A.M. No. RTJ-98-1420




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC A.M. No. RTJ-98-1420 October 8, 1998 OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR (OCA), complainant, vs. FLORENCIO S. BARRON, Presiding Judge, Branch 35, Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, respondent. PER CURIAM: This administrative case takes its roots from an entrapment operation conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) sub-office based in Dumaguete City, wherein respondent Judge Florencio S. Barron was apprehended for having been found in possession of the marked money utilized by the NBI in the aforementioned operation. Judge Barron was designated as Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 41, whereat a civil case entitled "Mainit Marine Resources Corporation, Inc. (MMRC) vs. Alex J. Amor, Jr., and the Register of Deeds of Negros Oriental," was pending. 1 In the morning of June 4, 1996, at around 9:00 o'clock, Casildo Gabo, a retired court employee, went to the hatchery of MMRC to see David Crear, the president. Introducing himself as Sheriff Gabo of RTC, Branch 36, he told David Crear that Judge Barron wanted to see him at Salawaki Beach in Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental. Crear replied that he was not feeling well but added that he would go to Salawaki at around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon. Sensing that there was more than meets the eye in the message of Gabo, Crear instructed Gemma Briones, the bookkeeper of MMRC, to call the NBI office. Crear talked to Special Investigator Teodoro M. Saavedra, that he (Crear) and Judge Barron were to meet at Salawaki Beach Resort at around 3:00 o'clock that afternoon.2 Agent-in-Charge Nicetas B. Hontucan instructed Special Investigator Teodoro M. Saavedra, SRA Paterno O. Reserva and SRA Dominador D. Cimafranca3 to proceed to the beach resort that afternoon to conduct discreet surveillance to confirm the veracity of the information communicated to them by Crear. Crear arrived at Salawaki on the appointed hour astride a motorcycle driven by Rosendo Paculanang, a technician at MMRC. 4 Thereat, Judge Barron and Gabo were waiting, and so were the NBI agents who observed them through the use of binoculars. Both Crear and Judge Barron were seen talking at the far end of the beach, while Gabo, serving as a look-out, stayed in one of the sheds. According to Crear, he was met by Sheriff Gabo who directed him (Crear) to sit in the chair directly outside the door of the last cottage on the southern side of the resort. Crear had hardly warmed the chair for about five minutes when Judge Barron emerged from the cottage, casually dressed. Respondent judge then asked Crear to sit with him at a bench out on the beach. After the meeting, Crear went back to his office and entered on his computer his recollection of events before and during his talk with Judge Barron as follows: A (sic) individual identifying himself as Sheriff Cresaldo R. Gabo came to the Mainit Prawn Hatchery at about 0900 hours on Tuesday, 4 June 1996. The man was asked what he wanted by both Rosendo Paculanang and Gemma Briones but he refused to speak to anyone except the "kano." Mr. David Crear thereupon approached the visitor who identified (sic) himself as the Sheriff from RTC Branch 36. The Sheriff asked Mr. Crear if he was party to a legal dispute concerning the ownership of the land under the hatchery. Mr. Crear replied in the affirmative. Thereupon the Sheriff indicated that he had been directed by Judge Barron to deliver the message that Judge was waiting for me at Salawaki Beach Resort because he wanted to "talk with you about the case." A meeting was arranged for 0300 hours for that afternoon. The Sheriff showed his laminated I.D. card to Mr. Crear with the name Cresaldo R. Gabo and a photo that looked like a man about 20 years younger. That afternoon, Mr. Crear was driven to Salawaki Beach Resort on the motorbike of Rosendo Paculanang. Upon arrival Mr. Crear was greeted by Sheriff Gabo who directed Mr. Crear to sit in the chair directly outside the door of the last cottage on the southern side of the resort. Mr. Crear occupied the appointed chair for a period of about five minutes before the Judge emerged from the cottage, casually dressed. The Judge directed Mr. Crear to accompany him to sit at the bench out on the beach. The following is a reconstruction of the conversation that took place. Barron: I've asked you to come here because I want to talk with you about your case. You see I need your help. It is clear to me as God is my witness, that you have been wronged. I can see this from that "one document" that Alex Amor did not purchase the land. And again I need your help because my wife and daughter are preparing to travel to the United States. Crear: Traveling to the U.S. is quite costly. Barron: Yes, and I need your help. You see we are in a symbiotic relationship. I can help you and you can help me. I can clearly see