7/25/2019 GR NO 117322

1/14

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 117322 May 21, 1998

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

ULYSIS CLOPINO y VARGAS, accused-appellant.

MENDOA,J.:

his is an appeal f!o" a decision1of the Re#ional !ial Cou!t of Vi!ac, Catanduanes, findin# accused-

appellant #uilt$ of !ape and sentencin# hi" to suffe! reclusion perpetuaand to pa$ the co"plainant

Melod$ %uintal the su" of P&','''.'' as "o!al da"a#es.

he info!"ation a#ainst accused-appellant alle#ed (

hat on o! about the )*th da$ of +eb!ua!$, ) at ba!an#a$ Du#ui oo, "unicipalit$ of

Vi!ac, p!ovince of Catanduanes, Philippines, and ithin the /u!isdiction of this 0ono!able

Cou!t, the above-na"ed accused illfull$, unlafull$ and feloniousl$ ith fo!ce, violence and

inti"idation d!a# Melod$ %uintal to the fo!est and did then and the!e lie and succeeded inhavin# ca!nal 1noled#e ith he! a#ainst he! ill and consent.

233 2CS CONR2R4 O 325.

he evidence fo! the p!osecution is as follos6

Melod$ %uintal as at the ti"e "ate!ial to this case a )*-$ea! old hi#h school student. On +eb!ua!$

)*, ), beteen )67'-)67' in the afte!noon, she and he! siste! 8in1$ and cousin 9eve!l$ left

9a!an#a$ Du#ui oo in Vi!ac, Catanduanes to #o to school at the poblacion. Melod$ al1ed ve!$

fast, so "uch so that she as ahead of he! co"panions. 2t the bend of the !oad, he! co"panions

lost si#ht of he!. 9eve!l$ 9eo clai"ed that the$ "et a "an ea!in# da!1 blue sho!t pants, a li#ht bluet-shi!t, and a "as1. 5ithout a!nin#, the "an pushed the", causin# the" to !oll don the !avine.

+o!tunatel$, the$ did not fall to the botto" because of the p!esence of ::bi#aho; plants. 5hen the$

loo1ed at the "an ho pushed the", the$ !eco#ni

7/25/2019 GR NO 117322

2/14

he st!ap of the ba# as detached, hile the handle of he! u"b!ella as b!o1en. he$ called he!

na"e seve!al ti"es but to no avail. he$ then ent bac1 to thei! ba!an#a$ to !epo!t that Melod$ as

"issin#. he$ info!"ed Melod$:s b!othe! about hat happened. hen the$ ent to Melod$:s "othe!

ho !epo!ted the "atte! to the ba!an#a$ autho!ities. 2 !escue tea" ent to the place he!e Melod$

as last seen.

Melod$ testified that at sitio Pa#san#ahan, she as su!p!ised to find accused-appellant behind he!.

2ccused-appellant as ea!in# blue sho!ts and a blue t-shi!t. 2lthou#h he had a "as1 on, Melod$

!eco#ni

7/25/2019 GR NO 117322

3/14

( ?@ E!$the"a at epi#ast!ic a!ea

( ?@ 2b!asion ) c". each on ant. aspect, nec1 ?both sides@

D!. anael indicated in he! ce!tificate the folloin#63

( Clothes ?-shi!t and pants@ ith di!t at buttoc1s a!ea

( Di!t pa!ticles ?R@ buttoc1s

329OR2OR4 REPOR

( NE>2IVE +OR SPERM2OO2

She opined that it as possible that Melod$ had been !aped.!

Onl$ accused-appellant testified fo! the defense. 2ccused-appellant clai"ed that on +eb!ua!$ )*,), beteen )67' to )67' in the afte!noon, he sa Melod$ %uintal al1in# toa!ds Ilaod. 0e

folloed he! until sitio Pa#san#ahan, he!e he e"b!aced and 1issed he! on the face, nec1 and

b!easts. 0e clai"ed that as she did not !esist, he too1 it as a challen#e to his "anhood to "a1e love

to he!. 0e put he! on the #!ound, put his hand inside he! pants and ca!essed he! in the se= o!#an.

0e denied that he used fo!ce, o! that he as able to put his penis into Melod$:s va#ina. 0e insisted

that he onl$ inse!ted his fin#e!s into he! va#ina in an effo!t to a!ouse he!. 0e also denied that he

pushed Melod$:s co"panions don a !avine.

he t!ial cou!t believed the p!osecution:s theo!$ and found the accused-appellant #uilt$ of !ape.

