking along Corregidor
Street when Heidi saw Jun Sayson (Moises), then holding a
gun, block his (Edwins) way. Jun Sayson poked a gun at
accused Edwin, shouting, Putang-ina mo, papatayin kita.
The latter raised both his hands and said Wag kuya Jun,
maawa ka.
Accused Eduardo Valdez (a policeman), then carrying his 6year old child, was walking when his way was likewise
blocked but this time, by the siblings Joselito and Ferdinand
as well as their stepfather. Joselito twisted one of his
(Eduardos) hands at his back while his (Joseltios)
stepfather held the other. Ferdinand fired a gun but accused
Eduardo was able to evade. Joselito, who was positioned
behind Eduardo, was hit. He slumped and bled. He asked
Heidi to inform his family that he was hit. Heidi ran away.
She saw Jun (Moises) and accused Edwin grappling.
Thereafter, she heard gunshots.
Accused Eduardo ducked during the firing. He pretended to
be dead. Ferdinand stopped firing. Accused Eduardos son
approached him crying. Accused thereafter, brought his son
home, took his service firearm and on his way back to the
scene of the incident when he met General Jesus Almadin,
his commanding officer (CO). He reported the incident and
sought for advice. He was told to take a rest and go back on
(sic) the following day. He accompanied his CO to Camp
Crame. He surrendered his firearm to Sr./Insp. Rodolfo Araza
of the CIU. Accused Edwin Valdez likewise surrendered (TSN
dated 05 February 2003; pp. 3-9; 12 March 2003, pp. 2-16;
11 August 2003, pp. 2-18, 1 September 2003, pp. 3-10; 15
October 2003, pp. 2-8; 03 December 2003, pp. 2-4; 18
February 2004, pp. 2-9; 24 March 2004, pp. 3-9; 10 April
2004, pp. 2-7; 07 June 2004, pp. 2-25).7
The RTC convicted the two accused of three counts of
murder and sentenced them to suffer reclusion perpetuafor
each count of murder.8
On appeal, the CA affirmed the convictions. 9
Issues
In this appeal, PO2 Valdez assails the credibility of the
States witnesses by pointing to inconsistencies and
weaknesses in their testimonies; challenges the finding of
conspiracy between the accused; and contends that the
State did not establish the qualifying circumstance of
treachery.10
Ruling
The Court affirms the convictions, but holds PO2 Valdez
guilty only of three counts of homicide due to the failure of
the informations to allege the facts and circumstances
constituting treachery.
Estrella categorically stated that she saw the accusedappellants alight from their motorcycle on March 1, 2000.
She could not have been mistaken about the identity of the
accused-appellants for the simple reason that they are her
neighbors and that their (the accused-appellants) father is
her "cumpadre." When the incident happened, the accusedappellants were about eight (8) to ten (10) meters away
from where she and her son Moises were standing. She
also saw with her own eyes how her son Moises fell after
she heard successive bursts of gunshots (approximately [9]
shots) coming from where the accused-appellants were
standing.11
Considering that the CA thereby affirmed the trial courts
findings of fact, its calibration of the testimonies of
witnesses and its assessment of their probative weight, as
well as its conclusions, the Court accords high respect, if not
conclusive effect, to the CAs findings.12 The justification for
this is that trial court was in the best position to assess the
credibility of witnesses by virtue of its firsthand observation
of the demeanor, conduct and attitude of the witnesses
under grilling examination. The only time when a reviewing
court was not bound by the trial courts assessment of
credibility arises upon a showing of a fact or circumstance of
weight and influence that was overlooked and, if considered,
could affect the outcome of the case.13 No such fact or
circumstance has been brought to the Courts attention.
It is not trite to remind that a truth-telling witness is not
always expected to give an error-free testimony because of
the lapse of time and the treachery of human memory; and
that inaccuracies noted in testimony may even suggest that
the witness is telling the truth and has not been
rehearsed.14 To properly appreciate the worth of testimony,
therefore, the courts do not resort to the individual words or
phrases alone but seek out the whole impression or effect of
what has been said and done.15
10
11
12
SO ORDERED.