that it would be easy for me to write a decision for your case that would be favorable for your situation. But I will need your help. You know, I like working with foreigners because they understand that the salaries here in the Philippines are very low. Honestly, if I weren't a Judge I would have already gone to the United States where I could earn more money. So, I can see that I will have to write a decision in this case against my good friend Attorney Amor but I will do it but reluctantly so. Of course he will appeal the decision so we have to make sure that the decision is good. You should tell your lawyer that you must complete your testimony as soon as possible so that it will be certain that I will be the Judge to write the decision. Maybe Judge Villarente will return to Branch 41 but I don't think so because I've heard that he is being transferred to Manila. Now I don't want you to tell either your wife or your lawyer about our arrangement. This must be strictly confidential between the two of us. Yes, I like working with foreigners because they understand about these things. I also like working with Sheriff Gabo, well, we have had an understanding and have been working together for about 20 years! I often come down here to Salawaki and I can work on my legal decisions in a quiet, clean environment. I'm like you I enjoy living by the beach. You know I am disappointed in Atty. Amor and his son Alex. They have clearly, as God is my witness, wronged you. I also noticed that Attorney Amor made a serious legal error. He notorized (sic) the signature of his (sic) on the extra-judicial deed-of-sale. This was foolish. Crear: Attorney Amor is guilty of much more. He has consistently aided and abetted the theft of documents, money, and equipment committed by his son, Alex Amor, Jr. But never mind that now. Barron: Yes. Now you understand that we have a symbiotic arrangement and an agreement can be arrived at to effect a favorable decision on your case. In this instance I will have to write a decision against my good friend Attorney Amor and I will do so reluctantly. Crear: So what are the mechanics of this arrangement? Barron: Well, as I said my wife and daughter will be flying to the U.S. and I think that they will need $2,000 each. Crear: Okay but when is all this supposed to happen? Barron: Well, my wife and daughter are ready now. Crear: So you are saying sooner rather than later. Barren: Yes . . . Crear: Well, how about on Saturday right here. Barron: That would be good. Let's make it for four o'clock on Saturday afternoon right here. Crear: Okay, I'll see you next Saturday.5 On June 6, 1996, David Crear, along with Gemma Briones and Rosendo Paculanang executed their respective sworn statements6 at the NBI Dumaguete City Sub-Office. Thereafter, on June 8, 1996, Rosendo Paculanang and David Crear gave their supplemental sworn statements.7 Crear also filed a complaint sheet with the NBI.8 Subsequently, the NBI agents drew up an entrapment plan for the respondent judge and Casildo Gabo. Since David Crear did not have the $4,000.00 cash which the respondent judge asked, the NBI agents had to improvise. The amount of P30,000.00 in 100, 50, 20 and 10 peso bills were sorted into eleven (11) bundles to make it appear as containing P10,000.00 each thus purportedly totaling P110,000.009 roughly the equivalent of $4,000.00 which respondent judge requested. The NBI Regional Chemist, Cesar Cagalawan, marked and treated the eleven (11) bundles with fluorescent powder at the NBI Dumaguete Sub-Office. In the morning of June 8, 1996, the NBI operatives occupied strategic places at the Salawaki Beach Resort. At around 4:00 P.M., Crear headed for Salawaki Beach Resort, again aboard Rosendo Paculanang's motorcycle. At the vicinity of Mag-abo in the town of Zamboanguita, they met Judge Barron's Mitsubishi Lancer bearing plate No. 16-G35, heading in the direction of Dumaguete City. The car blinked its headlights signalling them to stop. Consistent with the entrapment plan, Crear was able to convince Judge Barron to go back as Crear had left the money at Salawaki. Crear rode in Judge Barron's car while Gabo was Paculanang's passenger on the motorcycle. Upon their arrival at Salawaki, Crear alighted from the car and discreetly informed the NBI operatives that the money would be delivered to Judge Barron inside the latter's car. The NBI agents then positioned themselves and waited for the pre-arranged signal. Crear returned to the car carrying a black leatherette clutch bag containing the eleven (11) bundles of marked money amounting to P30,000.00. Immediately after boarding the car, Crear gave the pre-arranged signal of opening the door on his side twice, indicating that the money had been handed to and received by Judge Barron. The NBI reported the arrest as follows: NBI operatives then rushed up towards the car and caught Subject BARRON in flagrante delicto in possession of the marked money in the act of putting the same underneath the driver's seat from a black leatherette clutch bag. During the arrest, Subject BARRON tried to draw his gun from his shoulder holster but was prevented from doing so. Subject BARRON was handcuffed and was informed of the reason for his arrest and was likewise informed of his rights under the Constitution as well as his rights under R.A. 7438. Recovered underneath the driver's seat were the eleven (11) bundles of marked money and a black leatherette clutch bag. Confiscated likewise from his possession was a 9mm Cal. Browning Short Pistol with Serial No. 9203338 from his shoulder holster. 