THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 210710. July 27, 2016.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs. LUISITO

GABORNE Y CINCO, accused-appellant.

DECISION

PEREZ, J : p

Before the Court is an appeal from the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
dated 29 July 2013 in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01183, affirming the Decision 2 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 33, Calbiga, Samar which found appellant Luisito
Gaborne y Cinco guilty of the crime of Murder with the use of Unlicensed Firearm, as
defined in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) as amended by Sec. 6 of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7659, and Frustrated Murder as defined in Article 248 in relation
to Article 50 of the RPC, respectively.
Together with two others, appellant was charged with Murder with the use of
Unlicensed Firearm and Frustrated Murder in the following Informations:
Criminal Case No. CC-2007-1640
That on or about the 2nd day of February 2007, at about 11:00 o'clock in
the evening more or less, at Brgy. Mugdo, Hinabangan, Samar, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused,
conspiring, confederating, mutually helping one another, with deliberate intent
to kill, and with treachery and evident premeditation, which qualify the offense
into murder, did there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, shot (sic) Sixto
Elizan y Herrera, with the use of an unlicensed firearm a caliber [.]45 pistol, a
special aggravating circumstance pursuant to RA 8294, which accused have
provided themselves for the purpose, thereby hitting and inflicting upon the said
Sixto Elizan y Herrera fatal gun shot wounds on the different parts of his body,
which gun shot wounds caused his instantaneous death. 3
Criminal Case No. CC-2007-1650
That on or about the 2nd day of February 2007, at around 11:00 o'clock
in the evening more or less, at Brgy. Mugdo, Municipality of Hinabangan,
Province of Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above named accused, conspiring, confederating, mutually helping
one another, with deliberate intent to kill, and with treachery, which qualifies the
offense to murder, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shot
[sic] the victim, Rey Perfecto C. de Luna, with the use or a caliber [.]45 pistol,
an unlicensed firearm, a special aggravating circumstance pursuant to Rep. Act
No. 8294, with which the accused have provided themselves for the purpose,
thereby inflicting upon the victim the following wounds, to wit:
- Gun shot wound (R) back penetrating (R) chest, lacerating
diaphragm, (R) lobe of the liver, thru and thru and greater
omentum with massive hemoperitoneum

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com

 - Gun shot wound (R) para spinal area at L2 penetrating
abdomen perforating ileum thru and thru
thus, accused have performed all the acts of execution which should have
produced the crime of murder as a consequence but which nevertheless did
not produce it by reason of some cause independent of the will of the accused,
that is, the timely medical treatment/intervention rendered to the victim at Saint
Paul's Hospital, Tacloban City. 4
On arraignment, appellant entered a plea of NOT GUILTY 5 for both charges.
Trial on the merits ensued thereafter.
The Facts
The antecedent facts culled from the Appellee's Brief 6 and the records of the
case are summarized as follows:
On 2 February 2007 at around 10:30 in the evening, Rey Perfecto De Luna (De
Luna) and Sixto Elizan 7 (Elizan) entered a videoke bar 8 at Barangay Mugdo,
Hinabangan, Samar. 9 Noli Abayan (Abayan), appellant and Joselito Bardelas
(Bardelas) followed five minutes thereafter. 10
While Elizan and De Luna were drinking, singing and merely having fun, four
successive gunshots 11 were fired through the window. Because of this, Elizan and De
Luna were hit from behind. 12 Later on, De Luna 13 and Marialinisa Pasana 14 (Pasana)
saw appellant, who was then wearing a black t-shirt and a black cap, holding a gun
aimed at their location. Pasana also saw accused-appellant and Bardelas escape after
the incident. 15 ATICcS

Elizan and De Luna were brought to St. Paul's Hospital at Tacloban City. 16
Unfortunately, Elizan was pronounced dead upon arrival. De Luna, on the other hand,
survived. 17
Appellant steadfastly denied the accusations. According to him, he and his
companions ordered for bottles of beer. However, when they tried to order for more
bottles, the waitress refused to give them their order unless they pay for their previous
orders first. 18 While Abayan was explaining to the father of the owner of the videoke
bar, appellant and Bardelas went out to urinate, 19 however, the waitress locked the
front door. 20 While standing outside, he heard the waitress utter the words, "If you will
not pay, I [will] have you killed, all of you, right this moment." 21 He also consistently
contend that it was a man wearing black shirt and camouflage pants who fired shots to
the videoke bar, 22 not him.
The following day, appellant and Bardelas were arrested and underwent paraffin
test. 23
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On 12 March 2010, the RTC rendered a joint judgment finding accused-appellant
guilty of the two (2) charges of Murder with the use of Unlicensed Firearm and
Frustrated Murder. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the [c]ourt finds the co-accused
LUISITO GABORNE y CINCO GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT as
principal in the crimes of:
A. Murder with the Use of an Unlicensed Firearm under Art. 248 of
the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. CC-2007-1640 and considering
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 the presence of one (1) aggravating circumstance without any mitigating
circumstance to offset it, hereby sentences him to suffer imprisonment of
RECLUSION PERPETUA; to pay the Heirs of Sixto Elisan y Herrera
Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity for his death; Php50,000.00 in moral damages
and Php25,000.00 in exemplary damages and to pay the costs of this suit.
B. Frustrated Murder penalized under Art. 248 in relation to Art. 50 of
the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. CC-2007-1650 and considering
the presence of one (1) aggravating circumstance without any mitigating
circumstance to offset it hereby sentences him to suffer imprisonment of an
indeterminate penalty ranging from ELEVEN (11) YEARS of Prision Mayor as
minimum to EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS of Reclusion Temporal as maximum, to
pay Perfecto de Luna Php264,866.58 as civil liability without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs of this suit.
The accused who underwent preventive imprisonment since February 3,
2007 shall be credited with the full time during which he was deprived of his
liberty if he agreed voluntarily and in writing to abide by the same disciplinary
rules imposed upon convicted prisoners otherwise he will be entitled to only
four-fifths (4/5) thereof.
Because the prosecution absolutely failed to prove guilt of accused NOLI
ABAYAN y LARGABO and co-accused JOSELITO BARDELAS y BACNOTAN
from the instant criminal charges, they are ACQUITTED in these cases. No civil
liability is assessed against them.
Because the said accused are detained, the Provincial Warden of Samar
are hereby ordered to release the said accused from detention unless they are
held for some other cause or ground. 24
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA found no merit in appellant's arguments. It pointed out that appellant is
estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest as it was raised for the first time on
appeal. 25 Thus, the appellate court was fully convinced that there is no ground to
deviate from the findings of the RTC. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Joint
Judgment dated March 12, 2010 rendered by Branch 33, Regional Trial Court
of Calbiga, Samar, 8th Judicial Region in Criminal Case Nos. [CC-] 2007-1640
and [CC-]2007-1650 is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION as to the
award of damages, to wit:
1. The award of civil indemnity in Criminal Case No. [CC-]2007-1640
is affirmed;
2. The award of moral damages in the amount of Php50,000.00 in
Criminal Case No. [CC-]2007-1640 is affirmed;
3. The award of exemplary damages in the amount of Php25,000.00
in Criminal Case No. [CC-]2007-1640 is affirmed;
4. In Criminal Case No. [CC-]2007-1650, accused-appellant is
ordered to pay moral damages to the private offended party, Rey Perfecto De
Luna, in the amount of Php40,000.00;
5. In Criminal Case No. [CC-]2007-1650, accused appellant is
likewise ordered to pay exemplary damages to the private offended party, Rey
Perfecto De Luna, in the amount of Php20,000.00; and

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com

 6. Accused-appellant is further ordered to additionally pay the
private offended parties in the two criminal cases, Rey Perfecto De Luna and
the heir/s of Sixto Elizan, interest on all damages at the legal rate of six percent
(6%) from the date of finality of this judgment until the amounts awarded shall
have been fully paid. 26 TIADCc

Appellant appealed the decision of the CA. The Notice of Appeal was given due
course and the records were ordered elevated to this Court for review. In a Resolution
27 dated 19 February 2014, this Court required the parties to submit their respective
supplemental briefs. Both parties manifested that they are adopting all the arguments
contained in their respective briefs in lieu of filing supplemental briefs. 28
Our Ruling
We find that the degree of proof required in criminal cases has been met in the
case at bar. Appellant's defenses of denial and alibi are bereft of merit.
Assailing the legality of arrest should
be made before entering a plea
Before anything else, we resolve the procedural issue raised by the appellant. 29

Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court
acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his
plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. 30 In People v. Velasco , 31 this Court
held that the accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest for his failure
to move for the quashal of the Information before arraignment. In this case, appellant
only questioned the legality of his arrest for the first time on appeal. 32
Furthermore, even granting that indeed there has been an irregularity in the
arrest of the appellant, it is deemed cured by his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction
of the trial court over his person. 33 Thus, appellant is deemed to have waived his
constitutional protection against illegal arrest 34 when he actively participated in the
arraignment 35 and trial of this case. 36
Elements of Murder and Frustrated
Murder were established
This Court finds that the circumstance of treachery should be appreciated,
qualifying the crime to Murder. According to the Revised Penal Code:
ARTICLE 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of
Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the
following attendant circumstances:
1. With 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.
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck,
stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall
of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means
involving great waste and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding
paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 epidemic, or any other public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the
suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
Thus, the elements of murder are: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the
accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and (4) that the killing is not
parricide or infanticide. 37
Furthermore, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof, which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make. 38
The requisites of treachery are:
(1) The employment of means, method, or manner of execution
which will ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive or retaliating acts
on the part of the victim, no opportunity being given to the latter to defend
himself or to retaliate; and
(2) Deliberate or conscious adoption of such means, method, or
manner of execution. 39
In this case, the hapless victims were merely drinking and singing in-front of the
videoke machine when shot by the appellant. The firing was so sudden and swift that
they had no opportunity to defend themselves or to retaliate. Furthermore, appellant's
acts of using a gun and even going out of the videoke bar evidently show that he
consciously adopted means to ensure the execution of the crime.
In addition, the lower courts appropriately found appellant liable for the crime of
Frustrated Murder.
A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which
would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it
by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. 40
Dr. Angel Cordero M.D. categorically said that De Luna could have died because
of the wounds if the surgery was not conducted timely. 41 Hence, appellant performed
all the acts of execution which could have produced the crime of murder as a
consequence, but nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of a cause independent of
his will, which is, in this case, the timely and able medical attendance rendered to De
Luna. AIDSTE

The defense of denial cannot be given

more weight over a witness' positive
identification
Appellant denies the accusations on the ground that he has no motive to kill
Elizan and injure De Luna. This alibi is bereft of merit. Intent is not synonymous with
motive. Motive alone is not a proof and is hardly ever an essential element of a crime. 42
As a general rule, proof of motive for the commission of the offense charged does not
show guilt and absence of proof of such motive does not establish the innocence of
accused for the crime charged such as murder. 43 In Kummer v. People , 44 this Court
held that motive is irrelevant when the accused has been positively identified by an
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 eyewitness.
Evidently, accused-appellant's intent to kill was established beyond reasonable
doubt. This can be seen from his act of shooting Elizan and De Luna from behind with a
firearm while they were innocently singing and drinking. Intent to kill was also manifest
considering the number of gun shot wounds sustained by the victims. 45
In the instant case, Pasana and De Luna positively identified accused-appellant
as the person who fired shots during the incident:
Pasana's testimony:
Q: Can you recall who among the five (5) went out?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: Of the two (2) among the five (5) who went out, are these two (2)
people or persons here in court right now?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: And who are these two (2) persons you are referring to, can you
point it out to the Honorable Court if they are here in [c]ourt right now?
A: That person, Ma'am.
Interpreter:
Witness, Your Honor, is pointing to a person who earlier identified
himself as Luisito Gaborne.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Point specifically, who among those persons?
A: That person, Ma'am.
Interpreter:
Witness, Your Honor, is pointing to a person who identified himself
earlier as Luisito Gaborne. 46
De Luna's Testimony:
Q: How about the appearance of the guy whom you said holding a
gun, can you recall?
A: I can recall him if he is inside the court, ma'am.
Q: Can you point it out to the court, the other guy whom you saw at
the videoke bar?
A: Yes, ma'am, if I can go with him in a short distance, I can point
him.
Q: Can you point him?
A: (The witness stood up and approach (sic) the accused' bench and
pointed to a person and when asked his name answered to (sic): Luisito
Gaborne)
Q: You said that there was also another guy by the window? (the
court butt-in [sic])
THE COURT:
Q: Excuse me, this man who answered Luisito Gaborne was the one
holding the fire arm?
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 A: Yes, your Honor. 47
This Court gives the highest respect to the RTC's evaluation of the testimony of
the witnesses, considering its unique position in directly observing the demeanor of a
witness on the stand. From its vantage point, the trial court is in the best position to
determine the truthfulness of witnesses. 48
It is doctrinally entrenched in our jurisprudence 49 that the defense of denial is
inherently weak because it can easily be fabricated. Such defense becomes unworthy
of merit if it is established only by the accused themselves and not by credible persons.
Thus, this Court agrees with the lower courts in giving the positive identification of the
eyewitnesses more weight than appellant's defense of denial.
Paraffin Tests are not conclusive
The positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses bears more weight
than the negative paraffin test result conducted the day after the incident.
Paraffin tests, in general, have been rendered inconclusive by this Court.
Scientific experts concur in the view that the paraffin test was extremely unreliable for
use. It can only establish the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand;
however, the test alone cannot determine whether the source of the nitrates or nitrites
was the discharge of a firearm. The presence of nitrates should be taken only as an
indication of a possibility or even of a probability but not of infallibility that a person has
fired a gun, since nitrates are also admittedly found in substances other than
gunpowder. 50
In this case, prosecution witness, Pasana 51 and the victim himself, De Luna, 52
testified in the trial court that it was indeed the appellant who was holding the gun during
the incident. It should also be considered that appellant was arrested the day after the
incident. 53 Thus, it is possible for appellant to fire a gun and yet bear no traces of
nitrate or gunpowder as when the hands are bathed in perspiration or washed
afterwards. 54 AaCTcI