13
July 4, 2012
14
15
The OSP faults the petitioner for his attempt to mislead the
Court on the sufficiency of the allegations in the information,
by conveniently failing to cite the phrase "acting with
evident bad faith and manifest partiality" when the
petitioner quoted the "relevant" portions of the information
in his petition.
Citing Juan v. People,29 the OSP argues that while no actual
pre-suspension hearing was conducted, the events
preceding the issuance of the suspension order already
satisfied the purpose of conducting a pre-suspension
hearing i.e., basically, to determine the validity of the
information. Here, the petitioner was afforded his right to
preliminary investigation both by the Ombudsman and by
the OSP (when the petitioner moved for a reinvestigation
with the Sandiganbayan); the acts for which the petitioner
was charged constitute a violation of R.A. No. 3019 and Title
VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code; and the petitioner
already moved to quash the information, although
unsuccessfully, after he had been declared to have waived
his right to submit countervailing evidence in the
reinvestigation by the OSP.30
ISSUES
There are only two issues presented for our resolution:
1. Whether the information, charging the petitioner
with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, is
valid; and
2. If it is valid, whether the absence of an actual presuspension hearing renders invalid the suspension
order against the petitioner.
THE COURTS RULING
16
17
18
19
20
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This case involves a fathers detestable act of abusing his
daughter through rape by sexual assault.
Factual Antecedents
Accused-appellant Benjamin Soria y Gomez (appellant)
seeks a review of the December 29, 2006 Decision1 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01442 which
affirmed with modification the June 30, 2005 Judgment 2 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 94, in
Criminal Case No. Q-01-98692. Said RTC Judgment found
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
rape committed against his daughter "AAA",3 as described in
an Information,4 the relevant portion of which reads:
That on or about the 26th day of February, 2000, in Quezon
City, Philippines, the said accused, who is the father of
private complainant "AAA", did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously with force and intimidation
commit an act of sexual assault upon the person of one
21
22
SO ORDERED.12
Our Ruling
Assignment of Errors
Appellant adopts the same assignment of errors he raised
before the appellate court, viz:
I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF RAPE DESPITE
THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO OVERTHROW
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
X X X.
II. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED IS
GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED, THE TRIAL COURT
23
24
intercourse.
25
xxxx
A - Yes, sir.
A - Yes, sir.
Q - Who?
Q - In what part of your body did you feel pain?
A - "BBB".
A - I felt pain in my breast and my stomach.
Q - What about your private part?
A - Yes, sir.
xxxx
A - Yes, sir.
26
27
A - Possible, sir.26
According to Dr. Supe, it is possible that "AAAs" hyperemic
hymen may be the result of the insertion of a finger or
object. While Dr. Supe said that the injury could also be
attributed to scratching, "AAAs" testimony is bereft of any
showing that she scratched her genital organ thus causing
the reddening. Appellant would also want to make it appear
that the injury of "AAA" was the result of friction from
playing or riding a bicycle since the doctor testified that this
was also possible. However, there is likewise no evidence
that friction was applied on "AAAs" female organ when she
played hide and seek with her playmates or that she
actually rode a bicycle. On the other hand, "AAA" was
categorical in stating that in the afternoon of February 26,
2000, appellant removed her clothes, laid on top of her, and
that she felt something being inserted into her vagina and
that thereafter she experienced pain in her genitals. The
foregoing thus proved that appellant inserted an object into
"AAAs" vagina against her will and without consent. Simply
put, appellant committed the crime of rape by sexual
assault.
The following are the elements of rape by sexual assault:
(1) That the offender commits an act of sexual
assault;
(2) That the act of sexual assault is committed by
any of the following means:
(a) By inserting his penis into another
persons mouth or anal orifice; or
28
29
ranges from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12)
years. Hence, a penalty of twelve (12) years of prison
mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion
temporal, as maximum, is imposed upon appellant.