10 After the arrest was made, respondent judge was taken to the NBI Office, where he was booked, photographed, and fingerprinted. 11 The ultra violet light examination 12 conducted on his hands yielded residues of the "fluorescent yellow powder" used earlier to mark the bundles of money. The peso bills with serial numbers and denominations were duly listed 13 by the bundle. Respondent Judge was then turned over to the Dumaguete City police station for temporary custody and safekeeping. An information 14 for the crime of DIRECT BRIBERY was filed before the Sandiganbayan against Respondent Judge, as principal, and Casildo Gabo, as accomplice. On June 11, 1996, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, 15 on page 18 carried the news story "NBI Arrests Negros Judge for getting P30,000.00 bribe." Likewise, the incident came out in the Negros Chronicle on June 16, 1996. 16 The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) sought 17 the assistance of NBI Director Santiago Toledo to verify the authenticity of the news report. The OCA was then furnished with a certified copy of the radio message received from the NBI at Dumaguete City and the media Release 18 containing a case summary and photographs of respondent judge being examined, and pictures of his car and marked money. In a memorandum 19 addressed to the Chief Justice, Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo P. Abesamis recommended that respondent judge be placed under suspension and that the case be referred to a Justice of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation. The Court referred 20 the case to Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos of the Court of Appeals. Judge Barron, in his verified comment dated September 20, 1996 rendered his revision of the incident as follows: Sometime in the month of April 1996, David Crear chanced to hold my audience privately at Lab-as Restaurant in Dumaguete City, where he frankly offered me money in exchange for a favorable decision in Civil Case No. 10104. He offered something like P30,000.00. In deference to his being a foreigner, I patiently and politely told him that what he was doing was against the law, and that besides, I was only an acting presiding judge who could be replaced anytime by the regular judge before the case could even be decided. Thereafter, he made more indecent calls increasing his bribe offer to P50,000.00, thence to P100,000.00 which upset me. It was his insolent remark that even Justices are receiving offers that made me decide that I had (sic) had enough of this man's impudence (sic). I then referred the matter to Judge Teopisto Calumpang of RTC Branch 39, and he advised me to report the bribe offer to the PNP and set the entrapment of Mr. Crear (Annex "D"). On May 4, 1996, I officially reported Mr. Crear's bribe offer to the Dumaguete City PNP and the same was entered in the Police Blotter (Annex "E"). SPO1 Burlaza and I agreed to set the entrapment after I could get Mr. Crear to agree on the time and place of pay-off. It was our understanding that the PNP, through SPO1 Burlaza, would wait for my go signal (Annex "F"). Thus, on June 4, 1996 I sent Criseldo Gabo to David Crear to inform the latter that I wanted to meet him at Salawaki Beach Resort at Dauin, Negros Oriental. In the afternoon of said date David Crear met me at the beach resort. There we talked about his offer. But we could not agree on the amount even as I pretended to haggle with him. Neither could I get a definite commitment from him as to where and when the pay-off would be made so that I could relay it to SPO1 Burlaza. David Crear expressed surprise, though, why suddenly I was interested in his offer which I firmly refused before. He warily said he would like to meet me to finalize the project on June 8, 1996 at Salawaki Beach at 4:00 p.m. It was my impression that on June 8, 1996 we would agree on the amount, the place and the time the pay-off would be made. Thus, I went to Salawaki Beach on that day for the purpose of obtaining said information for our planned entrapment. (At this juncture, per affidavits with the NBI, Mr. Crear and the NBI prepared a shocking reception for me.) I went to Salawaki Beach on June 8, 1996, a Saturday, day of the alleged "entrapment" and arrest with Criseldo Gabo. After past 4:00 p.m. with no Crear on sight, I decided to go home. On the way home I encountered