4/22/2016

G.R.No.190178

TodayisFriday,April22,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.190178February12,2014
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,PlaintiffAppellee,
vs.
FELIMONPATENTESyZAMORA,AccusedApellant.
DECISION
PEREZ,J.:
The peculiar nature of rape is that conviction or acquittal depends almost entirely upon the word of the private
complainantbecauseitisessentiallycommittedinrelativeisolationoreveninsecrecy,anditisusuallyonlythe
victim who can testify of the unconsented coitus.Thus, the long standing rule is that when an alleged victim of
rapesaysshewasviolated,shesaysineffectallthatisnecessarytoshowthatrapehasindeedbeencommitted.
Since the participants are usually the only witnesses in crimes of this nature and the accused's conviction or
acquittal virtually depends on the private complainant's testimony, it must be received with utmost caution. It is
thenincumbentuponthetrialcourttobeveryscrupulousinascertainingthecredibilityofthevictim'stestimony.
Judgesmustfreethemselvesofthenaturaltendencytobeoverprotectiveofeverywomanclaimingtohavebeen
sexuallyabusedanddemandingpunishmentfortheabuser.Whiletheyoughttobecognizantoftheanguishand
humiliation the rape victim goes through as she demands justice, judges should equally bear in mind that their
responsibilityistorenderjusticeaccordingtolaw.1
BeforeUsisanappealfromtheDecision2oftheCourtofAppealsaffirmingwithmodificationtheDecision 3ofthe
Regional Trial Court, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Forcible Abduction with
Rapeandsentencinghimtosufferthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.
The present case involves eight (8) sets of Information for Forcible Abduction with Rape filed by private
complainant("AAA")againstappellant,FelimonPatentes.
TheProsecutionsCase
On 5 December 1998, at about 11:00 a.m., AAA boarded a bus for Bansalan, Davao City, to visit and bring
medicinestohersickgrandmother.Whileseatedattherearportionofthebus,appellantsuddenlysatnexttoher.
It was the second timeAAA met appellant the first time was on 4 December 1998, when appellant persistently
courtedher.Sheonlyknewappellantashewasafriendofherbrother.
Afterabriefconversation,appellantsuddenlyshowedherhisbolo,coveredbyaredscabbardtuckedinhisright
sidewhileheheldaredsteelpipewithArabicmarkings,whichheusedtothreatentokillAAAshouldAAAdisobey
him.AppellantthenaccompaniedAAAtohergrandmothersplaceandreturnedtoDavaoCityproperbybus.As
they walked around, appellant placed his right hand on AAAs shoulder. Appellant also held AAAs right hand,
whichcovershermouthwithahandkerchief.
UponreachingDavaoCity,theyrodeajeepneytoSasaandalightedatanearbyconveniencestore.Uponarrival,
amangavesomethingtoappellant,whichheimmediatelyplacedinsidehispocket.AppellantthenbroughtAAA
tohishouseinHaciendaHeights,DavaoCity,wherehisparents,sister,brotherinlaw,nephewsandnieceslive.
Uponenteringthehouse,appellantdraggedAAAtoaroomupstairsandtiedhertoasewingmachine.Appellant
thenstartedtosmokesomething,whichhealsoforcedAAAtoinhale,causingAAAtofeellight,weakanddizzy.
ThispreventedAAAfromfightingbackasappellantremovedAAAsclothes.Doffedofhisownclothes,appellant
mountedherandinsertedhispenisintohervagina.
Thefollowingday,6December1998,appellantagainforcedAAAtoinhalethesmokefromhiscigarette,causing
hertofeelweakanddizzyasappellanthadcarnalknowledgeofAAA.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_190178_2014.html