Damages
In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the awards of
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral
damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages are each
modified to P30,000.00.41 "AAA" is also entitled to an
interest on all the amounts of damages awarded at the legal
rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this
judgment until fully paid.42
WHEREFORE, the December 29, 2006 Decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01442 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellant Benjamin Soria y Gomez
is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape
by sexual assault and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
twelve (12) years of prison mayor, as minimum, to twenty
(20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is also
ordered to pay "AAA" the amounts of P30,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00
as exemplary damages. "AAA" is entitled to an interest on
all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% per annum
from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
30
31
32
The Petition
The petitioners pray that we reverse the RTC-Makati City
decision and quash the Information for perjury against
Tomas. The petitioners contend that the Ilusorio ruling is
more applicable to the present facts than our ruling in Sy
Tiong Shiou v. Sy Chim.11 They argued that the facts in
Ilusorio showed that the filing of the petitions in court
containing the false statements was the essential ingredient
that consummated the perjury. In Sy Tiong, the perjurious
statements were made in a General Information Sheet (GIS)
that was submitted to the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC).
Interestingly, Solicitor General Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz shared
the petitioners view. In his Manifestation and Motion in lieu
of Comment (which we hereby treat as the Comment to the
petition), the Solicitor General also relied on Ilusorio and
opined that the lis mota in the crime of perjury is the
deliberate or intentional giving of false evidence in the court
where the evidence is material. The Solicitor General
observed that the criminal intent to assert a falsehood
under oath only became manifest before the MeTC-Pasay
City.
The Issue
The case presents to us the issue of what the proper venue
of perjury under Article 183 of the RPC should be Makati
City, where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was
notarized, or Pasay City, where the Certification was
presented to the trial court.
The Courts Ruling
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Contrary to law.14
The case was initially filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Manila, but was transferred to the RTC pursuant to Section 5
of Republic Act No. 8369 (The Family Courts Act of
1997),15 where it was docketed as Criminal Case No. 01190889.
Judgment of the RTC
On July 19, 2004, the RTC rendered its judgment finding Dr.
Solidum guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless
imprudence resulting to serious physical
injuries,16 decreeing:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused
DR. FERNANDO P. SOLIDUM GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt as principal of the crime charged and is hereby
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of TWO (2)
MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of arresto mayor as minimum to
ONE (1) YEAR, ONE (1) MONTH and TEN (10) DAYS of prision
correccional as maximum and to indemnify, jointly and
severally with the Ospital ng Maynila, Dr. Anita So and Dr.
Marichu Abella, private complainant Luz Gercayo, the
amount of P500,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00
as exemplary damages and to pay the costs.
Accordingly, the bond posted by the accused for his
provisional liberty is hereby CANCELLED.
SO ORDERED.17
41
could turn into a significant risk. There was not a hint that
the nature of the operation itself was a causative factor in
the events that finally led to hypoxia.
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
xxxx
In litigations involving medical negligence, the plaintiff has
the burden of establishing appellant's negligence and for a
reasonable conclusion of negligence, there must be proof of
breach of duty on the part of the surgeon as well as a causal
connection of such breach and the resulting death of his
patient. In Chan Lugay v. St Luke's Hospital, Inc., where the
attending physician was absolved of liability for the death of
the complainants wife and newborn baby, this Court held
that:
"In order that there may be a recovery for an injury,
however, it must be shown that the injury for which
recovery is sought must be the legitimate consequence of
the wrong done; the connection between the negligence and
the injury must be a direct and natural sequence of events,
unbroken by intervening efficient causes. In other words,
the negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury.
For, negligence, no matter in what it consists, cannot create
a right of action unless it is the proximate cause of the injury
complained of. And the proximate cause of an injury is that
cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken
by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and
without which the result would not have occurred."
49
50
(sic).
xxxx
Q 100%?
A 100% based on the records.
51
xxxx
ATTY. COMIA Doctor tell this Honorable Court where is that
100, 1-0-0 and if there is, you just call me and even the
attention of the Presiding Judge of this Court. Okay, you read
one by one.
52
53
SO ORDERED.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 175256
Lily Lims (Lim) Petition for Review1 assails the October 20,
2005 Resolution2 of the Second Division in CA-G.R. CV No.
85138, which ruled on the above issue in the affirmative:
Due to the filing of the said civil complaint (Civil Case No.