Mr. Crear riding on a motorcycle. He stopped me and I went with him back to Salawaki Beach to have a talk and a drink or two. Crear rode with me. In my car we had a chance to talk about his offer. He told me that since the case was scheduled for hearing on June 13, 1996 at 2:30 p.m., that would be the time he would produce the amount of P100,000.00 at the place of my convenience in Dumaguete City. With that information. I did not feel the need to talk with Mr. Crear any further. The entrapment would be set. Thus, upon arriving at Salawaki Beach I did not anymore get out of my car and I told Mr. Crear we could have our drinks some other time as I was going back to Dumaguete City and would just see him on June 13, 1996. At this juncture, Mr. Crear frantically told me to wait as he hurriedly went out of the car. I thought he was going back with me. After a while I saw Mr. Crear hurrying back. He went straight inside my car, opened his black bag and unceremoniously tossed some bundles of money to me. In reflex action I caught some bundles while some fell on the floor. Before I could comprehend Crear's act, almost simultaneously an NBI agent opened the door of my car, pointed a gun at me and announced an arrest. I was then pulled out of my car and handcuffed. Then they searched my car. Thereafter, I was taken to the NBI office. I was not allowed to call my lawyer and was forcibly examined for fluorescent powder on my hands. They would have found some of the powder on my lap, steering wheel, my shoes and on the hands of Mr. Crear. After the foregoing incident David Crear reportedly left the country. 21 In his defense, respondent judge preferred several arguments to support his innocence to wit: (1) what happened was not an entrapment but a frame-up; (2) that he never made a gesture of voluntarily accepting the bribe money — fluorescent powder notwithstanding; (3) the NBI relied on the signal of David Crear, not on their personal discernment of what transpired in the car; and (4) that his car was subjected to an illegal search by the NBI agents. 22 In addition to the aforementioned arguments, the respondent judge also presented the affidavits 23 of Judge Teopisto Calumpang and SPO Avelino Burlaza. After Justice Hormachuelos completed her investigation, she submitted her report and recommendation dated November 3, 1997, containing the following evaluation of the evidence adduced, to wit: The undersigned respectfully submits that this defense, which is in line with the thinking that the best defense is a good offense, can not be accorded credence for the following reasons: 1. The NBI operatives has no bias nor ill-motives against the respondent judge. As law enforcement officers, they are presumed to have acted regularly in their performance of their duties (Rule 31, sec. 3(m) Revised Rules on Evidence). Respondent attempted to show that these NBI officers prosecuted some cases in his sala, but it was not clear why they should be aggrieved at the way these cases were handled, much less that they were so aggrieved that they would go to the extent of cooperating with a foreigner David Crear to manufacture evidence against a judge, who is moreover a native of Dumaguete and a graduate of Dumaguete's prestigious Silliman University. 2. The testimony of NBI Agent Atty. Cimafranca was marked by spontaneity and candor. At some points during his cross examination by respondent himself, Cimafranca even engaged the latter in a frank, matter-of-fact, straightforward recall of the June 8, 1996 entrapment mentioning minutiae of the incident which could not be easily concocted (TSN, July 8, 1997, pp. 99-138). 3. Respondent's witness Judge Calumpang is his close friend and compadre while respondent Judge Barron once served as lawyer of the family of witness SPO1 Burlasa. 4. The police blotter entry dated May 4, 1996 (Exhibit "4" for Respondent, Rollo, p. 142) is highly suspicious, being written only on what appears to be the remaining small space at the bottom edge of the page, hardly befitting the prestige and standing of its alleged reporter an RTC judge, as well as the importance of the alleged incident involving an attempt to bribe by an American national. This investigator believes, in the light of the evidence presented, that this entry was only intercalated to lend credence to respondent's defense. 5. Respondent's version itself strains one's credulity. He would have the court believe that having had enough of Crear's impudence (in allegedly offering a bribe) he would: a) personally report the matter to the PNP on a non-working day (Saturday May 4, 1996) at 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon. b) himself personally travel to David Crear's hatchery in Mainit, Zamboanguita which is at least 30 kms. away from Dumaguete City where his court is located in the mid-morning of June 4, 1996, a Wednesday, merely to engage Crear in a conversation for the purpose of entrapping him later. c) Subsequently, undertake another distant travel 28 kms. away to Salawaki Beach Resort on a Saturday afternoon merely to determine or agree on when the pay-off would be. It is to be noted, that notwithstanding respondent's claim that he was to act as bait for the entrapment of David Crear by the Dumaguete police, no policeman ever accompanied him either on June 4th or June 8th when he met with David Crear. He was accompanied only by Casildo Gabo who was not even a court employee anymore, having retired. 