EN BANC

[G.R. No. 139400. September 3, 2003]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. M!RI"IO
#TI#T, appellant.
$ E " I S I O N
SN$O%L&G!TIERRE', J.(
Rape is a repulsive crime done only by the most morally depraved
individuals. When committed against a child of tender years, especially against an
orphan born with nothing but hope and yearning for affection, the despicable lechery
swells into manifest heartlessness that must be condemned.
or automatic review is the !ecision
"#$
dated April %%, #&&& of the Regional 'rial
Court of (inamalayan, )riental *indoro in Criminal Case No. (+,-&., Branch /%, the
dispositive portion of which states0
1ACC)R!2N345, accused *A6R2C2) WA'2WA' is hereby found 3624'5 beyond
reasonable doubt, as principal, of the heinous crime of RA(E, defined and penali7ed
under Art. 88, of the Revised (enal Code, as amended by R.A. 9-,&, and hereby
sentences him to suffer the supreme penalty of !EA':.
1Additionally, accused is ordered to indemnify the victim *AR2'E; WA'2WA', the
amount of (,.,.......
14et the complete record of this case together wit the transcript of stenographic notes be
forwarded to the :onorable ;upreme Court, for automatic review pursuant to ;ec. #.,
Rule #%% of the Revised Rules of Court.
1;) )R!ERE!.<
"%$
'he accusatory portion of the Amended 2nformation against appellant *auricio
Watiwat reads0
1'hat on or about the month of *arch, #&&- and subse=uent thereto in barangay Bato,
municipality of Bansud, province of )riental *indoro, (hilippines and within the
>urisdiction of this :onorable Court, the above+named accused, with lewd and unchaste
design, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously lay with and have carnal ?nowledge of one *AR2'E; WA'2WA', his #.+
year+old niece living in his own house and therefore a guardian and relative within the
third civil degree, against her will and without her consent, to the damage and pre>udice
of the )ffended (arty.
1C)N'RAR5 ') AR'. 88, ) ':E R(C, A; A*EN!E! B5 R.A. 9-,&.<
"8$
6pon being arraigned, with the assistance of his counsel, appellant pleaded not
guilty to the charge. 'hereafter, trial ensued.
Evidence for the prosecution shows that *arites Watiwat, complaining witness, was
born on April 9, #&@-, as shown by her Certificate of 4ive Birth,
"/$
to her mentally
deranged mother, Adoracion Areglado. ;ince her father was already dead, appellant
caused its registration and had 1Watiwat< recorded as her surname.
",$
*arites grew with
the belief that he was her uncle, being the husband of her motherAs sister, 2neseria.
When *arites was one month old, she lived with appellant and his family in Bato,
Bansud, )riental *indoro. When she reached the age of three, her grandfather
Cipriano Areglado too? her under his custody in Batangas where she studied. ;he
returned to appellantAs house when she was already in 3rade 222.
2n *arch #&&-, while *arites was sleeping in the house of appellant, he brought her
to another room and undressed her. :e then too? off his clothes, placed himself on top
of her and forcibly inserted his penis into her genitals. ;he felt pain. ;he could only
beg and mutter 1huwag.< :er plea, however, was unheeded. Appellant succumbed to
his lustful desires and completely penetrated her private part, ma?ing a pumping
motion. 'he incident was repeated several times. :e stopped molesting her only in
November #&&- when her grandfather Cipriano brought her to :ilaria AmparoAs house
at Billapag+asa, Bansud.
"-$
:ilaria is *aritesA grandaunt, being CiprianoAs sister.
:ilaria observed that *arites seemed to be always lost in her thoughts and would
constantly complain of pains in her stomach and head. )n Culy 9, #&&9, or after more
than one D#E year from the incident, she finally revealed her harrowing eFperience to
:ilaria who immediately brought her to !r. (reciosa ;oller for eFamination.
"9$
;he issued
a *edico+4egal Report
"@$
with the following findings0
1#. Breasts not developed.
%. (erineum G No pubic hair
G 4abia ma>ora not developed
G s?in in labial area congested.
8. :ymen G complete old healed lacerations at -
oAcloc?, & oAcloc?, ## oAcloc? and #%
oAcloc?.