1/9

4/22/2016

G.R.No.190178

On7December1998,appellantagainhadcarnalknowledgeofAAAusingthreats,forceandintimidation,causing
bruisesonAAAsarms.
On 8 December 1998, while appellant was sleeping besideAAA,AAA slowly got up to escape. However,AAAs
attempt, while feeble, woke up appellant. Appellant then punched her in the stomach, causing AAA to lose
consciousness.WhenAAAgainedalittlestrength,appellantagainmauledherandrapedheragain.
On9December1998,afterAAAtookabath,appellantrapedAAAwhilepointingabolotoherneck.
On 10, 11 and 12 December 1998, appellant raped AAA while threatening her with bodily harm. He also
threatenedtokillherfamily,incaseshetellsanyoneofherordeal.
On 13 December 1998, to free herself from her predicament,AAA convinced appellant that she will marry him.
Appellant agreed. Appellants mother accompanied AAA to the latters house to discuss the marital plans with
AAAs family. Surprised by the marital plans, AAAs mother asked for a private moment with AAA. In their
conversation,AAAconfessedhowappellantforciblytookhertohishouseon5December1998andrapedherfor
more than a week. AAAs mother then accompanied AAA to report her ordeal to the police, where AAA was
examinedbyadoctor,Dr.SamuelCruz,theCityHealthOfficerofDavaoCity.
Dr. Cruz testified that he examined AAA. In his report, he noted the following observations about AAA: (1)
contusiononthebreastcausedbyakissmark(2)hymenwasintactandcanreadilyadmitanormalsizederect
male penis without sustaining any injury and (3) vaginal canal was negative for spermatozoa. Dr. Cruz also
added that he cannot tell whether it was AAAs first sexual intercourse as the vagina was not injured but had
healedlacerations.
TheAccusedAppellantsDefense
On5December1998,pursuanttotheirpreviousagreement,appellantaccompaniedAAAtoBansalantovisitand
bringmedicinestoAAAsgrandmother.AftergoingaroundDavaoCity,theywenttohishouseatabout7:00p.m.
Appellant then offered to bring AAA to her house but the latter refused, insisting that she wanted to live with
appellantbecauseshewasfedupwithhermother,whooftencalledher"buntog"orprostitute.
AAA stayed in appellants house together with the latters parents, sister, brotherinlaw, nephews and nieces.
AAA slept in the same room with appellant and had consented sexual intercourse. ThroughoutAAAs stay, she
was free to roam around the house and even helped in the household chores. Pursuant to their marital plans,
AAAs grandfather went to appellants house on 7 December 1998.As a result, they agreed to set the wedding
dateon27May1999.AppellantsmotheralsowenttoAAAshousetodiscussthemaritalplanson14December
1998.However,AAAsmotherrejectedthemarriageproposalbecauseofappellantssocialstanding.
Leonora Gerondio (Gerondio), appellants neighbor, testified that she first met AAA in appellants house on 5
December1998.Thefollowingday,GerondioagainsawAAAwhenshewenttoappellantshouse.Appellanttold
herthathewillmarryAAA.Sincethen,GerondiosawAAAeverydayfrom7to11December1998,cleaningthe
surroundings, doing the laundry, and walking around the vicinity.AAA even visited her house and talked about
AAA and appellants marital plans. In her observation, AAA and appellant acted like a couple. Gerondio also
accompanied appellants mother toAAAs house to discussAAA and appellants marital plans. However,AAAs
motherrejectedthemarriageproposal.
Wilma Enriquez (Enriquez), a common friend of AAA and appellant, testified that between 5 to 12 December
1998,shewenttwicetoappellantshouseuponAAAsinvitationtotalkaboutthecouplesmaritalplans.
During trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) AAA, private complainant herself (2) Dr.
SamuelCruz(3)PO1LennieRonquillo(4)privatecomplainantsmotherand(5)JulieDayaday.
On the other hand, the defense presented: (1) Felimon Patentes, accusedappellant himself (2) Leonora
Gerondio(3)WilmaEnriquezand(4)FranciscaPatentes.
Aftertrial,thelowercourtfoundappellantguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofone(1)countofForcibleAbduction
withRapeandseven(7)countsofRape.ThedispositiveportionoftheDecisionreads:
WHEREFORE, the prosecution having proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, Felimon
Patentesa.k.a.ArnoldPatentesisherebysentencedasfollows:
1.CriminalCaseNo.42,78699ReclusionPerpetua
2.CriminalCaseNo.42,78799ReclusionPerpetua
3.CriminalCaseNo.42,78899ReclusionPerpetua
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_190178_2014.html

