CASE no. 41 G.R. No. 182348 November 20, 2008 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs.

CARLOS DELA CR !, accused-appellant. DECISION "ELASCO, #R., J.$ This is an appeal from the November 29, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals CA! in CA-".#. C#-$.C. No. 022%& entitled People of the Philippines v. Carlos Dela Cruz 'hich affirmed the (eptember )&, 200* Decision of the #e+ional Trial Court #TC!, ,ranch 77 in (an -ateo, #i.al in Criminal Case Nos. &*)7 /lle+al 0ossession of 1irearm and Ammunition! and &*)% 0ossession of Dan+erous Dru+!. The #TC found accusedappellant Carlos Dela Cru. +uilt2 be2ond reasonable doubt of violation of (ection )) 2! of #epublic Act No. #A! 9)&* or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. T%e F&'() 3n November )*, 2002, char+es a+ainst accused-appellant 'ere made before the #TC. The /nformations read as follo's4 Cr*m*n&+ C&)e No. ,-1. That, on or about the 20th da2 of 3ctober 2002, in the -unicipalit2 of (an -ateo, 0rovince of #i.al, 0hilippines and 'ithin the 5urisdiction of this $onorable Court, the above-named accused, bein+ then a private citi.en, 'ithout an2 la'ful authorit2, did then and there 'illfull2, unla'full2, and 6no'in+l2 have in his possession and under his custod2 and control 3ne )! "au+e (hot+un mar6ed A#-(C3# 'ith (erial No. ))0%*77 loaded 'ith four 8! live ammunition, 'hich are hi+h po'ered firearm and ammunition respectivel2, 'ithout first securin+ the necessar2 license to possess or permit to carr2 said firearm and ammunition from the proper authorities. Cr*m*n&+ C&)e No. ,-18 That on or about the 20th da2 of 3ctober 2002, in the -unicipalit2 of (an -ateo, 0rovince of #i.al, 0hilippines and 'ithin the 5urisdiction of this $onorable Court, the above-named accused, not bein+ authori.ed b2 la', did then and there 'illfull2, unla'full2 and 6no'in+l2 have in his possession, direct custod2 and control one )! heat-sealed transparent plastic ba+ 'ei+hin+ 89.%8 +rams of 'hite cr2stalline substance, 'hich +ave positive results for -ethamphetamine $2drochloride, a dan+erous dru+.) Accused-appellant entered a not +uilt2 plea and trial ensued. The facts, accordin+ to the prosecution, sho'ed that in the mornin+ of 3ctober 20, 2002, an informant tipped off the Dru+ 9nforcement :nit of the -ari6ina 0olice (tation that 'anted dru+ pusher ;ifredo <oilo alias =,o2 ,icol= 'as at his nipa hut hideout in (an -ateo, #i.al. A team 'as or+ani.ed to arrest ,o2 ,icol. 3nce there, the2 sa' ,o2 ,icol b2 a table tal6in+ 'ith accused-appellant. The2 shouted =Boy Bicol sumuko ka na may warrant of arrest ka. (urrender 2ourself ,o2 ,icol 2ou have a 'arrant of arrest.!= :pon hearin+ this, ,o2 ,icol en+a+ed them in a shootout and 'as fatall2 shot. Accused-appellant 'as seen holdin+ a shot+un throu+h a 'indo'. $e dropped his shot+un 'hen a police officerpointed his firearm at him. The team entered the nipa hut and apprehended accused-appellant. The2 sa' a plastic ba+ of suspected shabu, a di+ital 'ei+hin+ scale, dru+ paraphernalia, ammunition, and ma+a.ines l2in+ on the table. 03) Calano+a, >r. put the mar6in+s =C?DC,= the initials of accused-appellant, on the ba+ containin+ the sei.ed dru+. Accused-appellant 'as subse@uentl2 arrested. The substance sei.ed from the hideout 'as sent to the 0hilippine National 0olice crime laborator2 for eAamination and tested positive for methamphetamine h2drochloride or shabu. $e 'as thus separatel2 indicted for violation of #A 9)&* and for ille+al possession of firearm. Accordin+ to the defense, accused-appellant 'as at ,o2 ,icolBs house havin+ been as6ed to do a 'eldin+ 5ob for ,o2 ,icolBs motorc2cle. ;hile accused-appellant 'as there, persons 'ho identified themselves as police officers approached the place, promptin+ accused-appellant to scamper a'a2. $e lied face do'n 'hen +unshots ran+. The bu2-bust team then helped him +et up. $e sa' the police officers searchin+ the premises and findin+ shabu and firearms, 'hich 'ere on top of a table or dra'er.2;hen he as6ed the reason for his apprehension, he 'as told that it 'as because he 'as a companion of ,o2 ,icol. $e denied under oath that the +un and dru+s sei.ed 'ere found in his possession and testified that he 'as onl2 invited b2 ,o2 ,icol to +et the motorc2cle from his house.7 The #TC ac@uitted accused-appellant of ille+al possession of firearm and ammunition but convicted him of possession of dan+erous dru+s. The dispositive portion of the #TC Decision reads4

;$9#913#9, the Court based on insufficienc2 of evidence hereb2 ACC:/T( accused CA#<3( D9<A C#:D E ?/CT3#/N3 in Criminal Case No. &*)7 for violation of 0.D. )%&& as amended b2 #A %298. /n Criminal Case No. &*)% for 0ossession of Dan+erous Dru+ under (ection )), 2nd para+raph of #epublic Act 9)&*, the Court finds said accused CA#<3( D9<A C#:D E ?/CT3#/N3, ":/<TE be2ond reasonable doubt and is hereb2 sentenced to <ife /mprisonment and to 0a2 a 1ine of 13:# $:ND#9D T$3:(AND 09(3( 0800,000.00!. (3 3#D9#9D.8 3n December 7, 200*, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal of the #TC Decision. /n his appeal to the CA, accused-appellant claimed that4 )! the version of the prosecution should not have been +iven full credenceF 2! the prosecution failed to prove be2ond reasonable doubt that he 'as +uilt2 of possession of an ille+al dru+F 7! his arrest 'as patentl2 ille+alF and 8! the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custod2 of the ille+al dru+ alle+edl2 in his possession. The CA sustained accused-appellantBs conviction.* /t pointed out that accused-appellant 'as positivel2 identified b2 prosecution 'itnesses, renderin+ his uncorroborated denial and alle+ation of frame-up 'ea6. As to accused-appellantBs alle+ed ille+al arrest, the CA held that he is deemed to have 'aived his ob5ection 'hen he entered his plea, applied for bail, and activel2 participated in the trial 'ithout @uestionin+ such arrest. 3n the supposedl2 bro6en chain of custod2 of the ille+al dru+, the appellate court held that accused-appellantBs claim is unpersuasive absent an2 evidence sho'in+ that the plastic sachet of shabu had been tampered or meddled 'ith. 3n December 20, 2007, accused-appellant filed his Notice of Appeal of the CA Decision. 3n >une 2*, 200%, this Court re@uired the parties to submit supplemental briefs if the2 so desired. The parties later si+nified their 'illin+ness to submit the case on the basis of the records alread2 'ith the Court. Accused-appellant presents the follo'in+ issues before us4 / T$9 C3:#T A C:3 "#A?9<E 9##9D /N "/?/N" 1:<< C#9D9NC9 T3 T$9 ?9#(/3N 31 T$9 0#3(9C:T/3N // T$9 C3:#T A C:3 "#A?9<E 9##9D /N 1/ND/N" T$9 ACC:(9D-A009<<ANT ":/<TE 31 ?/3<AT/3N 31 (9CT/3N )), A#T/C<9 //, #A 9)&* D9(0/T9 T$9 1A/<:#9 31 T$9 0#3(9C:T/3N T3 0#3?9 T$9 C3--/((/3N 31 T$9 3119N(9 C$A#"9D ,9E3ND #9A(3NA,<9 D3:,T /// T$9 C3:#T A C:3 "#A?9<E 9##9D /N C3N?/CT/N" T$9 ACC:(9D-A009<<ANT 31 T$9 3119N(9 C$A#"9D D9(0/T9 T$9 0AT9NT /<<9"A</TE 31 $/( A##9(T /? T$9 T#/A< C3:#T "#A?9<E 9##9D /N C3N?/CT/N" T$9 ACC:(9D-A009<<ANT 31 ?/3<AT/3N 31 (9CT/3N )), A#T/C<9 //, #A 9)&* D9(0/T9 T$9 1A/<:#9 31 T$9 0#3(9C:T/3N T3 9(TA,</($ T$9 C$A/N 31 C:(T3DE 31 T$9 /<<9"A< D#:" A<<9"9D<E 13:ND /N $/( 03((9((/3N Accused-appellant claims that the presence of all the elements of the offense of possession of dan+erous dru+ 'as not proved be2ond reasonable doubt since both actual and constructive possessions 'ere not proved. $e asserts that the shabu 'as not found in his actual possession, for 'hich reason the prosecution 'as re@uired to establish that he had constructive possession over theshabu. $e maintains that as he had no control and dominion over the dru+ or over the place 'here it 'as found, the prosecution li6e'ise failed to prove constructive possession. T%e Co/r(0) R/+*n1 The appeal has merit. The elements in ille+al possession of dan+erous dru+ are4 )! the accused is in possession of an item or ob5ect 'hich is identified to be a prohibited dru+F 2! such possession is not authori.ed b2 la'F and 7! the accused freel2 and consciousl2 possessed the said dru+.& 3n the third element, 'e have held that the possession must be 'ith 6no'led+e of the accused or that animus possi en i eAisted 'ith the possession or control of said articles.7 Considerin+ that as to this 6no'led+e, a personBs mental state of a'areness of a fact is involved, 'e have ruled that4 (ince courts cannot penetrate the mind of an accused and thereafter state its perceptions 'ith certaint2, resort to other evidence is necessar2. Animus possi en i, as a state of mind, ma2 be

determined on a case-to-case basis b2 ta6in+ into consideration the prior or contemporaneous acts of the accused, as 'ell as the surroundin+ circumstances. /ts eAistence ma2 and usuall2 must be inferred from the attendant events in each particular case.% The prior or contemporaneous acts of accused-appellant sho' that4 he 'as inside the nipa hut at the time the bu2-bust operation 'as ta6in+ placeF he 'as tal6in+ to ,o2 ,icol inside the nipa hutF he 'as seen holdin+ a shot+unF 'hen 03) Calano+a, >r. pointed his firearm at accused-appellant, the latter dropped his shot+unF and 'hen apprehended, he 'as in a room 'hich had the sei.ed shabu, di+ital'ei+hin+ scale, dru+ paraphernalia, ammunition, and ma+a.ines. Accused-appellant later admitted that he 6ne' 'hat the content of the sei.ed plastic ba+ 'as.9 "iven the circumstances, 'e find that the prosecution failed to establish possession of the shabu, 'hether in its actual or constructive sense, on the part of accused-appellant. The t'o bu2-bust team members corroborated each otherBs testimonies on ho' the2 sa' ,o2 ,icol tal6in+ to accused-appellant b2 a table inside the nipa hut. That table, the2 testified, 'as the same table 'here the2 sa' the shabu once inside the nipa hut. This fact 'as used b2 the prosecution to sho' that accused-appellant eAercised dominion and control over the shabu on the table. ;e, ho'ever, find this too broad an application of the concept of constructive possession. /n People v. !orres,)0 'e held there 'as constructive possession of prohibited dru+s even 'hen the accused 'as not home 'hen the prohibited dru+s 'ere found in the masterBs bedroom of his house. /n People v. !ira,)) 'e sustained the conviction of the accused husband and 'ife for ille+al possession of dan+erous dru+s. Their residence 'as searched and their bed 'as found to be concealin+ ille+al dru+s underneath. ;e held that the 'ife cannot fei+n i+norance of the dru+sB eAistence as she had full access to the room, includin+ the space under the bed. /n Abuan v. People,)2 'e affirmed the findin+ that the accused 'as in constructive possession of prohibited dru+s 'hich had been found in the dra'er located in her bedroom. /n all these cases, the accused 'as held to be in constructive possession of ille+al dru+s since the2 'ere sho'n to en5o2 dominion and control over the premises 'here these dru+s 'ere found. /n the instant case, ho'ever, there is no @uestion that accused-appellant 'as not the o'ner of the nipa hut that 'as sub5ect of the bu2-bust operation. $e did not have dominion or control over the nipa hut. Neither 'as accused-appellant a tenant or occupant of the nipa hut, a fact not disputed b2 the prosecution. The tar+et of the operation 'as ,o2 ,icol. Accused-appellant 'as merel2 a +uest of ,o2 ,icol. ,ut in spite of the lac6 of evidence pinnin+ accused-appellant to ille+al possession of dru+s, the trial court declared the follo'in+4 /t cannot be denied that 'hen the accused 'as tal6in+ 'ith ,o2 ,icol he 6ne' that the shabu 'as on the table 'ith other items that 'ere confiscated b2 the police operatives. The court GsurmisesH that the accused and bo2 ,icol 'ere members of a +an+ hidin+ in that nipa hut 'here the2 'ere cau+ht redhanded 'ith prohibited items and dan+erous Gdru+sH.)7 The trial court cannot assume, based on the prosecutionBs evidence, that accused-appellant 'as part of a +an+ dealin+ in ille+al activities. Apart from his presence in ,o2 ,icolBs nipa hut, the prosecution 'as not able to sho' his participation in an2 dru+-dealin+. $e 'as not even in possession of dru+s in his person. $e 'as merel2 found inside a room 'ith shabu, not as the roomBs o'ner or occupant but as a +uest. ;hile he alle+edl2 pointed a firearm at the bu2-bust team, the prosecution curiousl2 failed to produce the firearm that accusedappellant supposedl2 used. The prosecution in this case clearl2 failed to sho' all the elements of the crime absent a sho'in+ of either actual or constructive possession b2 the accused-appellant. (ince accused-appellant 'as not in possession of the ille+al dru+s in ,o2 ,icolBs nipa hut, his subse@uent arrest 'as also invalid. #ule ))7 of the #ules on Criminal 0rocedure on 'arrantless arrest provides4 (ec. *. Arrest without warrant" when lawful.--A peace officer or a private person ma2, 'ithout a 'arrant, arrest a person4 a! ;hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actuall2 committin+, or is attemptin+ to commit an offenseF b! ;hen an offense has 5ust been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal 6no'led+e of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed itF and c! ;hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner 'ho has escaped from a penal establishment or place 'here he is servin+ final 5ud+ment or is temporaril2 confined 'hile his case is pendin+, or has escaped 'hile bein+ transferred from one confinement to another. The 'arrantless arrest of accused-appellant 'as effected under (ec. * a!, arrest of a suspect in flagrante elicto. 1or this t2pe of 'arrantless arrest to be valid, t'o re@uisites must concur4 )! the person to be arrested

must eAecute an overt act indicatin+ that he has 5ust committed, is actuall2 committin+, or is attemptin+ to commit a crimeF and 2! such overt act is done in the presence or 'ithin the vie' of the arrestin+ officer. )8 Accused-appellantBs act of pointin+ a firearm at the bu2-bust team 'ould have been sufficient basis for his arrest in flagrante elictoF ho'ever, the prosecution 'as not able to ade@uatel2 prove that accused-appellant 'as committin+ an offense. Althou+h accused-appellant merel2 denied possessin+ the firearm, the prosecutionBs char+e 'as 'ea6 absent the presentation of the alle+ed firearm. $e 'as eventuall2 ac@uitted b2 the trial court because of this +affe. $is arrest, independent of the bu2-bust operation tar+etin+ ,o2 ,icol, 'as therefore not la'ful as he 'as not proved to be committin+ an2 offense. /n sum, 'e find that there is insufficient evidence to sho' accused-appellantBs +uilt be2ond reasonable doubt. $avin+ ruled on the lac6 of material or constructive possession b2 accused-appellant of the sei.edshabu and his succeedin+ ille+al arrest, 'e deem it unnecessar2 to deal 'ith the other issue raised. 2HEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The CA Decision dated November 29, 2007 in CA-".#. C#-$.C. No. 022%& is RE"ERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Carlos Dela Cru. is AC3 ITTEDof violation of (ec. )) 2! of #A 9)&* in Criminal Case No. &*)% of the #TC, ,ranch 77 in (an -ateo, #i.al. SO ORDERED.

Case no. 82 1/#(T D/?/(/3N 4G.R. No. 1-8203. 5&r'% 31, 200-6 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. RICO CAL 5PANG &n7 #O"ENAL O5ATANG, appellants. DECISION 3 IS 58ING, J.$ 3n appeal is the DecisionG)H dated November 29, 2002, of the #e+ional Trial Court of Duma+uete Cit2, ,ranch 7&, in Criminal Case No. )0)*2, convictin+ appellants #ico Calumpan+ and >ovenal 3matan+ of t'o counts of murder and sentencin+ each of them to suffer the penalt2 of reclusion perpetua, and orderin+ them to pa2 dama+es to the heirs of the victims. Appellants 'ere char+ed under an /nformation 'hich reads4 That on or about >ul2 )8, )99) at 7400 oIcloc6 in the evenin+, more or less, at 0amplona Coconut 0lantation, 0amplona, Ne+ros 3riental, 0hilippines and 'ithin the 5urisdiction of this $onorable Court, the above-named accused conspirin+, confederatin+ and helpin+ one another, 'ith intent to 6ill, evident premeditation and treacher2, did then and there 'illfull2, unla'full2 and feloniousl2 attac6, assault, stab and hac6 A</C/A CAT/0AE and (ANT/A"3 CAT/0AE 'ith the use of bolos, 'ith 'hich the said accused 'ere then armed and provided, thereb2 inflictin+ upon A</C/A CAT/0AE, the follo'in+ in5uries4 ). $ac6ed ;ound - located at the #i+ht Temporal area involvin+ the temporal bones 8 inches in len+th 2. $ac6ed ;ound - located at the left occipital area involvin+ the occipital bone and the brain tissues 7. /ncised ;ound - located at the medial part of the left hand 8. /ncised ;ound - located at the medial part of the left 'rist 5oint *. /ncised ;ound - located at the middle medial part of the left forearm and upon (ANT/A"3 CAT/0AE, the follo'in+ in5uries4 ). $ac6ed ;ound - located at the left side of the face eAtendin+ from the ear to the lateral part of the orbital bones. 2. (tabbed ;ound - located at the antero-lateral part of the left chest 'all measurin+ 8 inches in depth 2 inches in 'idth 7. (tabbed ;ound - located at the abdomen 2 inches above the navel protrudin+ the intestines 8. (tabbed ;ound - located at the sternal area 7 inches in depth and ) inch in 'idth *. (tabbed 'ound - located at the left lateral part of chest 'all & siA! inches belo' the armpit * inches in depth, 7 inches in 'idth &. /ncised ;ound - located at the left dorsal part of the little and the rin+ fin+er. 'hich 'ounds or in5uries caused the death of said A</C/A CAT/0AE and (ANT/A"3 CAT/0AE shortl2 thereafter. Contrar2 to Article 28% of the #evised 0enal Code.G2H 3n arrai+nment, appellants entered a plea of not +uilt2. Thereafter trial ensued. The prosecution presented three 'itnesses4 -a+no "ome., Dr. #o+elio Jadili, and AleAander 9bias. G7H Their testimonies constitute the version of the case accordin+ to the prosecutionIs point of vie'. -a+no "ome. testified that around &470 p.m. of >ul2 )8, )99), he 'as at Tala2, 0amplona, Ne+ros 3riental, 'al6in+ home to (itio -a6apa, -an+oto, 0amplona. $e 'as 'ith his nei+hbors, the spouses (antia+o and Alicia Catipa2. 3n their 'a2, the2 stopped at the store of Ana Anda+an, located near the 0amplona Coconut 0lantation, and decided to have some beer. -a+no added that (antia+o sa' appellants drin6in+ tuba inside AnaIs store, and offered them a +lass of beer, but appellants refused. (antia+o 5ust dran6 the +lass of beer he 'as offerin+. G8H After that, -a+no and the spouses left the store and too6 a shortcut throu+h the coconut plantation. -a+no sa' appellants follo' them. $e suspected that appellants 'ere plannin+ somethin+ sinister because the2 follo'ed too closel2 and 'ere concealin+ somethin+ at their bac6s. -a+no cautioned (antia+o, but the latter 5ust told him not to 'orr2 about appellants.G*H -a+no and the spouses simpl2 continued 'al6in+ for another half-6ilometer until the2 reached the narro' 'ater'a2 that let 'ater from the river into the plantation. -a+no removed his slippers and started to cross ahead of the spouses. (antia+o and Alicia sta2ed sli+htl2 behind because (antia+o had to remove his shoes.G&H

;hen -a+no had crossed five feet of the 'ater'a2, -a+no turned around to 'ait for his companions and sa' appellants attac6in+ the spouses. ;ith a bolo, appellant Calumpan+ hac6ed (antia+o on the head and stabbed his abdomen. At the same time, appellant 3matan+ attac6ed Alicia.G7H (cared that appellants 'ould also attac6 him, -a+no ran a'a2. After *0 meters, he reached AleAander 9biasIs house. $e as6ed AleAander for a torch then continued 'al6in+ to'ards (itio -a6apa, -an+oto, 0amplona. After a 6ilometer, ho'ever, he sa' the house of his cousin #olando #etada. G%H $e decided to spend the ni+ht there.G9H -a+no further testified that he did not tell either AleAander or #olando about 'hat he sa' at the 'ater'a2 because he 'as afraid. -a+no added that he left #olandoIs house around &470 the neAt mornin+ to report the incident at the municipal hall in the poblacion of 0amplona, but 'as arrested for @uestionin+ b2 members of the 0hilippine Arm2 on his 'a2 out of the store of 0icio Ean, 'here he had to attend to some personal business. -a+no declared that he did not report to them that appellants 6illed the spouses. G)0H /t 'as onl2 after he 'as turned over to the police authorities of 0amplona and brou+ht to the police station that he reported 'hat he sa' the da2 before at the 'ater'a2 in the plantation.G))H Dr. #o+elio -. Jadili, -unicipal $ealth 3fficer of the #ural $ealth :nit, 0amplona, Ne+ros 3riental, testified that he conducted the post-mortem eAamination of the victims at around 7400 a.m. on >ul2 )*, )99). G)2H The results of his eAamination sho'ed the 'ounds on (antia+o and Alicia Catipa2 as follo's4 G(antia+o Catipa2H ). $ac6ed ;ound - located at the left side of the face eAtendin+ from the ear to the lateral part of the orbital bones 2. (tabbed ;ound - located at the antero-lateral part of the left chest 'all measurin+ 8 inches in depth 2 inches in 'idth 7. (tabbed ;ound - located at the abdomen 2 inches above the navel protrudin+ the intestines 8. (tabbed ;ound - located at the sternal area 7 inches in depth and ) inch in 'idth *. (tabbed 'ound - located at the left lateral part of chest 'all & siA! inches belo' the armpit * inches in depth, 7 inches in 'idth &. /ncised ;ound - located at the left dorsal part of the little and the rin+ fin+erFG)7H GAlicia Catipa2H ). $ac6ed ;ound - located at the #i+ht Temporal area involvin+ the temporal bones 8 inches in len+th 2. $ac6ed ;ound - located at the left occipital area involvin+ the occipital bone and the brain tissues 7. /ncised ;ound - located at the medial part of the left hand 8. /ncised ;ound - located at the medial part of the left 'rist 5oint *. /ncised ;ound - located at the middle medial part of the left forearm.G)8H Dr. Jadili li6e'ise identified the death certificates of (antia+o and Alicia Catipa2 'hich sho'ed the cause of death as hemorrha+e shoc6.G)*H AleAander 9bias, 'ho lives near the 'ater'a2 at the 0amplona Coconut 0lantation, testified that around the time (antia+o and Alicia 'ere murdered, he heard noise from the direction of the 'ater'a2, but did not do an2thin+ to investi+ate. -oments later, he heard -a+no callin+ from outside the house. -a+no 'anted some dried coconut leaves to ma6e a torch. $e +ave -a+no 'hat he 'anted then as6ed about the noise from the 'ater'a2. -a+no said he did not 6no'.G)&H 1or its part, the defense contradicted the version of the prosecution and presented Anal2n Anda+an, Conchito Nilas,G)7H >oseph #abor and appellants to prove that appellants 'ere no'here near the 'ater'a2 at the precise time that (antia+o and Alicia Catipa2 'ere murdered. Anal2n Anda+an testified that on >ul2 )8, )99), she 'as tendin+ the store of her mother, Ana Anda+an, at Tala2, 0amplona, Ne+ros 3riental. Around 7400 p.m. appellants Calumpan+ and 3matan+ arrived 'ith one Conchito Nilas. The three ordered a +allon of tuba and started drin6in+. Around &470 p.m., -a+no and the spouses arrived. The2 each had one bottle of beer and immediatel2 left after finishin+ their beers. Anal2n further testified that appellants did not follo' -a+no, (antia+o and Alicia 'hen the three left her motherIs store. Appellant 3matan+ sta2ed until 7400 p.m. and continued tal6in+ 'ith his t'o companions, appellant Calumpan+ and Conchito Nilas. $e left 'hen his )2-2ear-old nephe', defense 'itness >oseph #abor, came to fetch him for supper. Appellant Calumpan+, for his part, sta2ed until %400 p.m. and helped her close the store. $e 'al6ed home 'ith her and Conchito Nilas.G)%H Conchito NilasIs testimon2 dovetailed Anal2n Anda+anIs testimon2. $e added that he sa' his friend appellant Calumpan+ +o inside the latterIs house.G)9H

>oseph #abor corroborated Anal2nIs testimon2 that he fetched his uncle, appellant 3matan+, from the store around 7400 p.m. upon the order of his mother. $e added that he and appellant 3matan+ slept in the same room that ni+ht.G20H Appellant 3matan+ li6e'ise corroborated Anal2nIs testimon2 that he left around 7400 p.m. 'ith >oseph. $e also claimed he had nothin+ to do 'ith the 6illin+ of the spouses and averred that he 'as at home in the same room 'ith >oseph, sleepin+, 'hen the spouses 'ere murdered. $e claimed that he learned of the murders onl2 upon his arrest the neAt da2.G2)H Appellant Calumpan+ vehementl2 denied 6illin+ the spouses. $e declared that (antia+o and Alicia had no 6no'n enemies and 'ere +ood people. $e corroborated all of Anal2nIs testimon2, and added that -a+no and (antia+o 'ere ar+uin+ 'hen the t'o came into the store. Appellant Calumpan+ li6e'ise averred that after helpin+ Anal2n close the store, he 'ent home, ate supper, and 'ent to bed.G22H /n addition to the above 'itnesses, the defense presented #olando #etada and ?isitacion #abor. #olando confirmed that -a+no spent the ni+ht at his house on >ul2 )8, )99), and left ver2 earl2 the neAt mornin+ 'ithout drin6in+ coffee. ?isitacion #abor, on the other hand, testified that she overheard (antia+o beratin+ -a+no 'hen the2 passed her store around &470 p.m. on >ul2 )8, )99). (antia+o 'as mad at -a+no because -a+no did not 'ant to help (antia+o clean the dam at -an+oto, 0amplona, as -a+no 'as supposed to. (he added that (antia+o continued callin+ -a+no useless at AnaIs store until Alicia prevailed upon (antia+o to +o home. ;hen (antia+o and Alicia left, -a+no follo'ed them.G27H The trial court +ave credence to the testimon2 of -a+no "ome. and accepted his account of the murders. (aid the trial court4 The testimon2 of the lone e2e'itness describin+ vividl2 the events prior, durin+ and after the 6illin+ offers a complete picture of the incident that onl2 an e2e'itness could suppl2. -oreover, the actuation of 'itness -a+no "ome. of not tellin+ other people of the crime he 5ust eAperienceGdH for fear of his life, and his comin+ bac6 to to'n after sunrise. 9ven declinin+ #etadaIs offer of a cup of coffee GandH to report to the authorities the incident that he 'itnessed the ni+ht before, is consistent 'ith human behavior and should be accorded +reat respect and +iven more 'ei+ht. sic! $is conduct after the incident added more credibilit2 to his testimon2. As to the fear he eAhibited after the 6illin+ of the spouses, the (upreme Court has this to sa2 Kthere is no standard form of behavior 'hen one is confronted b2 a shoc6in+ incident especiall2 if the assailant assailants in this case! is ph2sicall2 near. No standard form of behavioral response, @uite often said, could be eApected from ever2one 'hen confronted 'ith a stran+e, startlin+ or fri+htful occurrence.G28H /n its 5ud+ment dated November 29, 2002, the trial court convicted appellants as follo's4 ;$9#913#9, in vie' of the fore+oin+, each accused, #/C3 CA<:-0AN" and >3?9NA< 3-ATAN" are hereb2 sentenced to suffer imprisonment of the maAimum penalt2 of reclusion perpetua, and further ordered to indemnif2 5ointl2 and severall2 the heirs of the spouses (antia+o and Alicia Catipa2 the amount of 0h0)00,000.00, and to pa2 moral dama+es in the amount of 0h0)00,000.00. The bail bond posted b2 both accused for their temporar2 libert2 durin+ the trial of this case is hereb2 cancelled. (3 3#D9#9D.G2*H $ence, this appeal. Appellant no' assi+ns the follo'in+ as errors4 / T$9 T#/A< C3:#T 9##9D /N ,9</9?/N" T$9 T9(T/-3NE 31 -A"N3 "3-9D (/NC9 $9 ;A( A 0#/NC/0A< (:(09CT $/-(9<1. $/( T9(T/-3NE /( #90<9T9 ;/T$ -AT9#/A< /NC3N(/(T9NC/9(, AND -ANE 31 $/( C<A/-( A#9 C3NT#A#E T3 $:-AN 9L09#/9NC9F // T$9 T#/A< C3:#T 9##9D /N C3-0<9T9<E D/(#9"A#D/N" T$9 9?/D9NC9 31 T$9 D919N(9F AND /// T$9 T#/A< C3:#T C3--/TT9D A "#A?9 -/(TAJ9 /N C3NC9NT#AT/N" 3N T$9 D919N(9 31 A</,/ ,E T$9 ACC:(9D, /N(T9AD 31 <33J/N" /NT3 T$9 ?A":9N9(( AND ;9AJN9(( 31 T$9 :NC3##3,3#AT9D T9(T/-3NE 31 T$9 0#3(9C:T/3NI( <3N9 9E9;/TN9((.G2&H 9ssentiall2, for our resolution is the issue of 'hether the appellantsI +uilt for double murder has been proven be2ond reasonable doubt. Appellants ar+ue that the trial court erred in +ivin+ credence to -a+no "ome.Is testimon2, 'hich is false and unbelievable. The2 stress that -a+noIs testimon2 that he never sa' (antia+o tr2 to escape durin+ the attac6s contradicts his statements in his affidavit, eAecuted durin+ preliminar2 eAamination, that (antia+o tried to escape but 'as overta6en b2 appellants.G27H The2 suspect that -a+no 'as himself the 6iller, and posit that because he 'as alread2 a prime suspect, -a+no accused appellants of the murder to save himself.

G2%H

Appellants li6e'ise ar+ue that the trial court erred in dismissin+ their defense of alibi on the +round that it 'as a 'ea6 defense.G29H (i+nificantl2, for the (tate, the 3ffice of the (olicitor "eneral contends that reasonable doubt concernin+ the +uilt of the appellants eAist in this case. The 3(" stresses that material inconsistencies eAist bet'een -a+noIs testimon2 in court and his affidavit, 'hich he eAecuted durin+ the preliminar2 eAamination. G70H The 3(" cites that -a+no testified that the spouses 'ere simultaneousl2 attac6ed b2 appellants, 'ith appellant Calumpan+ attac6in+ (antia+o and appellant 3matan+ attac6in+ Alicia. $o'ever, durin+ the preliminar2 eAamination, -a+no declared that both appellants attac6ed Alicia first and that (antia+o 'as hac6ed because (antia+o attempted to save his 'ife.G7)H 1urther, the fact that -a+no 'as a principal suspect and that he did not choose to eAonerate himself ri+ht a'a2 'hen he 'as arrested for @uestionin+ b2 members of the 0hilippine Arm2, render his credibilit2 suspect.G72H /n addition, the 3(" stresses that it 'as not sho'n in this case that appellants had an2 ill motive to 6ill (antia+o and Alicia Catipa2. G77H The 3(" concludes that appellants deserve ac@uittal on reasonable doubt. After a careful revie' of the records of this case, 'e find that the trial court overloo6ed pertinent pieces of evidence favorable to the accused and disre+arded several si+nificant facts and circumstances that cast doubt on the veracit2 of the testimon2 of the prosecutionIs lone e2e'itness, -a+no "ome., 5ustif2in+ a departure from the settled rule that factual findin+s of the trial court bind this Court.G78H ;hile -a+no claimed to have 'itnessed the +ruesome 6illin+s, the records sho' that serious discrepancies attended -a+noIs testimon2 in court and his s'orn statement,G7*HeAecuted durin+ the preliminar2 eAamination conducted b2 >ud+e Ananson 9. >a2me on >ul2 )*, )99), at the ) st -unicipal Circuit Trial Court of 0amplona-Amlan-(an >ose, Ne+ros 3riental. /n his s'orn statement, -a+no narrated that both appellants Khac6ed Alicia Catipa2 firstM and that (antia+o 'as attac6ed after Khe attempted to save his 'ife.M -a+no declared that (antia+o Kattempted to run a'a2 but he 'as chasedM and K'as overta6en and 'as hac6ed b2 both accused.M -a+no also claimed that appellants tried to hac6 him after the2 had hac6ed (antia+o. -a+no said, C $o' did the hac6in+ incident happenN A A( 9*r)(, *( :&) A+*'*& :%o :&) %&';e7 and follo'ed b2 stabbin+ immediatel2 (antia+o 'as also hac6ed and 'hen he attempted to flee b2 crossin+ the G'ater'a2H both accused stabbed (antia+o and he fell to the river. C ;hen Alicia Catipa2 'as hac6ed 'as she hitN A Ees. C ;hat part of her bod2 'as hitN A 3n GtheH left side of her ear. C And 'ho hac6ed herN A 8o(% &''/)e7 %&';e7 %er. C And 'ho stabbed Alicia Catipa2N A G>ovenalH 3matan+. C ;as Alicia Catipa2 hitN A Ees. C ;hat part of her bod2 'as hitN A At the stomach. C ;hat 'eapon did >ovenal 3matan+ use in hac6in+ and stabbin+ Alicia Catipa2N A ,olo. C Eou said both accused hac6ed Alicia Catipa2 first, 'hat did (antia+o Catipa2 doN A He &((em<(e7 (o )&ve %*) :*9e &n7 *n)(e&7 %e :&) %&';e7. C Eou said (antia+o Catipa2 'as hit 'hat part of his bod2 'as hit 'hen he 'as hac6ed b2 the accusedN A $e 'as hit on his arm. C After he 'as hit on his arm 'hat did he doN A He &((em<(e7 (o r/n &:&= b/( %e :&) '%&)e7. C Did (antia+o Catipa2 succeed in escapin+N A No, %e :&) over(&;en &n7 :&) %&';e7 b= bo(% &''/)e7. C ;hen G(antia+oH 'as overta6en b2 the accused 'hat part of his bod2 'as hit 'hen he 'as hac6edN A / 6no' he 'as hit but / do not 6no' 'hat part of his bod2 'as hit.

;hen both accused hac6ed and stabbed (antia+o Catipa2 'hile runnin+, 'hat happened to (antia+o Catipa2N A $e fell to the ed+e of the river. C ;hen (antia+o Catipa2 fell to the 'ater, 'hat did the accused doN A T%e= &+)o %&';e7 me b/( I r&n &:&=.G7&H 3n the 'itness stand, ho'ever, -a+no +ave a different version of ho' the murders happened. -a+no testified at direct eAamination that onl2 appellant Calumpan+ hac6ed (antia+o and that Alicia 'as hac6ed onl2 b2 appellant 3matan+. -ore important, he averred that the victims 'ere attac6ed simultaneousl2. -a+no testified4 C Accordin+ to 2ou, (antia+o Catipa2 and Alicia Catipa2 'ere @uarreled b2 #ico Calumpan+ and >ovenal 3matan+. $o' 'as (antia+o Catipa2 @uarreledN A $e 'as hac6ed at the head. C ;ho hac6ed him at the headN A R*'o C&+/m<&n1. C ;hat did #ico Calumpan+ use in hac6in+ (antia+o Catipa2N A A bolo. C $o' man2 times did #ico Calumpan+ hac6 (antia+o Catipa2N A (antia+o Catipa2 'as stabbed once and he 'as hac6ed also once. C And 'here 'as (antia+o Catipa2 hit b2 the hac6in+ of #ico Calumpan+N A $ead. C ;ill 2ou please point to the portion 'here (antia+o Catipa2 'as hit b2 the hac6in+ of #ico Calumpan+N A ;itness pointin+ at the left side of his head. C And accordin+ to 2ou, he 'as also stabbed b2 #ico Calumpan+, 'here 'as (antia+o Catipa2 hit b2 the stabbin+N A $ere O 'itness pointin+ to this abdomen 'hich is the lo'er part on the ri+ht side to the breast. . . . C Eou testified that Alicia 'as 6illed, ho' 'as she 6illedN A (he G'asH hac6ed and stabbed. C ;ho hac6ed and stabbed herN A I( :&) #oven&+ Om&(&n1. C Accordin+ to 2ou Alicia Catipa2 'as hac6ed and stabbed b2 >ovenal 3matan+, 'as Alicia hit b2 the hac6in+ of >ovenal 3matan+N A Ees, she 'as hit. . . . C ;as the attac6 of (antia+o Catipa2 b2 #ico Calumpan+ and the attac6 of >ovenal 3matan+ on Alicia Catipa2 simultaneous or the2 'ere hac6in+ and stabbin+ almost at the same time b2 these t'o accused performin+ their o'n individual actsN sic! A >e), *( :&) )*m/+(&neo/). C After seein+ (antia+o Catipa2 hac6ed and stabbed b2 #ico Calumpan+ and Alicia Catipa2 hac6ed and stabbed b2 >ovenal 3matan+, 'hat did 2ou doN A / ran. C Eou ran after the2 'ere 6illed or the2 'ere still under attac6N A The2 'ere still attac6in+ 'hen / ran a'a2. G77H -a+no never said that appellants also tried to hac6 him and even claimed that the2 'ere still hac6in+ the victims 'hen he ran a'a2. -a+no also never mentioned that (antia+o tried to save his 'ife or that (antia+o 'as chased or even that (antia+o tried to run. /n fact, durin+ cross-eAamination, he averred that he never sa' (antia+o run a'a2. -a+no testified, C Durin+ that hac6in+ of (antia+o Catipa2, 'as (antia+o Catipa2 able to runN A I 7o no( ;no: :%e(%er %e :&) &b+e (o r/n or no(. ;hat / sa' is that he 'as hac6ed and stabbed. C And 2ou are ver2 sure of that, -r. "ome., that 2ou did not see (antia+o Catipa2 runN A T%&( *) :%&( I '&n )&=. ;hat / sa' 'as he 'as hac6ed and stabbed. After that, / ran a'a2. C That is 'h2 2ou told this $onorable Court that 2ou did not see (antia+o Catipa2 run 'hen he 'as bein+ hac6ed and stabbed b2 #ico Calumpan+N

#e+ardin+ that @uestion, 'hat / can sa2 is that / sa' the hac6in+ and stabbin+ incident. After that, / ran a'a2.G7%H "enerall2, an affidavit, bein+ ta6en e# parte, is considered almost al'a2s incomplete and often inaccurate or lac6in+ in details and is deemed inferior to the testimon2 +iven in open court. >urisprudence, ho'ever, fore'arns that 'hen serious and ineAplicable discrepancies eAist bet'een a previousl2 eAecuted s'orn statement of a 'itness and his testimonial declarations, 'ith respect to a personIs participation in a serious imputation such as murder, there is raised a +rave doubt on the veracit2 of the 'itnessI account.G79H The trial court believed that -a+noIs accusations a+ainst appellants are true, basin+ on the fact that -a+no 'as able to testif2 on direct eAamination as to the precise location of the hac6 'ound on (antia+oIs head and the stab 'ound on his abdomen.G80H ,ut the court failed to consider that at the preliminar2 eAamination, barel2 a da2 after the incident, -a+no 'as as6ed the same @uestions as6ed in court, but could not even recall 'here (antia+o 'as hit 'hen appellants hac6ed him. No eAplanation 'as +iven ho' -a+no 'as able to suppl2 durin+ the trial the precise location of (antia+oIs 'ounds )9 months after the incident. G8)H (imilarl2, several portions of -a+noIs testimon2 are un'orth2 of belief. There seems to be no eAplanation as to 'h2 appellants i+nored -a+no and did not chase him G82Hconsiderin+ that he 'as onl2 five feet a'a2 'hen he alle+edl2 +ot an unobstructed vie' of appellants murderin+ the spouses. <i6e'ise, it ma6es no sense 'h2, if it 'ere true that he 'as runnin+ a'a2 for fear that appellants mi+ht also attac6 him, -a+no chose to run onl2 a short distance of onl2 *0 meters, and 'hile still unsure that appellants did in fact not run after him, -a+no too6 the time to stop b2 AleAander 9biasIs house, called out to AleAander, as6ed for some dried coconut leaves, and made a torch to li+ht his path. -a+noIs actions 'ere certainl2 not the actions of someone see6in+ to avoid peril to his life. The li+hted torch and the noise he made callin+ out to AleAander 'ould have revealed his location to the ver2 people he said he 'as runnin+ from. -a+noIs claim that he intended to +o to the authorities and report that he sa' appellants 6ill the spouses is far from credible, considerin+ that he did not do so, even for the sa6e of eAoneratin+ himself ri+ht a'a2 'hen members of the 0hilippine Arm2 arrested him for @uestionin+. ;ell settled is the rule that evidence to be believed must not onl2 proceed from the mouth of a credible 'itness, but must be credible in itselfPsuch as the common eAperience and observation of man6ind can approve as probable under the circumstances.G87H 1inall2, no convincin+ proof could sho' that appellants had an2 reason to 6ill (antia+o and Alicia in cold blood. As the 3(" points out, the supposed +rud+e, 'hich -a+no claimed could have motivated appellants to 6ill the spouses, is too flims2 to be believed. /t is hi+hl2 improbable that appellants 'ould murder the spouses because (antia+o had offered appellants a +lass of beer and the2 refused him.G88H /f an2bod2 should harbor a +rud+e from such an incident, it should have been (antia+o 'hose offer appellants refused. ,ut there is no evidence of an2 +rud+e bet'een (antia+o and the appellants, and as -a+no testified, (antia+o simpl2 dran6 the +lass of beer himself.G8*H AppellantsI defense of alibi 'as indeed 'ea6, since their alibis 'ere corroborated onl2 b2 their relatives and friends, and it 'as not sho'n that it 'as impossible for them to be at the place of the incident. $o'ever, the rule that an accused must satisfactoril2 prove his alibi 'as never intended to chan+e or shift the burden of proof in criminal cases. /t is basic that the prosecution evidence must stand or fall on its o'n 'ei+ht and cannot dra' stren+th from the 'ea6ness of the defense.G8&H :nless the prosecution overturns the constitutional presumption of innocence of an accused b2 competent and credible evidence provin+ his +uilt be2ond reasonable doubt, the presumption remains.G87H There bein+ no sufficient evidence be2ond reasonable doubt pointin+ to appellants as the perpetrators of the crime, appellantsI presumed innocence stands. 2HEREFORE, the decision dated November 29, 2002, of the #e+ional Trial Court of Duma+uete Cit2, ,ranch 7&, in Criminal Case No. )0)*2 is #9?9#(9D. Appellants #ico Calumpan+ and >ovenal 3matan+ are ACC:/TT9D on reasonable doubt. The2 are ordered released from custod2 immediatel2, unless the2 are bein+ la'full2 held for another cause. The Director of the ,ureau of Corrections is directed to implement this Decision and to report to this Court the action ta6en hereon 'ithin five *! da2s from receipt hereof. SO ORDERED.

Case no. 87 G.R. No. 1.-,?2 3ctober 29, 200% ANGEL 8ALES = "ELE!,

- versus PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, #espondent.

A- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A D9C/(/3N C$/C3-NADA#/3, $.4 2%*+e (%e 'orre'(ne)) o9 & De'*)*on *) no( *m<&*re7 )o+e+= b= (%e 9&'( (%&( (%e :r*(er (oo; over 9rom & 'o++e&1/e :%o %&7 e&r+*er <re)*7e7 &( (r*&+, *( *) (%e bo/n7en 7/(= o9 &<<e++&(e 'o/r() (o even more '+o)e+= e@&m*ne (%e (e)(*mon*e) o9 (%e :*(ne))e) :%o)e 7e<or(men( (%e :r*(er :&) no( &b+e (o ob)erve. This is a 0etition for #evie' on Certiorari under #ule 8* of the #ules of Court see6in+ the reversal of the DecisionG)H of the Court of Appeals in CA-".#. C# No. 2%%)7 dated 70 November 200&. The Court of Appeals affirmed 'ith modification the Decision of the #e+ional Trial Court of -anila, ,ranch 77, in Criminal Case No. 0)-)9&7)7 findin+ petitioner An+el :bales 2 ?ele. :bales! +uilt2 of the crime of homicide. 3n 70 3ctober 200), the Assistant Cit2 0rosecutor filed an /nformation a+ainst petitioner :bales for the crime of homicide alle+edl2 committed as follo's4 That on or about 3ctober )7, 200), in the Cit2 of -anila, 0hilippines, the said accused, armed 'ith a .7% caliber palti6 revolver mar6ed (mith and ;esson, did then and there 'illfull2, unla'full2 and feloniousl2, 'ith intent to 6ill, attac6, assault and use personal violence upon one -A#J TAN"<A; (ANT3( 2 3#0/ANA b2 then and there shootin+ the latter on the head, thereb2 inflictin+ upon him mortal +un shot 'ound 'hich 'as the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.G2H 3n the same date, the 9Aecutive >ud+e issued an 3rder of #elease in vie' of a personal bail bond filed b2 :bales. 3n )9 November 200), petitioner :bales, assisted b2 counsel, pleaded not +uilt2 of the offense char+ed. The prosecution presented as 'itnesses 9duardo "alvan, (03) 9duardo 9. Jo, <aila Cherr2 Cru., (032 #osales -. 1ernande., 0QChief /nspector Carlos ". -ende., and 9fi+enia (antos. The prosecution also presented as evidence -edico <e+al #eport No. ;-777-200) and the receipt of the funeral eApenses incurred. <aila Cherr2 Cru., the sister of -ar6 (antos, testified that on )& 3ctober 200), at about % p.m., petitioner :bales and the deceased -ar6 (antos -ar6! 'ere drin6in+ li@uor in front of the victimIs house at 8778 /nterior * Albina (treet, (ta. -esa, -anila. The2 'ere 'ith a +roup 'hich included a certain >on->on, (olo 0ere., and >o5o (antos. /n the course of their carousal, :bales and -ar6 en+a+ed in an ar+ument about

the former callin+ the latterIs cousin a homoseAual. -ar6 told :bales not to meddle because he :bales! did not 6no' 'hat 'as happenin+ 'ithin his -ar6Is! famil2. The ar+ument 'as soon apparentl2 resolved, 'ith :bales pattin+ the shoulders of -ar6. The carousal ended at ) a.m. the follo'in+ da2. -ar6 and :bales 'ent inside the house. :bales as6ed permission from <aila Cru. to use their comfort room. ,efore :bales 'ent inside the comfort room, <aila Cru. sa' :bales place his +un 'ith blac6 stripes on top of the dinin+ table. -ar6 as6ed permission from his mother to brin+ :bales to his house in >.0. <aurel (treet and also as6ed for mone2 so that the2 could eat lugaw on their 'a2 there. -ar6 and :bales then left. 9duardo "alvan "alvan!, a &*-2ear old balut vendor and the best friend of the deceased -ar6 (antos, testified that at 7 a.m. in the mornin+ of )7 3ctober 200), 'hile he 'as sellin+ balut near the -alacaRan+ area, he sa' -ar6 and :bales @uarrelin+ around a meter a'a2 from him. The ar+ument lasted for about three minutes, culminatin+ 'ith :bales ta6in+ out his +un and shootin+ -ar6 on the head. "alvan is certain about this, as he 'as still onl2 one meter a'a2 from -ar6 and :bales 'hen the former shot the latter, and the place 'as 'ell-illuminated. ;hen -ar6 fell, :bales ran to'ards Atien.a (treet. "alvan also testified that he 'as an ac@uaintance of :bales for about five months prior to the incident. (03) 9duardo Jo testified that he 'as assi+ned as the ni+ht-shift investi+ator of the $omicide (ection of the ;estern 0olice District ;0D! 'hen he received a report at around 74** a.m. of )7 3ctober 200) that a bod2 'as found at >ose 0. <aurel (t. corner -atien.a (t., (an -i+uel, -anila. :pon arrival thereat, he, to+ether 'ith (03) ,enito Cabatbat, sa' -ar6Is bod2, 'hich had no in5ur2 other than a +unshot 'ound on the forehead, l2in+ on its left side. The +unshot appeared to have been fired at close ran+e because it had po'der burns around the entr2 of the 'ound. The2 proceeded to intervie' people at the scene, durin+ 'hich time a baran+a2 official named Abraham (ison turned over a .7% Caliber snub nose paltik revolver 'ith three live bullets and one empt2 shell. The +un 'as recovered several meters a'a2 from 'here the victimIs bod2 'as found. (032 #osales 1ernande. testified that at around 7 p.m. of 2* 3ctober 200), 'hile he 'as at home, <aila Cru. approached him and as6ed for his assistance in apprehendin+ :bales 'ho 'as spotted near the -alacaRan+ area. (032 1ernande. reported to the $omicide (ection of the ;0D that a murder suspect 'as seen in the vicinit2 of -alacaRan+. (032 1ernande. and <aila Cru. then proceeded to >. 0. <aurel (treet, 'here <aila Cru. pointed at the person she identified to be the one 'ho 6illed her brother. (032 1ernande., introducin+ himself as a police officer, approached :bales. (032 1ernande. found out that :bales 'as a former member of the 0hilippine National 0olice 0N0! (pecial Action 1orce. $e apprised :bales of his ri+hts and invited him to +o to the 0N0 1ield 1orce for proper investi+ation. :bales told (032 1ernande. that he 'ould voluntaril2 5oin him to prove to him that he 'as not in hidin+. ,efore +oin+ to the 0N0 1ield 1orce, (032 1ernande. and :bales 'ent to the 0hilippine "eneral $ospital in order to have :bales under+o a medical eAamination. (032 1ernande. and :bales proceeded to the 0N0 -alacaRan+ 1ield 1orce to coordinate 'ith them, since the latter made the initial investi+ation of the shootin+ incident. At the -alacaRan+ 1ield 1orce, :bales 'as brou+ht to the $omicide (ection for investi+ation and description. (032 1ernande. admitted durin+ cross eAamination that the arrest of :bales came before 'itness "alvan appeared and eAecuted a s'orn statement. 0QChief /nspector Carlos ". -ende., a forensic firearm eAaminer, testified that on * November 200), he received a .7% caliber paltik revolver 'ith three bullets and one empt2 shell from Des6 3fficer 032 <ope.. $e eAamined it b2 firin+ the same. The +un 'as mar6ed as 9Ahibit K$M. <aila Cru. then testified that said +un 'as the same one she sa' -ar6 place on the dinin+ table the ni+ht before her brother 'as 6illed. The prosecution and the defense stipulated that the cause of death of -ar6 'as a +unshot 'ound, frontal re+ion, measurin+ 0.* A 0.8 cm, 7 cm ri+ht of the anterior midline, 'ith a uniform collar measurin+ 0.2 and an area of tattooin+ measurin+ &A* cm, directed posterior'ard, do'n'ard and medial'ard, fracturin+ the frontal bone, laceratin+ both cerebral hemisphere of the brain, 'ith a deformed slu+ recovered at the cerebellum as stated in the Crime <aborator2 report prepared and si+ned b2 Dr. #omeo (alen, the medicole+al officer of 3/C ;0DC<3, documented as -edico-<e+al #eport No. ;-777-200).

After the prosecution rested its case, :bales filed a -otion to 1ile Demurrer to 9vidence on the +round that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to destro2 the presumption of innocence of the accused. The trial court denied the -otion and accordin+l2 set the hearin+ for presentation of the evidence of the defense. :bales testified that on )& 3ctober 200), at around & or 7 p.m., he 'ent to the home of his friend "uido Almosera on :li-:li (treet, 'here he sa' >oseph Jarunun+an, #ico (ison, 9ric -ar@ue. and $enr2 0once. The +roup 'as initiall2 en+a+ed in li+ht conversation until "uido Almosera brou+ht out some li@uor 'hile the2 'ere pla2in+ the +uitar. :bales sta2ed 'ith the +roup until )0 p.m., 'hen he left for (ta. -esa to +o to the house of a certain AleA to meet a man named ,o2. $e arrived at AleAIs house at around )) p.m., but left immediatel2 'hen he learned that ,o2 'as alread2 asleep. Alon+ the 'a2, he sa' -ar6 'ho had been havin+ a drin6in+ spree 'ith other persons. $e decided to 5oin the +roup for a 'hile before returnin+ home. At around )2 midni+ht, :bales bade leave to +o home. -ar6 'ent alon+ 'ith him to the place 'here he could +et a ride home. The2 parted 'a2s and :bales +ot on a 5eep 'hich he rode to >.0. <aurel (treet. $e stopped b2 a 7-9leven convenience store and bou+ht somethin+ to eat before proceedin+ home. 3n the 'a2 home, :bales sa' the +roup of "uido Almosera still havin+ drin6s. $e decided to 5oin them a+ain until around ) a.m. of )7 3ctober 200). :bales testified that althou+h he is a former policeman, he no lon+er had a +un and that his sidearm is in the custod2 of the ;0D. $e stated further that he 'as arrested 'ithout a 'arrant. The defense also presented the testimonies of "uido Almosera and $enr2 Norman 0once. ,oth 'itnesses essentiall2 corroborated the testimon2 of :bales that he 'as 'ith their +roup from 7 p.m. to )0 p.m. on )& 3ctober 200) and then from around )2470 a.m. to 2 a.m. of )7 3ctober 200). :balesI sister, /rene #iparip, testified that her brother 'as at their home until around 7400 p.m. on )& 3ctober 200), and he returned around ) a.m. in the mornin+ of )7 3ctober 200). (he stated that :bales did not leave the house after he returned because she sta2ed a'a6e until 8 a.m. 3n 20 >ul2 2008, the #e+ional Trial Court rendered its Decision findin+ An+el :bales +uilt2 of the crime of homicide, as follo's4 ;$9#913#9, the prosecution havin+ established the +uilt of the accused be2ond reasonable doubt, 5ud+ment is hereb2 rendered C3N?/CT/N" the accused as principal in the crime of homicide and he is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalt2 of ten )0! 2ears of 0rision -a2or as minimum, to fourteen )8! 2ears, ei+ht %! months and one )! da2 medium of #eclusion Temporal, as maAimum. The accused is also ordered to pa2 the heirs of the offended part2 the amount of 0*0,000.00 as civil indemnit2, 0*0,000.00 as moral dama+es, and 0%,000.00 as actual dama+es.G7H 3n 2% >ul2 2008, the trial court issued an 3rder +ivin+ provisional libert2 to :bales provided the bondin+ compan2 a+rees to the eAtension of the bond. 3n 70 >ul2 2008, the bondin+ compan2 manifested its assent to continue its underta6in+ as bondsman for :bales durin+ the pendenc2 of his appeal. :bales appealed to the Court of Appeals. The case 'as doc6eted thereon as CA-".#. C# No. 2%%)7. 3n 70 November 200&, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision affirmin+ 'ith modification the Decision of the #e+ional Trial Court, as follo's4 2HEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the #e+ional Trial Court of -anila, ,ranch 77 in Criminal Case No. 0)-)9&7)7 findin+ the accused-appellant An+el :bales 2 ?ele.

+uilt2 of the crime of $omicide is A11/#-9D 'ith -3D/1/CAT/3N. The heirs of the victim -ar6 Tan+la' (antos are further a'arded the amount of 02*,000.00 as temperate dama+es.G8H $ence, this 0etition, 'here :bales presents the follo'in+ issues for our consideration4 I 2HETHER OR NOT THE E"IDENCE FOR THE PROSEC TION PRO"ES THAT PETITIONER CO55ITTED THE CRI5E CHARGED 8E>OND REASONA8LE DO 8T. II 2HETHER OR NOT THE ADDITIONAL A2ARD OF T2ENT>AFI"E THO SAND PESOS BPHP2-,000.00C AS TE5PERATE DA5AGES IS IN ACCORD 2ITH LA2 AND THE RELE"ANT DECISIONS OF THE HONORA8LE S PRE5E CO RT. 4-6 0etitioner :bales claims that the prosecution has failed to prove his +uilt be2ond reasonable doubt, and the Court of Appeals had erred in +ivin+ credence to "alvanIs testimon2 'hich alle+edl2 defies common eAperience. After a meticulous revie' of the records of the case at bar, 'e are constrained to a+ree 'ith petitioner :bales. 0etitioner :bales 'as arrested on 2* 3ctober 200), ei+ht da2s after -ar6Is bod2 'as found. :balesI arrest 'as made b2 (032 #osales 1ernande. at the insistence of <aila Cru., 'ho approached (032 1ernande. for assistance in apprehendin+ :bales. :p to the time of this arrest, the onl2 piece of evidence 'hich remotel2 lin6s :bales to the 6illin+ of -ar6 (antos is the recover2 of a +un resemblin+ a +un alle+edl2 seen b2 <aila Cru. in his :balesI! possession the ni+ht -ar6 'as 6illed. This +un found several meters a'a2 from 'here -ar6Is bod2 'as found but 'as never identified as the +un 'here the bullet that 6illed -ar6 came from. All that the forensic firearm eAaminer testified to about this +un 'as that this is a .7% caliber paltik revolver 'ith three bullets and one empt2 shell. The slu+ found in the head of -ar6 'as never sub5ected to a ballistic eAamination, either. /t 'as at this point, 'hen An+el :bales had alread2 been arrested despite the lac6 of evidence clearl2 lin6in+ him to the crime, that -ar6 (antosI best friend, balut vendor 9duardo "alvan, appeared and eAecuted a s'orn statement that he 'as an e2e'itness to the 6illin+ of -ar6 (antos. $e proceeded to identif2 An+el :bales 'ithout the benefit of a police line-up. Thereafter, he became the star 'itness in the prosecution of An+el :bales. /n order to illuminate the anal2sis of 9duardo "alvanIs testimon2 a+ainst An+el :bales, 'e reproduce its relevant portions as follo's4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 3n 3ctober )7, 200) &( &bo/( 3$00 *n (%e morn*n1, did 2ou sell Ees, sir. At that time in 'hat place 'ere 2ouN Near -alacaRan+. ;hat is the name of the streetN / for+ot the name of the street. 2our balutN

ATTE. -3#A<9(4 C4 CanIt 2ou recall the name of the streetN ;/TN9((4 A4 Ees, sir.

C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4

Eou said the street near -alacaRan+N Ees, sir. No' 'hile sellin+ balut near -alacaRan+, have 2ou 'itnessed an Ees, sir. ;hat is that incidentN A @uarrel. ;ho 'as @uarrellin+ at that timeN An+el. And 'hoN -ar6. ;hat is the surname of -ar6N / for+ot the surname but the name is -ar6. $o' about An+el, 'hat is the surname of An+elN / cannot recall the surname. /f An+el is inside the courtroom 'ill 2ou please +o do'n and approach him and point to himN 'itness tap shoulder of a person 'ho 'hen as6ed his name ans'ered An+el :bales! No' 2ou said there 'as a @uarrel bet'een An+el and -ar6. 2%ere :ere =o/ :%en =o/ )&: (%em D/&rre+*n1, %o: 9&r :ere =o/ 9rom (%emE Abo/( one B1C me(er more or +e)). Ho: +on1 7*7 (%e= D/&rre+E Abo/( (%ree B3C m*n/(e). After three 7! minutes 'hat happenedN An+el suddenl2 dre' somethin+. ;hat is that somethin+ that An+el dre'N "un, sir, a shinin+ +un. pullin+ a +un pointin+ incidentN

ATTE. "A#9NA4 -a2 'e put on record that 'itness is demonstratin+ his hand up'ard. ATTE. -3#A<9(4 C4 1rom 'here did he pull the +unN ;/TN9((4 A4 1rom his ri+ht 'aist and shot. C4 After An+el pulled out a +un 'hat did he doN

C3:#T4 $e said he fired. ATTE. -3#A<9(4 ;hat did he do 'ith the +un 'hen he pulled it out from his 'aistN

A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4

(hot and hit the victim. ;hom he shotN -ar6. ;hat part of the bod2 'as hit b2 the bulletN 1orehead. $o' man2 times 'as -ar6 shot b2 :balesN 3nl2 once. ;hat happened to -ar6 after he 'as shotN $e fell to the +round.

ATTE. -3#A<9(4 C4 Ho: 9&r :ere =o/ 9rom (%e)e (:o B2C <eo<+e An1e+ &n7 5&r; :%en An1e+ )%o( 5&r;E ;/TN9((4 A4 On+= one B1C me(er &:&=, / 'as near the flo'er boA. C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 Eou said that it 'as 7400 oIcloc6 in the mornin+ 'hen the incident Ees, sir. happenedN

An7 :%&( *) (%e 'on7*(*on o9 (%e <+&'e, :%&( B)*'C *( 7&r; or br*1%(E I( :&) +*1%(e7. ;h2 sic! is the placeN There 'as a li+ht there. ;hat 6ind of li+ht 'as thereN There is an electric bulb. Ho: 9&r :ere (%e)e (:o <eo<+e re9err*n1 (o 5&r; &n7 An1e+ An1e+ b&+e) )%o( 5&r;E Abo/( one B1C me(er &:&=. b&+e) :%en

C3:#T4 C4 1acin+ each otherN ;/TN9((4 A4 Ees, Eour $onor. ATTE. -3#A<9(4 C4 $o' about the li+ht, ho' far is the li+ht from -ar6 :balesN A4 About one )! arm len+th. C4 A4 >o/ )&*7 (%&( &9(er b&+e) )%o( 5&r; %e 9e++ 7o:n, :%&( %&<<ene7 (o b&+e)E He r&n &:&=.G&H 9mphasis supplied.!

/n the assessment of the testimonies of 'itnesses, this Court is +uided b2 the rule that for evidence to be believed, it must not onl2 proceed from the mouth of a credible 'itness, but must be credible in itself such as the common eAperience of man6ind can approve as probable under the circumstances. ;e have no test of the truth of human testimon2 eAcept its conformit2 to our 6no'led+e, observation, and eAperience. ;hatever is repu+nant to these belon+s to the miraculous, and is outside of 5uridical co+ni.ance.G7H

(ince the alle+ed e2e'itness 'as the best friend and ac@uaintance of the victim since childhood, "alvanIs testimon2 pointin+ to the accused as the perpetrator must be sub5ected to a ri+id test 'hich should demonstrate be2ond cavil his truthfulness, honest2 and rectitude as actual e2e'itness to the perpetration of the criminal act.G%H "alvanIs account is no'here probable under the circumstances. As ar+ued b2 the defense, there can be onl2 t'o 'a2s b2 'hich "alvan could have 'itnessed the altercation based on his testimon2 that he sa' the 'hole thin+ 'ithin one meter from him. 1irst, "alvan 'al6ed to'ards the prota+onists and stopped 'ithin one meter from them durin+ their three minutes of altercation. (econd, "alvan 'as alread2 at the place 'here he sa' the prota+onists, 'ho 'al6ed to'ards him, and stopped 'ithin one meter from him to en+a+e in their @uarrel. :pon further in@uir2 from >ud+e #omulo <ope., the 5ud+e 'ho had heard the testimon2 of "alvan, but not the one 'ho penned the #TC Decision, 'e learned from "alvan that it 'as the first of the t'o options4 he 'as 'al6in+ from the chec6point at -alacaRan+ to'ards <e+arda (treet before the incident. At the onset, 'e can easil2 see that "alvanIs version of the facts raises ver2 serious @uestions. ;h2 'ould 9duardo "alvan, a &*-2ear old man, stop one meter a'a2 from t'o @uarrelin+ men at the ver2 dan+erous hour of 7 a.m. and sta2 there to 'atch for three minutes as if 'hat he 'as 'itnessin+ is a movie sceneN $o' come neither An+el :bales, nor "alvanIs best friend, -ar6, ac6no'led+e "alvanIs presence for the entire three minutes that the2 'ere all 'ere barel2 one meter from each other, and in a 'ell-illuminated place at thatN After An+el :bales ran a'a2 follo'in+ his shootin+ of -ar6, 'h2 did "alvan simpl2 leave his bloodied best friend to die on the pavementN ;e should ta6e note that 9duardo "alvan could not claim to be afraid at this point, as he had alread2 seen An+el :bales flee. 1urthermore, since it too6 an hour after the 6illin+ before the presence of the dead bod2 of -ar6 (antos 'as reported to the police, it can fairl2 be assumed that if "alvanIs version of the facts 'ere true, there 'ere no other people at the scene of the crime. ;h2 'as "alvan sellin+ balut at a place 'ith no pedestrian traffic at 7 a.m.N /n readin+ 9duardo "alvanIs testimon2, it is hard to i+nore ho' he seemed not to remember a lot of thin+s about the places involved in his testimon24 C3:#T4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 $o' far is the place of the incident from the house of -ar6N I '&nno( e)(*m&(e %o: 9&r *) (%e <+&'e o9 (%e *n'*7en( &n7 (%e %o/)e o9 5&r;. ;hen 2ou sell ballot, 'hat time do 2ou startN 1rom %400 oIcloc6 in the evenin+ up to 7400 oIcloc6 in the mornin+. $o' do 2ou conduct 2our vendin+ of balotN / sell. ;here do 2ou +et 2our balotN /t 'as onl2 delivered to me. ;hereN /n the house of m2 friend. ;here is that house of 2our friend locatedN 0ala'an (t. ;here is that 0ala'an (t. ,ali6 O ,ali6.

C4 A4 C4 A4

1rom 0ala'an (t. to ,alic-balic, 2ou start sellin+ from %400 oIcloc6 in the evenin+, ho' man2 balot have 2ou soldN About thirt2 70! pieces. 1rom 2our house ho' far 'as that place of the incidentN I '&nno( e)(*m&(e.

ATTE. "A#9NA4 $o' man2 bloc6s from 2our houseN A4 I '&nno( e)(*m&(e, I F/)( :&+; &n7 :&+;. C4 A4 3n 3ctober )7, 200) 'hen 'as the first time on 3ctober )7, 200) 2ou sa' -ar6 the victimN /n the evenin+.

C3:#T ;hat timeN A4 About 7400 oIcloc6 in the mornin+. ATTE. "A#9NA4 That 'as the first time 2ou sa' -ar6N A4 7400 oIcloc6 in the mornin+. C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 1rom 'here did 2ou +et the balot that ni+htN / do not 6no' the o'ner of the balot, it 'as 5ust delivered to me. 1rom 2our friendN Ees, sir. ;hat is the name of 2our friendN I '&nno( remember, )*r.

C3:#T4 Do 2ou remember the place 'here this friend of 2ours resides 'hen 2ou too6 the balot that ni+htN A4 I '&nno( remember. C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 $o' man2 balotN 80 pieces of balot. And 2ou started sellin+ from %400 oIcloc6 in the evenin+ to 7400 oIcloc6 in the mornin+N Ees, 2our $onor. $o' man2 pieces have 2ou sold 'hen the incident occurredN About )* pieces. Describe the vicinit2 of the place 'here 2ou too6 the balotN I '&nno( remember. 0rior to that ni+ht 'hen 2ou too6 80 pieces of balot, 2ou have been fre@uentin+ the place because 2ou used to +et 2our balot thereN The balot 'as delivered to me. ,2 2our friendN Ees, 2our $onor.

C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4

(o 2ou are chan+in+ 2our previous statement that 2ou too6 the balot from the place of 2our friendN ;hen / 'ent to the place. (ince 'hen 2ou started sellin+ balot 'hich 2ou +et from that placeN About one 2ear. No' -r. ;itness, 2ou said 2ou 6no' -ar6 the victim since childhood, is that correctN Ees, sir. $o' about the parents of -ar6, do 2ou 6no' themN Ees, sir. Ho: &bo/( (%e )*)(er) &n7 bro(%er), 7o =o/ ;no: (%emE >e), )*r. ;hat is the name of -ar6Is fatherN / donIt 6no' but / 6no' his face. $o' about the motherN Also / 6no' her b2 face. Ho: m&n= bro(%er) %&) (%*) 5&r;E I 7o no( ;no: >o/r Honor. Eou also do not 6no' if he has sisterN $e has sister ho' man2 / do not 6no' Eour $onor. ;hen 2ou 6no' -ar6 since childhood, do 2ou 6no' if he is attendin+ schoolN Ees, Eour $onor. ;hereN I 7o no( ;no: (%e )'%oo+. Eou also do not 6no' 'hat he finishedN I 7o no( ;no:. -r. ;itness, on 3ctober )7, 200) at about 7470 in the mornin+ prior to that time 'here have 2ou beenN / came from <e+arda. Did 2ou pass b2 -endiolaN Ees, sir. /n -endiola that is the time 2ou are vendin+ balotN Ees, sir. Eou usuall2 shout balotN Ees, sir. That is from -endiola to -alacaRan+N Ees, sir. ;hat time 2ou 'ere in -endiola at that timeN I '&nno( (e++ (%e (*me I :&) F/)( :&+;*n1.

C4

;ere there still so man2 people in -endiola at that timeN

C3:#T $e do not 6no' the eAact place. ATTE. "9#ANA4 That is 'h2 / am as6in+ leadin+ @uestion to the 'itness Eour $onor. C3:#T4 Do 2ou 6no' the +ate of -alacaRan+N A4 Ees, Eour $onor. C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 ;hat +ate is nearer to the place 'here -ar6 'as shotN I '&nno( remember (%e 1&(e. There are schools alon+ -endiola proceedin+ to'ards +ate ) or +ate sic!. ;hich school is near to the place 'here -ar6 'as shotN I '&nno( remember be'&/)e *( :&) n*1%( (*me. ,ut 2ou used to sell balot alon+ -endiola +oin+ to the +ate of -alacaRan+N Ees, Eour $onor. (o 2ou are familiar 'ith the schools alon+ -endiolaN I 7o no( ;no: (%e )'%oo+).

ATTE. "9#9NA4 Do =o/ ;no: S(. #/7e C%/r'%E A4 No, )*r. C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 >o/ &+)o 7o no( ;no: (%e %o)<*(&+ *n 9ron( or o<<o)*(e S(. #/7e '%/r'%E No, )*r. 1acin+ -alacaRan+, do 2ou 6no' the first street b2 the ri+ht side facin+ -alacaRan+N "ate ). I &m &);*n1 =o/ 9&'*n1 (%e 1&(e o9 5&+&'&G&n1, 7o =o/ ;no: (%e 9*r)( )(ree( *n (%e r*1%( :%en =o/ &re )(&n7*n1 &( 5en7*o+&E No, )*r.G9H

The ori+inal 5ud+e himself, >ud+e #omulo <ope., does not seem impressed 'ith the testimon2 of 9duardo "alvan. >ud+e #omulo <ope. as6ed several clarificator2 @uestions in order to test "alvanIs credibilit2, and "alvan failed the test miserabl2. 9duardo "alvan repeatedl2 chan+ed his ans'er on 'hether he told an2one about the incident before he eAecuted his statement 'ith the police station4 C3:#T4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 :nder 'hat circumstance 'ere 2ou able or 2ou 'ere ma6e to eAecute 2our statementN / 'ent to the police station m2self. ;hat 'hat sic! reason do 2ou have 'hen 2ou voluntaril2 'ent to the police stationN ,ecause / 'as bothered b2 m2 conscience. That 'as the first time 2ou narratedN

A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4

Ees, Eour $onor. (o 2ou are impressin+ the Court that from the time 2ou sa' -ar6 due to the shootin+ fall to the +round 2ou did not rela2 the stor2 2ou sa' to an2 personN None, Eour $onor. Despite the fact that 2ou 'ere nei+hbor of -ar6 and his famil2 2ou did not rela2 the incident to -ar6Is parentsN 3n the follo'in+ da2 / narrated it to them the incident. The follo'in+ da2 2ou 'ere not brou+ht b2 -ar6Is parents to the police station to +ive 2our statementN No, Eour $onor. There 'as a 'a6e follo'in+ that in the residence of -ar6N No, Eour $onor. ;here 'as the 'a6e heldN The 'a6e 'as held at the Arlin+ton. Did 2ou attend the 'a6eN Ees, Eour $onor. Did 2ou tal6 to a member of -ar6Is famil2 in the 'a6eN No, Eour $onor.G)0H

:pon readin+ "alvanIs testimon2, 'e do not find the same sufficient to prove :balesI +uilt be2ond an2 reasonable doubt. %hile the correctness of a Decision is not impaire solely by the fact that the writer took over from a colleague who ha earlier presi e at trial& it is the boun en uty of appellate courts to even more closely e#amine the testimonies of the witnesses whose eportment the writer was not able to observe. The prosecution see6s to establish :balesI motive in 6illin+ -ar6 b2 the alle+ed altercation bet'een the t'o durin+ their drin6in+ spree. $o'ever, as testified b2 <aila Cru. herself, the ar+ument 'as soon apparentl2 resolved, 'ith :bales pattin+ the shoulders of -ar6 (antos. 1urthermore, in both versions of the facts, -ar6 had been +racious enou+h to accompan2 :bales after their carousal, clearl2 sho'in+ that 'hatever misunderstandin+ the2 had durin+ their drin6in+ spree 'as alread2 resolved. /f "alvanIs version of the facts is to be believed, :bales and -ar6 had even been to+ether for a several hours more before -ar6 'as 6illed. ;e have ruled that thou+h the +eneral rule is that motive is not essential to a conviction especiall2 'here the identit2 of the assailant is dul2 established b2 other competent evidence or is not disputed, the absence of such motive is important in ascertainin+ the truth as bet'een t'o anta+onistic theories or versions of the 6illin+. G))H 0roof as to motive is essential 'hen the evidence on the commission of the crime is purel2 circumstantial or inconclusive. G)2H ?eril2, the dominatin+ rule is that, 'ith respect to the credibilit2 of 'itnesses, this Court has al'a2s accorded the hi+hest de+ree of respect to the findin+s of the trial court, unless there is proof of misappreciation of evidence O 'hich is precisel2 the situation in the case at bar.

;e also ta6e note of petitioner :balesI stance 'hen he 'as confronted b2 <aila Cru. and (032 1ernande.. :bales told (032 1ernande. that he 'ould voluntaril2 5oin him to prove to him that he 'as not in hidin+. :bales then cooperated full2 'ith (032 1ernande., allo'in+ himself to under+o a medical eAamination, 'hich apparentl2 2ielded nothin+ as the findin+s thereof 'as not presented as evidence, and +oin+ 'ith the (032 1ernande. to the 0N0 -alacaRan+ 1ield 1orce. 1li+ht evidences +uilt and +uilt2 conscience4 the 'ic6ed flee, even 'hen no man pursues, but the ri+hteous stand fast as bold as a lion. G)7H /n all, 'e find it hard to lend credence to the testimon2 of the lone alle+ed e2e'itness. ;e have said that it is better to ac@uit ten +uilt2 individuals than to convict one innocent person. 9ver2 circumstance a+ainst +uilt and in favor of innocence must be considered. G)*H ;here the evidence admits of t'o interpretations, one of 'hich is consistent 'ith +uilt, and the other 'ith innocence, the accused must be +iven the benefit of doubt and should be ac@uitted.G)&H /n the instant case, 'hile it is possible that the accused has committed the crime, there is also the possibilit2, based on the evidence presented, that he has not. $e should be deemed to have not for failure to meet the test of moral certaint2. 1inall2, an accused should not be convicted b2 reason of the 'ea6ness of his alibi. /t is fundamental that the prosecution must prove its case be2ond reasonable doubt and must not rel2 on the 'ea6ness of the evidence of the defense. G)7H (ince there are ver2 serious doubts in the testimon2 of the lone e2e'itness to the 6illin+ of -ar6 (antos, 'e have no choice but to ac@uit petitioner An+el :bales on the +round of reasonable doubt.
G)8H

$avin+ ruled that the prosecution has failed to prove the +uilt of petitioner be2ond a reasonable doubt, the second issue, 'hich relates to the temperate dama+es 'hich petitioner 'ould have been liable for had he been found +uilt2, is no' mooted. 2HEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-".#. C# No. 2%%)7 dated 70 November 200& is RE"ERSED and SET ASIDE. 0etitioner An+el :bales 2 ?ele. is hereb2 AC3 ITTED of the crime of homicide on account of reasonable doubt. SO ORDERED.

Case no. 88 G.R. No. 1--208 5&r'% 2., 200. H NENA LA!ALITA TATING, 0etitioner, vs. FELICIDAD TATING 5ARCELLA, re<re)en(e7 b= SAL"ADOR 5ARCELLA, CARLOS TATING, &n7 (%e CO RT OF APPEALS, #espondents. D9C/(/3N A STRIAA5ARTINE!, J.: Assailed in the (pecial Civil Action for Certiorari before the Court are the Decision) dated 1ebruar2 22, 2002 and the #esolution dated Au+ust 22, 2002 of the Court of Appeals CA! in CA-".#. C? No. &8)22, 'hich affirmed the Decision2 of the #e+ional Trial Court #TC! of Cadi. Cit2, Ne+ros 3ccidental, ,ranch &0. The present case arose from a controvers2 involvin+ a parcel of land denominated as <ot *& of (ubdivision plan 0sd-7))%2, located at Abelarde (t., Cadi. Cit2, Ne+ros 3ccidental. The sub5ect lot, containin+ an area of 200 s@uare meters, 'as o'ned b2 Daniela (olano ?da. de Tatin+ Daniela! as evidenced b2 Transfer Certificate of Title TCT! No. T-8797 issued b2 the #e+istr2 of Deeds of the Cit2 of Cadi..7 3n 3ctober )8, )9&9, Daniela sold the sub5ect propert2 to her +randdau+hter, herein petitioner Nena <a.alita Tatin+ Nena!. The contract of sale 'as embodied in a dul2 notari.ed Deed of Absolute (ale eAecuted b2 Daniela in favor of Nena.8 (ubse@uentl2, title over the sub5ect propert2 'as transferred in the name of Nena.* (he declared the propert2 in her name for taA purposes and paid the real estate taAes due thereon for the 2ears )972, )977, )97* to )9%& and )9%%.& $o'ever, the land remained in possession of Daniela. 3n December 2%, )977, Daniela eAecuted a s'orn statement claimin+ that she had actuall2 no intention of sellin+ the propert2F the true a+reement bet'een her and Nena 'as simpl2 to transfer title over the sub5ect propert2 in favor of the latter to enable her to obtain a loan b2 mort+a+in+ the sub5ect propert2 for the purpose of helpin+ her defra2 her business eApensesF she later discovered that Nena did not secure an2 loan nor mort+a+e the propert2F she 'ants the title in the name of Nena cancelled and the sub5ect propert2 reconve2ed to her.7 Daniela died on >ul2 29, )9%%% leavin+ her children as her heirs, namel24 #icardo, 1elicidad, >ulio, Carlos and Cirilo 'ho predeceased Daniela and 'as represented b2 herein petitioner. /n a letter dated -arch ), )9%9, Carlos informed Nena that 'hen Daniela died the2 discovered the s'orn statement she eAecuted on December 2%, )977 and, as a conse@uence, the2 are demandin+ from Nena the return of their ri+htful shares over the sub5ect propert2 as heirs of Daniela. 9 Nena did not repl2. 9fforts to settle the case amicabl2 proved futile. $ence, on (eptember &, )9%9, Carlos and 1elicidad, represented b2 her son (alvador, filed a complaint 'ith the #TC of Cadi. Cit2, Ne+ros 3ccidental a+ainst Nena pra2in+ for the nullification of the Deed of Absolute (ale eAecuted b2 Daniela in her favor, cancellation of the TCT issued in the name of Nena, and issuance of a ne' title and taA declaration in favor of the heirs of Daniela.)0 The complaint also pra2ed for the a'ard of moral andeAemplar2 dama+es as 'ell as attorne2Is fees and liti+ation eApenses. 3n -arch )9, )997, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint 'ith leave of court for the purpose of eAcludin+ #icardo as a part2 plaintiff, he havin+ died intestate and 'ithout issue in -arch )99).)) $e left Carlos, 1elicidad, >ulio, and Nena as his sole heirs. /n her Ans'er, Nena denied that an2 fraud or misrepresentation attended the eAecution of the sub5ect Deed of Absolute (ale. (he also denied havin+ received the letter of her uncle, Carlos. (he pra2ed for the dismissal of the complaint, and in her counterclaim, she as6ed the trial court for the a'ard of actual, eAemplar2 and moral dama+es as 'ell as attorne2Is fees and liti+ation eApenses.)2 Trial ensued. 3n November 8, )99%, the #TC rendered 5ud+ment 'ith the follo'in+ dispositive portion4 ;$9#913#9, in vie' of all the fore+oin+, 5ud+ment is hereb2 rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and a+ainst the defendant, and hereb2 declarin+ the document of sale dated 3ctober )8, )9&9 9Ah. =C=! eAecuted bet'een Daniela (olano ?da. de Tatin+ and Nena <a.alita Tatin+ as N:<< and ?3/D and further orderin+4 ). The #e+ister of Deeds of Cadi. Cit2 to cancel TCT No. *97* and in lieu thereof to issue a ne' title in the names of Carlos Tatin+, 0ro-indiviso o'ner of one-fourth S! portion of the propert2F 1elicidad Tatin+ -arcella, 0ro-indiviso o'ner of one-fourth S! portionF >ulio Tatin+, 0ro-indiviso o'ner of onefourth S! portion and Nena <a.alita Tatin+, 0ro-indiviso o'ner of one-fourth S! portion, all of lot *& after pa2ment of the prescribed feesF 2. The Cit2 Assessor of the Cit2 of Cadi. to cancel TaA Declaration No. )87-00&72 and in lieu thereof issue a ne' TaA Declaration in the names of Carlos Tatin+, S 0ro-indiviso portionF 1elicidad Tatin+

-arcella, S 0ro-indiviso portionF >ulio Tatin+, S 0ro-indiviso portionF and Nena <a.alita Tatin+, S 0roindiviso portion, all of lot *& as 'ell as the house standin+ thereon be li6e'ise declared in the names of the persons mentioned in the same proportions as above-stated after pa2ment of the prescribed feesF 7. The defendant is furthermore ordered to pa2 plaintiffs the sum of 020,000.00 b2 'a2 of moral dama+es,0)0,000.00 b2 'a2 of eAemplar2 dama+es, 0*,000.00 b2 'a2 of attorne2Is fees and 07,000.00 b2 'a2 of liti+ation eApensesF and to 8. 0a2 the costs of suit. (3 3#D9#9D.)7 Nena filed an appeal 'ith the CA. 3n 1ebruar2 22, 2002, the CA rendered its Decision affirmin+ the 5ud+ment of the #TC.)8 NenaIs -otion for #econsideration 'as denied b2 the CA in its #esolution dated Au+ust 22, 2002.)* $ence, herein petition for certiorari anchored on the +round that the CA =has decided the instant case 'ithout due re+ard to and in violation of the applicable la's and Decisions of this $onorable Court and also because the Decision of the #e+ional Trial Court, 'hich it has affirmed, is not supported b2 and is even a+ainst the evidence on record.=)& At the outset, it must be stated that the filin+ of the instant petition for certiorari under #ule &* of the #ules of Court is inappropriate. Considerin+ that the assailed Decision and #esolution of the CA finall2 disposed of the case, the proper remed2 is a petition for revie' under #ule 8* of the #ules of Court. The Court notes that 'hile the instant petition is denominated as a 0etition for Certiorari under #ule &* of the #ules of Court, there is no alle+ation that the CA committed +rave abuse of discretion. 3n the other hand, the petition actuall2 avers errors of 5ud+ment, rather than of 5urisdiction, 'hich are the proper sub5ects of a petition for revie' on certiorari. $ence, in accordance 'ith the liberal spirit pervadin+ the #ules of Court and in the interest of 5ustice, the Court decided to treat the present petition for certiorari as havin+ been filed under #ule 8*, especiall2 considerin+ that it 'as filed 'ithin the re+lementar2 period for filin+ the same.)7 As to the merits of the case, petitioner contends that the case for the private respondents rests on the proposition that the Deed of Absolute (ale dated 3ctober )8, )9&9 is simulated because DanielaIs actual intention 'as not to dispose of her propert2 but simpl2 to help petitioner b2 providin+ her 'ith a collateral. 0etitioner asserts that the sole evidence 'hich persuaded both the #TC and the CA in holdin+ that the sub5ect deed 'as simulated 'as the ('orn (tatement of Daniela dated December 2%, )977. $o'ever, petitioner ar+ues that said ('orn (tatement should have been re5ected outri+ht b2 the lo'er courts considerin+ that Daniela has lon+ been dead 'hen the document 'as offered in evidence, thereb2 den2in+ petitioner the ri+ht to cross-eAamine her. 0etitioner also contends that 'hile the sub5ect deed 'as eAecuted on 3ctober )8, )9&9, the ('orn (tatement 'as purportedl2 eAecuted onl2 on December 2%, )977 and 'as discovered onl2 after the death of Daniela in )998.)%0etitioner ar+ues that if the deed of sale is indeed simulated, Daniela 'ould have ta6en action a+ainst the petitioner durin+ her lifetime. $o'ever, the fact remains that up to the time of her death or almost 20 2ears after the Deed of Absolute (ale 'as eAecuted, she never uttered a 'ord of complaint a+ainst petitioner. 0etitioner further asserts that the #TC and the CA erred in departin+ from the doctrine held time and a+ain b2 the (upreme Court that clear, stron+ and convincin+ evidence be2ond mere preponderance is re@uired to sho' the falsit2 or nullit2 of a notarial document. 0etitioner also ar+ues that the #TC and the CA erred in its pronouncement that the transaction bet'een Daniela and petitioner created a trust relationship bet'een them because of the settled rule that 'here the terms of a contract are clear, it should be +iven full effect. /n their Comment and -emorandum, private respondents contend that petitioner failed to sho' that the CA or the #TC committed +rave abuse of discretion in arrivin+ at their assailed 5ud+mentsF that DanielaIs ('orn (tatement is sufficient evidence to prove that the contract of sale b2 and bet'een her and petitioner 'as merel2 simulatedF and that, in effect, the a+reement bet'een petitioner and Daniela created a trust relationship bet'een them. The Court finds for the petitioner. The CA and the trial court ruled that the contract of sale bet'een petitioner and Daniela is simulated. A contract is simulated if the parties do not intend to be bound at all absolutel2 simulated! or if the parties conceal their true a+reement relativel2 simulated!.)9 The primar2 consideration in determinin+ the true nature of a contract is the intention of the parties.20 (uch intention is determined from the eApress terms of their a+reement as 'ell as from their contemporaneous and subse@uent acts.2) /n the present case, the main evidence presented b2 private respondents in provin+ their alle+ation that the sub5ect deed of sale did not reflect the true intention of the parties thereto is the s'orn statement of Daniela

dated December 2%, )977. The trial court admitted the said s'orn statement as part of private respondentsI evidence and +ave credence to it. The CA also accorded +reat probative 'ei+ht to this document. There is no issue in the admissibilit2 of the sub5ect s'orn statement. $o'ever, the admissibilit2 of evidence should not be e@uated 'ith 'ei+ht of evidence.22 The admissibilit2 of evidence depends on its relevance and competence 'hile the 'ei+ht of evidence pertains to evidence alread2 admitted and its tendenc2 to convince and persuade.27Thus, a particular item of evidence ma2 be admissible, but its evidentiar2 'ei+ht depends on 5udicial evaluation 'ithin the +uidelines provided b2 the rules of evidence.28 /t is settled that affidavits are classified as hearsa2 evidence since the2 are not +enerall2 prepared b2 the affiant but b2 another 'ho uses his o'n lan+ua+e in 'ritin+ the affiantIs statements, 'hich ma2 thus be either omitted or misunderstood b2 the one 'ritin+ them.2* -oreover, the adverse part2 is deprived of the opportunit2 to cross-eAamine the affiant.2& 1or this reason, affidavits are +enerall2 re5ected for bein+ hearsa2, unless the affiants themselves are placed on the 'itness stand to testif2 thereon.27 The Court finds that both the trial court and the CA committed error in +ivin+ the s'orn statement probative 'ei+ht. (ince Daniela is no lon+er available to ta6e the 'itness stand as she is alread2 dead, the #TC and the CA should not have +iven probative value on DanielaIs s'orn statement for purposes of provin+ that the contract of sale bet'een her and petitioner 'as simulated and that, as a conse@uence, a trust relationship 'as created bet'een them. 0rivate respondents should have presented other evidence to sufficientl2 prove their alle+ation that Daniela, in fact, had no intention of disposin+ of her propert2 'hen she eAecuted the sub5ect deed of sale in favor of petitioner. As in all civil cases, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the material alle+ations of his complaint and he must rel2 on the stren+th of his evidence and not on the 'ea6ness of the evidence of the defendant.2% Aside from DanielaIs s'orn statement, private respondents failed to present an2 other documentar2 evidence to prove their claim. 9ven the testimonies of their 'itnesses failed to establish that Daniela had a different intention 'hen she entered into a contract of sale 'ith petitioner. /n 'untay v. Court of Appeals,29 the Court ruled that the most protuberant indeA of simulation is the complete absence, on the part of the vendee, of an2 attempt in an2 manner to assert his ri+hts of o'nership over the disputed propert2.70 /n the present case, ho'ever, the evidence clearl2 sho's that petitioner declared the propert2 for taAation and paid realt2 taAes on it in her name. 0etitioner has sho'n that from )972 to )9%% she reli+iousl2 paid the real estate taAes due on the said lot and that it 'as onl2 in )978 and )9%7 that she failed to pa2 the taAes thereon. ;hile taA receipts and declarations and receipts and declarations of o'nership for taAation purposes are not, in themselves, incontrovertible evidence of o'nership, the2 constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the propert2. 7) The voluntar2 declaration of a piece of propert2 for taAation purposes manifests not onl2 oneIs sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the propert2 and announces his adverse claim a+ainst the (tate and all other interested parties, but also the intention to contribute needed revenues to the "overnment.72 (uch an act stren+thens oneIs bona fide claim of ac@uisition of o'nership.77 3n the other hand, private respondents failed to present even a sin+le taA receipt or declaration sho'in+ that Daniela paid taAes due on the disputed lot as proof that she claims o'nership thereof. The onl2 TaA Declaration in the name of Daniela, 'hich private respondents presented in evidence, refers onl2 to the house standin+ on the lot in controvers2.78 9ven the said TaA Declaration contains a notation that herein petitioner o'ns the lot <ot *&! upon 'hich said house 'as built. -oreover, the Court a+rees 'ith petitioner that if the sub5ect Deed of Absolute (ale did not reall2 reflect the real intention of Daniela, 'h2 is it that she remained silent until her deathF she never told an2 of her relatives re+ardin+ her actual purpose in eAecutin+ the sub5ect deedF she simpl2 chose to ma6e 6no'n her true intentions throu+h the s'orn statement she eAecuted on December 2%, )977, the eAistence of 'hich she 6ept secret from her relativesF and despite her declaration therein that she is appealin+ for help in order to +et bac6 the sub5ect lot, she never too6 an2 concrete step to recover the sub5ect propert2 from petitioner until her death more than ten 2ears later. /t is true that Daniela retained ph2sical possession of the propert2 even after she eAecuted the sub5ect Absolute Deed of (ale and even after title to the propert2 'as transferred in petitionerIs favor. /n fact, Daniela continued to occup2 the propert2 in dispute until her death in )9%% 'hile, in the meantime, petitioner continued to reside in -anila. $o'ever, it is 'ell-established that o'nership and possession are t'o entirel2 different le+al concepts.7*>ust as possession is not a definite proof of o'nership, neither is non-possession inconsistent 'ith o'nership. The first para+raph of Article )89% of the Civil Code states that 'hen the sale is made throu+h a public instrument, the eAecution thereof shall be e@uivalent to the deliver2 of the thin+ 'hich is the ob5ect of the contract, if from the deed the contrar2 does not appear or cannot clearl2 be inferred. 0ossession, alon+ 'ith o'nership, is transferred to the vendee b2 virtue of the notari.ed deed of conve2ance.7& Thus, in li+ht of the circumstances of the present case, it is of no le+al conse@uence that petitioner did not ta6e actual

possession or occupation of the disputed propert2 after the eAecution of the deed of sale in her favor because she 'as alread2 able to perfect and complete her o'nership of and title over the sub5ect propert2. As to DanielaIs affidavit dated >une 9, )9%7, submitted b2 petitioner, 'hich confirmed the validit2 of the sale of the disputed lot in her favor, the same has no probative value, as the s'orn statement earlier adverted to, for bein+ hearsa2. Naturall2, private respondents 'ere not able to cross-eAamine the deceased-affiant on her declarations contained in the said affidavit. $o'ever, even if DanielaIs affidavit of >une 9, )9%7 is disre+arded, the fact remains that private respondents failed to prove b2 clear, stron+ and convincin+ evidence be2ond mere preponderance of evidence77 that the contract of sale bet'een Daniela and petitioner 'as simulated. The le+al presumption is in favor of the validit2 of contracts and the part2 'ho impu+ns its re+ularit2 has the burden of provin+ its simulation.7% (ince private respondents failed to dischar+e the burden of provin+ their alle+ation that the contract of sale bet'een petitioner and Daniela 'as simulated, the presumption of re+ularit2 and validit2 of the 3ctober )8, )9&9 Deed of Absolute (ale stands. Considerin+ that the Court finds the sub5ect contract of sale bet'een petitioner and Daniela to be valid and not fictitious or simulated, there is no more necessit2 to discuss the issue as to 'hether or not a trust relationship 'as created bet'een them. ;$9#913#9, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and #esolution of the Court of Appeals in CA".#. C? No. &8)22, affirmin+ the Decision of the #e+ional Trial Court of Cadi. Cit2, Ne+ros 3ccidental, ,ranch &0, in Civil Case No. 27%-C, are RE"ERSED AND SET ASIDE. The complaint of the private respondents is DIS5ISSED. No costs. (3 3#D9#9D.

Case no. 8* G.R. No. 1-280. A/1/)( 12, 2003 HEIRS OF LO RDES SAE! SA8ANPAN$ 8ERNARDO S. SA8ANPAN, RENE S. SA8ANPAN, DANILO S. SA8ANPAN &n7 THEL5A S. CH I HEIRS OF ADOLFO SAE!$ 5A. L ISA SAE! TAPI!, 5A. "ICTORIA SAE! LAPITAN, 5A. 8ELEN SAE! &n7 E55AN EL SAE!I &n7 HEIRS OF CRISTINA SAE! G TIERRE!$ RO> SAE! G TIERRE! &n7 L IS SAE! #R., petitioners, vs. AL8ERTO C. CO5ORPOSA, HERDIN C. CO5ORPOSA, OFELIA C. ARIEGO, ) RE5EDIOS CO5ORPOSA, "IRGILIO A. LARIEGO,)a 8ELINDA 5. CO5ORPOSA &n7 ISA8ELITA H. CO5ORPOSA, respondents. PANGANI8AN, J.$ The admissibilit2 of evidence should be distin+uished from its probative value. >ust because a piece of evidence is admitted does not ipso facto mean that it conclusivel2 proves the fact in dispute. T%e C&)e ,efore us is a 0etition for #evie'2 under #ule 8* of the #ules of Court, see6in+ to set aside the Au+ust 7, 200) Decision and the 1ebruar2 27, 2002 #esolution of the Court of Appeals7 CA! in CA-"# (0 No. &0&8*. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads as follo's4 =;$9#913#9, in vie' of all the fore+oin+, the Court hereb2 A11/#-( the Decision dated 22 >une 2000 rendered b2 ,ranch )% of the #e+ional Trial Court of Di+os, Davao del (ur, #9?9#(/N" and (9TT/N" A(/D9 the Decision of the -unicipal Trial Court of (ta. Cru., Davao del (uGrH.=8 The assailed #esolution* denied petitionersB -otion for #econsideration. T%e F&'() The CA summari.ed the factual antecedents of the case as follo's4 =A GCHomplaint for unla'ful detainer 'ith dama+es 'as filed b2 GpetitionersH a+ainst GrespondentsH before the(anta Cru., Davao del (ur -unicipal Trial Court. =The GCHomplaint alle+ed that -arcos (ae. 'as the la'ful and actual possessor of <ot No. %8*, <and 27* located at Daron+, (ta. Cru., Davao del (ur 'ith an area of ).2 hectares. /n )9&0, he died leavin+ all hisheirs, his children and +randchildren. =/n )9&*, 1rancisco Comorposa 'ho 'as 'or6in+ in the land of 3bo.a 'as terminated from his 5ob. The termination of his emplo2ment caused a problem in relocatin+ his house. ,ein+ a close famil2 friend of G-arcosH (ae., 1rancisco Comorposa approached the late -arcos (ae.Bs son, GAdolfoH (ae., the husband of "loria <eano (ae., about his problem. 3ut of pit2 and for humanitarian consideration, Adolfo allo'ed 1rancisco Comorposa to occup2 the land of -arcos (ae.. $ence, his nipa hut 'as carried b2 his nei+hbors and transferred to a portion of the land sub5ect matter of this case. (uch transfer 'as 'itnessed b2 several people, amon+ them, "loria <eano and Noel 3bo.a. 1rancisco Comorposa occupied a portion of -arcos (ae.B propert2 'ithout pa2in+ an2 rental. =1rancisco Comorposa left for $a'aii, :.(.A. $e 'as succeeded in his possession b2 the respondents 'ho li6e'ise did not pa2 an2 rental and are occup2in+ the premises throu+h petitionersB tolerance. =3n 7 -a2 )99%, a formal demand 'as made upon the respondents to vacate the premises but the latter refused to vacate the same and claimed that the2 G'ereH the le+itimate claimants and the actual and la'ful possessorGsH of the premises. A GCHomplaint 'as filed 'ith the baran+a2 office of (ta. Cru.G,H Davao del (ur, but the parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement. Thus, the correspondin+ Certificate to 1ile Action 'as issued b2 the said baran+a2 and an action for unla'ful detainer 'as filed b2 petitioners a+ainst respondents. =#espondents, in their Ans'er, denied the material alle+ations of the GCHomplaint and alle+ed that the2 entered and occupied the premises in their o'n ri+ht as true, valid and la'ful claimants, possessors and o'ners of the said lot 'a2 bac6 in )9&0 and up to the present timeF that the2 have ac@uired 5ust and valid o'nership and possession of the premises b2 ordinar2 or eAtraordinar2 prescription, and that the #e+ional Director of the D9N#, #e+ion L/ has alread2 upheld their possession over the land in @uestion 'hen it ruled that the2 G'ereH the ri+htful claimants and possessors and G'ereH, therefore, entitled to the issuance of a title. =The -unicipal Trial Court of (ta. Cru., Davao del (ur rendered 5ud+ment in favor of petitioners but the #e+ional Trial Court of Di+os, Davao del (ur, on appeal, reversed and set aside the said decision. A A A=& R/+*n1 o9 (%e Co/r( o9 A<<e&+)

Affirmin+ the #e+ional Trial Court #TC!, the CA upheld the ri+ht of respondents as claimants and possessors. The appellate court held that -- althou+h not 2et final -- the 3rder issued b2 the re+ional eAecutive director of the Department of 9nvironment and Natural #esources D9N#! remained in full force and effect, unless declared null and void. The CA added that the Certification issued b2 the D9N#Bs communit2 environment and natural resources C9N#! officer 'as proof that 'hen the cadastral surve2 'as conducted, the land 'as still alienable and 'as not 2et allocated to an2 person. Accordin+ to the CA, respondents had the better ri+ht to possess alienable and disposable land of the public domain, because the2 have sufficientl2 proven their actual, ph2sical, open, notorious, eAclusive, continuous and uninterrupted possession thereof since )9&0. The appellate court deemed as self-servin+, and therefore incredible, the Affidavits eAecuted b2 "loria <eano (ae., Noel 3bo.a and 0aulina 0aran. $ence, this 0etition.7 T%e I))/e /n their -emorandum, petitioners raise the follo'in+ issues for the CourtBs consideration4 =/ Did the Court of Appeals +ravel2 abuse its discretion and GerrH in sustainin+ the rulin+ of the #e+ional Trial Court +ivin+ credence to the 3rder dated 2 April )99% issued b2 the re+ional eAecutive directorN =// Did the Court of Appeals +ravel2 abuse its discretion and err in sustainin+ the #e+ional Trial CourtBs rulin+ +ivin+ 'ei+ht to the C9N# 3fficerBs Certification, 'hich onl2 bears the facsimile of the alle+ed si+nature of a certain >ose 1. Ta+orda and, G'orseH, it is a ne' matter raised for the first time on appealN =/// Did the Court of Appeals +ravel2 abuse its discretion and err in holdin+ that the land sub5ect matter of this case has been ac@uired b2 means of adverse possession and prescriptionN =/? Did the Court of Appeals +ravel2 abuse its discretion, and err in declarin+ that, Bneither is there error on the part of the #e+ional Trial Court, 'hen it did not +ive importance to the affidavits b2 "loria <eano (ae., Noel G3bo.aH, and 0aulina 0aran for alle+edl2 bein+ self servin+NB=% To facilitate the discussion, the fourth and the third issues shall be discussed in reverse se@uence. T%e Co/r(0) R/+*n1 The 0etition has no merit. F*r)( I))/e$ The DENR Order of April 2, 1998 0etitioners claim that the reliance of the CA upon the April 2, )99% 3rder issued b2 the re+ional director of the D9N# 'as erroneous. The reason 'as that the 3rder, 'hich had upheld the claim of respondents, 'as supposedl2 not 2et final and eAecutor2. Another 3rder dated Au+ust 27, )999,9 issued later b2 the D9N# re+ional director, alle+edl2 held in abe2ance the effectivit2 of the earlier one. :nder the 0ublic <and Act,)0 the mana+ement and the disposition of public land is under the primar2 control of the director of lands)) no' the director of the <ands -ana+ement ,ureau or <-,!,)2 sub5ect to revie' b2 the D9N# secretar2.)7 As a rule, then, courts have no 5urisdiction to intrude upon matters properl2 fallin+ 'ithin the po'ers of the <-,. The po'ers +iven to the <-, and the D9N# to alienate and dispose of public land does not, ho'ever, divest re+ular courts of 5urisdiction over possessor2 actions instituted b2 occupants or applicants to protect their respective possessions and occupations.)8 The po'er to determine 'ho has actual ph2sical possession or occupation of public land and 'ho has the better ri+ht of possession over it remains 'ith the courts.)* ,ut once the D9N# has decided, particularl2 throu+h the +rant of a homestead patent and the issuance of a certificate of title, its decision on these points 'ill normall2 prevail.)& Therefore, 'hile the issue as to 'ho amon+ the parties are entitled to a piece of public land remains pendin+ 'ith the D9N#, the @uestion of recover2 of possession of the disputed propert2 is a matter that ma2 be addressed to the courts. Se'on7 I))/e$ CENR Offi er!s Certifi ation 0etitioners contend that the C9N# Certification dated >ul2 22, )997 is a sham document, because the si+nature of the C9N# officer is a mere facsimile. /n support of their ar+ument, the2 cite (arvi a v. 'ales $r.)7 and ar+ue that the Certification is a ne' matter bein+ raised b2 respondents for the first time on appeal. ;e are not persuaded.

/n (arvi a, the Court held4 =A facsimile or faA transmission is a process involvin+ the transmission and reproduction of printed and +raphic matter b2 scannin+ an ori+inal cop2, one elemental area at a time, and representin+ the shade or tone of each area b2 a specified amount of electric current. A A A=)% 0leadin+s filed via faA machines are not considered ori+inals and are at best eAact copies. As such, the2 are not admissible in evidence, as there is no 'a2 of determinin+ 'hether the2 are +enuine or authentic.)9 The Certification, on the other hand, is bein+ contested for bearin+ a facsimile of the si+nature of C9N# 3fficer >ose 1. Ta+orda. The facsimile referred to is not the same as that 'hich is alluded to in (arvi a. The one mentioned here refers to a facsimile si+nature, 'hich is defined as a si+nature produced b2 mechanical means but reco+ni.ed as valid in ban6in+, financial, and business transactions.20 Note that the C9N# officer has not disclaimed the Certification. /n fact, the D9N# re+ional director has ac6no'led+ed and used it as reference in his 3rder dated April 2, )99%4 =A A A. C9N# 3fficer >ose 1. Ta+orda, in a BC9#T/1/CAT/3NB dated 22 >ul2 )997, certified amon+ others, that4 A A A per records available in his 3ffice, A A A the controverted lot A A A 'as not allocated to an2 person A A A.=2) /f the Certification 'ere a sham as petitioner claims, then the re+ional director 'ould not have used it as reference in his 3rder. /nstead, he 'ould have either verified it or directed the C9N# officer to ta6e the appropriate action, as the latter 'as under the formerBs direct control and supervision. 0etitionersB claim that the Certification 'as raised for the first time on appeal is incorrect. As earl2 as the pretrial conference at the -unicipal Trial Court -TC!, the C9N# Certification had alread2 been mar6ed as evidence for respondents as stated in the 0re-trial 3rder.22 The Certification 'as not formall2 offered, ho'ever, because respondents had not been able to file their position paper. Neither the rules of procedure27 nor 5urisprudence28 'ould sanction the admission of evidence that has not been formall2 offered durin+ the trial. ,ut this evidentiar2 rule is applicable onl2 to ordinar2 trials, not to cases covered b2 the rule on summar2 procedure -- cases in 'hich no full-blo'n trial is held.2* T%*r7 I))/e$ Affidavit of "etitioners! #itnesses 0etitioners assert that the CA erred in disre+ardin+ the Affidavits of their 'itnesses, insistin+ that the #ule on (ummar2 0rocedure authori.es the use of affidavits. The2 also claim that the failure of respondents to file their position paper and counter-affidavits before the -TC amounts to an admission b2 silence. The admissibilit2 of evidence should not be confused 'ith its probative value. Admissibilit2 refers to the @uestion of 'hether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all, 'hile probative value refers to the @uestion of 'hether the admitted evidence proves an issue.2& Thus, a particular item of evidence ma2 be admissible, but its evidentiar2 'ei+ht depends on 5udicial evaluation 'ithin the +uidelines provided b2 the rules of evidence.27 ;hile in summar2 proceedin+s affidavits are admissible as the 'itnessesB respective testimonies, the failure of the adverse part2 to repl2 does not ipso facto render the facts, set forth therein, dul2 proven. 0etitioners still bear the burden of provin+ their cause of action, because the2 are the ones assertin+ an affirmative relief.2% Fo/r(% I))/e$ Defense of "res ription 0etitioners claim that the court a @uo erred in upholdin+ the defense of prescription proffered b2 respondents. /t is the formerBs contention that since the latterBs possession of the land 'as merel2 bein+ tolerated, there 'as no basis for the claim of prescription. ;e disa+ree. 1or the Court to uphold the contention of petitioners, the2 have first to prove that the possession of respondents 'as b2 mere tolerance. The onl2 pieces of evidence submitted b2 the former to support their claim 'ere a technical description and a vicinit2 map dra'n in accordance 'ith the surve2 dated -a2 22, )97&.29 ,oth of these 'ere discredited b2 the C9N# Certification, 'hich indicated that the contested lot had not 2et been allocated to an2 person 'hen the surve2 'as conducted.70 The testimon2 of petitionersB 'itnesses alone cannot prevail over respondentsB continued and uninterrupted possession of the sub5ect lot for a considerable len+th of time. 1urthermore, this is an issue of fact that cannot, as a rule, be raised in a petition for revie' under #ule 8*.7) 2HEREFORE, the 0etition is D)*+)D and the assailed Decision A,,+-.)D. Costs a+ainst petitioners. SO ORDERED.

Case no. 8& T$/#D D/?/(/3N 4G.R. No. 1-18-.. A<r*+ 28, 200-6 CALA58A STEEL CENTER, INC. B9ormer+= #S (T99< C3#03#AT/3NC, petitioner, vs. CO55ISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE"EN E,respondent. DECISION PANGANI8AN, J.$ A taA refund ma2 be claimed even beyon the taAable 2ear follo'in+ that in 'hich the taA credit arises. $ence, eAcess income taAes paid in )99* that have not been applied to or used in )99& ma2 still be the sub5ect of a taA refund in )997, provided that the claim for such refund is filed 'ith the internal revenue commissioner 'ithin t'o 2ears after pa2ment of said taAes. As a caveat, the Court stresses that the reco+nition of the entitlement to a taA refund does not necessaril2 mean the automatic pa2ment of the sum claimed in the final ad5ustment return of the taApa2er. The amount of the claim must still be proven in the normal course. T%e C&)e ,efore us is a 0etition for #evie'G)H under #ule 8* of the #ules of Court, assailin+ the >anuar2 )0, 2002 DecisionG2H of the Court of Appeals CA! in CA-"# (0 No. *%%7%. The assailed Decision disposed as follo's4 JIN "IE2 OF ALL THE FOREGOING, (%e *n)(&n( <e(*(*on *) D$%&$%%ED &n7 (%e &))&*+e7 De'*)*on &n7 Re)o+/(*on &re A''$R&ED. Co)() &1&*n)( Pe(*(*oner.KG7H T%e F&'() Cuotin+ the Court of TaA Appeals CTA!, the CA narrated the antecedents as follo's4 K0etitioner is a domestic corporation en+a+ed in the manufacture of steel blan6s for use b2 manufacturers of automotive, electrical, electronics in industrial and household appliances. K0etitioner filed an Amended Corporate Annual /ncome TaA #eturn on >une 8, )99& declarin+ a net taAable income of 09,8&),*97.00, taA credits of 0&,87),28&.00 and taA due in the amount of07,7)),**9.00. K0etitioner also reported @uarterl2 pa2ments for the second and third @uarters of )99* in the amounts of 02,72%,787.2& and 0),0%2,)0%.00, respectivel2. K/t is the proposition of the GpHetitioner that for the 2ear )99*, several of its clients 'ithheld taAes from their income pa2ments to GpHetitioner and remitted the same to the ,ureau of /nternal #evenue ,/#! in the sum of 07,)*9,&%7.00. 0etitioner further alle+ed that due to its incomeQloss positions for the three @uarters of )99&, it 'as unable to use the eAcess taA paid for and in its behalf b2 the 'ithholdin+ a+ents. KThus, an administrative claim 'as filed b2 the GpHetitioner on April )0, )997 for the refund of 07,)*9,&%7.00 representin+ eAcess or unused creditable 'ithholdin+ taAes for the 2ear )99*. The instant petition 'as subse@uentl2 filed on April )%, )997. K#espondent, in his Ans'er, averred, amon+ others, that4 T)! 0etitioner has no cause of actionF T2! 0etitioner failed to compl2 'ith the procedural re@uirements set out in (ection * of #evenue #e+ulations No. G ##!H )2-98F T7! /t is incumbent upon GpHetitioner to prove b2 competent and sufficient evidence that the taA refund or taA credit bein+ sou+ht is allo'ed under the National /nternal #evenue Code and its implementin+ rules and re+ulationsF and T8! Claims for taA refund or taA credit are construed strictl2 a+ainst the taApa2er as the2 parta6e the nature of taA eAemption. KTo buttress its claim, GpHetitioner presented documentar2 and testimonial evidence. #espondent, on the other hand, presented the GrHevenue GoHfficer 'ho conducted the eAamination of GpHetitionerIs claim and found petitioner liable for deficienc2 value added taA. 0etitioner also presented rebuttal evidence. KThe sole issue submitted for GoHur determination is 'hether or not GpHetitioner is entitled to the refund of 07,)*9,&%7.00 representin+ eAcess or overpaid income taA for the taAable 2ear )99*.MG8H R/+*n1 o9 (%e Co/r( o9 A<<e&+) /n den2in+ petitionerIs refund, the CA reasoned out that no evidence other than that presented before the CTA 'as adduced to prove that eAcess taA pa2ments had been made in )99*. 1rom the inception of the case to the formal offer of its evidence, petitioner did not present its )99& income taA return to disclose its total income taA liabilit2, thus ma6in+ it difficult to determine 'hether such eAcess taA pa2ments 'ere utili.ed in )99&. $ence, this 0etition.G*H

T%e I))/e 0etitioner raises this sole issue for our consideration4 K;hether the Court of Appeals +ravel2 erred 'hen, 'hile purportedl2 re@uirin+ petitioner to submit its )99& annual income taA return to support its claim for refund, nonetheless i+nored the eAistence of the taA return eAtant on the record the authenticit2 of 'hich has not been denied or its admissibilit2 opposed b2 the Commissioner of /nternal #evenue.MG&H T%e Co/r(L) R/+*n1 The 0etition is partl2 meritorious. So+e I))/e$ Entitle(ent to Ta) Ref*nd (ection &9 of the National /nternal #evenue Code N/#C!G7H provides4 K(ec. &9. 1inal ad5ustment return. -- 9ver2 corporation liable to taA under (ection 28 shall file a final ad5ustment return coverin+ the total taAable income for the precedin+ calendar or fiscal 2ear. /f the sum of the @uarterl2 taA pa2ments made durin+ the said taAable 2ear is not e@ual to the total taA due on the entire taAable net income of that 2ear the corporation shall either4 T a! 0a2 the eAcess taA still dueF or T b! ,e refunded the eAcess amount paid, as the case ma2 be. K/n case the corporation is entitled to a refund of the eAcess estimated @uarterl2 income taAes paid, the refundable amount sho'n on its final ad5ustment return ma2 be credited a+ainst the estimated @uarterl2 income taA liabilities for the taAable @uarters of the succeedin+ taAable 2ear.M Ta) Ref*nd Allo+ed ,- N$RC A perusal of this provision sho's that a ta#able corporation is entitled to a ta# refun 'hen the sum of the @uarterl2 income ta#es it paid durin+ a taAable 2ear eAceeds its total income ta# due also for that 2ear. Conse@uentl2, the refundable amount that is sho'n on its final a /ustment return ma2 be credited, at its option, a+ainst its @uarterl2 income ta# liabilities for the neAt ta#able year. 0etitioner is a corporation liable to pa2 income ta#es under (ection 28 of the N/#C. $ence, it is a ta#able corporation. /n )99*, it reported that it had eAcess income ta#es that had been paid for and on its behalf b2 its withhol ing agentsF and that, appl2in+ the above-@uoted (ection &9, this eAcess should be credited a+ainst its income ta# liabilities for )99&. $o'ever, it claimed in )997 that it should +et a refund, because it 'as still unable to use the eAcess income ta#es paid in )99* a+ainst its ta# liabilities in )99&. /s this possibleN (tatin+ the ar+ument other'ise, ma2 eAcess income ta#es paid in )99* that could not be applied to taAes due in )99& be refunded in )997N The ans'er is in the affirmative. $ere are the reasons4 Clai( of Ta) Ref*nd .e-ond the %* eedin/ Ta)a,le 0ear ,irst& a ta# refun ma2 be claimed even be2ond the ta#able year follo'in+ that in 'hich the ta# cre it arises. No provision in our taA la' limits the entitlement to such a refund, other than the re@uirement that the filin+ of the administrative claim for it be made b2 the taApa2er 'ithin a t'o-2ear prescriptive period. (ection 208 7! of the N/#C states that no refund of taAes Kshall be allo'ed unless the taApa2er files in 'ritin+ 'ith the Commissioner GtheH claim for A A A refund 'ithin t'o 2ears after the pa2ment of the taA.M Appl2in+ the afore@uoted le+al provisions, if the eAcess income ta#es paid in a +iven ta#able year have not been entirel2 used b2 a ta#able corporation a+ainst its @uarterl2 income taA liabilities for the neAt ta#able year, the unused amount of the eAcess ma2 still be refunded, provided that the claim for such a refund is made 'ithin t'o 2ears after pa2ment of the taA. 0etitioner filed its claim in )997 -- 'ell 'ithin the t'o-2ear prescriptive period. Thus, its unused ta# cre its in )99* ma2 still be refunded. 9ven the phrase Ksucceedin+ ta#able yearM in the second para+raph of the said (ection &9 is a limitation that applies onl2 to a ta# cre it, not a ta# refun . 0etitioner herein does not claim a ta# cre it, but a ta# refun . Therefore, the statutor2 limitation does not appl2. $n o(e "a-(ents &erelDe lared "art of 1ross $n o(e 'econ , to be able to claim a ta# refun , a taApa2er onl2 needs to eclare the income pa2ments it received as part of its gross income and to establish the fact of 'ithholdin+. (ection * of ## )2-98G%H states4 AAA AAA AAA

K a! Claims for TaA Credit or #efund of income taA deducted and 'ithheld on income pa2ments shall be +iven due course onl2 'hen it is sho'n on the return that the income pa2ment received has been declared as part of the +ross income and the fact of 'ithholdin+ is established b2 a cop2 of the ;ithholdin+ TaA (tatement dul2 issued b2 the pa2or to the pa2ee sho'in+ the amount paid and the amount of taA 'ithheld therefrom. K b! 9Acess Credits. -- A taApa2erBs eAcess eApanded 'ithholdin+ taA credits for the taAable @uarterQtaAable 2ear shall automaticall2 be allo'ed as a credit for purposes of filin+ his income taA return for the taAable @uarterQtaAable 2ear immediatel2 succeedin+ the taAable @uarterQtaAable 2ear in 'hich the aforesaid eAcess credit arose, provided, ho'ever, he submits 'ith his income taA return a cop2 of his income taA return for the aforesaid previous taAable period sho'in+ the amount of his aforementioned eAcess 'ithholdin+ taA credits. K/f the taApa2er, in lieu of the aforesaid automatic application of his eAcess credit, 'ants a cash refund or a taA credit certificate for use in pa2ment of his other national internal taA liabilities, he shall ma6e a 'ritten re@uest therefor. :pon filin+ of his re@uest, the taApa2erBs income taA return sho'in+ the eAcess eApanded 'ithholdin+ taA credits shall be eAamined. The eAcess eApanded 'ithholdin+ taA, if an2, shall be determined and refundedQcredited to the taApa2er-applicant. The refundQcredit shall be made 'ithin a period of siAt2 &0! da2s from date of the taApa2erBs re@uest provided, ho'ever, that the taApa2er-applicant submitted for audit all his pertinent accountin+ records and that the aforesaid records established the veracit2 of his claim for a refundQcredit of his eAcess eApanded 'ithholdin+ taA credits.M That petitioner filed its amended )99* income ta# return in )99& is uncontested. /n addition, the resultin+ investi+ation b2 the ,/# on Au+ust )*, )997, reveals that the income accounts 'ere Kcorrectl2 declared based on the eAistin+ supportin+ documents.MG9H Therefore, there is no need for petitioner to sho' a+ain the income pa2ments it received in )99* as part of its gross income in )99&. That petitioner filed its )99& final ad5ustment return in )997 is the cruA of the controvers2. $o'ever, as 'ill be demonstrated shortl2, the lac6 of such a return 'ill not defeat its entitlement to a refund. Ta) Ref*nd "rovisions: 2*estion of 3a+ !hir , it is a cardinal rule that Konl2 le+al issues ma2 be raisedMG)0H in petitions for revie' under #ule 8*.G))H The proper interpretation of the provisions on ta# refun is a 0uestion of law that Kdoes not call for an eAamination of the probative value of the evidence presented b2 the parties-liti+ants.M G)2H $avin+ been unable to use the eAcess income taAes paid in )99* a+ainst its other ta# liabilities in )99&, petitioner clearl2 deserves a refund. /t cannot b2 an2 s'eepin+ denial be deprived of 'hat ri+htfull2 belon+s to it. The truth or falsit2 of the contents of or entries in the )99& final a /ustment return, 'hich has not been formall2 offered in evidence and eAamined b2 respondent, involves, ho'ever, a 0uestion of fact. This Court is not a trier of facts. Neither is it a collection a+enc2 for the +overnment. Althou+h 'e rule that petitioner is entitled to a ta# refun , the amount of that refund is a matter for the CTA to determine 5udiciousl2 based on the records that include its o'n cop2 of petitionerIs )99& final ad5ustment return. 3i,eral Constr* tion of R*les ,ourth, ordinar2 rules of procedure fro'n upon the submission of final a /ustment returns after trial has been conducted. $o'ever, both the CTA la' and 5urisprudence mandate that the proceedin+s before the taA court Kshall not be +overned strictl2 b2 technical rules of evidence.M G)7H As a rule, its findin+s of fact G)8H as 'ell as that of the CA! are final, bindin+ and conclusiveG)*H on the parties and upon this CourtF ho'ever, as an eAception, such findin+s ma2 be revie'ed or disturbed on appealG)&H 'hen the2 are not supported b2 evidence.
G)7H

3ur #ules of Court appl2 Kb2 analo+2 or in a suppletor2G)%H character and 'henever practicable and convenientMG)9H and Kshall be liberall2 construed in order to promote their ob5ective of securin+ a 5ust, speed2 and ineApensive disposition of ever2 action and proceedin+.MG20H After all, KGtHhe paramount consideration remains the ascertainment of truth.MG2)H /n the present case, the )99& final a /ustment return 'as attached as AnneA A to the #epl2 to Comment filed b2 petitioner 'ith the CA. G22H The return sho's a ne+ative amount for its ta#able income that 2ear. Therefore, it could not have applied or used the eAcess taA credits of )99* a+ainst its ta# liabilities in )99&. J*di ial Noti e of Atta hed Ret*rn ,ifth, the CA and CTA could have ta6en 5udicial notice of the )99& final a /ustment return 'hich had been attached in CTA Case No. *799. K>udicial notice ta6es the place of proof and is of e@ual force.MG27H As a +eneral rule, courts are not authori.ed to ta6e 5udicial notice of the contents of records in other cases tried or pendin+ in the same court, even 'hen those cases 'ere heard or are actuall2 pendin+ before the same

5ud+e. $o'ever, this rule admits of eAceptions, as 'hen reference to such records is sufficientl2 made 'ithout ob5ection from the opposin+ parties4 TK. . . G/Hn the absence of ob5ection, and as a matter of convenience to all parties, a court ma2 properl2 treat all or an2 part of the ori+inal record of a case filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pendin+ before it, 'hen, 'ith the 6no'led+e of the opposin+ part2, reference is made to it for that purpose, b2 name and number or in some other manner b2 'hich it is sufficientl2 desi+natedF or 'hen the ori+inal record of the former case or an2 part of it, is actuall2 'ithdra'n from the archives b2 the courtBs direction, at the re@uest or 'ith the consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of the record of the case then pendin+.IMG28H 0rior to renderin+ its Decision on >anuar2 )2, 2000, the CTA 'as alread2 'ell-a'are of the eAistence of another case pendin+ before it, involvin+ the same sub5ect matter, parties and causes of action. G2*H ,ecause of the close connection of that case 'ith the matter in controvers2, the CTA could have easil2 ta6en 5udicial noticeG2&H of the contested document attached in that other case. 1urthermore, there 'as no ob5ection raised to the inclusion of the said )99& final a /ustment return in petitionerIs #epl2 to Comment before the CA. Despite clear reference to that return, a reference made 'ith the 6no'led+e of respondent, the latter still failed to controvert petitionerIs claim. The appellate court should have cast aside strict technicalitiesG27Hand decided the case on the basis of such uncontested return. ?eril2, it had the authorit2 to Kta6e 5udicial notice of its records and of the facts GthatH the record establishes.MG2%H (ection 2 of #ule )29 provides that courts Kma2 ta6e 5udicial notice of matters A A A ou+ht to be 6no'n to 5ud+es because of their 5udicial functions.MG29H /f the lo'er courts reall2 believed that petitioner 'as not entitled to a ta# refun , the2 could have easil2 re@uired respondent to ascertain its veracit2 and accurac2 G70H and to prove that petitioner did not suffer an2 net loss in )99&. Contrar2 to the contention of petitioner, BP+1,amily 'avings Bank v. CAG7)H on 'hich it rests its entire ar+uments! is not on all fours 'ith the facts of this case. ;hile the petitioner in that case also filed a 'ritten claim for a ta# refun , and li6e'ise failed to present its )990 corporate annual income ta# return, it nonetheless offered in evidence its top-ran6in+ officialIs testimon2 and certification pertainin+ to onl2 two ta#able years )9%9 and )990!. The said return 'as attached onl2 to its -otion for #econsideration before the CTA. 0etitioner in this case offered documentar2 and testimonial evidence that eAtended be=on7 two ta#able years, because the eAcess credits in the first )99*! ta#able year had not been used up durin+ the second )99&! ta#able year, and because the claim for the refund of those credits had been filed durin+ the third )997! ta#able year. /ts final a /ustment return 'as instead attached to its #epl2 to Comment filed before the CA. -oreover, in BP+1,amily 'avings Bank, petitioner 'as able to sho' Kthe undisputed fact4 that petitioner had suffered a net loss in )990 A A A.MG72H /n the instant case, there is no such Kundisputed factM as 2et. The mere admission into the records of petitionerIs )99& final a /ustment return is not a sufficient proof of the truth of the contents of or entries in that return. /n addition, the ,/# in BP+1,amily 'avings Bank did not controvert the veracit2 of the return or file an opposition to the -otion and the return. Despite the fact that the return 'as i+nored b2 both the CA and the CTA, the latter even declared in another case CTA Case No. 8%97! that petitioner had suffered a net loss for ta#able year )990. ;hen attached to the 0etition for #evie' filed before this Court, that Decision 'as not at all claimed b2 the ,/# to be fraudulent or noneAistent. The ,ureau merel2 contended that this Court should not ta6e 5udicial notice of the said Decision. /n this case, ho'ever, the ,/# has not been +iven the chance to challen+e the veracit2 of petitionerIs final a /ustment return. Neither has the CTA decided an2 other case cate+oricall2 declarin+ a net loss for petitioner in ta#able year )99&. After this return 'as attached to petitionerIs #epl2 to Comment before the CA, the appellate court should have re@uired the filin+ of other responsive pleadin+s from respondent, as 'as necessar2 and proper for it to rule upon the return. Ad(issi,ilit- 4ers*s #ei/ht /ndeed, KGaHdmissibilit2 A A A is one thin+, 'ei+ht is another.M G77H KTo admit evidence and not to believe it are not incompatible 'ith each other A A A.M G78H -ere alle+ations b2 petitioner of the fi+ures in its )99& final a /ustment return are not a sufficient proof of the amount of its refund entitlement. The2 do not even constitute evidenceG7*H adverse to respondent, a+ainst 'hom the2 are bein+ presented.G7&H ;hile it seems that the KGnon-productionH of a document 'hich courts almost invariabl2 eApect 'ill be produced Tunavoidabl2 thro's a suspicion over the cause,IMG77H this is not reall2 the conclusion to be arrived at here. ;hen petitioner purportedl2 filed its administrative claim for a ta# refun on April )0, )997, the deadline

for filin+ the )99& final a /ustment return 'as not 2et over. $ence, it could not have attached this return to its claim. 1or reasons un6no'n even to this Court, petitioner failed to offer such return as evidence durin+ the trial phase of this case. 1or its ne+li+ence, petitioner Kcannot be allo'ed to see6 refu+e in a liberal application of the GrHulesMG7%H b2 +ivin+ it a blan6et approval of the total refund it claims. K;hile in certain instances, 'e allo' a relaAation in the application of the rules, 'e never intend to for+e a 'eapon for errin+ liti+ants to violate the rules 'ith impunit2. The liberal interpretation and application of rules appl2 onl2 in proper cases of demonstrable merit and under 5ustifiable causes and circumstances.MG79H /t 'ould not be proper to allo' petitioner to simpl2 prevail and compel a refund in the amount it claims, 'ithout affordin+ the +overnment a reasonable opportunit2 to contest the formerIs alle+ations. G80H Ne+li+ence consistin+ of the uneAplained failure to offer the eAhibit should not be re'arded 'ith undeserved lenienc2. 0etitioner still bears the burden of provin+ the amount of its claim for ta# refun . After all, KGtHaA refunds are in the nature of taA eAemptionsMG8)H and are to be construed strictissimi /uris a+ainst the taApa2er. 1inall2, even in the absence of a final a /ustment return or an2 claim for a ta# refun , respondent is authori.ed b2 la' to eAamine an2 boo6, paper, record or other data that ma2 be relevant or material to such in@uir2.G82H 1ailure to ma6e an assessment of petitionerIs proper taA liabilit2 or to contest the return could be errors or omissions of administrative officers that should never be allo'ed to 5eopardi.e the +overnmentIs financial position. ?eril2, Kthe officers of the ,ureau of /nternal #evenue should receive the support of the courts 'hen these officers attempt to perform in a conscientious and la'ful manner the duties imposed upon them b2 la'.M G87H 3nl2 after it is sho'n that Kif somethin+ is received 'hen there is no ri+ht to demand it, and it 'as dul2 delivered throu+h mista6e, the obli+ation to return it arises.MG88H /n brief, 'e hold that petitioner is entitled to a refundF ho'ever, the amount must still be proved in proper proceedin+s before the CTA. 2HEREFORE, the 0etition is hereb2 PA-!23 (-A*!)D, and the assailed Decision ')! A'+D). The case is -).A*D)D to the Court of TaA Appeals for the proper and immediate determination of the amount to be refunded to petitioner on the basis of the latterIs )99& final ad5ustment return. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

Case no. 87 G.R. No. 1.28.4 De'ember 1., 2008 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. 5ARIO CASTRO, accused-appellant. DECISION LEONARDOADE CASTRO, J.$ 3n appeal is the decision) dated 1ebruar2 )*, 200& of the Court of Appeals CA! in CA-".#. C#-$.C. No. 00)2& 'hich affirmed in toto an earlier decision2 of the #e+ional Trial Court of 0asi+ Cit2, ,ranch )&2 in Criminal Case No. ))7*0&-$, findin+ accused-appellant +uilt2 be2ond reasonable doubt of the crime of #ape and imposin+ upon him the penalt2 of reclusion perpetua. Consistent 'ith our decision in People v. Cabal0uinto,7 the real name of the rape victim in this case is 'ithheld and instead, fictitious initials are used to represent her. Also, the personal circumstances of the victim or an2 other information tendin+ to establish or compromise her identit2, as 'ell as those of her immediate famil2 or household members, are not disclosed in this decision. /n the court of ori+in, accused-appellant 'as char+ed 'ith the crime of rape in an /nformation8 dated 1ebruar2 2, 2000. The crime 'as alle+ed to have been committed as follo's4 3n or about November )), )999, in Ta+ui+, -etro -anila and 'ithin the 5urisdiction of this $onorable Court, the accused, b2 means of force and intimidation, did then and there 'illfull2, unla'full2 and feloniousl2 have seAual intercourse 'ith his sister-in-la', GAAAH, a minor, fourteen )8! 2ears of a+e, a+ainst her 'ill and consent. ;ord in brac6et ours! C3NT#A#E T3 <A;. ;hen arrai+ned on >ul2 )2, 2000, accused-appellant, assisted b2 counsel e oficio, pleaded not +uilt2 to the crime char+ed. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued, in the course of 'hich the prosecution presented the testimon2 of the victim herself. The testimon2 of >urita 3lvido 'as dispensed 'ith after both parties a+reed to stipulate on the follo'in+4 )! that she is a social 'elfare officer of the Department of (ocial ;elfare and DevelopmentF 2! that she assisted the victim in filin+ a complaint due to her minorit2F and 7! that the due eAecution of her statement is admitted.* 1or its part, the defense presented -ar+arita (alan+san+ as its lone 'itness. Accused-appellant opted not to testif2. The prosecutionIs version of the incident is succinctl2 summari.ed b2 the 3ffice of the (olicitor "eneral in its AppelleeIs ,rief,& to 'it4 0rivate complainant GAAAH, is a fourteen )8! 2ear old lass havin+ been born on >ul2 %, )9%*. Appellant -ario Castro is the husband of G,,,H, elder sister of GAAAH. 3n November )), )999 at about ))400 in the evenin+, appellant fetched GAAAH from her AuntIs house at 0N# Compound, Ta+ui+ -etro -anila. $e said that her elder sister, G,,,H, collapsed and 'as in the clinic. ,elievin+ the stor2, GAAAH 'ent 'ith appellant. As events turned out, appellant brou+ht GAAAH - - not in the clinic - - but near T9-/C 1actor2, 'hich is an old abandoned buildin+ located at ;estern ,icutan, Ta+ui+, -etro -anila. As the2 reached a dar6 narro' alle2, appellant suddenl2 stopped and held GAAAHIs left arm. (tartled and fri+htened, GAAAH screamed for help but nobod2 seemed to have heard the outcr2. ;astin+ no time, appellant stran+led her, 'ith a threat to 6eep @uiet lest he 'ould 6ill her. GAAAH 'as co'ed into silence. (he felt helpless as she 6ne' that appellant had 6illed someone before. Appellant hurriedl2 pulled GAAAH to the side of a buildin+ and told her to undress. ;hen she refused, appellant undressed her, after 'hich, he undressed himself. GAAAH could not run a'a2 as appellant pressed her a+ainst the 'all of the buildin+ and bloc6ed her 'a2. ;hen both of them 'ere alread2 na6ed, appellant 6issed her on the different parts of her bod2 and, in an instant, forced his penis into her va+ina until he satisfied his lust. 3nce satiated, appellant told GAAAH to dress up and 'arned her not to tell an2bod2. Appellant initiall2 brou+ht her to the bus and 5eepne2 terminal but he later chan+ed his mind. $e told GAAAH that the2 have to +o to Ju2a -ann2Is 'or6 place. (till over'helmed 'ith shoc6 and fear, GAAAH could not resist. ;hen appellant learned that Ju2a -ann2 'as not at 'or6, he brou+ht GAAAH a+ain to the dar6 narro' alle2 beside Temic 1actor2. This time, ho'ever, the2 passed b2 a different route 'hich is near =0epsi.= As before, appellant as6ed GAAAH to undress. ;hen she refused, he himself removed her clothes O includin+ her intimate +arments. $e li6e'ise undressed himself. $e then 6issed her on the different

parts of her bod2 and forced her do'n. All the 'hile, she 'as so fri+htened and helpless. All she could do 'as to plead4 =;a+ na po Ju2a -ar.= 9n+ulfed b2 his bestialit2, appellant i+nored her pleaseF he too6 liberties on her bod2 as he rammed his penis into her va+ina. A+ain, he satisfied his lust. Appellant eventuall2 told GAAAH to dress up. $e brou+ht her to the terminal of the 5eep and allo'ed her to +o home. ;hen GAAAH reached her residence, she immediatel2 too6 a bath. As she could not contain her +rief and miser2, she told her aunt GCCCH and her +randmother GDDDH that she 'as raped. After her relatives learned of the incident, the2 brou+ht her to the ,aran+a2 Tanod and, later to Camp Crame for medical eAamination. The2 also proceeded to the 0olice (tation located at the -unicipal $all of Ta+ui+ to +ive her statement. ;ords in brac6et ours! 3n the other hand, the defense relied on the testimon2 of -ar+arita (alan+san+, a lessee of accusedappellantIs mother at (i+nal ?illa+e in Ta+ui+. (he testified that at around 9470 in the evenin+ on November )), )999, accused-appellant 'as in her house for her birthda2 celebration. Accused-appellant did not leave the house at an2 time from the moment he arrived at 9470 in the evenin+ until he finall2 left around midni+ht. (he 6ne' that accused-appellant 'ent home strai+ht after the part2 because she even sa' him at his house 'hen she returned the pans she borro'ed from accused-appellantIs mother. -ar+arita declared that her house 'as located 5ust at the bac6 of accused-appellantIs house.7 /n a decision% dated (eptember 29, 2008, the trial court rendered its decision convictin+ accused-appellant of the crime of rape, the dispositive portion of 'hich reads4 ;$9#913#9, the Court finds the accused -ario Castro, +uilt2 be2ond reasonable doubt of the crime of #ape committed under para+raph ) a! of Article 2&&-A of the #evised 0enal Code as amended b2 #.A. %7*7!, and hereb2 sentences him to suffer the penalt2 of re l*sion perpet*a. Accused -ario Castro is li6e'ise ordered to indemnif2 private complainant, GAAAH, the amount of fift2 thousand pesos 0*0,000.00! as civil indemnit2 and the amount of fift2 thousand pesos 0*0,000.00! b2 'a2 of moral dama+es 'ith cost e oficio. (3 3#D9#9D. 0ursuant to People v. .ateo,9 accused-appellant appealed his conviction to the CA via a notice of appeal on (eptember 70, 2008,)0 'hereat it 'as doc6eted as CA-".#. C#-$C No. 00)2&. 3n 1ebruar2 )*, 200&, the CA upheld the conviction of accused-appellant and affirmed in toto the #TC decision.)) 1rom the CA, the case 'as then elevated to this Court upon filin+ b2 accused-appellant of a notice of appeal on -arch )0, 200&.)2 /n its #esolution)7 of Au+ust 9, 200&, the Court resolved to re@uire the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if the2 so desire. ,oth parties, ho'ever, manifested that the2 'ere dispensin+ 'ith the filin+ of a supplemental brief as their ar+uments have alread2 been substantiall2 discussed in their respective briefs filed before the appellate court.)8 /n this appeal, accused-appellant assi+ns the follo'in+ errors4 / T$9 T#/A< C3:#T "#A?9<E 9##9D /N "/?/N" 1:<< ;9/"$T AND C#9D9NC9 T3 T$9 $/"$<E /NC#9D/,<9 T9(T/-3NE 31 T$9 0#/?AT9 C3-0<A/NANT. // T$9 T#/A< C3:#T "#A?9<E 9##9D /N C3N?/CT/N" T$9 ACC:(9D-A009<<ANT 31 #A09 /N(T9AD 31 T$9 C#/-9 31 ACT( 31 <A(C/?/3:(N9((.)* /nsistin+ that the prosecution failed to prove his +uilt be2ond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape, accusedappellant assails the credibilit2 of the complainant brandin+ her testimon2 as hi+hl2 improbable and contrar2 to common human eAperience. $e contends that complainant did not particularl2 describe the details of the alle+ed rape as to 'hether she 'as forced to lie do'n or 'hether the2 'ere standin+ 'hen he inserted a part of his or+an into her va+ina. Accused-appellant also asserts that complainant failed to cate+oricall2 state that accused-appellant succeeded in insertin+ his penis into her va+ina, thus underminin+ her alle+ation of consummated rape. Accused-appellantIs contentions relate to the credibilit2 of the testimon2 of complainant. ;e have time and a+ain said that the findin+s of the trial court pertainin+ to the credibilit2 of 'itnesses are entitled to +reat respect since it has the opportunit2 to eAamine their demeanor on the 'itness stand.)& :nless sho'n that the trial court overloo6ed or misunderstood some facts or circumstances of 'ei+ht and substance that could affect the result of the case, its findin+s on @uestions of facts 'ill not be disturbed on appeal.)7 ;e have revie'ed the record of the instant case and found nothin+ 'hich 'ould 'arrant a reversal of the trial courtIs findin+s.

Accused-appellant maintains that complainant failed to mention an2 pumpin+ motion and 'hether she 'as standin+ or l2in+ do'n 'hen she 'as alle+edl2 raped. These matters, ho'ever, have no bearin+ on the principal @uestion of 'hether accused-appellant had carnal 6no'led+e of the victim. ,esides, contrar2 to appellantBs contention, complainant testified in no uncertain terms durin+ cross-eAamination that she did not 'illin+l2 lie do'n but 'as forced to do so b2 accused-appellant4 ATTE. >AND:(AE4 C. (o are 2ou sa2in+ -iss ;itness, that 2ou 'illin+l2 laid do'n 'ith the accusedN A. No, -aIam. C. ;hat did he do, did he force 2ou do'nN A Ees, -aIam.)% 1urther, the complainantIs narration of ho' accused-appellant perpetrated the seAual assault upon her 'as consistent, spontaneous and strai+htfor'ard, thus4 0#3(. C#/(3<3"34 C. ;hile 2ou 'ere at the side of the buildin+, 'hat else happened, if an2N A. $e as6ed me to undress, (ir. C. Did 2ou undress, -adam 'itnessN A. No, (ir. C. ;hat else happened 'hen 2ou refused to undressN A. $e undressed me, (ir. C. Did 2ou resist his act of undressin+ 2ou, -adam ;itnessN A. Ees, (ir. C. Did he succeed in undressin+ 2ouN A. Ees, (ir. C. ;hen 2ou said he undressed 2ou, do 2ou mean that he 'as able to undress ever2thin+ includin+ 2our under'earN A. Ees, (ir. C. ;ould this mean that 2ou 'ere totall2 na6ed after he 'as able to undress 2ouN A. -2 pant2 'as pulled do'n to the 6nee, (ir. C. And after he succeeded in undressin+ 2ou, 'hat else happened, if an2N A. $e 6issed me at different parts of m2 bod2, (ir. C. After 6issin+ the different parts of 2our bod2, 'hat else happened, if an2N A. $e 'as forcin+ his or+an to insert into m2 or+an, (ir. C. Did he succeed, -adam ;itnessN A. Not all, (ir. C. ;hen 2ou said not all someho' a part of his or+an 'as inserted, 'ould that be correct, -adam ;itnessN A. Ees, (ir.)9 Courts usuall2 +ive +reater 'ei+ht to the testimon2 of a +irl 'ho is a victim of seAual assault, especiall2 a minor, as in this case, because no 'oman 'ould be 'illin+ to under+o a public trial and put up 'ith the shame, humiliation and dishonor of eAposin+ her o'n de+radation 'ere it not to condemn an in5ustice and have the offender apprehended and punished.20 Nor is there an2 @uestion that accused-appellant in this case committed rape b2 means of threat and intimidation. ,ein+ 70 2ears old and the brother-in-la' of complainant, accused-appellant eAercised not onl2 ph2sical superiorit2, but also moral ascendanc2 over his )8-2ear old victim such that his threat to inflict ph2sical harm on her effectivel2 co'ed her into submittin+ to his lustful desi+ns. /n fact, complainant 'as a'are that accused-appellant had 6illed someone before2) 'hich all the more en+endered fear in her O fear that if she did not 2ield to accused-appellantBs demands, he 'ould carr2 out his threat to 6ill her. Accused-appellant ar+ues that he cannot be held liable for consummated rape follo'in+ the rulin+ in People v. Campuhan.22 1or this purpose, he cites the testimon2 of complainant that =not all= of accused-appellantBs or+an 'as inserted into her va+ina. The ar+ument is misplaced. /n Campuhan, it 'as held that the crime 'as merel2 attempted rape because all that the victim said in that case 'as that accusedBs penis =touched her or+an but did not penetrate it.=27 $ence, this Court concluded4 GTheH testimon2 alone should dissipate the mist of confusion that enshrouds the @uestion of 'hether rape in this case 'as consummated. /t has foreclosed the possibilit2 of 0rimoBs penis penetratin+ her va+ina, ho'ever sli+ht. Cr2sthel made a cate+orical statement den2in+ penetration. AAA. Nor can it be

deduced that in tr2in+ to penetrate the victimBs or+an the penis of the accused touched the middle portion of her va+ina and entered the labia of her pudendum as the prosecution failed to establish sufficientl2 that 0rimo made efforts to penetrate Cr2sthel. Cora.on did not sa2, na2, not even hint that 0rimoBs penis 'as erect or that he responded 'ith an erection. 3n the contrar2, Cora.on even narrated that 0rimo had to hold his penis 'ith his ri+ht hand, thus sho'in+ that he had 2et to attain an erection to be able to penetrate his victim.28 ,ut, in the case at bar, the above-@uoted testimon2 of the complainant herself established the consummation of the crime of rape. Clearl2, complainantBs statement that not all of accused-appellantBs or+an 'as inserted simpl2 means that there 'as no full penetration. There can be no doubt, ho'ever, that there 'as at least a partial entr2, so as to ma6e the crime consummated rape. As 'e have said in unnumbered cases, full or deep penetration is not necessar2 to consummate seAual intercourseF it is enou+h that there is the sli+htest penetration of the male or+an into the female seA or+an.2* The mere touchin+ b2 the male or+an of the labia of the pudendum of the 'omanIs private part is sufficient to consummate rape.2& /t 'as therefore consummated rape 'hich accusedappellant committed. Accused-appellant li6e'ise claims that the trial court erred in convictin+ him of the crime of consummated rape despite the prosecutionIs failure to present the testimon2 of the eAaminin+ ph2sician. ;e find accusedappellantIs contention on this point untenable. The commission of rape a+ainst complainant cannot be ne+ated simpl2 because of the absence of the testimon2 of the doctor 'ho eAamined the victim. /t is 'ell entrenched in our 5urisprudence that a medical eAamination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape inasmuch as the victimIs testimon2 alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime.27 /n fact, a doctorIs certificate is merel2 corroborative in character and not an indispensable re@uirement in provin+ the commission of rape.2% ;e are also constrained to a+ree 'ith the appellate courtIs observation that there 'as nothin+ improbable and preposterous in complainantIs testimon2. (aid the CA4 This Court finds nothin+ incredible or fantastic in GAAAIsH narration of the events surroundin+ the rape committed a+ainst her b2 accused-appellant Castro. The details of her stor2 fail to sho' an2 telltale indications of falsehood, inconsistenc2 or improbabilit2, and 'ere all perfectl2 consistent 'ith the rape of a 2oun+ innocent +irl. Considerin+ her relativel2 tender a+e and minorit2, it is 'ell ni+h inconceivable for her to have concocted such a serious accusation and bra.enl2 impute such a crime to her o'n brother-in-la', if it 'ere not true. The evidence on record is bereft of an2 sho'in+, 'hich 'ould someho' indicate that the private complainant 'as induced b2 an2 ill-motive in filin+ the case a+ainst accused-appellant Castro.29 Accused-appellantIs defense of alibi is unavailin+. -ar+arita (alan+san+, the lone defense 'itness, claimed that accused-appellant 'as in her house from 9470-))48* in the evenin+ of November )), )999. $o'ever, this does not ne+ate the possibilit2 that he mi+ht be present at the T9-/C factor2 'here the crime 'as committed, since -ar+aritaIs house and the T9-/C factor2 are both located 'ithin Ta+ui+. /n fact, -ar+arita herself declared that the distance bet'een the t'o places can easil2 be ne+otiated b2 foot 'ithin ten )0! minutes and b2 tric2cle 'ithin five *! minutes. 1or alibi to prosper, the accused must establish b2 clear and convincin+ evidence a! his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and b! the ph2sical impossibilit2 of his presence at the scene of the crime at the time.70 ;here there is even the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi 'ill not hold 'ater.7) Clearl2 in this case, the ph2sical impossibilit2 of accused-appellantIs presence at the scene of the crime on the date and time of its commission, has not been sufficientl2 established. ;e, thus, sustain the conviction of accused-appellant for the crime of consummated simple rape under Article 2&&-A, para+raph ) a! of the #evised 0enal Code. The penalt2 of reclusion perpetua 'as li6e'ise correctl2 imposed as the special @ualif2in+ circumstance of relationship had not been specificall2 alle+ed in the information. :nder Article 2&&-, of the #evised 0enal Code, as amended b2 #.A. No. %7*7,72 @ualified rape is committed 'hen, amon+ others, =the victim is under ei+hteen )%! 2ears of a+e and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, +uardian, relative b2 consan+uinit2 or affinit2 'ithin the third civil de+ree, or the common-la' spouse of the parent of the victim.= /t is 'ell-settled that these attendant circumstances of minorit2 of the victim and her relationship to the offender are special @ualif2in+ circumstances 'hich must be specificall2 alle+ed in the information and proved 'ith certaint2 in order to 'arrant conviction for the crime of @ualified rape and the imposition of the death penalt2.77

/n the present case, the information char+in+ accused-appellant of the crime of rape alle+ed that the accused, =b2 means of force and intimidation, did then and there 'illfull2, unla'full2 and feloniousl2 had seAual intercourse 'ith his sister-in-la', GAAAH, a minor, fourteen )8! 2ears of a+e, a+ainst her 'ill.= 78 The prosecution 'as able to prove that at the time she 'as raped, complainant 'as onl2 )8 2ears old, havin+ been born on >ul2 %, )9%*, as evidenced b2 her birth certificate.7* The prosecution li6e'ise proved accusedappellant is the brother-in-la' of complainant, bein+ the husband of complainantIs elder sister. Accusedappellant, therefore, is complainantIs relative b2 affinit2 'ithin the third civil de+ree. $o'ever, 'e have previousl2 held that if the offender is merel2 a relation O not a parent, ascendant, stepparent, or +uardian or common-la' spouse of the mother of the victim O it must be alle+ed in the information that he is =a relative b2 consan+uinit2 or affinit2 as the case ma2 be! 'ithin the third civil de+ree.=7& Thus, in the instant case, the alle+ation that complainant is the sister-in-la' of accused-appellant is not specific enou+h to satisf2 the special @ualif2in+ circumstance of relationship. /t is necessar2 to specificall2 alle+e that such relationship 'as b2 affinit2 'ithin the third civil de+ree.77 Conse@uentl2, due to the defect in the information char+in+ accused-appellant of rape, he can onl2 be held liable for simple rape and meted the penalt2 of reclusion perpetua. Consistent 'ith prevailin+ 5urisprudence on simple rape, the amounts of 0*0,000.00 as civil indemnit2 and0*0,000.00 as moral dama+es 'ere correctl2 a'arded b2 the trial court.7% 2HEREFORE, the decision dated 1ebruar2 )*, 200& of the CA in CA-".#. C#-$C No. 00)2& is hereb2AFFIR5ED. Accused-appellant -ario Castro is found G ILT> be2ond reasonable doubt of the crime of (imple #ape and sentenced to suffer the penalt2 of reclusion perpetua. $e is also ordered to pa2 complainant, civil indemnit2 in the amount of 0*0,000.00 and moral dama+es in the amount of 0*0,000.00. SO ORDERED.

Case no. 8% (9C3ND D/?/(/3N 4G.R. No. 1-0.30. #&n/&r= 31, 200-6 5ILA SALES LLANTO, >OLANDA SALES CA8ILLO, OSCAR SALES, AC3 ILINA 416 SALES, FRANCISCO SALES, AL8ERTO SALES, GLORIA SALES ALIPIO, ED ARDO SALES, E5ERCIAANA426 SALES ALGIRE, ELENITA SALES SERRANO, &n7 CONRADO SALES, petitioners, vs. ERNESTO AL!ONA, DO5INADOR AL!ONA, ESTELA SALES PELONGCO,436 &n7 (%e REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CALA58A, LAG NA, respondents. DECISION A STRIAA5ARTINE!, J.$ ,efore us is a petition for revie' on certiorari under #ule 8* of the #ules of Court assailin+ the DecisionG8H of the Court of Appeals CA! promul+ated on -arch )9, 200) in CA-".#. C? No. *29*), G*H 'hich affirmed 'ith modification the decision dated -a2 70, )99& of the #e+ional Trial Court #TC! of (an 0edro, <a+una ,ranch 7)!F and the #esolution dated 3ctober 2&, 200), den2in+ petitionersI motion for reconsideration. The facts of the case are as follo's4 ,ernardo (ales and -aria (ales 'ere husband and 'ife. The2 have t'elve children, eleven of 'hom are the present petitioners 'hile the remainin+ child, 9stela (ales 0elon+co, is one of herein respondents. -aria 'as the re+istered o'ner of a certain parcel of land 'ith an area of 202 s@uare meters and covered b2 3ri+inal Certificate of Title 3CT! No. 0-722* 'hich she ac@uired under a free patent.G&H The propert2 is located at ,anlic, Cabu2ao, <a+una.G7H :ntil the2 died, -aria and ,ernardo, to+ether 'ith some of their children, lived on said land and in the house 'hich the2 constructed thereon. -aria died on Au+ust 27, )9%& G%H 'hile ,ernardo died on >anuar2 ), )997. 3n >anuar2 29, )990, a real estate mort+a+e contract 'as purportedl2 eAecuted b2 -aria, 'ho 'as alread2 deceased at that time, and ,ernardo in favor of herein respondent Dominador Al.ona. G9H #espondent 9stela (ales 0elon+co si+ned as an instrumental 'itness to the mort+a+e contract. G)0H #espondent 9rnesto Al.ona admitted that 'hile he 'as a co-mort+a+ee of his brother, Dominador, his name does not appear in the mort+a+e contract. The mort+a+e 'as subse@uentl2 foreclosed for alle+ed failure of ,ernardo and -aria to settle their obli+ation secured b2 the said mort+a+e. The propert2 'as thereafter sold in a mort+a+e sale conducted on December 20, )990 'herein 9rnesto Al.ona 'as the hi+hest bidder. Conse@uentl2, a certificate of sale 'as a'arded to 9rnesto on December 20, )990, G))H and on >anuar2 22, )992, he eAecuted a Consolidation of 3'nership over the propert2. G)2H Accordin+l2, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-2&)%*7 'as issued in his name 'hile 3CT No. 0-722* in the name of -aria (ales 'as cancelled.G)7H 3n December )7, )992, herein petitioners caused the inscription of an adverse claim on the title to the propert2.G)8H 3n 3ctober )*, )997, herein petitioners filed before the #TC of (an 0edro, <a+una a complaint for Annulment of -ort+a+e and of Auction (ale, 'ith #econve2ance of Title and Dama+es. G)*H #espondents 9rnesto and Dominador Al.ona and the #e+ister of Deeds of Calamba, <a+una filed their ans'ers, respectivel2. $o'ever, respondent 9stela (ales 0elon+co failed to file her ans'erF as a conse@uence of 'hich, she 'as declared in default. After trial, the #TC rendered 5ud+ment, the dispositive portion of 'hich reads as follo's4 ;$9#913#9, 5ud+ment is hereb2 rendered in favor of defendants Dominador Al.ona and 9rnesto Al.ona and a+ainst 9stela (ales dismissin+ plaintiffsI complaint 'ith costs a+ainst plaintiffs, and orderin+ plaintiffs to pa2 defendants Dominador Al.ona and 9rnesto Al.ona the sum of 0*0,000 plus 0),000 per court appearance for and as attorne2Is fees. 1or paucit2 of evidence, no 5ud+ment can be rendered b2 this Court on the other reliefs pra2ed for b2 defendants Dominador Al.ona and 9rnesto Al.ona in their counterclaim a+ainst the plaintiffs and in their crossclaim a+ainst defendant 9stela (ales. #elative to plaintiffsI complaint a+ainst defendant 9stela (ales, 5ud+ment is hereb2 rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and a+ainst defendant 9stela (ales b2 orderin+ the latter to pa2 the plaintiffs the amount of070,000 for and as attorne2Is fees plus 0),000 per court appearance and 0200,000 for moral dama+es. 1or paucit2 of evidence, no 5ud+ment can be rendered on the other reliefs pra2ed for b2 plaintiffs in their complaint a+ainst defendant 9stela (ales. 1or lac6 of evidence, the complaint of plaintiffs a+ainst defendant #e+ister of Deeds of <a+una, Calamba ,ranch, is as it is, hereb2 D/(-/((9D.

(3 3#D9#9D.G)&H A++rieved b2 the trial courtIs decision, petitioners filed an appeal 'ith the CA. 3n -arch )9, 200), the CA rendered a decision affirmin+ the 5ud+ment of the #TC but deletin+ the attorne2Is fees a'arded to petitioners.G)7H 0etitionersI motion for reconsideration 'as denied in a resolution issued b2 the Court of Appeals on 3ctober 2&, 200).G)%H $ence, herein petitioners filed the present petition on the follo'in+ +rounds4 "#3:ND( 13# T$9 09T/T/3N A. T$9 #:<9 T$AT A 0:#C$A(9# 3# -3#T"A"99 31 <AND /( N3T 3,</"AT9D T3 <33J ,9E3ND T$9 C9#T/1/CAT9 31 T/T<9 CANN3T ,9 A00</9D ;$9#9 T$9#9 /( N3 C:9(T/3N A( T3 T$9 T/T<9 31 T$9 -3#T"A"3# AND ;$9#9 A D/119#9NT 09#(3N -3#T"A"9D T$9 0#309#TE. ,. A -3#T"A"99, (09C/A<<E 3N9 ;$3 /( /N T$9 <9ND/N" ,:(/N9((, /( <9"A<<E #9C:/#9D T3 TAJ9 T$9 N9C9((A#E 0#9CA:T/3N( ;$/C$ 0#:D9NC9 ;3:<D D/CTAT9, ,913#9 9NT9#/N" /NT3 A -3#T"A"9 C3NT#ACT.G)9H /n the present case, since it is no lon+er disputed that the mort+a+ors 'ere not the o'ners of the propert2 sub5ect of the petition the @uestion that remains is 'hether 9rnesto and Dominador are mort+a+ees in +ood faith. 0etitioners contend that the principle re+ardin+ innocent purchasers for value enunciated b2 the CA in its decision is not applicable to the present case because in the cases cited b2 the CA there 'as no @uestion that the mort+a+ors 'ere the real o'ners of the propert2 that 'as mort+a+ed, 'hile in the instant case, the mort+a+ors 'ere impostors 'ho pretended as the real o'ners of the propert2. ;e do not a+ree. The principle of Kinnocent purchasers for valueM is applicable to the present case. :nder Article 20%* of the Civil Code, one of the essential re@uisites of the contract of mort+a+e is that the mort+a+or should be the absolute o'ner of the propert2 to be mort+a+edF other'ise, the mort+a+e is considered null and void.G20H $o'ever, an eAception to this rule is the doctrine of Kmort+a+ee in +ood faith.M :nder this doctrine, even if the mort+a+or is not the o'ner of the mort+a+ed propert2, the mort+a+e contract and an2 foreclosure sale arisin+ therefrom are +iven effect b2 reason of public polic2. G2)H This principle is based on the rule that all persons dealin+ 'ith propert2 covered b2 a Torrens Certificate of Title, as bu2ers or mort+a+ees, are not re@uired to +o be2ond 'hat appears on the face of the title. G22H This is the same rule that underlies the principle of Kinnocent purchasers for valueM cited b2 the CA in its decision. The prevailin+ 5urisprudence is that a mort+a+ee has a ri+ht to rel2 in +ood faith on the certificate of title of the mort+a+or to the propert2 +iven as securit2 and in the absence of an2 si+n that mi+ht arouse suspicion, has no obli+ation to underta6e further investi+ation.G27H $ence, even if the mort+a+or is not the ri+htful o'ner of, or does not have a valid title to, the mort+a+ed propert2, the mort+a+ee in +ood faith is, nonetheless, entitled to protection.G28H 1or persons, more particularl2 those 'ho are en+a+ed in real estate or financin+ business li6e herein respondents 9rnesto and Dominador Al.ona, to be considered as mort+a+ees in +ood faith, 5urisprudence re@uires that the2 should ta6e the necessar2 precaution eApected of a prudent man to ascertain the status and condition of the properties offered as collateral and to verif2 the identit2 of the persons the2 transact business 'ith, particularl2 those 'ho claim to be the re+istered propert2 o'ners.G2*H /n the instant case, the CA affirmed the rulin+ of the trial court that 9rnesto and Dominador are mort+a+ees in +ood faith. The trial court +ave credence to 9rnestoIs testimon2 that he conducted a credit investi+ation before he approved the loan sou+ht and the propert2 mort+a+ed. /t is 'ell settled in our 5urisdiction that the determination of credibilit2 of 'itnesses is properl2 'ithin the domain of the trial court as it is in the best position to observe their demeanor and bodil2 movements.G2&H 1urther, findin+s of the trial court 'ith respect to the credibilit2 of 'itnesses and their testimonies are entitled to +reat respect, and even finalit2, unless said findin+s are arbitrar2, or facts and circumstances of 'ei+ht and influence have been overloo6ed, misunderstood, or misapplied b2 the trial 5ud+e 'hich, if considered, 'ould have affected the case. G27H These findin+s are bindin+ on this Court especiall2 'hen affirmed b2 the appellate court. G2%H After a re-eAamination of the evidence presented, 'e find no co+ent reason to depart from this rule. /ndeed, a perusal of the testimon2 of 9rnesto proves that he eAercised the necessar2 precautions to ascertain the status of the propert2 sou+ht to be mort+a+ed and the identit2 of the mort+a+ors. Durin+ his cross-eAamination he testified as follo's4 @. And accordin+ to 2ou, 2ou made a credit investi+ation of the propert2 in @uestionN a. Ees, sir. @. And 2ou 'ent to the place because accordin+ to 2ou of a s6etch +iven to 2ou b2 9stelaN

a. Ees, sir. @. ;here in ,r+2. ,anlic is the propert2 specificall2 located in relation to an2 landmar6N 0ampolina4 The @uestion is rather va+ue, Eour $onor. Eou mentioned perhaps a place that is 6no'n that is near the place. Court4 ;itness ma2 ans'er. ;here in ,r+2. ,anlic is the propert2 located, -r. ;itnessN a. /t is about five *! houses a'a2 before reachin+ the 5unction +oin+ to ,r+2. -amatid and in the corner, there is the #ural ,an6 of Cabu2ao, sir. -endo.a4 Eou 'ere onl2 e@uipped 'ith a s6etch +iven to 2ou b2 9stela. $o' 'ere 2ou able to see specificall2 the propert2N a. / in@uired from the nei+hbors, sir. @. ;ho amon+ the nei+hbors did 2ou in@uireN a. The first one is a male residin+U.. Court4 The @uestion is 'hoN a. 1eliA /cepel and the second one is Aurin+ (ales, 'ife of 1rancisco (ales, sir. @. ;hen 2ou as6ed these persons, did 2ou as6 'here 'as -aria (alesN a. No, sir. @. Did this 1eliA /cepel pointed to 2ou the house of ,ernardo (ales and -aria (alesN a. Ees, sir. @. Did 2ou also as6 Aurin+ (ales about the house of -aria (alesN a. Ees, sir. @. ;h2 did 2ou as6 a+ain Aurin+ (ales about the house of -aria (ales considerin+ that 2ouIve as6ed 1eliA /cepel about this. a. ,ecause / 'ould li6e to have t'o 'itnesses, sir. @. Aside from as6in+ their houses, did 2ou as6 'hether -aria (ales and ,ernardo (ales 'ere thereN a. / did not as6, sir. Court4 Considerin+ that Aurin+Is surname is (ales and the one appl2in+ for a loan from 2ou is also surnamed (ales, did 2ou as6 her if she has an2 relation 'ith the (alesesN a. Ees, maIam. (he even volunteeredU. @. ;hat 'as the ans'erN a. That she is the dau+hter-in-la' of ,ernardo (ales and -aria (ales, sir. @. Eou also said that Aurin+ is the 'ife of 1rancisco (alesN a. Ees, maIam. @. And 1rancisco (ales is one of the children of -aria (ales and ,ernardo (alesN a. Ees, maIam. @. 1or 'hich reason she is claimin+ that she is the dau+hter-in-la' of ,ernardo (ales and -aria (alesN a. Ees, maIam. Court4 Continue. -endo.a4 Eou pointed to t'o persons earlier 'hom 2ou said 'ent to 2our houseN a. Ees, sir. @. And 'ho 'ere the2 'hen 2ou said themN a. The2 are 9stela, the couple, Eolanda, "loria, Conrado and three other 'omen, sir. @. ;here did 2ou meet these personsN a. /nside the house of ,ernardo (ales and -aria (ales, sir. @. And 2ou 'ere able to tal6 to -aria (ales at that timeN a. Ees, sir. @. And 'hen the couple 'ent to 2ou in November, )9%9, the2 'ere the same couple 'hom 2ou met in the house of ,ernardo (alesN a. Ees, sir. @. And 'hen 2ou sa' ,ernardo (ales, he can 'al6N a. $e 'as sittin+ do'n at that time, sir. @. At that time 2ou 'ent to their house, did he stand upN a. Ees, sir. / thin6 he stood up. @. And -aria (ales offered 2ou a coffee at that timeN a. No, sir.

;hat time did 2ou +o there 'hen 2ou made a credit investi+ationN /t 'as in the mornin+, sir. And for ho' lon+ did 2ou tal6 'ith the couple, Eolanda, "loria and 9stelaN /t lasted for 70 minutes, sir. Eou pointed earlier the person of Eolanda 'hom 2ou said 2ou sa' on >anuar2 2&, )990 inside the house of the (alesesN a. Ees, sir. @. And 2ou also mentioned of "loria (ales 'hom 2ou said is not in court toda2N a. Ees, sir. @. And 2ou sa' this 'oman 'hen she testified in courtN a. Ees, sir. @. And 2ou sa' her several times before she testified in court until she completed her testimon2N a. Ees, sir. ;hen she came to m2 house. -endo.a4 ;e 'ould li6e to ma6e it on record that "loria (ales Alipio is no' present in court. 0ampolina4 ,ut 'ith e2e+lasses, Eour $onor. (he 'as not 'earin+ an e2e+lass 'hen she too6 the 'itness stand. -endo.a4 / 'ould li6e to manifest Eour $onor that even a person is 'earin+ e2e+lasses, if 2ou sa' her several times, 2ou 6no' her. Court4 Alri+ht. "loria (ales is there. Continue. -endo.a4 Durin+ that meetin+ 'ith the couple, 9stela, "loria, Eolanda and Conrado in >anuar2 )990 at the house of the (aleses, 'ere the2 to+ether inside the houseN a. Ees, sir. @. ;ho amon+ the +roup +reeted 2ouN a. 9stela, sir. @. And 9stela told 2ou the propert2 the2 'ere mort+a+in+N a. Ees, sir. Their house. @. And a+ain the couple 'as introduced to 2ou b2 9stelaN a. No, sir. / 'as introduced to the brother and sisters. @. ;hen 2ou 'ent to the place, 9stela, Eolanda, "loria, Conrado and the couple did not 6no' that 2ou 'ould +o to their place on >anuar2 2&, )990N Court4 $e 'ill be incompetent. -endo.a4 ;h2 did 2ou sa2 that Eolanda, "loria, Conrado 'ere eApectin+ 2ou 'hen in fact 2ou have not met themN a. ,ecause 9stela as6ed 'hen / am +oin+ to visit their place, she even made a s6etch of their place, and / said, probabl2 on >anuar2 2&, )990 because that is the feast da2 of (t. 0olicarp and itsU -endo.a4 36a2, thatIs it.G29H The CA affirmed the findin+s of the trial court that petitioners never disputed 9rnestoIs claim that 'hen he inspected the sub5ect propert2 on >anuar2 2&, )990, he met petitioners Eolanda, "loria and Conrado to+ether 'ith 9stela and the persons 'hom he 6ne' as ,ernardo and -aria (ales at the house built inside the premises of the said propert2. A further readin+ of the transcript of steno+raphic notes reveals that 9rnesto even 'ent inside the house and, in the presence of the aforementioned persons, discussed 'ith 9stela the matter re+ardin+ the loan the2 'ere see6in+ and the mort+a+e of the sub5ect propert2. G70H /t 'as onl2 in their motion for reconsideration filed 'ith the CA did petitioners dispute the fore+oin+ claims of 9rnesto. $o'ever, their disputation merel2 consisted in den2in+ that 9rnesto met "loria (ales inside the house of ,ernardo and -aria. The2 did not contradict 9rnestoIs claim that he also met Conrado and Eolanda inside the said house. 3n the contrar2, the truth of the abovementioned claims of 9rnesto is bolstered b2 the testimonies of 1rancisco and "loria (ales to the effect that durin+ the period bet'een )9%9 and )990, 9stela, Eolanda, "loria and Conrado 'ere all livin+ in the house built on the sub5ect propert2. G7)H The trial court also +ave credence to 9rnestoIs testimon2 that prior to the eAecution of the contract of mort+a+e, he 'as even sho'n a cop2 of the 3CT and the taA declaration in the name of -aria (ales.G72H 1rom the fore+oin+, 'e find no error in the rulin+ of the CA that 9rnesto sufficientl2 established that he acted in +ood faith b2 eAercisin+ due dili+ence in ascertainin+ the status of the propert2 mort+a+ed and the identit2 of the o'ners and occupants of the said propert2F that it 'as 9stela and the persons 'ho represented themselves as ,ernardo and -aria 'ho perpetrated the fraud. $ence, 9rnesto can no lon+er be faulted if he 'as led into believin+ that the old man and 'oman 'hom he met in November )9%9 and >anuar2 )990 are ,ernardo and -aria (ales 'hen, in fact, the2 are not.

@. a. @. a. @.

;hile it 'as also established that petitioners Eolanda, "loria and Conrado 'ere present at the time 9rnesto conducted his credit investi+ation on >anuar2 2&, )990, no direct and conclusive evidence 'as presented to sho' that the2 had sufficient 6no'led+e of the fraud that 'as perpetrated b2 their sister 9stela and the persons posin+ as ,ernardo and -aria as to hold them e@uall2 +uilt2 of such fraud. /n fine, 'e hold that respondents 9rnesto and Dominador Al.ona are mort+a+ees in +ood faith and, as such, the2 are entitled to the protection of the la'. 2HEREFORE, the instant petition is D9N/9D and the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-".#. C? No. *29*) are A11/#-9D in toto. SO ORDERED.

Case no. 89 FIRST DI"ISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 1..3-4 - versus RICARDO TALAN = DOE 0romul+ated4 M CARDING, Appellant. November )8, 200% A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A DECISION CARPIO, J.4 T%e C&)e This is an appeal from the 70 November 200& Decision G)H of the Court of Appeals in CA-".#. C# $C No. 008)0 affirmin+ the 8 November 2008 >oint >ud+ment G2H of the #e+ional Trial Court #TC!, >udicial #e+ion ?, ,ranch *7, <ibmanan, Camarines (ur, in Criminal Case Nos. <-7777 and <-7*99. The trial court found #icardo Talan 2 Doe alias Cardin+ Talan! +uilt2 be2ond reasonable doubt of t'o counts of forcible abduction 'ith rape. T%e F&'() AAA 'as born on )* >ul2 )9%8. (he resided in 0oblacion Done 2, Del "alle+o, Camarines (ur. (he is the niece of Talan. 3n )& -a2 2000, Talan as6ed AAA if she 'anted to stud2 at the :niversit2 of the 0hilippines, Diliman for free. AAA said 2es. Talan told AAA that he 6ne' three 'omen 'ho 'ere offerin+ a scholarship and 'hom the2 should meet in ,aran+a2 0ina+dapian, Del "alle+o, Camarines (ur. 3n )7 -a2 2000, at around % a.m., AAA and Talan 'ent to ,aran+a2 0ina+dapian. ;hen the2 arrived at the supposed meetin+ place, the three 'omen 'ere not there. AAA and Talan 'ent to a hut o'ned b2 Talan, then 'ent to a place 'ith banana trees. There, Talan raped AAA4 )! he told her to undressF 2! he threatened to 6ill her, her parents and her siblin+sF 7! he pushed her to the +roundF 8! he told her that the2 'ill do three positionsF *! he 6issed her lipsF &! he suc6ed her breastsF 7! he lic6ed her va+inaF %! he inserted his penis in her va+inaF and 9! he told her not to tell an2one about 'hat happened. After rapin+ AAA for around )* minutes,Talan rested for around five minutes. Talan then raped AAA a+ain for around )0 minutes. ,ecause of fear, AAA did not tell an2one about the incident. 3n 70 -a2 2000, at around % p.m., AAA 'as on her 'a2 home from a friendIs house. Talan )! approached AAAF 2! forced AAA to +o 'ith himF 7! told AAA that the supposed persons 'ho 'anted to 6ill her 'ere at her houseF 8! dra++ed AAA to'ards the hi+h'a2 'here a tric2cle 'as 'aitin+F *! brou+ht AAA toTa+6a'a2an, Cue.on, usin+ the tric2cleF &! forced AAA to board a bus +oin+ to (anta 9lena, Camarines NorteF and 7! brou+ht AAA to a hut in the middle of rice fields in ,aran+a2 (an <oren.o. A certain "raciano #omano #omano! o'ned the hut. AAA and Talan spent the ni+ht in the hut. 3n ) >une 2000, Talan )! po6ed a 6nife on AAAIs nec6F 2! threatened to 6ill AAAF 7! undressed AAAF 8! mounted AAAF and *! inserted his penis in AAAIs va+ina. 3n 2 >une 2000, AAAIs uncles and TalanIs brothers, -arcus and #odolfo Talan -arcus and #odolfo!, 'ent to (anta 9lena, Camarines Norte, to loo6 for AAA. #omano informed -arcus and #odolfo that AAA and Talan 'ere there. -arcus and #odolfo sou+ht the help of the members of the baran+a2 tanod. T'o

members of the baran+a2 tanod searched for AAA and Talan. ;hen the baran+a2 tanod members sa' AAA and Talan, the2 handcuffed Talan and brou+ht him to the police station. 3n * >une 2000, Dr. -a. #i.alina ,. Adalid Dr. Adalid! eAamined AAA. Dr. Adalid found Kincomplete healed, h2menal laceration at 9 oIcloc6 position.M /n an /nformation dated )7 Au+ust 200), Talan 'as char+ed 'ith forcible abduction 'ith rape. The case 'as doc6eted as Criminal Case No. <-7777. The /nformation stated4 That on or about %400 oIcloc6 p.m. of -a2 70, 2000, at ,aran+a2 0oblacion, Done 2, Del "alle+o, Camarines (ur, 0hilippines and 'ithin the 5urisdiction of this $onorable Court, the above-named accused, 'ith le'd desi+n, 'illfull2, unla'full2 and feloniousl2, abduct GAAAH, his fifteen )*! 2ear old niece, a+ainst her 'ill and 'ithout her consent b2 forcibl2 ta6in+ her to (an <oren.o #ui., (ta. 9lena, Camarines Norte, and thereat on >une ), 2000 at around )0400 oIcloc6 in the evenin+, 'ith force, violence and intimidation and 'hile armed 'ith a 6nife succeeded in havin+ seAual intercourse 'ith aforesaid victim a+ainst her 'ill and 'ithout her consent to her dama+e and pre5udice.G7H /n another /nformation dated )& >ul2 2002, Talan 'as char+ed 'ith forcible abduction 'ith rape. The case 'as doc6eted as Criminal Case No. <-7*99. The /nformation stated4 That on or before %470 oIcloc6 in the mornin+ of -a2 )7, 2000 at Done 2, ,+2. 0oblacion, Del "alle+o, Camarines (ur, 0hilippines, and 'ithin the 5urisdiction of this $onorable Court and the above-named accused, b2 means of deceit, did then and there, 'illfull2, unla'full2 and feloniousl2 ta6e the victim, GAAAH, )* 2rs. old, to ,+2. 0ina+dapian, Del "alle+o,Camarines (ur, under the GpreteAtH that students from the :niversit2 of the 0hilippines are 'aitin+ for them to tal6 to her about the possibilit2 of sendin+ her to school for free, but once there, throu+h force, threat and intimidation and fraudulent machination, had carnal 6no'led+e 'ith the victim a+ainst her 'ill for three 7! times, allo'in+ the victim to leave for home after )0470 oIcloc6 in the mornin+ but onl2 after 'arnin+ her not to tell an2one or else he 'ill 6ill her, to her dama+e and pre5udice. G8H Talan pleaded not +uilt2 to both char+es. Accordin+ to him, )! he 'as cuttin+ and +atherin+ bamboos 'ith his nephe' in ,aran+a2 0ina+dapian on )7 -a2 2000F 2! he brou+ht AAA to (anta 9lena, Camarines Norte, to protect her from the persons 'ho 'anted to 6ill herF and 7! his siblin+s filed the present case a+ainst him because the2 'ere interested in his lands. T%e RTCL) R/+*n1 /n its 8 November 2008 >oint >ud+ment, the trial court found Talan +uilt2 be2ond reasonable doubt of t'o counts of forcible abduction 'ith rape4 2HEREFORE, the prosecution havin+ dul2 proved the +uilt of the accused in these t'o cases for forcible abduction 'ith rape, this court finds accused RICARDO TALAN = DOE A+*&) JC&r7*n1K G ILT> of the crimes as char+ed and hereb2 imposes a+ainst said accused the supreme penalt2 of DEATH in Criminal Case No. <-7777 and the penalt2 ofRECL SION PERPET A in Criminal Case No. <-7*99 and in line 'ith recent 5urisprudence 'here the death penalt2 is imposed he is hereb2 ordered to indemnif2 the victim GAAAH, the amount of (event2G-H1ive Thousand 0esos 07*,000.00! as civil indemnit2 in Criminal Case No. <-7777 and 1ift2 Thousand 0esos 0*0,000.00!, as civil indemnit2 in Criminal Case No. <-7*99 and the further sum of 3ne $undred Thousand 0esos 0)00,000.00! as moral dama+es in these t'o cases.G*H

3n appeal, Talan claimed that the trial court erred in findin+ him +uilt2 be2ond reasonable doubt of t'o counts of forcible abduction 'ith rape4 )! the trial court relied solel2 on AAAIs testimon2 as the basis for its 5ud+mentF 2! that AAA did not cr2 for help 'hile Talan 'as brin+in+ her to (anta 9lena, Camarines Norte, 'as improbableF and 7! denial 'as a valid defense. Talan also claimed that, assumin+ that he 'as indeed +uilt2 of the char+es, the trial court erred in considerin+ the @ualif2in+ circumstance of relationship in Criminal Case No. <-7777. T%e Co/r( o9 A<<e&+)L R/+*n1 /n its 70 November 200& Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courtIs >oint >ud+ment 'ith modification4 2HEREFORE, premises considered, herein appeal is hereb2 DIS5ISSED. The assailed Decision is hereb2 AFFIR5ED 'ith 5ODIFICATION, the penalt2 of Death imposed b2 the court a 0uo in Criminal Case No. <-7777, is reduced to Re l*sion "erpet*a. <i6e'ise, the civil indemnit2 to be a'arded to the ?ictim in Criminal Case No. <-7777 is hereb2 reduced to F*9(= T%o/)&n7 BP%< -0,000.00C Pe)o).G&H $ence, this appeal. T%e Co/r(L) R/+*n1 An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for revie'. The Court can correct errors unassi+ned in the appeal.G7H The Court finds Talan +uilt2 be2ond reasonable doubt of t'o counts of rape. 1orcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the real ob5ective of the accused is to rape the victim. G%H ,ased on the records, the real ob5ective of Talan 'as to rape AAA 'hen he brou+ht her to the place 'ith banana trees and to (anta 9lena, Camarines Norte. Talan claimed that the lo'er courts erred in rel2in+ solel2 on AAAIs testimon2. The Court is not impressed. /n rape cases, the credibilit2 of the victimIs testimon2 is almost al'a2s the sin+le most important factor. ;hen the victimIs testimon2 is credible, it ma2 be the sole basis for the accusedIs conviction.G9H The evaluation of the credibilit2 of the 'itnessesI testimonies is a matter best left to the trial court because it has the opportunit2 to observe the 'itnesses and their demeanor durin+ the trial. The Court accords +reat respect to the trial courtIs findin+s, unless the trial court overloo6ed or misconstrued substantial facts 'hich could have affected the outcome of the case.G)0H /n the present case, the trial court found AAAIs testimon2 credible. The trial court held that, K9valuatin+ the evidence presented both b2 the prosecution and the defense, this court +ives more credence to the testimon2 of the prosecution 'itnesses as a+ainst the alibi and denial posited b2 the accused.M The trial court added that, KThis court A A A noted that 'hen GAAAH 'as describin+ ho' accused raped her she cried for at least t'o times.M /ndeed, the Court finds AAAIs testimon2 convincin+4 C4 A4 $o' did 2ou 6no' that 2our uncle 'ere GsicH forcibl2 removin+ 2our T-shirtN / 'as a'a6en GsicH and / loo6ed at him. forcibl2 removin+ 2our

C4 No', 'hen 2ou loo6ed at him and 'hen 2ou said he 'as T-shirt, 'hat did 2ou doN A4 / 'as cr2in+.

C4 A4 AAAA

;h2 'ere 2ou cr2in+N ,ecause he po6ed a 6nife on m2 nec6.

C4 No', after this accused able GsicH to remove 2our T-shirt, 'hat accused do neAt, if an2N A4 $e 'as forcibl2 removin+ m2 short GsicH and under'ear. C4 And 'hile he 'as accordin+ to 2ou forcibl2 removin+ 2our under'ear, 'hat 'ere 2ou doin+ alsoN A4 / 'as cr2in+. AAAA C4 A4 AAAA C4 After he 'as removin+ GsicH his under'ear and 2ou said he 'hat did the accused do neAtN A4 $e forcibl2 opened m2 t'o 2! le+s. AAAA C4 And 'hat 'as 2our position as 'ell as the accused 'hen he 2our le+sN A4 / 'as l2in+ on m2 bac6. C4 A4 ;hat about him, 'hat 'as his position to 2ou GsicHN $e 'as on top of me. After he removed 2our short GsicH and pant2, 'hat did the $e also removed his under'ear.

did the

short GsicH and

accused do neAtN

'as alread2 na6ed,

forcibl2 openin+ GsicH

C4 No', after he opened 2our le+s and accordin+ to 2ou he le+s, 'hat did the accused do neAt, if an2N A4 $e 'as tr2in+ to insert his penis into m2 va+ina. /NT9#0#9T9#4 and AAAA C4 A4 And 'hat did 2ou feel if an2 'hen he inserted his penis into / felt pain. ;itness is pull movements. demonstratin+ b2

forcibl2 opened 2our

ma6in+

push

2our va+inaN ma6in+ push and

C4 ;hat 'ere 2ou doin+ 'hile he 'as insertin+ his penis and pull movements on top of 2ouN A4 / 'as cr2in+. C4 A4 ;h2 'ere 2ou cr2in+N / am afraid, sir.G))H

AAAA C4 ;hat did 2ou feel 'hen 2ou 'ere bein+ told to undress

2ourselfN

A4 $e told me if / 'ill not undress he 'ill 6ill me includin+ m2 siblin+s. C4 A4 C4 A4 AAAA C4 A4 AAAA C4 A4 C4 A4 ;hat happened after thatN $e 6issed m2 lips and m2 breast, sir. ;hat else happenedN $e also 6issed m2 va+ina. ;hen 2ou 'ere made to lie do'n, 'hat happened neAtN $e told me that there 'ill be three 7! positions to be made. Did 2ou undress after 2ou 'ere threatened that 'a2N Ees, sir, because of +reat fear. ;hat happened after 2ou undressed 2ourselfN $e made me lie on the +round, sir.

parents and m2

C4 (o after that 'hat happened neAtN A4 $e 6eeps GsicH on touchin+ m2 private parts and he repeatedl2 6issed m2 private parts and 'hen he 6issed m2 lips he inserted his penis into m2 va+ina. C4 ;hat did 2ou feel 'hen he inserted his penis into 2our va+inaN A4 0ainful. C4 After fifteen )*! minutes, 'hat happened neAtN A4 $e told me that 'e 'ill be chan+ed GsicH position, the side not a+ree 'ith him, so, he chose to do the previous position. C4 Eou said that he 'as on top of 2ou for about fifteen )*! )*! minutes 'hat did he doN A4 $e rested for a 'hile. C4 A4 1or ho' lon+N About five *! minutes. 'anted to do the side position, sir, but / did minutes, after fifteen

C4 And after that, that 'as the time 'hen he told 2ou that he positionN A4 Ees, sir. C4 A4 C4 A4 (o 'hat did he do on the second timeN (ame 'ith the previous position, sir. And ho' lon+ 'as he on top of 2ouN Also )0 to )* minutes, sir.

C4 After that 'hat did he doN A4 $e told me that it is alread2 finished and he told me that / should not be fear GsicH 'hat had happened to us and he 6eeps GsicH on threatenin+ me that he 'ill 6ill me. C4 A4 $o' man2 times 'ere 2ou raped on -a2 )7N 1or t'o 2! times.G)2H

-oreover, AAAIs testimon2 is consistent 'ith the medical findin+s. ;hen the testimon2 of the victim is consistent 'ith the medical findin+s, sufficient basis eAists for the conclusion that the crime 'as committed. G)7H /n the medical certificate she prepared, Dr. Adalid found Kincomplete healed, h2menal laceration at 9 oIcloc6 position.M Durin+ the trial, Dr. Adalid testified4

C4 No', in this 9Ahibit A there are findin+s, 'ill 2ou please read the findin+s and eAplain to us in la2manIs lan+ua+e the meanin+ of this medical findin+sN A4 / have here m2 medical findin+s for the patient, 0ositive incomplete healed, h2menal laceration at 9 oIcloc6 position. K/ncomplete healed h2menal lacerationM this means that the incident mi+ht have occurred four 8! to ten )0! da2s before / eAamined the patient. And the Kh2menal laceration at 9 oIcloc6 positionM this is compared to a cloc6, the laceration 'as found at the 9 oIcloc6 position. C4 ;hat could have been the cause of this particular findin+ on A4 The possible cause of this particular laceration could have ob5ect 'as inserted to the va+ina of the victim. GAAAHN been a solid or hard durin+ seAual

C4 1or instance, an erected GsicH penis inserted on GsicH the va+ina intercourse could cause this lacerationN A4 Ees, that mi+ht cause the laceration.G)8H

Talan claimed that it 'as improbable that he forced AAA to +o 'ith him because AAA did not cr2 for help 'hile he 'as brin+in+ her to (anta 9lena, CamarinesNorte. The Court is not impressed. /t is not improbable because Talan threatened AAA that if she cried for help, he 'ould 6ill her. The intimidation prevented AAA from cr2in+ for help.G)*H -oreover, AAA 'as a minor and Talan eAercised moral ascendanc2 over her, bein+ her uncle. Durin+ the trial, AAA testified4 C4 A4 Did it not occur to GsicH 2our mind to shout 'hen he dra++ed 2ou b2 the armN No, sir. persons 'ho

C4 Tell us 'h2N A4 ,ecause he often threatened me not to shout because the 'ants GsicH to 6ill me 'ere in our house. AAAA

C4 And did it not occur to GsicH 2our mind to tell the tric2cle driver about 'hat happened to 2ouN A4 No, sir, because he 6eeps on loo6in+ at me as if he is tellin+ me not to tell an2bod2 of 'hat happened to us. AAAA C4 ;h2 did 2ou board that bus +oin+ to Tabo+on to+ether 'ith the accusedN A4 /n order that the persons 'ho 'ants GsicH to 6ill me 'ill not be able to trac6 us.G)&H AAAA C4 ;hile 2ou 'ere bein+ dra++ed to the other side of the hi+h'a2 did 2ou not plead to the accused not to dra+ 2ouN A4 / pleaded to the accused and he said that he should brin+ me bac6 to our house.

C4 3n GsicH top of 2our voice 'hen 2ou pleaded to him to brin+ houseN A4 Ees, sir. C4 A4 AAAA C4 Did 2ou not tell the trimobile driver that 2ou 'ere bein+ in +oin+ to Ta+6a'a2an, Cue.onN A4 Ees, sir. ,ut no one helped 2ou, is that correctN Ees, because there 'ere no people around.

2ou bac6 to 2our

forced b2 the accused

C4 ;hile on board the trimobile did 2ou not tal6 to each otherN A4 ;hile on board the trimobile, he told me that / should not tal6, particularl2 that / should not report to the trimobile driver, because if / should do so he 'ill 6ill me.G)7H AAAA C4 A4 Did 2ou not tal6 to the passen+ers in the bus 'hile 2ou 'ere No, because 'e have no seatmates. inside the busN

C4 Did 2ou not approach an2 passen+ers and tell them about 2our problem 'ith respect to this alle+ed incidentN A4 No, because at that time the accused does GsicH not 'ant me to tal6 to an2bod2 inside the bus, because if / should tal6 to them he 'ill be the one to 6ill me.G)%H Talan claimed that denial is a valid defense. The Court is not impressed. Denial as a defense is inherentl2 'ea6 and deserves scant consideration. /t cannot prevail over the victimIs positive identification of the accused.G)9H Durin+ the trial, AAA positivel2 identified Talan4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 C4 A4 No', tell us, do 2ou 6no' a certain #icardo Talan alias $e is m2 uncle. ;h2 he became GsicH 2our uncleN $e is the brother of m2 mother. And ho' do 2ou call this #icardo TalanN Ti2o. Ti2o 'hatN Ti2o Cardin+. accused in this KCardin+NM

C4 Tell us, is he the same #icardo Talan alias KCardin+,M the caseN A4 Ees, sir. C4 A4 C4 ;ill 2ou please tell us if the accused is in courtN Ees, sir. ;ill 2ou please point to him.

/NT9#0#9T9#4 ;itness is pointin+ to a man seated inside the rtroom and 'hen he 'as as6ed his name responded GsicH b2 the name of #icardo Talan. C4 A4

to

cou identif2

Do 2ou 6no' that 2ou are char+in+ 2our uncle a ver2 serious offenseN Ees, sir. life

C4 No', if 2our uncle 'ill be convicted he could be sentenced for imprisonment or deathN A4 Ees, sir.G20H

Talan claimed that the @ualif2in+ circumstance of relationship should not be considered in Criminal Case No. <-7777. The Court a+rees. The @ualif2in+ circumstance of relationship must be specificall2 alle+ed in the information P the information must clearl2 state that Kthe offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, +uardian, re+&(*ve b= 'on)&n1/*n*(= or &99*n*(= :*(%*n (%e (%*r7 '*v*+ 7e1ree , or the common la' spouse of the parent of the victim.MG2)H /n People v. +barrientos,G22H the Court held that4 The alle+ation in the information A A A that the appellant is an uncle of the victim is not specific enou+h to satisf2 the special @ualif2in+ circumstance of relationship. ;e have previousl2 ruled, and no' 'e reiterate, that it is necessar2 to spell out in the /nformation for rape that the accused is a Krelative 'ithin the third de+ree of consan+uinit2 or affinit2M as stated in Article 2&&-,. ;ithout such averment, the /nformation A A A falls short of the statutor2 re@uirement for the imposition of capital punishment on the offender. 1actual alle+ations in the information do not need to be referred to as K@ualif2in+ circumstances,M in order to appreciate them as such and raise the penalt2. $o'ever, these factual alle+ations must be specified completel2, in order to full2 inform the accused of the circumstances 'hich 'arrant the imposition of a hi+her offense. 3ther'ise, such circumstances cannot be appreciated to @ualif2 the offense. /n the present case, the information in Criminal Case No. <-7777 merel2 states that Talan abducted and raped his KnieceM 'ithout specif2in+ that Talan is a relative of the victim 'ithin the third de+ree of consan+uinit2. /n an2 event, the penalt2 for simple rape is still reclusion perpetua.G27H 2HEREFORE, the Court AFFIR5S the 70 November 200& Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-".#. C# $C No. 008)0 'ith the 5ODIFICATIONthat appellant is +uilt2 be2ond reasonable doubt of t'o counts of simple rape. SO ORDERED.

Case no. *0

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, versus -

G.R. No. 173248 November 3, 2008

DANTE NUEVA y SAMARO, AccusedAppellant. x ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
BRION, J.: We review the appeal b accused-appellant !ante Nueva "amaro # appellant$ from the April 2%, 200& !ecision'() of the *ourt of Appeals #CA$ in *A-+.,. *,--* No. 00%2%. .he *A affirmed the November (2, 200/ !ecision '2) of the ,e0ional .rial *ourt #RTC$, 1ranch (22, *aloocan *it , findin0 the appellant 0uilt be ond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentencin0 him to suffer the penalt of reclusion perpetua. ANTECEDENT FACTS .he prosecution char0ed the appellant, Porpirio 3aribuho4 # Porpirio$ and 5ohn !oe, one of the as et unidentified assailants, before the ,.* with the crime of murder under an 6nformation that states7
888 .hat on or about the 22th da of !ecember, 2000 in *aloocan *it , 3etro 3anila and within the 9urisdiction of this -onorable *ourt, the abovenamed accused, conspirin0 to0ether and mutuall helpin0 with one another, without an 9ustifiable cause, and with deliberate intent to 4ill with treacher , evident premeditation and abuse of superior stren0th, did then and there willfull , unlawfull and feloniousl attac4, assault, hit with a piece of wood on the head and stab at the bac4 and chest one :6,+6;6< ,=:<;;6!<, 5,. > AN.<;6N, with a bladed weapon, thereb inflictin0 upon the latter serious ph sical in9uries, which eventuall caused his death.

*ontrar to law.'3)

<f the three accused, onl the appellant was apprehended? the others remained at lar0e. <n arrai0nment, the appellant pleaded not 0uilt to the char0e. .he prosecution presented the followin0 witnesses in the trial on the merits that followed7 :ir0ilio ,evollido, "r. #Virgilio$? Alfonso 1acar, 5r. #Alfonso$? P<3 5aime 1asa #PO3 Basa$? !r. ;udivino +. ;a0at # Dr. Lagat$? P<2 =dilberto "afuentes # PO2 Safuentes$? "P<( ,enato A0uilar #SPO1 Aguilar$? and 3ariadita ,evollido-1a tan #Maria ita$. .he appellant too4 the witness stand for the defense. :ir0ilio, the father of the victim, testified that her dau0hter, Annabelle ,evollido, informed him in the mornin0 of !ecember 30, 2000 of his son@s death.'/) At the time he died, his son was 3( ears old'A) and was sin0le? he received a monthl pa of about PA,000.00 as a machine operator in :itan 6ndustries. '&) -e affirmed that he incurred more than P&0,000.00 for the wa4e and burial of his son. '%) Alfonso narrated that at around (0700 in the evenin0 of !ecember 22, 2000, while he was standin0 outside the +reat .aste 1a4er located on /th Avenue =ast,*aloocan *it , he saw a person comin0 from 3.-. !el Pilar "treet bein0 chased b another #!o"n Doe$. Bpon reachin0 /th Avenue, the person bein0 chased passed in front of the appellant and Porpirio who were then standin0 near the corner of /th Avenue. At that point, the appellant held the victim@s left hand and led him to the other side of the road. .here, Porpirio too4 a piece of wood and hit the victim on the head, causin0 the latter to fall to his 4nees. .he appellant continued to bo8 the victim until 5ohn !oe came. '8) 5ohn !oe immediatel stabbed the victim at the bac4. .he appellant, who was then at the victim@s front, then pulled out a 4nife and li4ewise stabbed the victim. Afterwards, the three accused ran towards 3.-. !el Pilar "treet. .he victim stood up, but, after ta4in0 two #2$ steps, fell to the 0round. .hereafter, an unidentified person came and brou0ht the victim to a hospital on board a van. '2) Alfonso testified further that he was informed of the full name of the victim on 5anuar (2, 200( b the latter@s relatives after he 0ave his statement to the police authorities.'(0) <n cross e8amination, he narrated that he was more or less % to 8 arms len0th awa from the place of the incident, and that the place at that time was well-li0hted. '(() P<3 1asa, a police officer assi0ned at the *aloocan Police -eadCuarters, testified that on !ecember 22, 2000, he received a verbal communication from the PNP .actical <peration *enter of a stabbin0 incident at 3.-. !el Pilar "treet. -e went to the scene of the crime and was informed there b b standers that the victim had been brou0ht to the *hinese +eneral -ospital. -e proceeded to the emer0enc room of the hospital and saw the lifeless bod of the victim who bore several stab wounds. '(2)

!r. ;a0at, the 3edico-;e0al <fficer of the National 1ureau of 6nvesti0ation, declared on the witness stand that he conducted an autops on the remains of the victim on !ecember 30, 2000 and made the followin0 findin0s7
888 Abrasions7 (.0 8 (.3 cm., shoulder, left /.0 8 2.0 cm., bac4, left side, /.0 8 (.0 cm., bac4, ri0ht side? A.0 8 (.0 cm., antecubital area, left? 2 8 (.0 cm. ri0ht 4nee. 6ncised wounds, 3.0 cm., forehead, ri0ht side? 3.0 cm., chest, ri0ht side, A.0 cm., left supra scapular area? &.0 cm., left hand, bac4? 3.0 cm., ri0ht rin0 fin0er. "tab wounds, all elliptical? clean cut ed0es, with sharp and a blunt e8tremities. (. (.0 cm., obliCuel oriented, located at the lateral aspect of the nec4? left side? (0.0 cm., from the anterior median line directed bac4ward and mediall involvin0 the s4in and soft tissue arteriorl . 2. 3.A cm., obliCuel oriented? located at the anterior chest wall, left side /.0 cm., from the anterior median line, level of the / th intercostal? directed bac4ward, downward and mediall involvin0 the s4in underl in0 soft tissue? perforatin0 the pericardial sac? penetratin0 the left ventrical of the heart, with a depth of (3.0 cms. 3. /.A cms., obliCuel oriented? located at the anterior chest wall, ri0ht side? 3.0 cms., from the anterior median line, level of the Ath intercostals? directed bac4ward? downward and mediall , involvin0 the s4in and underl in0 soft tissue? then penetratin0 the middle lobe of the ri0ht lobe with depth of (2.0 cms. 888 CAUSE OF DEATH7 ".A1 W<BN!", 1<!>. 8 8 8'(3)

Accordin0 to !r. ;a0at, the victim suffered three #3$ stab wounds, ei0ht #8$ incise wounds, and several abrasions in different parts of his bod . <f the three stab wounds, two #2$ were fatal, both of them at the chest. '(/)

P<2 "afuentes of the 3obile Patrol !ivision, *aloocan *it Police, stated that he was one of the police officers who apprehended the appellant. Accordin0 to him, he and his five #A$ companions went to ;etre, .onsu a, 3alabon to serve the arrest warrant on the appellant who was not in his house at the time. '(A) <n their wa out of ;etre, the chanced upon the accused who, on seein0 them, turned his bac4 and ran. P<( *hu'(&) fired two #2$ warnin0 shots, causin0 the appellant to stop. P<2 "afuentes showed him #appellant$ then the correspondin0 warrant of arrest and then brou0ht him to the hospital for mandator ph sical e8amination. '(%) "P<( A0uilar was with the arrestin0 team and essentiall confirmed what P<2 "afuentes testified on.'(8) 3ariadita, the victim@s sister, confirmed that she identified and reCuested an autops of her brother@s remains.'(2) .he appellant had a different version of the events. -is testimon was succinctl summariDed b the ,.* as follows7
8 8 8 !ante Nueva "amaro testified that on !ecember 22, 2000, at around (0700 o@cloc4 in the evenin0, he was at wor4 as bouncer at >ellow "ubmarine with one Wilmor that was from (0700 p.m. to 3700 a.m. -e does not 4now of an untoward or stabbin0 incident in his wor4in0 place. -e said he does not 4now of an reason wh he is bein0 char0ed with murder.'20) -e li4ewise narrated that he 4nows a person b the name of Porpirio 3aribuho4, one of the accused in this case who is a customer at >ellow "ubmarine. -e did not see Porpirio 3aribuho4 at the ni0ht of the incident.'2() <n cross b Pros. "usano, said accused testified that he 4nows for 3 months alread 'sic) Porpirio 3aribuho4 who is a customer of the >ellow "ubmarine near 3.-. del Pilar "t., which place is around 30E/0 meters awa from +reat .aste 1a4er . '22) -e said that ellow "ubmarine is owned b one 3arin0 ,inos whom he 4nows for three #3$ ears alread . -e also 4nows one =d0ar, =nto , :al and ;eo.'23) '#ootnotes referring to t"e pertinent parts of t"e recor supplie )

.he ,.* convicted the appellant in its decision of November (2, 200/. .he dispositive portion of this decision reads7
WHEREFORE, accused !ante Nueva "amaro, is hereb found Guilty, be ond reasonable doubt of 3urder, Cualified b treacher , and

is sentenced to Reclusio !e"#etu$. Accused is ordered to pa the heirs of the victim, :ir0ilio ,evollido, 5r., PA0,000.00 as civil indemnit e$ elicto? to pa the heirs of the victim, Fift "i8 .housand <ne -undred .welve #PA&,((2.00$ Pesos as actual dama0es. 6n the absence of proof to prove loss of earnin0 capacit , the same is disallowed. 888 ;et alias warrant of arrest be issued a0ainst the accused Porpirio 3aribuho4. 6n the interim, the case a0ainst him is Archived, until his arrest. "< <,!=,=!.'2/) '%&p"asis in t"e original)

.he appellant appealed his conviction to the *A '2A) whose decision of April 2%, 200& affirmed the ,.* decision with modification. .he *A ordered the appellant to additionall pa the victim@s heirs the amounts of PA0,000.00 and P2A,000.00 as moral and e8emplar dama0es, respectivel . 6n his brief,'2&) the appellant ar0ues that the lower court erred in findin0 him 0uilt of the crime char0ed despite the failure of the prosecution to establish his 0uilt be ond reasonable doubt. -e posits that the prosecution merel established that a person was 4illed, but failed to prove be ond reasonable doubt that it was he who 4illed the victim. THE COURT%S RU&ING A'te" (ue co si(e"$tio , )e "esol*e to (e y t+e $##e$l ,ut -o(i'y t+e $-ou t o' t+e $)$"(e( i (e- ities. Su''icie cy o' !"osecutio E*i(e ce A distin0uishin0 feature of this case is the presence of an e ewitness G Alfonso G who provided positive identification of the appellant in his 5ul 3(, 200(testimon . .o directl Cuote from the records7
F6"*A; N=P.-A;6 A;6P<"A7 H7 3r. 1acar, can ou recall where were ou on the evenin0 of !ecember 22, 2000, particularl at around (0700 in the evenin0, more or lessI

A;F<N"< 1A*A,, 5,.7 A7 H7 A7 H7 A7 H7 A7 H7 A7 H7 A7 H7 A7 H7 A7 >es, sir. Where were ouI 6 was at +reat .aste 1a4er , sir. .his ba4er , where is this locatedI At /th Avenue =ast, *aloocan *it . <utside or inside +reat .aste 1a4er I <utside, sir. While outside +reat .aste 1a4er , do unusual incident that happenedI >es, sir. What was that unusual incidentI "omebod was chasin0 someone comin0 from 3.-. !el Pilar "t. -ow man persons who 'sic) were runnin0 after someoneI <ne is chasin0 somebod , sir. What happened to that pursuit of one man with another manI When the person bein0 chased reached /th Avenue comin0 from 3.-. !el Pilar and facin0 in front of two persons standin0 near the corner, then D$ te Nue*$ +el( t+e le't $"- o' t+e o e "u i .. What happened after !ante held the left arm of the man bein0 pursuedI .hen the proceeded to the other corner or turned around to the other corner. T+ey tu" e( $"ou ( ,ec$use D$ te +el( t+e le't $"- o' t+e #e"so ,ei . #u"sue(/ >es, sir. ou remember of an

H7 A7 H7 A7

H7 A7 H7 A7 H7

When the reached the other side of the road, what happenedI Porpirio too4 a piece of wood #dos por dos$ and he hit the person bein0 chased on the head. When Porpirio hit the head of the person bein0 pursued, what was !ante Nueva doin0 in relation to the victim, if an I D$ te Nue*$ ,o0e( 'i"st t+e #e"so ,ei . c+$se( u til t+e #e"so )+o )$s c+$si . $""i*e(. >ou said that the person bein0 pursued was bein0 hit b a piece of wood on the head, what happened to the person bein0 hit on the headI .he person bein0 chased was hit on the head with a piece of wood fell on his 4nees. While the victim who was hit on the head was on a 4neelin0 position, what happenedI While the person who was hit on the head fell on his 4nees, the person who was chasin0 him arrived. What happened when the person chasin0 the victim arrivedI .hen that person stabbed the person bein0 chased at the bac4 who was then 4neelin0. Where was !ante at that time when the victim was hit b that person pursuin0 at the bac4I D$ te )$s t+e"e i '"o t o' t+e *icti-. What happened after the victim was stabbed at the bac4, what did !ante do, if an I D$ te #ulle( out $ 1 i'e $ ( st$,,e( t+e *icti- o t+e '"o t #o"tio o' t+e ,o(y $ ( $t t+e s$-e ti-e t+e ot+e" #e"so )$s st$,,i . t+e *icti-. Wit+ )+$t )e$#o (i( D$ te use i st$,,i . t+e *icti- o t+e '"o t #$"t o' t+e ,o(y/ A fan 4nife, sir.

A7 H7 A7 H7 A7 H7 A7 H7 A7

H7 A7

H7

-ow about the other person who was pursuin0 the victim and who stabbed first the victim at the bac4, do ou 4now what weapon was bein0 used b this personI 6 don@t 4now what weapon was that, because upon arrival of this person, he immediatel stabbed the victim. What happened to the victim who was conspired upon b the 3 persons !ante Nueva, Porpirio and the person who stabbed the victim at the bac4I

A7 H7

A..>. 5633> =!3BN! 1A.A,A7 We ob9ect, >our -onor, conspire is alread a conclusion. *<B,.7 What is a0ain the CuestionI ".=N<+,AP-=,7 What happened to the victim who was conspired upon b the 3 persons, !ante Nueva, Porpirio and the person who stabbed the victim at the bac4I *<B,.7 "uccessivel attac4ed.

F6"*A; N=P.-A;6 A;6P<"A7 >es, >our -onor, successivel attac4ed. A;F<N"< 1A*A,, 5,.7 He )$s 1 eeli . )+ile +e )$s ,ei . st$,,e( o" )+ile t+ey )e"e st$,,i . t+$t *icti- $ll $t t+e s$-e ti-e $ ( t+$t #e"so ,ei . st$,,e( ,y t+e 2 #e"so s $lso t"ie( to #$""y t+e st$,,i .. H7 What happened to himI

A7

.hen after that or after the stabbin0 of the victim, the ran awa and went towards the direction of 3- !el Pilar.

8888 H7 .hese 3 persons who attac4ed the victim one on the head, one of them stabbed the victim at the bac4 and the other in front, are the inside the *ourtroom nowI <nl one is inside, sir. Will ou 4indl point to the one who was or who is now inside this roomI .hat person sir.

A7 H7 A7

6N.=,P,=.=,7 Wit ess is #oi ti . to $ #e"so )+o i(e ti'ie( +i-sel' $s D$ te Nue*$.'2%) '%&p"asis supplie )

.ime and a0ain, we have ruled that the credibilit of witnesses is a matter best left to the determination of the trial court because it had the uniCue advanta0e of havin0 personall observed the witnesses, their demeanor, conduct, and attitude. As a conseCuence, we have considered the the trial court@s assessment of the credibilit of witnesses to be bindin0 e8cept when the lower court had patentl overloo4ed facts and circumstances of wei0ht and influence that could alter the results of the case. '28) We carefull scrutiniDed the records of this case and found no reason to disbelieve Alfonso@s strai0htforward narration of the events surroundin0 the death of the victim. Nor did we see an thin0 on record showin0 an improper motive that would lead Alfonso to testif as he did. 6n fact, in his testimon of 5ul 3(, 200(, he cate0oricall stated that he had no misunderstandin0 with the appellant and his two #2$ co-accused prior to the stabbin0 incident. .hus, we adhere to the established rule that in the absence of evidence showin0 an reason or motive for the prosecution witness to per9ure himself or herself, we can conclude that no improper motive e8ists and his or her testimon is worth of full faith and credit. '22) 3oreover, Alfonso testified that he 4new the appellant prior to the stabbin0 incident for more or less four #/$ ears alread ? hence there could not have been an doubt re0ardin0 his positive identification of the appellant as one of the assailants. 6n his defense, the appellant claimed the defenses of denial and alibi. -e denied 4nowin0 the victim and insisted that he was at the >ellow "ubmarine bar on /thAvenueE!el Pilar "t. on !ecember 22, 2000? he was there wor4in0 as a bouncer

from (0700 p.m. to 3700 a.m. -e e8plained that he failed to 0et a certification from >ellow "ubmarine to prove that he was wor4in0 at that time because no one visited him. .o be believed, denial must be supported b stron0 evidence of non-culpabilit ? otherwise, it is purel self-servin0.'30) Alibi, on the other hand, is one of the wea4est defenses in a criminal case and should be re9ected when the identit of the accused is sufficientl and positivel established b the prosecution. '3() For the appellant@s defense of alibi to prosper, he should have proven that it was ph sicall impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed. 1 p"'sical i&possi(ilit' we refer to the distance and the facilit of access between the situs cri&inis and the place where he sa s he was when the crime was committed. '32) .he appellant fails this test as he insisted that he was at the >ellow "ubmarine wor4in0 as a bouncer at the time of the stabbin0 incident. 1 his own admission, the >ellow "ubmarine is onl 30 to /0 meters from the +reat .aste 1a4er . .his short distance does not render it ph sicall impossible for the appellant to have been at the place where the victim was attac4ed. Aside from bein0 inherentl wea4, the appellant@s alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification made b Alfonso that the appellant was one of the victim@s assailants. We particularl note that Alfonso cate0oricall stated that he stabbed the victim from the front,'33) and note as well that the victim@s two fatal wounds were his chest wounds.'3/) .hus, of the three assailants, it was the appellant himself who delivered the fatal blows on the victim. 6n a lon0 line of cases, this *ourt has held that positive identification, made cate0oricall and consistentl , almost alwa s prevails over alibi and denial. .hese defenses, if not substantiated b clear and convincin0 evidence, are ne0ative and selfservin0 and are undeservin0 of wei0ht in law. '3A) We see no reason in this case to deviate from these established rules. T+e c"i-e co--itte( Article 2/8 of the ,evised Penal *ode defines the crime of murder as follows7
Article 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the provision of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances !. "ith treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity# $$$$

$. No t"e$c+e"y

6n convictin0 the appellant of the crime of murder, the courts a )uo appreciated the Cualif in0 circumstance of treacher . Accordin0 to the ,.*, Jthe attac4 was sudden and not provo4ed, and was not preceded b an e8chan0e of words, no altercation between the assailants and the victim, who was not aware that he would be 4illed b the accused. 8 8 8 'A)ccused stabbed the victim in succession even when he was alread on the 0round, wounded.K '3&) .he *A concurred with this ,.* findin0 of treacher without however offerin0 an e8planation for its concurrence. We disa0ree with the lower courts in this conclusion as our review of the evidence points us to the conclusion that no treacher e8isted. .reacher is not presumed. .he circumstances surroundin0 the murder must be proved as indubitabl as the crime itself. '3%) .here is treacher when the offender commits an of the crimes a0ainst persons, emplo in0 means, method or forms which tend directl and especiall to insure its e8ecution, without ris4 to the offender, arisin0 from the defense that the offended part mi0ht ma4e. '38) .o constitute treacher , two conditions must concur7 #($ the emplo ment of means, methods or manner of e8ecution that would ensure the offender@s safet from an defense or retaliator act on the part of the offended part ? and #2$ t+e o''e (e"%s (eli,e"$te o" co scious c+oice o' t+e -e$ s, -et+o( o" -$ e" o' e0ecutio .'32) "e find it undisputed that prior to the killing, the victim was being chased by %ohn &oe. 'pon reaching 4th Avenue, he passed in front of the appellant and (orpirio who, at that time, were both standing near the corner of 4th Avenue. As the victim passed, the appellant held his left hand and led him towards the other side of the road. )here, (orpirio struck the victim on the head with a dos por dos causing him to fall to his knees. )he appellant thereafter bo$ed the victim until %ohn &oe came. )hey then stabbed him, %ohn &oe delivering the first blow from the back and the appellant doing it from the front. 'nder these facts, we see no evidence indicating that the appellant and his coaccused made some preparation to kill the victim in such a manner as to ensure the e$ecution of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the victim to defend himself. *4+, )here was nothing in the record that shows that the three -./ assailants carefully considered the mode or method of attack to ensure the killing of the victim. "hile the intent to kill was patent, the manner of attack did not appear to have been deliberately adopted. 0n People v. Antonio,*4!, we held that it is not only the sudden attack that 1ualifies a killing into murder. )here must be a conscious and deliberate adoption of the mode of attack for a specific purpose.

2ikewise, in People v. Catbagan,*42, we ruled that treachery cannot be considered when there is no evidence that the accused had resolved to commit the crime prior to the moment of the killing, or that the death of the victim was the result of premeditation, calculation or reflection. ,. A,use o' su#e"io" st"e .t+ We a0ree, however, that abuse of superior stren0th attended the 4illin0 of the victim. .o ta4e advanta0e of superior stren0th means to use purposel e8cessive force, or force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attac4ed. .he a00ravatin0 circumstance of abuse of superior stren0th depends on the a0e, siDe and stren0th of the parties. '/3) 6t is present whenever there is ineCualit of forces between the victim and the a00ressor so that the superiorit of stren0th is notoriousl advanta0eous for the latter who too4 advanta0e of this superiorit in committin0 the crime.'//) .he records reveal that the lo e and u $"-e( victim was held b the appellant b hand and led to the other side of the road? struc4 on the head b Porpirio? bo8ed b the appellant? and then successivel stabbed b 5ohn !oe and b the appellant. *learl , the victim was in no position to defend himself? he was overwhelmed b the combined efforts of all three #3$ assailants who did not onl e 3oy su#e"io"ity i u-,e", ,ut $lso o' )e$#o s. .his numerical and ph sical disparit was manifest in the victim@s various abrasions on the shoulders and 4nees? incised wounds on the forehead, chest, hand and bac4? and stab wounds on the nec4 and chest. .hat the assailants too4 advanta0e of their superior number and combined stren0th as a0ainst the relativel defenseless victim can be clearl discerned from these circumstances. c. E*i(e t #"e-e(it$tio While evident premeditation was alle0ed in the 6nformation, the court a )uo correctl concluded that this circumstance was not proven. For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the followin0 elements must be established7 #($ the time when the accused determined to commit the crime? #2$ an overt act manifestl indicatin0 that the accused has clun0 to his determination? and #3$ sufficient lapse of time between decision and e8ecution to allow the accused to reflect on the conseCuences of his act.'/A) "i0nificantl , the prosecution did not even attempt to prove the presence of these elements? Alfonso, the principal e ewitness, was not even aware of an prior incident or an possible reason that could have led the appellant and his co-accused to attac4 the victim. Co s#i"$cy A conspirac e8ists when two or more persons come to an a0reement concernin0 the commission of a crime and decide to commit it. Proof of the a0reement

need not rest on direct evidence as the same ma be inferred from the conduct of the parties indicatin0 a common understandin0 amon0 them with respect to the commission of the offense. 6t is not necessar to show that two or more persons met to0ether and entered into an e8plicit a0reement settin0 out the details of an unlawful scheme or the details b which an ille0al ob9ective is to be carried out. 6t ma be deduced from the mode and manner b which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused showin0 a 9oint or common purpose and desi0n, concerted action and communit of interest.'/&) 6n the present case, no evidence e8ists showin0 that the three #3$ assailants previousl met and came to an a0reement to attac4 the victim. -owever, from the evidence presented, it was clear that the aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful ob9ect. =ach did an act that, thou0h apparentl independent, was in fact connected and cooperative, indicatin0 closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. .o the point of bein0 repetitive, we restate what Alfonso, the principal witness, positivel narrated in court7 the appellant held the hand of the victim and led him towards the other side of the road? Porpirio hit the victim on the head with a piece of wood causin0 the latter to fall to his 4nees? the appellant bo8ed the victim until 5ohn !oe came and stabbed him at the bac4? then the appellant, who was at the victim@s front, stabbed him in the chest. 6n our view, these 9oint actions sufficientl point to a common desi0n to end the life of the victim. .hus, the act of one actin0 pursuant to this desi0n is deemed the act of all.'/%) T+e #"o#e" #e $lty .he crime of murder Cualified b abuse of superior stren0th is penaliDed under Article 2/8 of the ,evised Penal *ode #as amended b ,epublic Act No. %&A2$ with reclusion perpetua to death. While treacher and evident premeditation were alle0ed in the 6nformation, these circumstances were not adeCuatel proven. 6n the absence of miti0atin0 and a00ravatin0 circumstances in the commission of the felon , the courts a )uo correctl sentenced the appellant to reclusion perpetua, conformabl with Article &3#2$'/8) of the ,evised Penal *ode. Ci*il &i$,ility .he ,.* awarded the amount of PA&,((2.00 to the victim@s heirs as actual dama0es. 6t appears that out of the said amount, onl PAA,/38.00 was dul supported b receipts. .o be entitled to actual dama0es, it is necessar to prove the actual

amount of loss with a reasonable de0ree of certaint , premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable to the in9ured part . '/2) We also award indemnit for loss of earnin0 capacit to the victim@s heirs, as documentar evidence #=8h. J!K$'A0) was presented to substantiate this claim. 6ndemnit for loss of earnin0 capacit is determinable under established 9urisprudence based on the net earning capacit' of the murder victim computed under the formula7
Net =arnin0 *apacit L 2E3 $ #80 less the a0e of the victim at the time of death$ $ #+ross Annual 6ncome less the ,easonable and Necessar ;ivin0 =8penses$'A()

.he records show that the victim@s annual 0ross income was P&(,2/A.&0 computed from his wee4l rate of P(,2%A.2A #or PA,(03.80 per month$. -is reasonable and necessar livin0 e8penses are estimated at A0M of this 0ross income, leavin0 a balance of P30,&22.80. -is life e8pectanc , on the other hand, is assumed to be 2E3 of a0e 80 less 3(, his a0e at the time of death. Applied to the above formula, these data ield the net earnin0 capacit loss of P(,0(0,AA2./0. We affirm the awards of PA0,000.00 as civil indemnit dama0es'A3) pursuant to current 9urisprudence.
'A2)

and PA0,000 as moral

.he heirs of the victim are li4ewise entitled to e8emplar dama0es since the Cualif in0 circumstance of abuse of superior stren0th was firml established. When a crime is committed with an a00ravatin0 circumstance, either Cualif in0 or 0eneric, an award of P2A,000.00'A/) as e8emplar dama0es is 9ustified under Article 2230 of the New *ivil *ode. WHEREFORE, in li0ht of all the fore0oin0, we hereb AFFIRM the April 2%, 200& !ecision of the *A in *A-+.,. *,--* No. 00%2% with the followin0MODIFICATIONS7 #($ actual dama0es is ,=!B*=! to PAA,/38.00? and #2$ the appellant is <,!=,=! to pa the heirs of the victim P(,0(0,AA2./0 as indemnit for loss of earnin0 capacit . *osts a0ainst appellant !ante Nueva. SO ORDERED.