0ence, the appeal.

First. he defense "aintains that the!e is an inconsistenc$ beteen the so!n state"ent #iven b$

Melod$ to the PC on the one hand, and he! testi"on$ in cou!t on the othe!. he defense cites the

folloin# po!tion of the so!n state"ent dated +eb!ua!$ )B, ) hich she #ave at Ca"p

+!ancisco Ca"acho, Vi!ac, Catanduanes6"

)&%6 5as his pe!sonal o!#an o! his penis able to penet!ate to $ou! va#ina

26 No, si!.

)*%6 5h$

26 0e t!ied it but it could not penet!ate, he even as1ed "e if I a" still a vi!#en

FsicG.

)H%6 5hat else happened

26 2fte! anse!in# his Auestion that I a" still a vi!#en FsicG, he told "e that he

ill used his fin#e!.

7/25/2019 GR NO 117322

4/14

)B%6 5e!e $ou! va#ina fin#e!ed b$ hi"

26 4es, si!.

In the co"plaint she filed ith the Municipal !ial Cou!t on the sa"e da$, +eb!ua!$ )B, ), she

stated (

. . . F0Gis pe!sonal o!#an did not penet!ate instead he used his fin#e! to #uide his penis but

ulti"atel$ did not succeed fo! !easons of independent to his ell FsicG and the ti"el$ a!!ival of

the people ho e!e info!"ed of the incident b$ he! co"panions. . .#

0oeve!, it is asse!ted in Melod$:s testi"on$ in the t!ial cou!t that about one inch of the penis of the

accused-appellant as able to penet!ate into he! va#ina67

VE32SCO ?P!ivate P!osecuto!@

% 2fte! !e"ovin# the sho!t pants and b!ief, hat did Clopino do

2 5hen he as al!ead$ "ounted on "e, he t!ied to fo!ce his penis on "$

va#ina, si!.

% Did $ou feel the penis

2 4es, si!.

% 5h$ can $ou sa$ that the penis as bein# penet!ated on $ou! va#ina

2 9ecause I as loo1in# at hi" hen he as holdin# his penis and t!$in# tolet it in "$ o!#an, si!.

=== === ===

% 5as the penis able to penet!ate co"pletel$ inside $ou! va#ina

2 4es, it as able to penet!ate about an inch, si!.

he contention has no "e!it. he alle#ed inconsistenc$ is "o!e appa!ent than !eal. It "ust not be

fo!#otten that the victi" as onl$ )* $ea!s old at the ti"e of the !ape, ine=pe!ienced in the a$s of

the o!ld. It is evident that hat she "eant b$ accused-appellant:s o!#an not bein# able to penet!atehe! va#ina as that the!e as no full penet!ation. 9ut it is clea! that accused-appellant did all he

could to have se=ual inte!cou!se ith he!. If he as not able to have full penet!ation, it as because

the victi" as still a vi!#in. 2cco!din# to Melod$, accused-appellant ent on top of he!, !e"oved his

b!ief and t!ied to inse!t his penis into he! va#ina. Indeed, ho ould accused-appellant 1no his

penis ould not #o in unless he fi!st t!ied to inse!t it into his victi":s va#ina hat as all that as

necessa!$ to co""it consu""ated !ape. It ould have been a diffe!ent sto!$ if the!e as no atte"pt

at all to have se=ual inte!cou!se.

7/25/2019 GR NO 117322

5/14

hus, in he! +eb!ua!$ )B, ) co"plaint, she said68

. . . b$ "eans of fo!ce, inti"idation and th!eats o!de!ed he! to und!ess he!self and accused

also !e"oved his sho!t pant and b!ief and place hi"self ove! he! bod$ and does the sexual

play to her vagina but as a consequence in spite of his desire, his personal organ did not

penetrateinstead he used his fin#e! to #uide his penis but ulti"atel$ did not succeed fo!!easons of independent to his ell FsicG and the ti"el$ a!!ival of the people ho e!e

info!"ed of the incident b$ he! co"panions. hat all his acts is a#ainst the ill of the

co"plainant ho suffe!ed in/u!ies to he! va#ina and so"e pa!ts of he! bod$ as pe! Medico

3e#al Ce!tificate he!eto attached to fo!" pa!t of this co"plaint.

In he! so!n state"ent of +eb!ua!$ )B, ), she said69

)&%6 5as his pe!sonal o!#an o! his penis able to penet!ate to $ou! va#ina

26 No, si!.

)* %6 5h$

26 He tried it but it could not penetrate, he even as1ed "e if I a" still a vi!#en

FsicG.

9ut "o!e !evealin# than all these is the state"ent of Melod$ du!in# the p!eli"ina!$ e=a"ination held

befo!e MC 8ud#e 0onesto Mo!ales on +eb!ua!$ )B, ), the sa"e da$ the co"plaint befo!e the

MC and the so!n state"ent befo!e the PC e!e "ade. In he! state"ent, she said6 1$

COR6

% 2nd hen $ou e!e no l$in# on the #!ound hat did he do

2 0e Fla$G on top of "e and 1eep on 1issin# "e.

% 5hat "o!e

2 When his organ could not enter then he used his finger.

% 0o did $ou 1no that his o!#an could not ente!

2 0e told "e that because his o!#an could not ente! so he ill use his fin#e!.

% 9$ the a$, hat as the condition of his bod$ hen he lied don on top

of $ou

2 0e has no clothes.

% Not even pants o! b!ief

7/25/2019 GR NO 117322

6/14

2 5hen he Fla$G on top of "e he as ea!in# b!ief but he !e"oved it.

% Did $ou feel his o!#an touchin# $ou!s

2 4es, si!.

% 2nd as $ou said $ou feel his o!#an touchin# $ou! o!#an also, did you feel

that Ulysis tried to insert it

2 Yes, sir.

% 2nd that as the ti"e $ou said that since it could not ente! he told $ou that

he ill use his fin#e!

2 4es, si!.

% 9$ the a$, fo! ho lon# as l$sis on top of $ou

2 Mo!e o! less to "inutes.

She !epeated this in he! testi"on$ in this case. She stated6 11

VE32SCO6

% 2fte! !e"ovin# the sho!t pants and b!ief, hat did Clopino do

2 5hen he as al!ead$ "ounted on "e, he tried to force his penison "$

va#ina, si!.

% Did $ou feel the penis

2 4es, si!.

% 5h$ can $ou sa$ that the penis as bein# penet!ated on $ou! va#ina

2 Because I was looing at hi! when he was holding his penis and trying to

let it in !y organ, sir.

% 0o about $ou! thi#h then hen he as fo!cin# his penis to $ou! va#ina

2 2t fi!st he inse!ted his one thi#h beteen "$ thi#h and then he as able to

inse!t his othe! thi#h beteen "$ thi#h and he was forcing his penis to enter

!y organ, si!.

% 2bout ho "an$ "inutes in $ou! esti"ate did he entail in causin# the

penet!ation of his penis in $ou! va#ina

7/25/2019 GR NO 117322

7/14

2 Mo!e than a "inute, si!.

% 5as the penis able to penet!ate co"pletel$ inside $ou! va#ina

2 4es, it as able to penet!ate about an inch, si!.

% 9ecause his penis, I a" !efe!!in# to the accused, as not able to cause

the penet!ation co"pletel$, hat happened

2 5hen his penis as not able to penet!ate co"pletel$, he inse!t FsicG his

fin#e! in "$ o!#an si!.

It is thus clea! that accused-appellant t!ied to inse!t his penis into the victi":s va#ina. If it did not #o

the full len#th and accused-appellant as not able to attain full penet!ation, it as not because he

did not t!$ to have inte!cou!se ith he! but because the victi", bein# still a vi!#in, !eAui!ed

sti"ulation. hat as the !eason accused-appellant ;fin#e!ed; he! p!ivate pa!t, appa!entl$ to a!ouse

he!.

It is not necessa!$, in o!de! to have !ape, that accused-appellant succeed in havin# full penet!ation.

he sli#htest touchin# of the lips of the fe"ale o!#an o! of the labia of the pudendu" constitutes

!ape.122ccused-appellant is ce!tainl$ !on# hen he states that because his penis as not able to

penet!ate the va#ina despite his effo!ts to do so, the c!i"e should onl$ be eithe! atte"pted !ape o! acts of

lasciviousness. 2s the Solicito! >ene!al !i#htl$ states, it can be lo#icall$ concluded that hen the

accused-appellant as t!$in# to inse!t his penis into the victi":s va#ina, his penis touched the "iddle pa!t

of the co"plainant:s va#ina and penet!ated the labia of the pudendu". 13It is i"possible fo! the penis of

the accused-appellant not to touch the labia of the pudendu" in t!$in# to penet!ate he!. 2s Melod$

na!!ated at the p!eli"ina!$ e=a"ination conducted on +eb!ua!$ )B, )61!

COR6

% Did $ou feel his o!#an touchin# $ou!s

2 4es, si!.

% 2nd as $ou said $ou feel his o!#an touchin# $ou! o!#an also, did $ou feel

that l$sis t!ied to inse!t it

2 4es, si!.

It "ust not have been an eas$ thin# fo! Melod$ to tell in #!eat detail hat happened to he!. he

inconsistencies in he! testi"onies a!e unde!standable. Mo!e i"po!tantl$, du!in# he! c!oss-

e=a"ination, Melod$ as able to e=plain satisfacto!il$ h$ she 1ne that the accused-appellant as

able to put about an inch of his penis into he! va#ina61"

CONCEPCION6 ?Defense 3a$e!@

7/25/2019 GR NO 117322

8/14

% No, h$ e!e $ou able to 1no that, did $ou see the actual penet!ation

2 5hile he as doin# that to "e I could feel and I loo1 hat he as doin# to

"e, si!.

% Is it not that the "an as on top of $ou, h$ e!e $ou able to see

2 5hile he as doin# that to "e, he as not "ounted on "e. 0is both le#s

e!e beteen "$ le#s, and his le#s e!e positioned as if /ust sAuattin#, si!.

% So, his to le#s e!e not touchin# $ou! le#s at that ti"e

2 4es, si!, it as, because his thi#hs e!e inside "$ both thi#hs.

Mo!eove!, unde! Rule )7, J)7 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, in o!de! to i"peach a itness b$

evidence of p!io! inconsistent state"ent, the state"ent "ust be !elated to hi" and the

ci!cu"stances of its e=ecution stated. hen he "ust be as1ed hethe! he "ade such inconsistentstate"ent. In this case, no atte"pt as "ade to i"peach Melod$:s testi"on$ in cou!t. She as not

shon the co"plaint of +eb!ua!$ )B, ) and the so!n state"ent of the sa"e date no! as she

as1ed to e=plain an$ disc!epanc$, instead, hat she as as1ed as the folloin# Auestion61#

CONCEPCION

% 2nd acco!din# to $ou the "an as not able to succeed in havin# his penis

penet!ate $ou! on o!#an

VE32SCO

( Misleadin#.

COR

( Sustained, because the itness "entioned that it as about to penet!ate

one ?)@ inch.

he Auestion as "isleadin# because she neve! !eall$ said that accused-appellant did not succeed

in penet!atin# he!. he t!ial cou!t p!ope!l$ sustained the ob/ection of the p!osecution.

5e have !evieed the !eco!ds, and e found no !eason h$ Melod$ should concoct a sto!$ asda"a#in# to he! !eputation as this, if it e!e not t!ue that she as !aped. 5e have held that hen

the offended pa!ties a!e $oun# and i""atu!e #i!ls f!o" the a#es of telve to si=teen, cou!ts a!e

inclined to lend c!edence to thei! ve!sion of hat t!anspi!ed, conside!in# not onl$ thei! !elative

vulne!abilit$ but also the sha"e and e"ba!!ass"ent to hich the$ ould be e=posed b$ cou!t t!ial if

the "atte! about hich the$ testified is not t!ue.17

7/25/2019 GR NO 117322

9/14

"econd. 2ccused-appellant contends that 8ud#e Nilo 9. 9a!sa#a had no basis fo! sa$in# that the

testi"on$ of Melod$ as #iven in a st!ai#htfo!a!d "anne! and, the!efo!e, as c!edible. 0e points

out that because 8ud#e 9a!sa#a did not t!$ the case, anothe! one, 8ud#e Edua!do Is!ael an#uanco,

havin# done so, the fo!"e! did not obse!ve the itness: de"eano! so as to be able to sa$ that he!

testi"on$ as st!ai#htfo!a!d.

It "a$ be that a /ud#e ho t!ied the case and had the oppo!tunit$ to obse!ve the de"eano! of

itnesses has an advanta#e ove! anothe! ho did not have such an oppo!tunit$. 9ut such lac1 of

oppo!tunit$ does not necessa!il$ p!event hi" f!o" dete!"inin# f!o" the t!ansc!ipt of steno#!aphic

notes hethe! a itness as fo!th!i#ht and f!an1. 0o often has this Cou!t itself found the testi"on$

of itnesses to have been #iven in a st!ai#htfo!a!d "anne! on the basis solel$ of the !eco!ds of the

case. +o! e=a"ple, in #eople v. $o!pedio,

%r.,18e said6

In the fi!st assi#ned e!!o!, the accused-appellant attac1s the c!edibilit$ of p!osecution itness

!inidad Sabando. On this sco!e, the oft-!epeated !ule is that appellate cou!ts ill #ene!all$

not distu!b the findin#s of the t!ial cou!t, conside!in# that the latte! is in a bette! position todecide the Auestion, havin# hea!d the itnesses the"selves and obse!ved thei! depo!t"ent

and "anne! of testif$in# du!in# the t!ial. his case, hoeve!, falls unde! one of the

e=ceptions to the above !ule, na"el$, he!e one /ud#e hea!d the testi"on$ of the itnesses

and anothe! penned the decisionK hence, e a!e not p!ecluded f!o" "a1in# ou! assess"ent

of the p!obative "e!it and value of the testi"on$ of the itnesses on the basis of the

t!ansc!ipts of the steno#!aphic notes the!eof.19

2fte! po!in# ove! Sabando:s testi"on$, e find he! to be a t!usto!th$ itness. 0e! na!!ation

of the events and obse!vations of hat t!anspi!ed befo!e he! e!e delive!ed in a di!ect,

unaffected, and convincin# "anne!. She stuc1 to he! sto!$ and as unco"p!o"isin# in

!e#a!d the!eto on c!oss-e=a"ination and on Auestions f!o" the cou!t. 5e detect noindication of p!eva!ication.

Indeed, the!e is no clai" in this case that at an$ ti"e in he! testi"on$ Melod$ %uintal hed#ed o!

even hesitated o! othe!ise indicated that she as ithholdin# an$thin# f!o" the cou!t. 2s held

in #eople v.&uvilla,2$

5hile the t!ial /ud#e ho p!esided ove! the t!ial of the case ould be in a bette! position to

asce!tain the t!uth o! falsit$ of the testi"onies of the itnesses, it does not follo that a /ud#e

ho as not p!esent du!in# the t!ial cannot !ende! a valid and /ust decision. he full !eco!d

as available to hi". It is evident f!o" the 1noled#eable and anal$tical decision he has

!itten that he tho!ou#hl$ e=a"ined the testi"onial and docu"enta!$ evidence befo!e hi"and ca!efull$ assessed the c!edibilit$ of the itnesses ith the seasoned pe!ceptiveness he

has developed as a t!ial /ud#e.21

&hird. 2ccused-appellant:s conviction is not based solel$ on the victi":s testi"on$, but on othe!

evidence in the !eco!d as ell. D!. Cecilia anael, ho e=a"ined the victi" on the da$ of the

incident, testified that the victi" as p!obabl$ !aped, based, a"on# othe! thin#s, on the lace!ations

hich she found in the victi":s h$"en. D!. anael testified622

7/25/2019 GR NO 117322

10/14

VE32SCO

% No, in $ou! conside!ed opinion docto!a, could this f!esh lace!ation be

caused b$ a half penet!ation of penis to the va#ina

2 2n$thin# hich can ente! the va#ina can cause lace!ation, si!.

% 0o about the penis

2 It could be, si!.

% 0o about the fin#e!

2 It could be si!, an$thin# that could pass th!u to the va#ina can cause

lace!ation.

In addition, D!. anael found hitish discha!#e in the va#inal vault of the victi". D!. anael said shecould not !ule out the possibilit$ that the discha!#e as se"inal fluid co"in# f!o" a "ale

pe!son.232lthou#h the discha!#e as found ne#ative fo! spe!"ato

7/25/2019 GR NO 117322

11/14

24. VE32SCO

% he!eafte!, hat happened

2 2fte! he bo=ed "e I fell don because of the pain and then he d!a##ed "e

uphill, si!.

=== === ===

% 2fte! $ou e!e d!a##ed to a distance of &' "ete!s f!o" the !oad into the

inte!io! of the fo!est, hat happened

2 5hen e !eached the!e, he told "e to !e"ove "$ pants. 5hen I did not

heed hat he told "e, he th!eatened "e that he ould 1ill "e and he 1ept on

bo=in# "e, si!.

% 5hat happened ne=t

2 0is bo=in# "e caused "e to fall, si!.

=== === ===

% 5hile $ou e!e b!ou#ht the!e, I a" !efe!!in# to the place he!ein the

second ti"e $ou e!e d!a##ed, hat happened

2 0e a#ain told "e to lie don, si!.

% Did $ou lie don

2 No, si!.

% 9ecause $ou did not lie don, hat happened

2 9ecause I did not lie don, he a#ain bo=ed "e on "$ sto"ach, si!.

% 9ecause he bo=ed $ou in $ou! sto"ach, hat did $ou do

2 0is bo=in# "e caused "e a#ain to lie don, si!.

D!. anael also found ab!asions in the nec1 and sto"ach, indicatin# that Melod$ had a st!u##le ith

accused-appellant627

VE32SCO

% his ab!asion ) c". inch on ante!io! aspect, nec1 ?both sides@, ould $ou

"ind e=plainin# it to the Cou!t in a la$"an:s lan#ua#e

7/25/2019 GR NO 117322

12/14

2 2b!asion is caused b$ f!iction b$ anothe! su!face in the ante!io! aspect of

the nec1, belo the buttoc1s. ?5itness pointin# to he! nec1@.

% Is it possible docto!a, that ab!asion li1e this is caused because of the

st!u##le of the victi" f!o" assailant

2 9asin# f!o" "$ ph$sical e=a"ination, it is possible, because the!e is

e!ith"a at the epi#ast!ic a!ea, and the!e is an ab!asion, si!.

% Can this be caused b$ #!ip of hands

2 It is possible, si!.

he!e e!e othe! tell-tale "a!1s of the use of violence a#ainst the victi". D!. anael noted that the

clothes of Melod$ e!e di!t$, pa!ticula!l$ at the buttoc1s. his evidence of the use of fo!ce and

violence belie the fantastic clai" of accused-appellant that Melod$ a#!eed to have a t!$st ith hi".

Indeed, ho could accused-appellant clai" that Melod$ volunta!il$ ent ith hi" hen the to of

the" e!e not even love!s 2ccused-appellant as 7, "a!!ied. Melod$ as onl$ )*, a hi#h school

student. It as unli1el$ the$ e!e love!s. On the cont!a!$, the fact that he! pe!sonal effects,

consistin# of he! ba#, he! u"b!ella and he! !ist atch e!e st!en on the #!ound and that

acco!din# to 9eve!l$ 9eo the victi":s lips and nec1 e!e b!uised and he! clothes soiled attests to the

!esistance she offe!ed to accused-appellant:s assault. 2s the t!ial cou!t said, conside!in# all these

facts, accused-appellant:s clai" that Melod$ volunta!il$ ent ith hi" and a#!eed to have se=ual

inte!cou!se ith hi" as si"pl$ inc!edible.

he t!ial cou!t aa!ded P&','''.'' to the offended pa!t$ as "o!al da"a#es. 0oeve!, "o!al

da"a#es can be aa!ded onl$ upon sufficient p!oof that the co"plainant is entitled the!eto inacco!dance ith 2!t. )H of the Civil Code. 2cco!din#l$, the a"ount of P&','''.'' should be

conside!ed as civil inde"nit$ in acco!dance ith ou! decision in #eople v. 'e!enti(a. 28

50ERE+ORE, the decision of the t!ial cou!t is 2++IRMED ith the MODI+IC2ION that the aa!d

of P&','''.'' should be conside!ed inde"nit$ to the offended pa!t$ Melod$ %uintal.

SO ORDERED.

)egalado, *elo, #uno and *artine(, %%+, concur+

Foo%&o%'(

) Pe! 8ud#e Nilo 9. 9a!sa#a.

RC Reco!ds, p. .

7 Ibid.

7/25/2019 GR NO 117322

13/14

L SN, p. ), 8an. ), )7.

& RC Reco!ds, p. L.

* Id., p. ).

H SN, p. , 8ul$ )&, ).

B RC Reco!ds, p. ) ?e"phasis added@.

Id., p. L ?e"phasis added@.

)' Id., pp. *-H ?e"phasis added@.

)) SN, p. , 8ul$ )&, ) ?e"phasis added@.

) People v. Cast!o"e!o, >.R. No. ))B, Oct. , )H.

)7 )ollo, p. )'B.

)L RC Reco!ds, p. H.

)& SN, p. , 8ul$ )*, ).

)* Id., pp. B-.

)H "eePeople v. Molina, &7 SCR2 L& ?)H7@.

)B &B SCR2 &L?)*@.

) Id., at *.

' & SCR2 7 ?)*@.

) Id. at H.

SN, pp. *-H, 8an. ), )7.

7 Id., p. B.

L People v. Solo"on, SCR2 L'7 ?)7@.

& SN, p. B, 8an. ), )7.

* SN, pp. H-B, 8ul$ )&, ).

7/25/2019 GR NO 117322

14/14

H SN, pp. B-, 8an. ), )7.

B >.R. No. )7)&), 8an. , )B.