5112396), Charlie Co filed the instant motion to dismiss [Lily
Lims] appeal, alleging that in filing said civil case, Lily Lim
violated the rule against forum shopping as the elements
of litis pendentia are present.
xxxx
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the appeal is
DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.4
PERLAS-BERNABE,**
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Is it forum shopping for a private complainant to pursue a
civil complaint for specific performance and damages, while
appealing the judgment on the civil aspect of a criminal
case for estafa?
62
Factual Antecedents
63
SO ORDERED.18
Lim sought a reconsideration of the above Order, arguing
that she has presented preponderant evidence that Co
committed estafa against her.19
xxxx
In view of the absence of the essential requisites of the
crime of estafa for which the accused is being charged and
prosecuted, as above discussed, the Court has no
alternative but to dismiss the case against the accused for
insufficiency of evidence.15
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Demurrer to
Evidence is GRANTED, and the accused is
hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of estafa charged against
him under the present information for insufficiency of
evidence.
Insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned,
however, set this case for the reception of his evidence on
the matter on December 11, 2003 at 8:30 oclock [sic] in the
morning.
SO ORDERED.16
After the trial on the civil aspect of the criminal case, the
Pasig City RTC also relieved Co of civil liability to Lim in its
December 1, 2004 Order.17 The dispositive portion of the
Order reads as follows:
ALLEGATIONS COMMON
TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
xxxx
23. Charlie Co obligated himself to deliver to Lily Lim 50,000
bags of cement of P 64.00 per bag on an x-plant basis within
64
65
Lim filed the instant petition for review, which was docketed
as G.R. No. 175256.
Ruling of the Manila Regional Trial Court in Civil Case
No. 05-112396
Meanwhile, the Manila RTC denied Cos Motion to Dismiss in
an Order31 dated December 6, 2005. The Manila RTC held
that there was no forum shopping because the causes of
action invoked in the two cases are different. It observed
that the civil complaint before it is based on an obligation
arising from contract and quasi-delict, whereas the civil
liability involved in the appeal of the criminal case arose
from a felony.
Co filed a petition for certiorari,32 docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
93395, before the appellate court. He prayed for the
nullification of the Manila RTCs Order in Civil Case No. 05112396 for having been issued with grave abuse of
discretion.33
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
More than half a century has passed since the Civil Code
introduced the concept of a civil action separate and
independent from the criminal action although arising from
the same act or omission. The Court, however, has yet to
encounter a case of conflicting and irreconcilable decisions
of trial courts, one hearing the criminal case and the other
the civil action for quasi-delict. The fear of conflicting and
irreconcilable decisions may be more apparent than real. In
any event, there are sufficient remedies under the Rules of
Court to deal with such remote possibilities.
78
79
PARDO, J
On the same day, the city fiscal filed with the same court
another information against the two (2) accused for violation
of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, arising from the issuance of
the same check. 4
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
The case was raffled to the MeTC of Quezon City, Branch 43,
where it was docketed as Criminal Case No. 90721 entitled,
"People of the Philippines v. Francisco Magestrado."
On 30 June 1999, petitioner filed a motion5 for suspension of
proceedings based on a prejudicial question. Petitioner
alleged that Civil Case No. Q-98-34349, a case for recovery
of a sum of money pending before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 84, and Civil Case No. Q-9834308, a case for Cancellation of Mortgage, Delivery of Title
and Damages, pending before the RTC of Quezon City,
Branch 77, must be resolved first before Criminal Case No.
90721 may proceed since the issues in the said civil cases
are similar or intimately related to the issues raised in the
criminal action.
On 14 July 1999, MeTC-Branch 43 issued an Order6 denying
petitioners motion for suspension of proceedings, thus:
Acting on the "Motion for Suspension of Proceedings" filed
by the [herein petitioner Magestrado], thru counsel, and the
"Comment and Opposition thereto, the Court after an
evaluation of the same, finds the aforesaid motion without
merit, hence, is hereby DENIED, it appearing that the
resolution of the issues raised in the civil actions is not
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Hence, the trial of this case shall proceed as previously
scheduled on July 19 and August 2, 1993 at 8:30 in the
morning.
On 17 August 1999, a motion7 for reconsideration was filed
by petitioner but was denied by the MeTC in an Order 8 dated
19 October 1999.
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
SO ORDERED.4
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. In its 22 August
2005 Order,5 the RTC Quezon City denied the motion.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with application for a
writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining
order before the Court of Appeals, assailing the 13 May 2005
and 22 August 2005 Orders of the RTC Quezon City.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals
In its 20 March 2006 Decision, the Court of Appeals
dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals ruled that in
the criminal case for frustrated parricide, the issue is
whether the offender commenced the commission of the
crime of parricide directly by overt acts and did not perform
all the acts of execution by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. On the
other hand, the issue in the civil action for annulment of
marriage is whether petitioner is psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations. The Court of Appeals ruled that even if the
marriage between petitioner and respondent would be
declared void, it would be immaterial to the criminal case
because prior to the declaration of nullity, the alleged acts
constituting the crime of frustrated parricide had already
been committed. The Court of Appeals ruled that all that is
required for the charge of frustrated parricide is that at the
time of the commission of the crime, the marriage is still
subsisting.
Petitioner filed a petition for review before this Court
assailing the Court of Appeals decision.
The Issue
95
The rule is clear that the civil action must be instituted first
before the filing of the criminal action. In this case, the
Information7 for Frustrated Parricide was dated 30 August
2004. It was raffled to RTC Quezon City on 25 October 2004
as per the stamped date of receipt on the Information. The
RTC Quezon City set Criminal Case No. Q-04-130415 for pretrial and trial on 14 February 2005. Petitioner was served
summons in Civil Case No. 04-7392 on 7 February
2005.8 Respondents petition9 in Civil Case No. 04-7392 was
dated 4 November 2004 and was filed on 5 November 2004.
Clearly, the civil case for annulment was filed after the filing
of the criminal case for frustrated parricide. As such, the
requirement of Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on
Criminal Procedure was not met since the civil action was
filed subsequent to the filing of the criminal action.
Annulment of Marriage is not a Prejudicial Question
in Criminal Case for Parricide
Further, the resolution of the civil action is not a prejudicial
question that would warrant the suspension of the criminal
action.
There is a prejudicial question when a civil action and a
criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the civil
action an issue which must be preemptively resolved before
the criminal action may proceed because howsoever the
issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the
criminal case.10 A prejudicial question is defined as:
x x x one that arises in a case the resolution of which is a
logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the
cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It is a
question based on a fact distinct and separate from the
crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines
96
97
30, 2012 and its Resolution2 dated July 15, 2013 in CA-G.R.
SP No. 108617. Said rulings nullified the Orders authorizing
the issuance of the assailed warrants of arrest against
respondents for allegedly having been issued in grave abuse
of discretion.
The Facts
During the annual stockholders meeting of petitioner JM
Dominguez Agronomic Company, Inc. (JMD) held on
December 29, 2007 at the Baguio City Country Club, the
election for its new set of directors was conducted. This
event was presided by then company president, and herein
respondent, Cecilia Liclican (Liclican), and attended by her
co-respondents Norma Isip (Isip) and Purita Rodriguez, and
by petitioners Helen Dagdagan (Dagdagan), Patrick Pacis,
Kenneth Pacis, and Shirley Dominguez (Dominguez) as well.
Conflict ensued when petitioners Patrick and Kenneth Pacis
were allegedly not allowed to vote on the ground that they
are not registered stockholders of JMD. As pointed out, it
was their mother and grandmother, both deceased, who are
the stockholders in JMD, and that there is still no settlement
of their respective estates to effectively transfer their shares
in the company to Patrick and Kenneth Pacis.3
Officers:
98
99
provide the Court with a local address for the said accused if
she may be found in the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.
Consequently, the corresponding warrants were issued for
the arrests of Isip and Liclican.16 In due time, respondents
lodged a petition for certiorari with the CA, docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 108617, to annul and set aside the two (2)
March I 0, 2009 Orders by the RTC Branch 7, anchored,
among others, on the alleged existence of a prejudicial
question. According to respondents, petitioner stockholders,
by filing the complaint-affidavit, are already assuming that
they are the legitimate directors of JMD, which is the very
issue in the intra-corporate dispute pending in the RTC,
Branch 59.
100
101
102
103