2/9

4/22/2016

G.R.No.190178

4.CriminalCaseNo.42,78999ReclusionPerpetua
5.CriminalCaseNo.42,79099ReclusionPerpetua
6.CriminalCaseNo.42,79199ReclusionPerpetua
7.CriminalCaseNo.42,79299ReclusionPerpetua
8.CriminalCaseNo.42,79399ReclusionPerpetua
The accused shall indemnifyAAAThirtyThousand Pesos ( P30,000.00) in each of the eight cases for a total of
TwoHundredFortyThousandPesos(P240,000.00).
SOORDERED.4
Aggrieved,appellantelevatedthecasetotheCourtofAppeals.Theappellatecourtaffirmedthedecisionofthe
trialcourtwithmodification.ThedispositiveportionoftheDecisionreads:
WHEREFORE,theassaileddecisionisAFFIRMEDastotheconvictionofappellantFELIMONPATENTESforone
(1) count of Forcible Abduction with Rape and seven (7) counts of eight (8) counts of Rape and as to the
imposition upon him of the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each of the eight (8) offenses. His civil liability,
however,isherebyMODIFIEDasfollows:
AppellantFELIMONPATENTESisherebydirectedtopaythefollowingamounts:
1. P50,000.00 each as civil indemnity for one (1) count of Forcible Abduction with Rape and seven (7)
countsofRapeoratotalofP400,000.00
2.P75,000.00 each as moral damages for one (1) count of ForcibleAbduction with Rape and seven (7)
countsofRapeoratotalofP600,000.00and
3.P25,000.00eachastemperatedamagesforone(1)countofForcibleAbductionwithRapeandseven
(7)countsofRapeoratotalofP200,000.00.
SOORDERED.5
The appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial court on the matter of credibility of the witnesses for the
prosecution. According to the appellate court, "AAAs account of her ordeal in the hands of appellant was
straightforward,firm,candidandconsistent.Notwithstandingtherigid,lengthyandrigorouscrossexaminationby
the defense, AAA remained steadfast in her narration of the details of her harrowing experience. A thorough
readingofthetranscriptshowsthatAAAstestimonybearstheearmarksoftruthandcredibility."6
Hence,thisappeal.
Theelementsnecessarytosustainaconvictionforrapeare:(1)theaccusedhadcarnalknowledgeofthevictim
and(2)saidactwasaccomplished(a)throughtheuseofforceorintimidation,or(b)whenthevictimisdeprived
ofreasonorotherwiseunconscious,or(c)whenthevictimisunder12yearsofageorisdemented.7Inthecase
at bar, appellant never denied having carnal knowledge ofAAA. The only matter, thus, to be resolved by this
Court is whether appellant had carnal knowledge ofAAA against her will using threats, force or intimidation, or
thatAAAwasdeprivedofreasonorotherwiseunconscious,orwasunder12yearsofageorisdemented.
Appellant argues that if AAA really was raped for more than an entire week, it is perplexing why she did not
escape,orevenseekthehelpoftheneighborsdespiteseveralopportunitiestodoso.8Appellantfurtheralleges
thatAAAsfailuretoescapeandherhelpinginthehouseholdchoresinappellantshouseprovethatshewasnot
rapedandthattheyhadconsensualsexualintercourse.9
About this position, the appellate court noted and reasoned that, "appellant threatened AAA with harm in the
event that she told anyone of what happened between them. The lingering fear instilled upon AAA is
understandableconsideringthatappellantwasalwaysarmedwithaboloandwasconstantlyshowingittoAAA.
Thepossibilityofhimmakinggoodhisthreatwasnotatallremoteandthefearforherliferemainedpalpable."10
Behavioralpsychologyteachesusthatpeoplereacttosimilarsituationsdissimilarly.Thereisnostandardformof
behaviorwhenoneisconfrontedbyashockingincidentastheworkingsofthehumanmindwhenplacedunder
emotionalstressareunpredictable.11Nevertheless,theCourtmustbeguidedbyestablishedprinciples.
Inreviewingrapecases,theCourtisguidedbythefollowingprinciples:(1)toaccuseamanofrapeiseasy,butto
disprovetheaccusationisdifficult,thoughtheaccusedmaybeinnocent(2)inasmuchasonlytwopersonsare
usuallyinvolvedinthecrimeofrape,thetestimonyofthecomplainantshouldbescrutinizedwithgreatcaution
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_190178_2014.html

3/9

4/22/2016

G.R.No.190178

and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit and should not be allowed to draw
strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.12 So long as the private complainants testimony
meetsthetestofcredibility,theaccusedmaybeconvictedonthebasisthereof.13
Followingtheselegalprecepts,AAAstestimony,placedsidebysidewiththeprosecutionsevidence,muststand
thetestofcredibility.
1.Absenceofexternalsignsorphysicalinjuriesdoesnotnegatethecommissionofrapesinceproof
ofinjuriesisnotanessentialelementofthecrime.14And,itisalsoapreceptthatphysicalevidenceis
ofthehighestorderandspeaksmoreeloquentlythanallwitnessesputtogether.15Inthecaseatbar,
the prosecution failed to present any scintilla of proof to support its claim. In fact, contrary to the
prosecutionsclaimthatAAAwasdragged,tied,mauled,slappedandboxed,themedicalcertificate
revealed no telltale sign of the prosecutions allegations. It has to be noted that the medical
examinationwasconductedthedayafterAAAssupposedescapefromappellant.Asshownbythe
medicalcertificate,AAAhadnoexternalsignsofphysicalinjuries,saveforakissmark,towit:16
EXTRAGENITALPHYSICALINJURY:
Contusion,reddishpurple,breast,rightside,lowerinnerquadrant,2.0x1.0cm.xxx
CONCLUSIONS:
1.Theabovephysicalinjurywasnotedonthebodyofthesubject,ageofwhichisconsistent
withtheallegeddateofinfliction.
2. That under normal conditions without subsequent complications and unless a deeper
involvement might be present but which is not clinically apparent at the time of examination,
said injury will require medical attendance of not more than seven (7) days from date of
infliction.
3. Hymen intact and its orifice, wide as to allow complete penetration by an averagesized
maleorganinerectionwithoutcausinghymenalinjury.17
2.Thetimehonoredtestindeterminingthevalueofthetestimonyofawitnessisitscompatibilitywith
human knowledge, observation and common experience of man.18 Thus, whatever is repugnant to
the standards of human knowledge, observation and experience becomes incredible and must lie
outsidejudicialcognizance.19
As culled from the records, AAA lived with appellants family for eight (8) days in the same house where
appellants parents, sister, brotherinlaw, nephews and nieces also lived. AAA even called appellants mother,
"mama."Asarguedbythedefense,"themembersoftheappellantsfamilycouldhavenoticedthatshewasbeing
forced and raped by the accused if the accusations were really true."20 Indeed, it is incompatible with human
experience to keep a sex slave for eight (8) days in a house where the abusers entire family, including the
abusersminornephewsandnieceslive.
WhenappellantandAAAarrivedintheformershouse,theyweregreetedbyappellantsfather.IfAAAsaccount
weretruethatappellantdraggedhertoaroomupstairsandthentiedhertoasewingmachine,appellantsfather
couldhavenoticedandreactedtotheobviousviolence.Tosaytheleast,hewouldhavetalkedtotheappellant
aboutthedeed.Instead,andincredibly,appellantsmotherwenttoAAAshousetoproposemarriagecontrary
tothecommonexperience.
ContrarytotheprosecutionsclaimthatAAAonlysawappellanton4December1998,adaybeforethealleged
commission of the crime, it was stipulated thatAAA knew appellant as appellant was a neighbor and friend of
AAAsbrother.21Furthermore,appellantsmotherwasthemidwifewhoassistedAAAshousemaidingivingbirth. 22
Lastly, AAA and appellant have a common friend, Enriquez, who testified that she saw the two in appellants
house,throughAAAsinvitation.23TheTSNreflectstheinconsistenciesinAAAstestimony:24
Q:Doyouknowthathismotherisamidwife?
A:No,Sir.Becauseshehelpedinthedeliveryofourhousemaid.
Q:Whendidyourhousemaidgivebirth?
A:WhenIwenttoBansalanonDecember5IpassedbythehouseshewasabouttodeliverandIsawthemother
oftheaccusedthatsthetimeIcametoknowhismother.
Q:Isitnotthatyourstepfatherevenwenttothehousewhereyoustayed?
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_190178_2014.html

4/9

4/22/2016

G.R.No.190178

A:No,sir.
Q:Youwilldenythat?
A:Ididnotseehim.
xxxx
Q:Isitnotyousaidyouwerebeinglocked?
A:Iwaslockedatthedoorwhenmyfatherarrived.Idonotknowbecausehelockedmeattheroom.[Emphasis
supplied]
For several days thatAAA had been missing, which would have caused worry and anxiety amongAAAs family
members,AAAsfather,insteadofreportingthemattertopoliceauthorities,wenttoappellantshousetodiscuss
AAAandappellantsmaritalplanson7December1998. 25Clearly,thisiscontrarytohumanlogicandexperience,
andinconsistentwiththeprosecutionsclaim.
3. The conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual assault is of utmost importance in
establishingthetruthorfalsityofthechargeofrape.26Inthecaseatbar,theactuationsofAAAafterthealleged
rape is totally uncharacteristic of one who has been raped. It is contrary to normal human behavior forAAA to
willingly go with her abusers mother, and worse, to live with her abusers entire family in one roof for eight (8)
dayssansanyattempttoescape.
Itgoesagainstthegrainofhumanexperienceforawomanwhohasbeenrobbedofherhonorandchastitynotto
seizeanopportunitytoescapefromtheclutchesofhermalefactor.27Insteadofescapingfromherabuser,AAA
visited appellants neighbor.28 Even ifAAA had several opportunities to share her ordeal to be rescued by her
friend, Wilma, AAA inexplicably failed and instead described the details of her marital plans. What is truly
exceptional,however,isthetestimonyofAAAthatshevisitedhergrandmotherduringtheperiodofheralleged
abduction. Despite inconsistencies in her testimony as shown in the TSN, AAA admitted the visit to her
grandmother:29
Q:Soyoudidnotproceedtoyourgrandmothershouse,whereisthehouseofyourgrandmother?
A:Km.81.
Q:NeartheDulo?
A:AbitfartherofDulo.
Q:Yourodeinajeepandthedriverisyourcousin?
A:Nosirwerode(sic)pedicabgoingtomygrandmothersplace.
Q:Therewerenopeople?
A:Weareusedtoride(sic)pedicab.
Q:Soyourodeapedicabatthattime?
A:No,Sir.[Emphasissupplied]
We are mindful that appellants bare invocation of the sweetheart theory cannot alone stand. It must be
corroboratedbydocumentary,testimonial,orotherevidence.Usually,theseareletters,notes,photos,mementos,
or credible testimonies of those who know the lovers.30There is such corroboration in this case.To support its
sweetheart theory, the defense presented appellant and AAAs common friend, Enriquez, who attested to the
veracityofappellantsclaim:31
Q:WhenyouarrivedattheirhousedidyouseethecomplainantAAA?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Wereyouabletotalktoher?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Canyoutellthecourtwhatwasthesubjectofyourconversation?
A:ShetoldmethatsheandFelimonPatentesaregettingmarried,sayingwheretheywillliveandthattheywillgo
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_190178_2014.html

5/9

4/22/2016

G.R.No.190178

intothebuyandsellbusiness.
Q:DidyounoticeAAAtobehappywithFelimonPatentes?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Andthesecondtimeyouwenttotheirplacedoyourememberwhatwasthesubjectofyourconversation?
A:Regardingtheirplanofgettingmarried.[Emphasissupplied]
Appellantsneighbor,Gerondio,corroboratedthetestimony:32
Q:DoyourememberseeingtheaccusedsometimeonDecember5,1998?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Wheredidyouseehim?
A:Intheirhouse,hejustarrived.
Q:Washealone?
A:HeiswithAAA.
xxxx
Q:OnthefollowingdaydidyouseeagainAAA?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Wheredidyouseeher?
A:Insidetheirhouse,shewaswalking.
xxxx
Q:Whenwasthatwhenyousawher?
A:Thenextday,December6,1998.
xxxx
Q:Onthesucceedingdays,fromDecember7to11wereyouabletoseeAAAinthehouseofFelimon?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Wheredidyouseeher?
A:Inthehouseoftheaccused,Felimon.
Q:Whatwasshedoing?
A:Shewascleaningthesurroundingsofthehouseanddidthelaundry,andshewasalsogoingaround.
Q:Whenyousaidgoingaroundor"suroysuroy"wheredidshegoaround?
A:Shealsowenttoourhouse.
Q:Wereyouabletotalktoherpersonally?
A:Yes,sir.
xxxx
Q:Whatdidyouobservefromthem?
A:Asiftheyaremarried.
Q:Whatweretheactionsthatyousawinthem?
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_190178_2014.html