24 In an effort to escape criminal liability, the respondent judge shifts the burden on the NBI by raising the defense of frame-up. Frame-up as a defense has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can just easily be concocted but is quite difficult to prove. 25 And the defense of frame-up must be proved by clear and convincing evidence because it is of the same category as alibi. 26 In the case at bar, the respondent judge failed to present any convincing evidence to substantiate his claim. He advances the theory that the NBI had carefully mapped out a frame-up operation against him as a retaliatory measure for all those cases which the NBI had filed and for which he (Judge Barron) caused the dismissal thereof. This cannot be given credence. There is no evidence on record that the NBI harboured a personal grudge against the respondent judge. Clearly, what transpired was an entrapment and not a frame-up as claimed by the respondent. Entrapment has received judicial sanction as long as it is carried out with due regard to Constitutional and legal safeguards. 27 Furthermore, there is no scintilla of evidence that the manner by which the NBI agents conducted the operation was tainted with illegality. This Court has held in the case of Mallari vs. Court of Appeals 28 that "Absent strong and convincing proof to the contrary, this Court is bound by the presumption that the arresting officers were aware of the legal mandates in effecting an arrest and strictly complied with the same." The respondent judge insinuates that the search conducted on his car was illegal. We do not think so. Where the arrest of the been caught in flagrante delicto, there is no need for a warrant for the seizure of the fruit of the crime as well as for the body search upon him, the same being incidental to a lawful arrest. 29 There being a lawful arrest upon the person of the respondent judge, the NBI agents were authorized to conduct a warrantless search. In People vs. De Lara, 30 we held: "A contemporaneous search may be conducted upon the person of the arrestee and the immediate vicinity where the arrest was made." We have previously held that the warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest authorizes the arresting officer to make a search upon the person of the person arrested. Moreover, "the individual being arrested may be frisked for concealed weapons that may be used against the arresting officer and all unlawful articles found in his person, or within his immediate control may be seized." 31 As shown on record, a firearm was confiscated on the person of the respondent judge. There was even an attempt on the part of the respondent judge to draw such was weapon. He was only prevented from doing so on account of the timely confiscation of the firearm by the agents. The search, being merely an incident to the lawful arrest, cannot be stigmatized as unlawful. 32 The respondent judge denied accepting the bribe money despite the presence of "fluorescent powder" on his hands. He claims that the money was "unceremoniously tossed to him." 33 Such statement deserves scant consideration. The pictures taken immediately after the arrest reveal that the bundles of money were neatly placed under the driver's seat. If the bundles of money were "unceremoniously tossed to him," it is difficult to understand how all the money found themselves orderly placed under his seat. Furthermore, the incident report filed by the NBI showed that he was caught placing the money under the driver's seat. Respondent Judge further contends that "the NBI relied on the signal of David Crear, and not on their personal discernment of what transpired inside the car." 34 The means employed and the manner by which the entrapment operation was conducted is assailed by the respondent judge. The reliance of the NBI agents on the signal given by Crear was appropriate. It was the manner by which Crear would convey to the agents that the marked money was already in possession of the respondent judge. The arresting officers could not place themselves in a conspicuous position where they could easily be seen by the respondent judge as the said transaction was supposedly between Crear and Judge Barron only. It must be noted that ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan. 35 Entrapment is not a bar to the prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker. As regards the testimonies given by the witnesses presented by the respondent judge, little, it any, credence should be given. First, the