Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-69377 July 20, 1987
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ALEXANDER ALBOFERA and ROMEO LAWI-AN, accused-appellants.
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
Mandatory review of the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XVIII, Digos, Davao del Sur, in Criminal Case No. 184.* which convicted accused Alexander Albofera and Romeo Lawi-an of Murder, inflicted on them the capital punishment, and ordered them to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P35,000.00, "by way of moral as well as actual damages."
There is no direct evidence linking both accused to the crime charged, their alleged participation therein having been found by the Trial Court to have been proved by circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution as follows:
Sometime in June or July 1980, at about 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon. Rodrigo Esma was tending his onion farm located in Upper Bagong Silang, Managa, Bansalan, Davao del Sur, near the place of the accused Romeo Lawi-an, a long time acquaintance, when accused Alexander Albofera, whom Esma also knew for years and likewise a resident of the same place, called him and informed him they would ran after somebody. Esma acceded (tsn, October 20, 1982, pp. 38-42). Together, Albofera and Esma proceeded at once to the house of accused Lawi-an. There Lawi-an told Albofera that the forester was around making a list of people engaged in "caingin" (tsn, October 20, 1982, p. 43). Whereupon, Albofera asked Esma to join him in going after the forester. The two were able to overtake the forester, a certain Teodoro Carancio, at the lower portion of the road (tsn, October 20, 1982, p. 44). Albofera at once put his arm on the shoulder of Carancio and asked him to go with them to the upper portion because they will do something there. Carancio was taken to the house of accused Lawi-an where several persons were already gathered, among whom were accused Lawi-an, a certain alias Jun, Boy Lawi-an, and Joel Maldan. Once inside and seated, Albofera began questioning Carancio about his purpose in the place. Carancio replied that he was there to inspect the "caingin" as a forester Albofera resented this, telling Carancio that his acts hurt the poor people who were making a plain and simple living. Carancio answered that he was only complying with the orders of the government. Albofera then asked Carancio should he be set free not to come back anymore. Carancio, however, replied that he would still come back and bring his nephew who is an army man. Thereupon, Albofera intimated to Carancio that he is a member of the NPA and that the NPA's were against the forestry personnel. Thereafter, the persons gathered decided to kin Carancio. Right then and there, Albofera tied Carancio's hands at the back. Carancio pleaded for mercy. Unheeding, Albofera, Romeo Lawi-an, alias Jun, Boy Lawi-an, and Joel Maldan decided to bring, and they indeed brought, Carancio to the forest some 200 meters away from Lawi-an's house. Esma did not join the group but remained in the house of Lawi-an (tsn, October 20, 1982, pp. 44-51). Not long after, the group returned to Lawi-an's house, but without Carancio. Albofera's hands, as wen as alias Jun's hands were bloodied. After washing their hands, Albofera announced that they had already finished the killing. He also warned everyone, particularly Esma, against revealing or saying anything to any person or the military, otherwise he (Albofera) would hold him accountable. After that, E smaller went home (tsn, October 20, 1982, pp. 52-54).
Meanwhile, at about the same time Efren Sisneros and his wife were weeding their farm in Barangay Buenavista, Bansalan, which is adjacent to Bagong Silang, Managa, also in Bansalan, when the son of accused Lawi-an, who is his compadre, arrived and informed him that his father (the accused) wanted him (Sisneros) in his house. So, Sisneros went with Lawi-an's son (tsn, September 16, 1982, pp. 3-7, 11). On reaching the front yard of the Lawi-ans, Sisneros saw the ac cused Lawi-an at the window. A lot of people were likewise in the house, and he recognized Boy Lawi-an and a certain Jun Menez among others. Sisneros called for accused Lawi-an. The latter went down and they talked downstairs. Accused Lawi-an explained that he had Sisneros fetched, because the people inside the house were discussing on what to do with somebody — a Bureau of Forestry employee-later on Identified as Teodoro Carancio — who was also inside the house at the time, and that they were inclined to kill that person who, according to Lawi-an, was a hindrance to the farmers, because he (the forester) had caused Lawi-an's uncle and brother-in-law to be put in jail and fined for cutting trees in the forest. Shocked, Sisneros could only say "do not do that because killing a person is great sin toward God." Thereafter, accused Lawi-an went upstairs. Sisneros who was left downstairs went home (tsn, September 16, 1982, pp. 11-16, 21).
The following day, at about 9:00 o'clock in the morning, Sisneros was at his farm when accused Lawi-an and Jun Menez passed by and called him. When Sisneros got near the two, accused Lawi-an told him that the forester was already killed and warned him not to reveal this matter to anybody otherwise he would be killed (tsn, September 16, 1982, pp. 16-20.)
The threat to his life caused Sisneros to be cautious in not reporting at once the matter to the authorities. However, in June 1981, Sisneros finally reported the killing of that forester to his brother Margarito, a CHDF member in Bansalan. Margarito then accompanied him to the municipal hall to see the Chief of Police, P/Sgt. Arnulfo Gohol. Sisneros related the killing to Sgt. Gohol. That forester must have already been reported missing, for Sgt. Gohol told Sisneros that the slain forester was Teodoro Carancio. Sisneros asked that his Identity be kept secret in the meantime pending the arrest of Albofera and Lawi-an. Sgt. Gohol acceded (tsn. September 16, 1982, pp. 19-20, 21-22).
The police authorities arrested accused Albofera on July 2, 1981. ...
x x x x x x x x x
Accused Romeo Lawi-an was subsequently arrested on July 4, 1981 (pp. 12, 15, Record).
Also in July, 1981, the two accused, shortly after their arrest, led the police authorities to the place in Bagong Silang where they buried the slain forester, specifically in a hilly portion near the forest where the trees were not quite big besides a coffee plantation (tsn, January 6, 1983, pp, 84-87). And on the very spot pointed to by the two accused, the authorities dug and recovered the cadaver, together with the clothings, namely: a maroon sweater, a semi-green trousers and fatigue briefs worn by the victim, still intact. After placing these in a sack, the group left at about 6:00 o'clock p.m. and returned to the municipal building at around 10:00 p.m. (tsn, January 6, 1983, pp. 87-89, 94-101).
x x x x x x x x x 1
On July 2, 1981, Albofera executed an extra-judicial confession before the Municipal Circuit Judge. He stated therein that he was forced to join the NPA movement for fear of his life; that said group had ordered the "arrest" of the victim, Carancio, a Forest Guard in the National Park, because he was "a very strict employee of the government who arrested several kaingeros already in the National Park and Romeo Lawi-an being one of his victims before, got mad of his actuations prompting the latter to report said person to the NPA for possible punishments;" and that the group "sentenced him (the victim) to die by stabbing." Albofera further declared:
Q. 21- Was said Carancio killed by the group?
A. Yes, sir, Carancio was stabbed to death by alias John, Romeo Lawi-an, alias "Dolly" Fred, Albert and myself in succession.
Q. 22- Do you mean to say that you have participated in stabbing Carancio to death?
A. I was the last to thrust said bolo but I know that said victim was already dead when I did it.
Accused for their part, maintain:
That in or about the middle of 1980, both the accused-appellants ALEXANDER ALBOFERA and ROMEO LAWI-AN, who were farmer-residents at that time of Sitio Balutakay, Barangay Mansaga, a remote settlement in the Municipality of Bansalan, Davao del Sur, were fetched from their farm houses by four (4) persons, known to be NPA elements operating in their locality and Identified with their aliases "Fred", "Dolly", "John", and "Albert". Both accused together with Efren Sisneros and Rodrigo Esma were brought by the said four (4) NPA's to a secluded forested area in order to witness the execution of a man, whom the prosecution later claimed to be one Teodoro Carancio, an employee of the Bureau of Forest Development. Thereafter, both the accused, Efren Sisneros and Rodrigo Esma were ordered by these armed NPA to bury the remains of the victim. Afterwards, they were warned, with threat to their lives, not to reveal or report to the government authorities. 2
In the course of the trial, the prosecution presented a letter written in the Visayan dialect by accused Alexander Albofera, while under detention, to witness Rodrigo Esma several days before the latter testified on October 20, 1982, which was translated into English by the Trial Court interpreter and reads as follows:
10-5-82
Dear Odeng,
Ding first of all how are you are in good health. As to me if you will also ask me I am here suffering from hardship, so that Ding, help me that I can get out in this difficult condition because your affidavit is the one that has weight. Ding, you go with Mining to my lawyer so that I can study your reason because I will ride if what is your affidavit. If you will not appear before the lawyer it will mean that you will pushed us. Ding, you know about this incident and that I do not want this to happen but you were the one persisting in fact I asked you and you acceded so that that happened. But now you are going to put us down will you not pity the uncle of your wife and furthermore you were not threatened by me we have agreed about this thing now you will free yourself. Ding you must bear in mind that you are a part of this if that will happen to me I will include you so that we will be together in jail anyway your affidavit is there that you are one of those who apprehended the forestry and Noy Roming will testify that no one threatened us and also according to him that he will declare that the two of us apprehended so that the three of us win be convicted. Ding why is it that we are not going to understand one another so that we will not be hard-up we have still a way that will be taught by my lawyer in which we have nothing to fear each one of us. Anyway you can still be a witness of the other side my lawyer wants to know only your reason so that he can study this in order that I ran prepare and ride on it so that you will not be included and I can also get out from this case because if you will not make any arrangement our reasons will contradict with each other even though we have exculpated you we will instead be together here if how many years will be my sentence yours will also be the same because I will include you anyway you were present in the incident nobody force us nobody can witness that you were force by me because that is not the truth. And Ding, I have not squeal because it's difficult the other side no jail its's better for the government because we will just be imprisoned you are the one who win know how to understand we win help one another in order that no hazard of both of us anyway you will not be imprisoned of this you will only help me in order that I can get out here. This is our agreement, is it not.
I hope you will remember our being together before we are very close but now because we have a misunderstanding but our complainant you do not even know him will they look back at you after this.
Your mercy
(Sgd.) Alex Albofera. 3
Rodrigo Esma's Affidavit referred to in the letter taken on July 21, 1981, mentioned accused "Albofera and "alias Jun" "as having killid the victim.
After trial, the lower Court found the circumstantial evidence sufficient to warrant conviction beyond reasonable doubt of both accused for the crime charged, and sentenced them to death in its Decision of October 5, 1984, now before us.
The accused raise the following errors:
I
That the Regional Trial Court of Davao del Sur gravely erred in finding both accused guilty of murder, as charged in the information, and ordaining a sentence of death, instead of dismissing the charge anchor absolving them as the entire proceedings on the case in the Municipal Court of Bansalan up to rendition of judgment in the CFI of Davao del Sur are void ab initio and a nullity for being tainted with serious illegalities and jurisdictional infirmities as from the inception of appellant's illegal arrest, tortures, and detention without bait their fundamental constitutional and human rights were blatantly violated, brazenly trampled upon and utterly reduced to naught.
II
That the Regional Trial Court of Davao del Sur gravely erred-in failing to consider at all the prosecution's evidence on record, which reasonably raises doubt upon the conclusiveness of the bases as to the supposed victim's (1) Identity; (2) his alleged fact of death as stated in the certificate of death [Exh. D]; (3) the place of death and, the approximate or credible date of death; and-consequently, in not finding that on the basis of the above-factual hiatus, the evidence has failed to establish the guilt of both accused beyond that quantum of reasonable doubt as zealously mandated by the constitution.
III
That the Court a quo erred in holding that evidence adduced against accused-appellants conceded to be merely circumstantial in character and confirmed as such in the appealed decision, has attained such degree of proof and weight of moral persuasion as to leave no vestige of reasonable doubt on the guilt of both accused.
IV
That the Court a quo erred in appreciating as competent evidence the letter written by accused Alexander Albofera to Rodrigo Esma (Exh. B), the admissibility thereof being specifically excluded under Sec. 4, Art. IV of the 1973 Constitution.
V
That the Regional Trial Court of Davao del Sur gravely erred in admitting and considering as competent evidence the illegally extracted extra-judicial confession of accused Alexander Albofera (Exh. C) in violation of, and contrary to Sec. 20, Art. IV of the Philippine Constitution of 1973 and the Supreme Court's judicial precedents in point.
VI
That the Trial Court gravely erred (1) in sustaining the prosecution's theory that both accused-appellants were responsible and culpable for the killing of the alleged victim; (2) in according credence to the testimonies of prosecution's witnesses Efren Sisneros and Rodrigo K. Esma; (3) in failing to sustain the defense theory; and (4) in convicting and sentencing both accused-appellants.
VII
Furthermore, the lower court gravely incurred the following patent reversible errors: (1) in finding aggravating and qualifying circumstances in the alleged commission of murder, and (2) in not absolving the two accused-appellants, and awarding damages. 4
Succintly stated, the essential issues posed are:
1) Whether or not "serious illegalities and jurisdictional infirmities," in fact, attended the proceedings below and "constitutional and human rights of the accused brazenly trampled upon."
2) Whether or not the extrjudicial confession of accused Alexander Albofera, and his letter to Rodrigo Esma are admissible in evidence;
3) Whether or not the Identity of the victim and the fact of his death were duly proved;
4) Whether or not the circumstantial evidence adduced is sufficient to warrant conviction; and
5) Whether or not qualifying and aggravating circumstances were duly proved.
On Irregularities alleged:
The charge of illegalities and infirmities is absolutely without basis. There was nothing illegal in the accused's detention without bail. They were charged with and held for the crime of murder, a capital offense and, therefore, were not entitled to bail where the evidence of guilt was strong. That was for the Trial Court to evaluate. The preliminary investigation was far from being "hasty and farcical." If the second stage thereof was not held it was because the accused had waived the same and prayed for the transmittal of the case to the then Court of First Instance for trial on the merits; it was not because they were deprived of the right. Much less has due process been denied the accused. They were duly informed of the charge against them and they were given fun opportunity to interpose and prove their defense.
On the Admissibility of the Extra-Judicial Confession of Accused A Alexander Albofera:
The preliminary questions addressed to said accused when his Sworn Statement was taken read:
P R E L I M I N A R Y:
Mr. Albofera, I am reminding you that you are now under investigation in connection with the commission of an offense, but before I will proceed in it, I would like to inform you that under the Constitution of the Philippines it is so provided that you have the right to remain silent, the right to counsel of your own choice to be present with you while being investigated, the right to self-incrimination and the right to due process, do you understand this:
Answer — Yes sir, I do.
I would like to inform you further, that the manner in which this investigation will be conducted in English, but however, the contents of the same will be interpreted to you in dialect you fully understand and speak, and if you choose to answer one of the question or questions propounded to you, your answer will be reduced into writing and the same will be used in evidence against you or to your favor in any court of justice in the country, do you understand what I am explaining to you?
Answer — Yes. sir, I understand it because you explained it to me clearly.
Do you need then the assistance of counsel to assist you while investigated?
Answer — I think I do not need any yet this time because I know what I am going to declare here it being the truth of the matter, sir.
Since you do not (have) any lawyer yet, are you willing to proceed with this investigation and submit yourself freely into it?
Answer — I wish that this investigation will be continued because lawyer is not necessary yet.
Are you willing to swear and sign this statement of yours freely to justify that your submission into the said investigation is free and voluntary?
Answer — Yes sir, I will sign it if only to prove that all what I have stated are true and to the best of my knowledge and ability.
(Sgd.) Alex Albofera
(Exhibits "C", "C-1").
Judicial precedents5 have laid down the rule that the foregoing form of questioning, does not satisfy the Constitutional requirement that an accused be apprised of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel. It is, at best, ceremonial and perfunctory, with the answers being mere formalisms put into the mouth of the affiant. What is contemplated is the transmission of meaningful information, comprehended by the person under investigation, not a mere recitation of the Constitutional mandates.
More, the extra-judicial confession was extracted without the assistance of counsel contrary to the rulings of this Court in Morales, Jr. vs. Enrile, No. L-61016, April 26, 1983, 121 SCRA 538, affirmed in People vs. Galit, No. L-51770, March 20, 1985, 135 SCRA 465, People vs. Burgos, L-68955, September 4, 1986, 144 SCRA 1, that "no custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any person on his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf."
While Albofera seemingly waived his right to counsel, which he is allowed to do, aside from the fact that we are not convinced that the waiver was voluntary, knowing and intelligent, the waiver was not valid because it was made without the assistance of counsel.6 That principle is now enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, which explicitly requires that the waiver be in writing and in the presence of counsel.7
For failure to meet such exacting standards, the extrajudicial confession of accused Albofera must be stricken out and held inadmissible in evidence against him.8
On the admissibility of Albofera's Letter.
Accused Albofera contends that his letter to prosecution witness, Rodrigo Esma (Exhibit "B"), is inadmissible in evidence against him under the exclusionary provisions of Section 4, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution (substantially reproduced in Section 3, Article III of the 1987 Constitution), which provides:
Sec. 4 (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the Court, or when public safety and order require otherwise.
2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
The submission is untenable. The foregoing provision implements another Constitutional provision on the security of a citizen against unreasonable search and seizure. The production of that letter by the prosecution was not the result of an unlawful search and seizure nor was it through unwarranted intrusion or invasion into Albofera's privacy. Albofera admitted having sent the letter and it was its recipient, Rodrigo Esma himself, who produced and Identified the same in the course of his testimony in Court. Besides, there is nothing really self-incriminatory in the letter. Albofera mainly pleaded that Esma change his declaration in his Affidavit and testify in his (Albofera's) favor. Furthermore, nothing Albofera stated in his letter is being taken against him in arriving at a determination of his culpability.
On the Identity of the Victim and the Fact of Death:
Accused argue that corpus delicti had not been established as the body of the victim, Teodoro Carancio, was not Identified, nor the fact, place and approximate date of his death established.
The term corpus delicti stands for the substance of the crime, the fact that a crime has actually been committed.9 The evidence adduced in this case sufficiently proved the commission of the crime. In fact, the accused themselves pointed to the grave where the body of a person, allegedly slain in their presence, had been dumped and which, when dug, produced human remains, which turned out to be those of the victim.
The skeletal remains of the victim were Identified by his brother, Benjamin Carancio, through the victim's front teeth whose "base seemed rusty" and which bore resemblance to his own, as well as through the victim's clothes, fatigue briefs, maroon sweater and trousers, which Benjamin recognized.10 Prosecution witness Esma also Identified the victim from a photograph which was presented to him.11
On the Circumstantial Evidence:
Circumstantial evidence is admissible in the absence of an eyewitness to the commission of a crime, and it is sufficient for conviction if: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt.12
The circumstances testified to by prosecution witnesses meet the foregoing criteria. Even disregarding Albofera's extra-judicial confession, the combination of circumstances sufficiently point to his guilt. The presence of both accused at the scene of the incident is admitted by them. They also admit that they witnessed the execution of the victim, although they claim that they were merely compelled to do so. The foregoing version, however, is negated by Rodrigo Esma's testimony from which it is clear that it was Albofera, his long-time friend, who had fetched witness Esma and informed the latter that they would run after somebody. Together, they proceeded to the house of accused Lawi-an who informed Albofera that the victim was around making a list of "kaingeros." Albofera asked Esma to join him in going after the forester. Overtaking the latter, Albofera took him to Lawi-an's house where a group had already congregated and a discussion followed as to the victim's fate. Albofera resented the victim's determination to do his duty and the latter's statement that he was bringing an army man to help him. Sufficient motive was provided to do away with the victim. Albofera tied the victim's hands and, with Lawi-an and three others, took the victim to the forest. When the group returned not long after, the victim was no longer with them. Witness Esma noticed Albofera's and "alias Jun's" hands bloodied. After they had washed their hands, Albofera announced to everyone present at Lawi-an's house that the victim had been done away with and warned everyone not to reveal the incident to anyone including the military.
Apparent from the foregoing narrated circumstances is the fact that it was Albofera who was "calling the shots;" that it was he who was the leader of the group and not "alias Jun" as he would want this Court to believe.
Esma's testimony is worthy of credence. He was a friend of long standing of Albofera.lawphi1 There was no reason for him to attribute to Albofera the commission of such a serious crime as Murder, if such not the truth.
Accused Lawi-an must be held equally culpable. That he was part of the criminal design from its initial stages until its culmination is revealed through the circumstances brought out by prosecution witness, Sisneros who testified that while he was weeding his farm, Lawi-an, his "compadre," sent his son to fetch him (Sisneros). With the son, they proceeded to Lawi-an's house where Sisneros saw many people. Lawi-an went down the house and explained to Sisneros that they were discussing what to do with the victim, and that they were inclined to kill him. Sisneros advised against it and went home. The following morning, Lawi-an passed by Sisneros farm and informed the latter that the victim had already been killed with the warning to Sisneros not to reveal the incident to anyone.
Prosecution witness, Esma, further buttressed the fact of Lawi-an's participation in the criminal plot when he testified that it was Lawi-an who informed Albofera that the victim was around making a list of "kaingeros;" that it was on the strength of that information that Albofera coaxed Esma into joining him to search for the victim; that Lawi-an was with Albofera and three others who, starting from Lawi-an's house, took the victim to the forest and then returned thereafter without the victim, obviously because the latter had been done away with.
While the degree of actual participation by Lawi-an in committing the offense is not described with accuracy, Lawi-an's conduct before and after the commission of the crime shows that he acted in concert with his co-accused Albofera. He indubitably cooperated with the latter and three other persons in bringing about the death of the victim goaded by resentment against the latter for his strict enforcement of forestry laws, which led to the incarceration of Lawi-an's uncle and brother-in-law and the imposition of fines against them. The circumstances proven sufficiently establish a community of purpose-a conspiracy among the perpetrators — such that the crime committed in furtherance thereof must be held to be the act of all regardless of the extent and character of an accused's active participation.13
On the Attendance of Qualifying and Aggravating Circumstances:
No reversible error was committed by the Trial Court in appreciating the presence of qualifying and aggravating circumstances.
The killing of the victim was committed treacherously, his hands having been tied behind his back so that he was totally helpless and defenseless, and in no position to resist nor fight back. The accused employed means which tended directly to insure the execution of the crime without risk to themselves arising from the defense which the victim might have made.
Evident premeditation was likewise present as both accused and their co-conspirators had deliberately planned to commit the crime and had persistently and continuously followed it notwithstanding that they had ample time to reflect and allow their conscience to overcome their resolution to kill.14
The accused likewise took advantage of superior strength although this cannot be appreciated separately as it is deemed absorbed in treachery.15
The killing of the victim because of his strictness and the resentment against him as a forester constitutes the aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank,16 and not because the victim was engaged in the discharge of his duties under Article 14 (5) of the Revised Penal Code as found by the Trial Court.
With the attendance of the qualifying circumstance of treachery and two (2) generic aggravating circumstances with no mitigating circumstance to offset them, the crime committed is Murder and the death penalty imposed by the Trial Court is proper. However, with the abolition of the death penalty under Section 19(l), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, and as mandated therein the death penalty imposed by the Trial Court should be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction is hereby affirmed with modification that the accused Alexander Albofera and Romeo Lawi-an are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the victim, Teodoro Carancio, in the amount of P30,000.00, and each to pay one-half (1/2) of the costs.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernando, Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento and Cortes, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* Penned by Judge Renato A. Fuentes.
1 Pp. 1-7, 11-12, Appellee's Brief.
2 Pp. 2-3, Defendants-Appellants' Brief, p. 78, Rollo.
3 Exhibit "13-3", Folder of Exhibits, RTC Records.
4 Pp. 11-14, Defendants-Appellants' Brief, p. 78, Rollo.
5 People vs. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 [1985]; People vs. Nicandro, 141 SCRA 289 [1986]; People vs. Ramos, 122 SCRA 312 [1983]; People vs. Caguioa, 95 SCRA 2 [1980]; People vs. Duhan, 142 SCRA 100 [1986], among others.
6 Morales, Jr. vs. Enrile, supra.
7 Section 12 [1], Article III, 1987 Constitution.
8 Section 12 [3], Ibid.
9 People vs. Madlangbayan, 94 SCRA 679 [1979].
10 T.S.N., January 6, 1983, pp. 95-100; 107-111.
11 T.S.N., October 20, 1982, p. 54.
12 Section 5, Rule 133, Rules of Court; People vs. Pajanustan, 97 SCRA 699 (1980).
13 People vs. Pareja, L-21937, November 29, 1969, 30 SCRA 693.
14 People vs. Ompad, et al., G.R. No. L-23513, January 31, 1969, 26 SCRA 750; People vs. Valerio, Jr., L-41146, February 25, 1982, 112 SCRA 208.
15 People vs. Rizal, L-43487-89, February 26, 1981, 103 SCRA 282; People vs. Morales, L-37107, April 27, 1982, 113 SCRA 683.
16 See People vs. Valeriano, et al., 90 Phil. 15.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