G 2ncomplete old healed laceration at ,
oAcloc? and 8 oAcloc?
RE*ARH;0 (hysical virginity lost<
'hereafter, :ilaria reported the matter to the police.
Eventually, an 2nformation for rape was filed against appellant.
Appellant vehemently denied the charge. :e testified that prior to the incident, he
and his children transferred their residence from Bato, Bansud to ;alcedo, also of the
same town, after he separated from his live+in partner 2neseria Areglado in #&&%. As
proof that he was then residing in ;alcedo, he presented a bible, 'ransfer orm of
Application of Boters, and a Certification by the Commission on Elections attesting that
he is a voter of ;alcedo. While there, he cultivated the farm of Alberto Evangelista.
Alberto corroborated appellantAs testimony.
;imeon *ores, the Barangay Captain of Barangay Batu, controverted appellantAs
claim that he resided in Barangay ;alcedo from #&&%+#&&@. ;imeon presented the #&&,
Census iles of Barangay Batu wherein appellant was enlisted as one if its
residents
"&$
and a yellow pad paper containing a mortgage agreement
"#.$
between him and
one ;alustiano 3upit prepared by Alfredo 3on7ales, councilor of Barangay Batu.
2n convicting appellant, the trial court held0
1While there is delay in reporting the incident in =uestion, the story *arites presented is
credible and consistent. :er testimony withstood the test of cross+eFamination and
there is no cogent reason why she should not be believed as the defense had not even
shown any reason at all why a te) *10+ ,e-r o./ M-r0te1 would fabricate a story of rape
upon herself and impute it to a person whom she loo?s up to as her very own father if
her story were not true.
1When there is no evidence to show any improper motive on the part of the prosecution
witness to testify falsely against an accused or to falsely implicate him in the
commission of a crime, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive eFists and
that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit DPeople vs. Tabao, 3.R. No. ###%&.,
Can. 8., #&&,, %/. ;CRA 9,@E.
1'here is an eFplanation why there was such a delay. 'here is no one close to her and
no shoulder to lean on so to spea?, eFcept the accused himself. *arites had no family
to cling to. 2e10/e1, -3341e/ -)/ M-r0te1 -re )ot 1tr-)5er1 to e-36 ot6er, t6e
7ormer be0)5 t6e 54-r/0-), 860.e t6e .-tter t6e 8-r/, living under he same roof. :ad
it not been for a mere coincidence that she was ta?en by her Nanay 4aling to live with
her in her house, there could have no chance for *arites to divulge her painful and
horrifying ordeal. ;he could have ?ept for herself forever the humiliating secret. 'hus, it
would not be proper to apply the norms of behavior eFpected under the circumstances
from mature women.
1A te)&,e-r o./ 50r., li?e *arites, unli?e a mature woman, cannot be eFpected to have
the courage and intelligence to immediately report a seFual assault committed against
her especially when the offender is one she loo?s up to as her very own father.
1*arites should be loo?ed upon despite her m0)or0t, considering her courage and
determination to see? >ustice and plea for redress for a crime of such a nature that is
otherwise better left forgotten. ;he could have chosen to ?eep numb and silent and
forget the whole incident, but she did not. 2t is a clear manifestation of her intent to
pursue her morbid cry for the in>ustice committed against her, at the opportune time
DPeople vs. Guererro, %/% ;CRA -.-E.
1Where accused was positively identified by the victim of the rape herself who harbored
no ill motive against the accused, the defense of alibi must fail. DPeople vs. Canada,
%,8 ;CRA %,-E
1Bare alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as
the perpetrator of the crime. DPeople vs. Alimon, %,9 ;CRA -,@E DPeople vs. Nazareno,
%-. ;CRA %,-E< DEmphasis suppliedE
2n his brief, appellant ascribes to the trial court the following errors0
9I
':E 'R2A4 C)6R' 3RABE45 ERRE! 2N 2N!2N3 ':E ACC6;E!+A((E44AN'
3624'5 BE5)N! REA;)NAB4E !)6B' ) ':E CR2*E, A; !E2NE! AN!
(6N2;:E! 6N!ER AR'2C4E 88, ) ':E REB2;E! (ENA4 C)!E, A; A*EN!E!
B5 R.A. 9-,&.
9II
A;;6*2N3 )R ':E ;AHE ) AR36*EN' )N45 ':A' ':E ACC6;E!+
A((E44AN' 2; 3624'5 A; C:AR3E!, ':E 'R2A4 C)6R' ;'244 ERRE! 2N
2*();2N3 ':E ;6(RE*E (ENA4'5 ) !EA':.<
"##$
Appellant contends that *aritesA failure to report the matter immediately to the
authorities casts doubt on her credibility. *oreover, when the incident too? place in
*arch #&&-, she was no longer living with his family in Bato, Bansud. As early as #&&%,
her grandfather brought her to Batangas. :e, on the other hand, transferred residence
to Barangay ;alcedo. And even assuming that he is guilty of rape, the imposition of the
death penalty upon him is erroneous since the =ualifying circumstance of relationship
was not proved. Neither can he be considered her guardian. 'hus, he should not be
convicted of =ualified rape and that the penalty that should have been imposed against
him should be reclusion perpetua.
'he law governing the instant case is Article 88, of the Revised (enal Code, as
amended by ;ection ## of Republic Act No. 9-,&,
"#%$
the pertinent portions of which
provide0
1;EC. ##. Article 88, of the same "Revised (enal$ Code is hereby amended to read as
follows0
IArticle 88,. When and how rape is committed. Rape is committed b, 6-:0)5 3-r)-.
;)o8.e/5e o7 - 8om-) under -), o7 t6e 7o..o80)5 30r34m1t-)3e10
#. By using force or intimidationJ
%. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconsciousJ
and
8. When the woman is 4)/er t8e.:e ,e-r1 o7 -5e or is demented.
I'he crime of rape shall be p4)016e/ b, reclusion perpetua.
F F F
I'he /e-t6 pe)-.t, shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of
the following attendant circumstances0
I#. when t6e :03t0m 01 4)/er e056tee) *1<+ ,e-r1 o7 -5e -)/ t6e o77e)/er 01
- parent, ascendant, step+parent, 54-r/0-), re.-t0:e b, 3o)1-)540)0t, or -770)0t,
80t60) t6e t60r/ 30:0. /e5ree, or the common+law+spouse of the parent of the victim.
K F FA< DEmphasis suppliedE
'he trial court held that *arites was telling the truth when she testified that she was
seFually abused by appellant. We see no reason to differ from such finding.
or one, it is well entwined into the bedroc? of our >urisprudence that the trial
>udgeAs evaluation of the testimony of a witness and its factual findings are accorded not
only the highest respect, but also finality, unless some weighty circumstance has been
ignored or misunderstood which could alter the result of the >udgment rendered. 3iven
the direct opportunity to observe the witness on the stand, the trial >udge was in a
vantage position to assess his demeanor and determine if he was telling the truth or not.
"#8$
'hus0
12n the resolution of the factual issues, the Court relies heavily on the trial court for its
evaluation of the witnesses and their credibility. :aving the opportunity to observe them
on the stand, the trial >udge is able to detect that sometimes thin line between fact and
prevarication that will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. 'hat line may
not be discernible from a mere reading of the impersonal record by the reviewing
court. 'he record will not reveal those tell+tale signs that will affirm the truth or eFpose
the contrivance, li?e the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a
discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a
ready reply. 'he record will not show if the eyes have darted in evasion or loo?ed down
in confession or ga7ed steadily with a serenity that has nothing to distort or
conceal. 'he record will not show if tears were shed in anger, or in shame, or in
remembered pain, or in feigned innocence. O)., t6e =4/5e tr,0)5 t6e 3-1e 3-) 1ee
-.. t6e1e -)/ o) t6e b-101 o7 601 ob1er:-t0o)1 -rr0:e -t -) 0)7orme/ -)/ re-1o)e/
:er/03t.<
"#/$
or another, complainant never wavered in her assertion that appellant raped
her. :er testimony is clear, positive, and convincing. 2ndeed, the fact of rape and the
identity of appellant as the malefactor were sufficiently and convincingly established by
the prosecution through her straightforward narration, thus0
1L. Why did you file the case against your Ha?ang *uling or *auricio WatiwatM
A. Because 2 was raped, sir.
L. !o you still remember the date and month when you were raped by this Ha?ang
*uling or *auricio WatiwatM
A. 2t was in *arch, #&&-, sir.
L. 2n that particular month of *arch, #&&-, how old were you if you still rememberM
A. 2 was less than #. years old, sir.
L. 'ell us how you were raped by your Ha?ang *uling or *auricio WatiwatM
A. 2 was then living in his house and while 2 was sleeping beside with other children, 2
was carried by the accused to the other room, sir.
L. After you were lifted and carried to the other room, what else was done by your Ha
*ulingM
A. :e too? off my shorts and panty, sir.
L. After your shorts and panty were removed by the accused, what else did he do if
anyM
A. :e undressed himself and put himself on top of me, sir. DNaghubo po siya at
pagatapos ay pumatong sa ain.E
2;CA4 DContinuingE0
L. After he placed himself on top of you, what else did he doM
A. :e insisted in inserting his penis inside me. DPilit po niyang ipinaso ang anyang
ari sa ain.E
L. When he forcibly tried to insert his penis to your body, what did you feelM
A. 2 was hurt, sir.
L. And because you were hurt, what, if any, did you plea or say to your uncleM
A. 2 told him, huwag! but he continued to insert his penis in my private part, sir.
L. Will you please tell the Court if your uncle *uling was successful in completely
inserting his penis towards your seFual organM
A. 5es, sir.
L. What else did your uncle *uling do after he was able to insert his penis to your
seFual organM
A. DNo answerE
Note0 After a few secondsN she answered0 I"iya po ay nagaayod.A D:e made a
pumping motion.E<
"#,$
2ndeed, complainantAs testimony, stamped with consistency and accuracy, must be
given full faith and credit.
"#-$
When a woman testifies that she has been raped, she says
in effect, all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed, for as long as her
testimony meets the test of credibility.
"#9$
Also, *arites does not appear to have any strong reason or fiendish motive to
fabricate such a grave charge against appellant and thus eFpose herself and her family
to shame and scandal. A victim of seFual assault would certainly not be willing to
undergo the humiliation of a public trial, let alone testify on the details of her torment, if
she had reasons other than her natural passion to avenge her honor and to decry a
grave in>ustice done to her.
"#@$
'o be sure, complainantAs testimony, which is untainted with
any proof of ill motive, bears the hallmar?s of truth.
or his part, appellant assails *aritesA inaction in reporting the crime for more than
one year. 2t is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assault
against their virtue.
"#&$
Barely out of childhood, *arites could be easily intimidated and
cowed into silence.
"%.$
While it is true that it too? her a long time to report her defloration,
it must be stressed that she was merely #. years old when she was sub>ected to bestial
abuse. Afraid and with no family to assist her, she could not report the incident to the
authorities. 2t was only when her grandaunt too? care of her that she had the courage to
do so. 6nder the circumstances, it is unreasonable to >udge her action by the norms of
behavior eFpected of mature individuals.
"%#$
'he delay in reporting the incident of rape
ought not to be ta?en against her and cannot be used to wea?en her credibility.
AppellantAs defense merely consists of alibi and bare denial. :is claim that he was
residing in another place during the incident does not persuade us. We have held that
an accused who raises the defense of alibi must not only prove his presence at another
place at the time of commission of the crime, he must also establish that it would be
physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime during the incident. 2t must
be observed that Barangay ;alcedo and Barangay Bato are both within the municipality
of Bansud. Clearly, it is safe to conclude that it was not physically impossible for him to
be at the scene of the crime at that time.
*oreover, firmly established is the rule that alibi and denial are inherently wea? and
have always been viewed with disfavor by the courts due to the facility with which they
can be concocted.
"%%$
;uch defense warrants the least credibility or none at all
"%8$
and
cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witness.
"%/$
!enial is a self+serving negative evidence that cannot be given greater weight than
the declaration of a credible witness who testified on affirmative matters.
"%,$
'he prosecution has not only established beyond reasonable doubt that appellant
had carnal ?nowledge of *arites, it has li?ewise proved that, at the time the offense was
committed, she was only #. years old as shown by her Certificate of 4ive Birth. 'hus,
appellant must be held guilty of1t-t4tor, r-pe under paragraph #, No. 8, Article 88, of
the Revised (enal Code, as amended by R.A. 9-,&, =uoted earlier, the victim being
1under twelve years of age.< 2t bears stressing that the 2nformation specifically alleges
that *arites was #. years old when appellant seFually abused her in *arch
#&&-. Conse=uently, he must be sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
'he trial court imposed upon appellant the death penalty on the basis of its
conclusion that he is her guardian. We hold that the lower court erred in this point.
2n (eople vs. 3arcia,
"%-$
we held0
12n the law on rape, the role of a guardian is provided for in Article 8// of the Revised
(enal Code, specifically as one who, aside from the offended party, her parents or
grandparents, is authori7ed to file the sworn written complaint to commence the
prosecution for that crime. I) People vs. De la Cruz *>9 P60.. >31 [1934]+, 0t 8-1 6e./
t6-t t6e 54-r/0-) re7erre/ to 0) t6e .-8 01 e0t6er - .e5-. or =4/030-. 54-r/0-) -1
4)/er1too/ 0) t6e r4.e1 o) 30:0. pro3e/4re.
F F F
12t would not be logical to say that the word IguardianA in the third paragraph of Article
8// which is mentioned together with parents and grandparents of the offended party
would have a concept different from the IguardianA in the recent amendments of Article
88, where he is also mentioned in the company of parents and ascendants of the
victim. 2n Article 8//, the inclusion of the guardian is only to invest him with the power
to sign a sworn written complaint to initiate the prosecution of four crimes against
chastity, while his inclusion in the enumeration of the offenders in Article 88, is to
authori7e the imposition of the death penalty on him. #0t6 m436 more re-1o),
t6ere7ore, 16o4./ t6e re1tr03t0:e 3o)3ept -))o4)3e/ 0) De la Cruz, t6-t 01, t6-t 6e
be - .e5-. or =4/030-. 54-r/0-), be re?40re/ 0) t6e .-tter -rt03.e.
1'he Court notes from the transcripts of the proceedings in Congress on this particular
point that the formulators were not definitive on the concept of IguardianA as it now
appears in the attendant circumstances added to the original provisions of Article 88, of
the Code. 'hey too? note of the status of a guardian as contemplated in the law on
rape but, apparently on pragmatic considerations to be determined by the courts on
an ad hoc basis, they agreed to >ust state IguardianA without the =ualification that he
should be a legal or >udicial guardian. 2t was assumed, however, that he should at the
very least be a de #acto guardian. I)/ee/, t6e, m41t 6-:e bee) -8-re o7
=4r01pr4/e)3e t6-t t6e 54-r/0-) e):01-5e/ 0) rt03.e 33> o7 t6e "o/e, e:e) -7ter
0t1 -me)/me)t b, Rep4b.03 3t No. 4111, 8o4./ e0t6er be - )-t4r-. 54-r/0-),
1omet0me1 re7erre/ to -1 - .e5-. or 1t-t4tor, 54-r/0-), or - =4/030-. 54-r/0-)
-ppo0)te/ b, t6e 3o4rt o:er t6e per1o) o7 t6e 8-r/.
F F F
1T6e .-8 re?40re1 - .e5-. or =4/030-. 54-r/0-) 10)3e 0t 01 t6e 3o)1-)540)eo41
re.-t0o) or t6e 1o.em)0t, o7 =4/030-. -ppo0)tme)t 86036 0mpre11e1 4po) t6e
54-r/0-) t6e .o7t, p4rpo1e o7 601 o7703e -)/ )orm-.., /eter1 60m 7rom :0o.-t0)5 0t1
ob=e3t0:e1. ;uch considerations do not obtain in appellantAs case or, for that matter,
any person similarly circumstanced as a mere custodian of a ward or anotherAs
property. T6e 70/430-r, po8er1 5r-)te/ to - re-. 54-r/0-) 8-rr-)t t6e e@-3t0)5
1-)3t0o)1 16o4./ 6e betr-, t6e tr41t.< DEmphasis suppliedE
A guardian is a person lawfully invested with the power and charged with the duty of
ta?ing care of the person and managing the property and rights of another person who,
for defect of age, understanding, or self+control, is considered incapable of
administering his own affairs.
"%9$
'here are three ?inds of guardians under the law0 DaE the .e5-. 54-r/0-), who is
such by provision of law without the need of >udicial appointment, as in the case of the
parents over the persons of their minor children, or the father, or in his absence the
mother, with respect to the property of the minor children not eFceeding (,.,...... in
valueJ
"%@$
DbE the guardian ad litem, a competent person appointed by the court for
purposes of a particular action or proceeding involving a minorJ and DcE the =4/030-.
54-r/0-), one appointed by the court over the person andOor property of the ward to
represent the latter in all his civil acts and transaction.
"%&$
As shown by the facts in this case, appellant is not *aritesA guardian, whether
natural, legal or >udicial. 'hat he allowed his surname to be used as her surname in her
Certificate of 4ive Birth is inconse=uential. 2t appears that such arrangement was
merely upon CiprianoAs re=uest.
At most, appellant was only an uncommitted careta?er of *arites over a limited
period of time. Clearly, he cannot be considered a guardian falling within the ambit of
the amendatory provision of ;ection ##, Republic Act No. 9-,&.
Neither is *arites the 1niece< of appellant and hence, a 1relative within the third civil
degree,< as alleged in the 2nformation. 'he prosecution utterly failed to prove that
appellant is legally married to *aritesA aunt. 2n fact, it did not present the marriage
contract between them to establish that *arites is appellantAs niece, a relative within the
third civil degree by affinity. Relationship, as a =ualifying circumstance in rape, must not
only be alleged clearlyJ it must also be proved beyond reasonable doubt, >ust as the
crime itself.
"8.$
2n view of the failure of the prosecution to prove the =ualifying circumstance of
guardianship or relationship, it is error for the trial court to convict appellant for =ualified
rape and impose upon him the supreme penalty of death.
Anent the award of damages, we observed that the trial court failed to award moral
damages to *arites.
*oral damages are additionally awarded without need of pleading or proof of the
basis thereof.
"8#$
'his is because it is recogni7ed that the victimPs in>ury necessarily
results from an abysmal crime to warrant by itself the award of moral damages. 'he
anguish and the pain she has to endure are evident. 2ndeed, the offended party in a
rape case is a victim many times over. 2n our culture, which puts a premium on the
virtue of purity or virginity, rape stigmati7es the victim more than the perpetrator.
"8%$
#HEREFORE, the appealed !ecision dated April %%, #&&& of the Regional 'rial
Court, Branch /%, (inamalayan, )riental *indoro in Criminal Case No. (+,-&., is
*)!22E! in the sense that appellant *A6R2C2) WA'2WA' is found 3624'5 beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of statutory rape and is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of $%C&'"()N P%$P%T'A and to pay the victim *arites
Watiwat (,.,...... as moral damages, in addition to the civil indemnity of (,.,......
awarded by the trial court.
Costs against appellant.
SO OR$ERE$.
*ellosillo! Puno! +itug! Panganiban! ,uisumbing! Austria-.artinez! Corona! Carpio-
.orales! Calle/o! "r.! Azcuna! and Tinga! 00.! concur.
1avide! 0r.! C.0.! 2nares-"antiago! and Carpio! 00.! on official leave.
"#$
(enned by Cudge *anuel C. 4una, Cr.
"%$
Rollo at %..
"8$
(d. at 9.
"/$
EFh. 1E<, Records at -,.
",$
';N, August #9, #&&@ at 8+9.
"-$
';N, )ctober %., #&&@ at 8+#-.
"9$
';N, August #9, #&&@ at 8+9.
"@$
EFhibit 1A<, Records at ,.
"&$
EFhibits 1< and 1+#<, Records at 9/.
"#.$
EFhibit 13+#<, (d. at 98.
"##$
Rollo at /..
"#%$
1An Act 'o 2mpose 'he !eath (enalty )n Certain :einous Crimes, Amending or 'hat (urpose 'he
Revised (enal Code, As Amended, )ther ;pecial (enal 4aws, And or )ther (urposes.< 'his
law too? effect on !ecember 8#, #&&8 DPeople vs. "imon, 3.R. No. &8.%@, Culy %&, #&&/, %8/
;CRA ,,,, ,-&E.
"#8$
People vs. .analo , 3.R. Nos. #//&@&+&., Canuary 8#, %..8J People vs. Glabo , 3.R. No. #%&%/@,
!ecember 9, %..#, 89# ;CRA ,-9J People vs. Navida , 3.R. Nos. #8%%8&+/., !ecember /, %...,
8/- ;CRA @%#J People vs. +alla , 3.R. No. ###%@,, Canuary %/, %..., 8%8 ;CRA 9/J People vs.
&opez , 3.R. No. #%&8&9, ebruary @, #&&&, 8.% ;CRA --&.
"#/$
People vs. 1e Guzman, 3.R. No. 9-9/%, August 9, #&&., #@@ ;CRA /.9. ;ee also People vs. "ilvano ,
3.R. Nos. #/##.,+##, *arch @, %..% and People vs. %storco , 3.R. No. ###&/#, April %9, %...,
88# ;CRA 8@.
"#,$
';N, )ctober %., #&&@ at /+,.
"#-$
People vs. *onghanoy , 3.R. No. #%/.&9, Cune #9, #&&&, 8.@ ;CRA 8@8.
"#9$
People vs. Antido , 3.R. No. #%#.&@, ;eptember /, #&&9, %9@ ;CRA /%,.
"#@$
People vs. $e3ola , 3.R. Nos. #%%&.&+#%, Cune #., #&&&, 8.@ ;CRA #/,.
"#&$
People vs. *almoria , 3.R. No. #8/,8&, November #,, %..., 8// ;CRA 9%8J People vs. %scala , 3.R.
No. #%.%@#, Culy @, #&&@, %&% ;CRA /@.
"%.$
People vs. )rtega , 3.R. No. #89@%/, ;eptember #9, %..%.
"%#$
People vs. Ardon , 3.R. Nos. #899,8+,-, *arch #-, %..#, 8,/ ;CRA -.&.
"%%$
People vs. 1anao, 3.R. No. ##-.,@, ebruary #, #&&-, %,8 ;CRA #/-.
"%8$
People vs. Paragua, 3.R. No. &-&%8, *ay %/, #&&-, %,9 ;CRA ##@.
"%/$
People vs. 1acoba , 3.R. Nos. #%#&&,+&-, April %., #&&@, %@& ;CRA %-,J People vs. Pano, 3.R. Nos.
#../-.+-#, Cune ,, #&&-, %,9 ;CRA %9/J People vs. Panlilio, 3.R. Nos. ##8,#&+%., *arch %&,
#&&-, %,, ;CRA ,.8.
"%,$
Tecson vs. "andiganbayan , 3.R. No. #%8./,, November #-, #&&&, 8#@ ;CRA @..
"%-$
3.R. No. #%..&8, November -, #&&9, %@# ;CRA /-8.
"%9$
People vs. $omero , 3.R. Nos. #89.89+8@, August ,, %..%.
"%@$
Art. %%,, 'he amily Code of the (hilippines, as amended.
"%&$
Regalado, loren7 B., Remedial 4aw Compendium, Bol. 22, ;eventh Revised Edition, at #.-.
"8.$
People vs. Alcoreza , 3.R. Nos. #8,/,%+,8, )ctober ,, %..#, 8-- ;CRA -,,.
"8#$
People vs. 1e +illa , 3.R. No. #%/-8&, ebruary #, %..#, 8,# ;CRA %,.
"8%$
People vs. *away , 3.R. No. #8./.-, Canuary %%, %..#, 8,. ;CRA %&J People vs. *anela , 3.R. No.
#%/&98, Canuary #@, #&&&, 8.# ;CRA @/.