deposition of Judge Teopisto Calumpang Sr. was taken when he was still confined at the Holy Child Hospital. Although he was able to attest to the contents of his affidavit and confirm his signature, he could not effectively and intelligently relate the surrounding circumstances leading to the execution of said affidavit, as he was too sick to do so. In addition, Judge Calumpang was a compadre and a good friend of the respondent judge. Secondly, the testimony of SPO1 Avelino Burlaza is wanting in substantial veracity to warrant credence and the necessary logic to elicit belief. We agree with the findings of the special investigator that the manner by which the alleged bribe attempt was reported was not commensurate to the stature of the judge. It was observed that the entry in the police blotter was hurriedly written, while the other entries in the same book appeared to be written more deliberately. Likewise, it was noted that the entry seemed cramped as it was written at the bottom of the page, leaving the impression that it was a fabricated entry. Moreover, when the alleged bribe attempt was reported, SPO1 Burlaza did not even bother to inquire as to the amount involved and the relevant facts relative to a reported crime. In addition, Burlaza did not inform his superiors of the bribe attempt. His explanation is that he waited for the respondent judge's go signal before he would report the entrapment plan to his superiors. Again, this is contrary to the standard operating police procedures. What further taints the credibility of this police officer is that respondent judge was once the family lawyer of Burlaza. All told, a judge should always be a symbol of rectitude and propriety, comporting himself in a manner that will raise no doubt whatsoever about his honesty. 36 The conduct of respondent judge shows that he can be influenced by monetary considerations. His act of demanding and receiving money from a party-litigant constitutes serious misconduct in office. It is this kind of gross and flaunting misconduct, no matter how nominal the amount involved on the part of those who are charged with the responsibility of administering the law and rendering justice quickly, which erodes the respect for law and the courts. 37 Respondent judge tainted the image of the Judiciary to which he owes fealty and the obligation to keep it at all times unsullied and worthy of the people's trust. 38 There is no place in the Judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity. 39 Respondent judge does not deserve to remain in the Judiciary and should accordingly be removed from the service. 40 IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court resolved to DISMISS respondent Judge Florencio S. Barron from the service with FORFEITURE of all retirement benefits and privileges. He is likewise DISQUALIFIED from re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. This decision shall be immediately executory. SO ORDERED. Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Martinez, Quisumbing and Purisima, JJ., concur. Narvasa, C.J., is on leave. Footnotes 1 Rollo, p. 53. 2 Report and Recommendation of Justice P.A. Hormachuelos, p. 14-15. 3 Joint Affidavit of Arrest; Rollo, p. 22. 4 See note 2. p. 15. 5 Report & Recommendation of Associate Justice P.A. Hormachuelos, pp. 16-20. 6 Rollo, pp. 13-16, 18. 7 Rollo, p. 17 & 19. 8 Exh. "J," Folder of Exhibits for Complainant, p. 5. 9 Report and Recommendation, supra at pp. 30-21. 10 Ibid., pp. 22-23. 11 Rollo, p. 23. 12 Rollo, p. 26. 13 Rollo, pp. 28-34. 14 Sandiganbayan Information, Rollo, pp. 166-168. 15 Rollo, p. 2. 16 Rollo, p. 41. 17 Rollo, p. 1. 18 Rollo, pp. 5-8. 19 Memorandum for the Chief Justice, Rollo, p. 141-149. 20 Supreme Court, First Division, Revised Resolution dated March 5, 1997; Rollo, p. 157. 21 Respondent's Comment, Rollo, pp. 46-48. 22 Ibid., Rollo, p. 45. 23 Annexes "D" and "F" Respondent's Comment, Rollo, pp. 90 & 92, respectively. 24 Report and Recommendation of Associate Justice P.A. Hormachuelos, pp. 27-31. 25 See People v. Velasco, 252 SCRA 135. 26 People vs. Constantino, 235 SCRA 384, citing People vs. Fernandez, 209 SCRA 1. 27 People vs. Basilgo, 235 SCRA 191. 28 265 SCRA 456. 29 See People vs. Lua, 256 SCRA 539. 30 236 SCRA 291, citing People vs. Castiller, 188 SCRA 376. 31 Herrera. O.M., Ahandbook on Arrest, Search and Seizure and Custodial Investigation, p. 169, citing Lim vs. Ponce De Leon, 66 SCRA 299 [1975], citing U.S. vs. Rabinovits, 339 O.G. 56, cited in Sinco, Phil. Constitutional Law, p. 242. 32 People vs. Quejada, 223 SCRA 77. 33 Comment of the Respondent, Rollo, p. 96. 34 Respondent's Comment, Rollo, p. 94. 35 Reyes, L.B., Revised Penal Code, Book I, 1993 Ed., p. 236. 36 Yuson vs. Noel, 227 SCRA 1. 37 Office of the Court Administrator vs. Gaticales, 208 SCRA 508. 38 Garcia vs. De la Peña, 229 SCRA 766. 39 Capuno vs. Jaramillo, Jr., 234 SCRA 212. 40 Garcia vs. De la Peña, supra. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation