11/5/2016

G.R. No. 177742

ENBANC

PEOPLEOFTHE
PHILIPPINES,
PlaintiffAppellee,

versus

JOSELITOA.LOPIT,
AccusedAppellant.

G.R.No.177742

Present:
PUNO,C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARESSANTIAGO,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
CORONA*,

CARPIOMORALES,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICONAZARIO,
VELASCO,JR.,
NACHURA,
REYES
LEONARDODE
CASTRO,
andBRION,JJ.

Promulgated:

December17,2008
xx

DECISION

LEONARDODECASTRO,J.:

[1]
BeforeusonautomaticreviewistheDecision oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)datedJune
[2]
30,2006inCAG.R.CRH.C.No.01896whichaffirmed,withmodifications,thedecision of
theRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofBulanao,Tabuk,Kalinga,Branch25,inCriminalCaseNo.
852003, finding herein accusedappellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
QualifiedRapecommittedagainsthisowndaughterandsentencinghimtosuffertheextreme
penaltyofdeath.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm

1/13

11/5/2016

G.R. No. 177742

[3]
ConsistentwithPeoplev.Cabalquinto, theCourtwithholdstherealnameoftherape
victim. Instead, fictitious initials of AAA are used to represent her. Also, the personal
circumstances of the victim or any other information tending to establish or compromise her
identity,aswellasthoseofherimmediatefamilyorhouseholdmembers,isnotdisclosedinthis
[4]
decision. Inthisregard,themotherisreferredtoasBBB.

[5]
In three (3) separate Informations dated September 15, 2003, accusedappellant was
chargedwiththree(3)countsofrapecommittedagainsthisown14yearolddaughterAAAon
September 5, 7, and 9, 2003. Except for the dates of the commission of the crime, the
Informationswereidenticallyworded,thus:

CRIM.CASENO.852003
Theundersignedaccuses[accusedappellant],adetentionprisoneratthePNPofTabuk,of
the crime of RAPE, defined and penalized under Republic Act Numbered 8353, committed as
follows:

That on or about September 5, 2003 at San Julian, Tabuk, Kalinga, and within the
jurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theaccused,throughforce,threatandintimidation,didthen
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of her daughter [AAA],
whoisaminor,fourteen(14)yearsofage,againstherwill.

[6]
CONTRARYTOLAW.

OnNovember4,2003, accusedappellant, duly assisted by Atty. Marcelino K. Wacas of

thePublicAttorneysOffice(PAO),enteredapleaofnotguiltyinCriminalCaseNos.852003,
[7]
862003and872003.

On November 10, 2003, the PAO lawyer verbally moved to be relieved as counsel for
accusedappellant and with the latters concurrence, the motion was granted. In his stead, Atty.
DanielDapegoftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippinesLegalAidPilotProjectwasappointedas
[8]
accusedappellantscounseldeoficio.

During the pretrial conference held on November 12, 2003, accusedappellant, assisted
by counsel, manifested his desire to pleabargain. In open court, he expressed willingness to
pleadguiltyinCriminalCaseNo.852003,ontheconditionthattheInformationsinCriminal
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm

2/13

11/5/2016

G.R. No. 177742

CaseNos.862003and872003bewithdrawn.VictimAAA,assistedbyhermotherBBBand
[9]
theprovincialprosecutor,expressedherconformitythereto.

Thus,accusedappellantenteredanewpleaofguiltytothecrimeofrapeinCriminalCase
[10]
No.852003.
Thiswasdonewiththeassistanceofcounseldeoficioandafterthetrialcourt
conductedsearchinginquiryintothevoluntarinessandfullcomprehensionoftheconsequences
oftheaccusedappellantsplea.

Thereafter, the trial court commenced with the reception of evidence to prove accused
appellantsguiltanddegreeofculpability.

The prosecution presented the victim AAA and her mother BBB as witnesses, while
accusedappellanttestifiedonhisowndefense.

Aftertrial,thecourtaquo rendered its Decision on November 28, 2003 imposing upon

theaccusedappellantthesupremepenaltyofdeaththus:

Accordingly, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubtofthecrimeofrapeattendantthequalifyingandaggravatingcircumstancesofminorityand
relationship, victim [AAA] being 15 years old and daughter of [accusedappellant] and hereby
sentences the said accused the supreme penalty of death and to indemnify minor victim
P75,000.00, by way of civil indemnity, moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00 and
P50,000.00bywayofexemplarydamages,pluscost.

TransmittherecordofthecasetotheOfficeoftheClerkofCourt,SupremeCourtofthe
Philippinesforreview.

[11]
SOORDERED.

TherecordsofthesecaseswereforwardedtothisCourtforautomaticreview,inviewof
thedeathpenaltyimposed.

[12]
InourResolution
ofAugust10,2004,WeacceptedtheappealanddirectedtheChief,
Judicial Records Office, to send notices to the parties to file their respective briefs and to the
Director of the Bureau of Corrections, to confirm the detention of the accused at the National
[13]
Penitentiary. Accusedappellant filed his Appellant's Brief
on April 11, 2005, while the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm

3/13

11/5/2016

G.R. No. 177742

[14]
People,throughtheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG),fileditsAppellee'sBrief
onMay
31,2005.

[15]
ConformablywiththisCourtsdecisioninPeoplev.Mateo,
accusedappellantsappeal
bywayofautomaticreviewwastransferredtotheCAwhereitwasdocketedas CAG.R. CR
H.C.No.01896.

The prosecution, through the testimonies of the victim (AAA) and witness (BBB), the
victimsmother,establishedthefollowingfacts:

[AAA],thenfourteen(14)yearsoldhavingbeenbornonOctober2,1988,isthedaughter
ofthe[accusedappellant]andBBB,abarangaymidwifetheyweremarriedonMay10,1986.On
September5,2003 at around 2:00 in the afternoon, [AAA], a third year high school student at
TabukNationalHighSchoolwasintheirhousetogetherwithhermentallyretardedsisterCCC.
Atthattime,theirmother[BBB]wasinSanJulianElementarySchool.Suddenly[AAA]sfather
[accusedappellant],afarmer,arriveddrunkandforcedthevictimtohavesexualintercoursewith
him.Shestruggledbuthereffortswereinvainsince[accusedappellant]wasstrong. [Accused
appellant]removedhispantsandpinnedthevictimonthebed,pulleddownherpantsandinserted
hispenisintohervagina.[AAA]cried.Afterdoingthebestialact,[accusedappellant]leftbutnot
before threatening [AAA] that he would kill her, her mother and siblings if she reported the
matter. As further testified by the victim, she had been sleeping with her father on the cement
flooroftheirunfinishedhouseforsometimeandthatherfatherstartedstayingwiththemonlyin
2002sincehehadbeenstayinginLagunaasasoldierinthePhilippineArmy.

Terrifiedanddisgustedbywhathappenedtoher,thevictimlefthomeonSeptember 10,
2003.ShestayedinthehouseofRitaCarbonelinSanFrancisco,Tabuk,Kalinga.OnSeptember
11,2003, [BBB] came looking for her and it was only then that the victim revealed the sexual
assaultscommittedbyherfather.Withoutdelay,[BBB]accompaniedherdaughtertothepolice
headquarterswherethevictimsstatementwastaken.
[BBB] testified that she and [accusedappellant] were married on May 10, 1986 at
Calanasan,Cagayan.Althoughshedidnotpresentanydocumenttoprovesuchassertionnordid
she expressly and categorically state that [accusedappellant] was the victims father, the victim
repeatedly referred to [accusedappellant] as her father all throughout her testimony. Their
relationshipwasneverrefutedbythe[accusedappellant]whoinfactadmittedinopencourtthat
[AAA]wasoneofhisdaughters.

On the other hand, accusedappellant testified on his own version of the events which
transpiredonSeptember5,2003:

Forhispart,[accusedappellant]testifiedthatonSeptember5,2003,hecamehomedrunk
andfellasleepnakedonthecementedfloorthathewasawakenedwhensomeoneplacedamat
and a blanket for him. He thought that his daughter was his wife, so he had sex with her.
[Accusedappellant]manifestedremorseanddeclaredthathepleadedguiltyashehadnomoney
tofighthiscasealsotosecureareductionofthepenaltythatwillbeimposedonhim.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm

4/13

11/5/2016

G.R. No. 177742

OnJune30,2006,theCApromulgatedthehereinchallengeddecisionaffirminginmost
partthedecisionofthetrialcourtwithmodificationonlyintheamountoftheawardofmoral
andexemplarydamages.Pertinently,theCAdecisionreadsinpart:

With respect to the civil aspect of the crimes, We sustain the award of civil indemnity in the
amountofP75,000.00sincerapewascommittedinitsqualifiedform.However, the trial courts
award of P100,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages must be
modified. In line with existing jurisprudence, the award of moral damages should be in the
amountofP75,000.00,withoutneedoffurtherproof.Likewise,exemplarydamagesisreducedto
P25,000.00inlinewithexistingjurisprudence.

Afinalnote:Notwithstandingcurrentmovesfortheabolitionofthedeathpenalty,nolegislation
orruleshaveyetbeenpromulgatedrelativetheretoasofthetimeofthewritingofhisDecision,
henceWeareconstrainedtoaffirmthepenaltyimposedbythecourtaquowhichWefindtobe
conformabletothefactsandexistinglaw.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with

MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages is reduced to P75,000.00 and exemplary
damagestoP25,000.00oratotal ofP175,000.00.Let the record of this case be elevated to the
HonorableSupremeCourtforreviewpursuanttoRule124,Section13oftheRevisedRuleson
CriminalProcedureasamendedbyA.M.No.00503SC.

SOORDERED.

OnApril23,2007,theCAforwardedtherecordsofthecasetothisCourtforautomaticreview.
[16]

[17]
In the Resolution
dated June 26, 2007, We required the parties to simultaneously
submit their respective supplemental briefs. However, the parties filed separate manifestations
stating that they were waiving the filing of supplemental briefs and instead opted to stand by
theirrespectivebriefsfiledwiththeCA.

InhisBrief,accusedappellantallegedthatthetrialcourtgravelyerredinimposingonhimthe
supremepenaltyofdeath.

Before delving into the main issue of the case, it is necessary to determine whether the
trial court has satisfied the requirement as mandated by Rule 116 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure,whichprovides:

SEC.3.Pleaofguiltytocapitaloffensereceptionofevidence.Whentheaccusedpleads
guiltytoacapitaloffense,thecourtshallconductasearchinginquiryintothevoluntarinessand
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm

5/13

11/5/2016

G.R. No. 177742

fullcomprehensionoftheconsequencesofhispleaandrequiretheprosecutiontoprovehisguilt
andtheprecisedegreeofculpability.Theaccusedmayalsopresentevidenceonhisbehalf.

Explicitly,whentheaccusedpleadsguiltytoacapitaloffense,thecourtshallconducta
searchinginquiryintothevoluntarinessandfullcomprehensionoftheconsequencesofhisplea
and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of his culpability. The
accused may also present evidence on his behalf. Under the foregoing Rule, three things are
enjoineduponthetrialcourtwhenapleaofguiltytoacapitaloffenseisentered:(1)thecourt
must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness of the plea and the accused's full
comprehensionoftheconsequencesthereof(2)thecourtmustrequiretheprosecutiontopresent
evidencetoprovetheguiltoftheaccusedandtheprecisedegreeofhisculpabilityand(3)the
courtmustasktheaccusedifhedesirestopresentevidenceonhisbehalfandallowhimtodoso
[18]
ifhedesires.

[19]
WeexplainedtherationaleoftheruleinPeoplev.Albert,
thus:

The rationale behind the rule is that courts must proceed with more care where the
possible punishment is in its severest formdeathfor the reason that the execution of such a
sentence is irrevocable and experience has shown that innocent persons have at times pleaded
guilty. The primordial purpose then is to avoid improvident pleas of guilt on the part of an
accusedwhengravecrimesareinvolvedsincehemightbeadmittinghisguiltbeforethecourtand
thus forfeit his life and liberty without having fully understood the meaning, significance and
consequences of his plea. Moreover, the requirement of taking further evidence would aid the
SupremeCourtonappellatereviewindeterminingtheproprietyorimproprietyoftheplea.

Itisnotenoughtoinquireastothevoluntarinessofthepleathecourtmustexplainfully
totheaccusedthatonceconvicted,hecouldbemetedthedeathpenaltythatdeathisasingle
andindivisiblepenaltyandwillbeimposedregardlessofanymitigatingcircumstancethatmay
haveattendedthecommissionofthefelony.Thus,theimportanceofthecourtsobligationcannot
beoveremphasized,foronecannotdispelthepossibilitythattheaccusedmayhavebeenledto
[20]
believethatduetohisvoluntarypleaofguilty,hemaybeimposedalesserpenalty,
which
waspreciselywhathappenedhere.

The trial court proffered the following questions to accusedappellant to determine the
[21]
voluntarinessandfullcomprehensionofhischangeofpleafromnotguiltytoguilty,thus:

COURT
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm

6/13

11/5/2016

G.R. No. 177742

Q Mr. Lopit y Abulao you have been arraigned yesterday with the Information for Rape in
Criminal Case No. 852003, did you confer with your newly designated counsel deoficio
regardingyourplea?

WITNESS

AYes,YourHonor.
QAfterhavingbeenconfer(sic)withhimthatyouenteredapleaofguiltyfortheInformationof
Rapeyouvoluntarydone(sic)ofyourownperception?
AYes,YourHonor.

QWillyoutellusthereasonwhyyouhavepleadedguiltytotheoffense?
AIhavenomoneytofightmycase,YourHonor.

QIs that the reason why you have admitted or because you are repenting for the intention you
havecommitted?
AThatistheonlyreason,YourHonor.

QAreyoutellingusthatyoudidnotrapeyourdaughter?
ANo,YourHonor.

QIfyoudidnotrapeyourdaughter,whydidyoupleadguilty?
AAtty.Wagastoldmetoadmitonecaseinordertoreducethepenalty,YourHonor.

QInfacttherearethree(3)CriminalCasesforRapeallottedagainstyouinvolvingyourdaughter,
isthatcorrect?
AYes,YourHonor.

QDidyoubelievethatbeneficialtoyoutoadmitone?
AYes,YourHonor.

QAndthatisthereasonyoupleadedguilty?
AYes,YourHonor.

QIsitnotthereforethelackofmoneythattofightacaseandpromptedyoutopleaofguilty?
AYes,bothYourHonor.

QSoitisthereason?
[22]
AYesYourHonor.

Clearly, Section 3, Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure was not
satisfactorilycompliedwith.Thetrialcourtshouldhavetakenthenecessarymeasurestoseetoit
that accusedappellant really and freely comprehended the meaning, full significance and
consequencesofhispleabutitdidnot.Itfailedtoexplaintoaccusedappellantthatthepenalty
imposable for the crime attended by the qualifying circumstance of minority and filiation, as
allegedintheInformationagainsthim,isdeath,whetherornothepleadsguiltyandregardlessof
thepresenceofothermitigatingcircumstances.Accusedappellants justification that he had no
moneytodefendhiscaseandhisbeliefthatthepenaltywouldbereducedifhepleadedguilty
werenotsufficientreasonsforthetrialcourttoallowachangeofpleafromnotguiltytooneof
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm

7/13

11/5/2016

G.R. No. 177742

guilty.Itwasthedutyofthejudgetoseetoitthattheaccuseddidnotlaborunderthismistaken
impression.

Still, the trial courts shortcomings will not necessarily result in accusedappellants
acquittal.Theevidencefortheprosecution,independentlyofaccusedappellantspleaofguilty,
adequately established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt as charged in the Informations. The
testimonyofthevictimAAAisworthyofbeliefandenoughtoconvictaccusedappellant.She
testifiedinacandid,straightforwardandcategoricalmanner.Shenarratedinopencourtthaton
September5,2003,shewasravishedbyherownfather.Sherecalledthus:

My mother went to San Juan Elementary School at 2: oclock he was forcing me but I
refused.HewasstrongandIkickedhimandheputmypantsdownandthenhetookadvantageof
[23]
me.

AAArecountedhowaccusedappellantwasabletoinserthisprivateorganintohersinthe
midst of her tears and in full view of her mentally challenged sister who was unfortunately
[24]
obliviousoftheirfathersdastardlyact.
Aftersatisfyinghisbestialinstinct,accusedappellant
lefthisdaughterAAAwithathreat:Noagipulongka,patayenkayoamin.(Ifyouwillreport,I
[25]
willkillyouall).
Thus,accusedappellantspleaofguiltyeffectivelycorroboratedandsubstantiatedvictim
AAAsallegationthataccusedappellantindeedrapedher.

In his Brief, accusedappellant does not question his conviction for raping his own
daughter. He only assails the imposition of the death penalty by the CA. Accusedappellant
contendsthatwhiletheInformationallegedthequalifyingcircumstancesofbothhisrelationship
tothevictimandthelattersminority,theprosecutionfailedtoprovebeyondreasonabledoubt
these qualifying circumstances. The People through the OSG, while maintaining that accused
appellantsguilthasbeenprovenbeyondreasonabledoubt,agreesthataccusedappellantshould
onlybeconvictedofsimplerape,asthequalifyingcircumstancesofthevictimsminorityandher
filiationwithaccusedappellantwerenotprovenbeyondreasonabledoubt.

Weagree.

Article266oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamendedbyRA7659andfurtheramendedby
RA8353,provides:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm

8/13

11/5/2016

G.R. No. 177742

Art.266A.Rape.Whenandhowcommitted.Rapeiscommitted

1.) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:

a)Throughforce,threat,orintimidation
Art.266B.Penalties.Rapeunderparagraph1ofthenextprecedingarticleshallbepunishedby
reclusionperpetua.

xxxxxxxxx

Thedeathpenaltyshallalsobeimposedifthecrimeofrapeiscommittedwithanyofthe
followingaggravating/qualifyingcircumstances:

1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent,
ascendant,stepparent,guardian,relativebyconsanguinityoraffinitywithinthethirdcivildegree,
orthecommonlawspouseoftheparentofthevictim

In the prosecution of criminal cases, especially those involving the extreme penalty of
death,nothingbutproofbeyondreasonabledoubtofeveryfactnecessarytoconstitutethecrime
with which an accused is charged must be established. Qualifying circumstances or special
qualifyingcircumstancesmustbeprovedwithequalcertaintyandclearnessasthecrimeitself
otherwise, there can be no conviction of the crime in its qualified form. As a qualifying
circumstanceofthecrimeofrape,theconcurrenceofthevictimsminorityandherrelationship
[26]
totheaccusedappellantmustbebothallegedandprovenbeyondreasonabledoubt.

Here,theInformationallegedtheconcurrenceofthevictimsminorityandherrelationship
toaccusedappellant.However,exceptforthebaretestimonyofthevictimandhermotherasto
theformersageaswellastheirfiliationtotheaccusedappellant,nobirthcertificateorbaptismal
certificate or school record and marriage contract exist on record to prove beyond reasonable
doubtthevictimsageorherminorityatthetimeofthecommissionoftheoffense.InPeoplev.
[27]
Tabanggay,
weheld:

Jurisprudencedictatesthatwhenthelawspecifiescertaincircumstancesthatwillqualify
an offense and thus attach to it a greater degree of penalty, such circumstances must be both
allegedandproveninordertojustifytheimpositionofthegraverpenalty.Recentrulingsofthe
Courtrelativetotherapeofminorsinvariablystatethatinordertojustifytheimpositionofdeath,
theremustbeindependentevidenceprovingtheageofthevictim,otherthanthetestimoniesof
prosecutionwitnessesandtheabsenceofdenialbytheaccused.Adulycertifiedcertificateoflive
birthaccuratelyshowingthecomplainant'sage,orsomeotherofficialdocumentorrecordsuchas
aschoolrecord,hasbeenrecognizedascompetentevidence.
In the instant case, we find insufficient the bare testimony of private complainants and
theirmotherastotheiragesaswellastheirkinshiptotheappellant.xxx[We]cannotagreewith
thesolicitorgeneralthatappellantsadmissionofhisrelationshipwithhisvictimswouldsuffice.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm

9/13

11/5/2016

G.R. No. 177742

Elementaryisthedoctrinethattheprosecutionbearstheburdenofprovingalltheelementsofa
crime,includingthequalifyingcircumstances.Insum,thedeathpenaltycannotbeimposed.

There is no showing that the victims birth certificate and accusedappellants marriage
contractwerelostordestroyedorwereunavailablewithouttheprosecutionsfault.Therefore,the
prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged special qualifying
circumstance of minority attended the commission of the crime of rape. Hence, accused
appellant should be convicted only of simple rape. Simple rape is punishable by a single
indivisiblepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.Article63oftheRevisedPenalCodeprovidesthatin
allcasesinwhichthelawprescribesasingleindivisiblepenalty,itshallbeappliedbythecourts
regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the
commissionofthedeed.

Accordingly, the imposed indemnity and moral damages should be reduced to

[28]
(P50,000.00)pursuanttoourrulinginPeoplev.Gonzales,
thatuponafindingofthefactof
rape,theawardofcivilindemnityexdelictoismandatory.Ifthedeathpenaltyisimposed,the
indemnityshouldbeP75,000.00otherwise,thevictimisentitledtoP50,000.00. An additional
P50,000.00shouldbeawardedasmoraldamages.Moraldamagesareautomaticallygrantedin
rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is
assumedthatarapevictimhasactuallysufferedmoralinjuriesentitlinghertosuchanaward.

Finally, the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is in order.

Exemplarydamagesmaybeawardedincriminalcasesaspartofcivilliabilityifthecrimewas
committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Relationship as an alternative
circumstanceunderArticle15oftheRevisedPenalCodeisconsideredaggravatinginthecrime
ofrape.Inthiscase,victimAAAwasrapedbyherownfather.Accusedappellantadmittedthe
allegation of such relationship in his direct testimony. Hence, complainant is entitled to the
awardofexemplarydamagesintheamountofP25,000.00inordertodeterfatherswithperverse
[29]
tendenciesandaberrantsexualbehaviorfrompreyingupontheiryoungdaughters.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated June 30, 2006 of the CA is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION in that accusedappellant is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
SIMPLE RAPE and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm

10/13

11/5/2016

G.R. No. 177742

victimAAA,indemnityexdelictoofP50,000.00,moraldamagesofP50,000.00andexemplary
damagesofP25,000.00.Nopronouncementastocosts.

SOORDERED.

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJustice

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice

(OnOfficialLeave)

RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice

DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice

ADOLFOS.AZCUNA
AssociateJustice

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm

11/13

11/5/2016

G.R. No. 177742

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice

RUBENT.REYES
AssociateJustice

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the
abovedecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterofthe
opinionoftheCourt.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
*OnOfficialLeave.
[1]
PennedbyAssociateJusticePortiaAlioHormachueloswithAssociateJusticeAmelitaG.TolentinoandAssociateJusticeSantiago
JavierRanadaconcurringrollo,pp.314.
[2]
PennedbyJudgeMilnarT.LammawinCArollo,pp.1019.
[3]
G.R.No.167693,September19,2006,502SCRA419.
[4]
Peoplev.Guillermo,G.R.No.173787,April23,2007,521SCRA597,599.
[5]
Supranote2at1112.
[6]
CArollo,p.5.
[7]
RTCRecord,p.18.
[8]
Id.at21.
[9]
TSN,datedNovember12,2003,pp.38.
[10]
RTCRecord,p.25.
[11]
CARecord,p.19.
[12]
Id.at23.
[13]
Id.at3849.
[14]
Id.at6677.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm

12/13

11/5/2016

G.R. No. 177742

[15]
G.R.Nos.14767887,July7,2004,433SCRA640,657658.
[16]
Rollo,p.1.
[17]
Id.at17.
[18]
Peoplev.Murillo,G.R.No.134583,July14,2004,434SCRA342,349.
[19]
Peoplev.Albert,G.R.No.114001,December11,1995,251SCRA136,145146.
[20]
Peoplev.Ibaez,G.R.Nos.13392324,July30,2003,407SCRA406,415416.
[21]
TSN,datedNovember13,2003,pp.45.
[22]
TSN,datedNovember13,2003,pp.45.
[23]
TSN,datedNovember12,2003,p.14.
[24]
Id.at15.
[25]
Id.at16.
[26]
Peoplev.Ramos,G.R.No.142577,December27,2002,394SCRA452,469.
[27]
G.R.No.130504,June29,2000,334SCRA575,600601.
[28]
G.R.No.140676,July31,2002,385SCRA573,587588.
[29]
Peoplev.Viajedor,G.R.No.148138,April11,2003,401SCRA312,331.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm

13/13