6/9

4/22/2016

G.R.No.190178

A:Theywerelovingwitheachother.
Q:Whatdoyoumeanbyloving?
A:Theyareclosetoeachother,theyjoke,andFelimonwouldplacehisarmontheshoulderofAAA.[Emphasis
supplied]
A conviction in a criminal case must be supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt, which means a moral
certainty that the accused is guilty the burden of proof rests upon the prosecution.33 In the case at bar, the
prosecutionhasfailedtodischargeitsburdenofestablishingwithmoralcertaintythetruthfulnessofthecharge
thatappellanthadcarnalknowledgeofAAAagainstherwillusingthreats,forceorintimidation.
Thetestimonyoftheoffendedpartyincrimesagainstchastityshouldnotbereceivedwithprecipitatecredulityfor
the charge can easily be concocted.34 Courts should be wary of giving undue credibility to a claim of rape,
especially where the sole evidence comes from an alleged victim whose charge is not corroborated and whose
conductduringandaftertherapeisopentoconflictinginterpretations.35Whilejudgesoughttobecognizantofthe
anguishandhumiliationthatarapevictimundergoesassheseeksjustice,theyshouldequallybearinmindthat
theirresponsibilityistorenderjusticebasedonthelaw.36
The numerous inconsistencies in the testimony of private complainant have created reasonable doubt in Our
mind. Inviewoftheforegoingconsiderations,thepresumptionofinnocenceinfavorofappellantmustbeupheld
consideringthattheevidencebroughtforthintrialfallsshortofthequantumofprooftosupportaconviction.37
1 w p h i1

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the Court of Appeals, finding appellant FELIMON
PATENTESyZAMORAguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofForcibleAbductionwithRape,isREVERSEDandSET
ASIDE. FELIMON PATENTES y ZAMORA is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. His immediate
releasefromconfinementisherebyorderedunlessheisbeingdetainedforsomeothercharge.
SOORDERED.
JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,SecondDivision
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby
certifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedto
thewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1

People v. Macapanpan, 449 Phil. 8789 (2003) citing People v. Alitagtag, 368 Phil. 637, 647 (1999)
Peoplev.Baltazar,385Phil.1023,1031(2000)Peoplev.Dumaguing,394Phil.93,103(2000)Peoplev.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_190178_2014.html

7/9

4/22/2016

G.R.No.190178

Gallo,348Phil.640,665(1998)Peoplev.Babera,388Phil.44,53(2000)Peoplev.Alvario,341Phil.526,
538539(1997).
2

Penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja, with Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and
EdgardoT.Llorenconcurring,CourtofAppeals,TwentyFirstDivision,CagayandeOro,CAG.R.CRH.C.
No.00062CArollo,p.159187.
3

PennedbyPresidingJudgeJesusV.Quitain,promulgatedon7March2005,Peoplev.FelimonPatentes,
Crim.CaseNo.42,78679399,RegionalTrialCourt,Branch15,DavaoCity.Records,pp.129144.
4

Id.at144.

CArollo,p.186.

Id.at179.

Peoplev.Bongat,G.R.No.184170,2February2011,641SCRA496,505.

CArollo,p.101.

Id.at93.

10

Id.at181.

11

Peoplev.Mariano,G.R.No.168693,19June2009,590SCRA74,90.

12

Peoplev.Marquez,GRNos.13740810,8December2000,347SCRA510,517.

13

Id.

14

Peoplev.Freta,406Phil.853,862(2001).

15

Peoplev.Bardaje,187Phil.735,744(1980).

16

Exhibit"B,"records,p.7.

17

Id.

18

Peoplev.DeGuzman,G.R.No.192250,11July2012,676SCRA347,360.

19

Id.

20

CArollo,p.103.

21

Records,p.13.

22

TSN,8February2000,p.46.

23

TSN,9December2002,p.3.

24

TSN,8February2000,pp.4647.

25

TSN,8February2000,pp.4647.

26

Peoplev.Sapinoso,385Phil.374,387(2000)Peoplev.Moreno,378Phil.951,969(1999).

27

Peoplev.Macapanpan,supranote1,at106citingPeoplev.Malbog,396Phil.784(2000).

28

TSN,20June2001,p.4.

29

TSN,8February2000,p.37

30

Peoplev.Jimenez,362Phil.222,233(1999).

31

TSN,9December2002,pp.34.

32

TSN,20June2001,pp.24.

33

Section2,Rule133,RevisedRulesonEvidencePeoplev.PalmaGil,348Phil.608,626(1998).

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_190178_2014.html

8/9

4/22/2016

G.R.No.190178
34

Peoplev.Gilbero,425Phil.241,249(2002).

35

Peoplev.Medel,350Phil.208,226(1998).

36

Peoplev.Alvario,341Phil.526,538539(1997).

37

Peoplev.Villajlores,422Phil.776,792(2001),citingPeoplev.Bravo,376Phil.931,944(1999).

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_190178_2014.html

9/9