Corpus delicti of the crime can be

established by testimony
With regard to the appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of the use of an
unlicensed firearm, we agree with the trial court and the appellate court that the same
must be appreciated in the instant case. In People v. Lualhati , this Court ruled that in
crimes involving unlicensed firearm, the prosecution has the burden of proving the
elements thereof, which are: (1) the existence of the subject firearm and (2) the fact that
the accused who owned or possessed the firearm does not have the corresponding
license or permit to possess the same. 55
Appellant's contention that the corpus delicti was not established for the reason
that the firearm used was not presented as evidence is not persuasive. In People v.
Orehuela, 56 this Court held that the existence of the firearm can be established by
testimony, even without the presentation of the said firearm. In the present case, the
testimonies of Pasana and De Luna indubitably demonstrated the existence of the
firearms. Furthermore, the certification 57 from the Philippine National Police that
appellant is not a firearm license holder of any caliber proves that he is not licensed to
possess the same. Thus, the prosecution was able to prove the existence of the firearm
and that the appellant is not licensed to possess the same notwithstanding the fact that
the firearm used was not presented as evidence.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 Illegal Possession of Firearm as an
aggravating circumstance
in the crimes of Murder and
Frustrated Murder
The CA appropriately appreciated the use of an unlicensed firearm as an
aggravating circumstance in the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder. Under R.A.
No. 1059, use of loose firearm in the commission of a crime, like murder, shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance. 58
In view of the amendments introduced by R.A. No. 8294 and R.A. No. 10591, to
Presidential Decree No. 1866, separate prosecutions for homicide and illegal
possession are no longer in order. Instead, illegal possession of firearm is merely to be
taken as an aggravating circumstance in the crime of murder. 59 It is clear from the
foregoing that where murder results from the use of an unlicensed firearm, the crime is
not qualified illegal possession but, murder. In such a case, the use of the unlicensed
firearm is not considered as a separate crime but shall be appreciated as a mere
aggravating circumstance. Thus, where murder was committed, the penalty for illegal
possession of firearms is no longer imposable since it becomes merely a special
aggravating circumstance. 60 The intent of Congress is to treat the offense of illegal
possession of firearm and the commission of homicide or murder with the use of
unlicensed firearm as a single offense. 61
In the case at hand, since it was proven that accused-appellant was not a
licensed firearm holder, 62 and that he was positively identified by the witnesses as the
one who fired shots against the victims, the use of an unlicensed firearm in the
commission of the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder should be considered as an
aggravating circumstance thereof.
The presence of such aggravating circumstance would have merited the
imposition of the death penalty for the crime of Murder. However, in view of R.A. No.
9346, we are mandated to impose on appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua
without eligibility for parole.
Damages and civil liability
This Court resolves to modify the damages awarded by the appellate court in line
with the recent jurisprudence. 63 Appellant shall pay the Heirs of Sixto Elizan y Herrera
P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as
exemplary damages for the crime of Murder with the use of Unlicensed Firearm.
Appellant shall also be liable to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as
moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages for the crime of Frustrated
Murder. In addition, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed
on all monetary awards from date of finality of this Judgment until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the 29 July 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 01183 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Appellant LUISITO
GABORNE Y CINCO is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder
with the use of Unlicensed Firearm and shall suffer a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua ,
without eligibility for parole and shall pay the Heirs of Sixto Elizan y Herrera
P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as
exemplary damages; and of the crime of Frustrated Murder and is hereby sentenced to
suffer the indeterminate penalty ranging from eleven (11) years of Prision Mayor as
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 minimum, to eighteen (18) years of Reclusion Temporal as maximum and shall pay
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as
exemplary damages.
All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of six
percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
In the service of his sentence, appellant, who is a detention prisoner, shall be
credited with the entire period of his preventive imprisonment.
SO ORDERED. EcTCAD

Velasco, Jr., Peralta, Reyes and Perlas-Bernabe, * JJ., concur.

Footnotes

* Additional Member per Raffle dated 13 July 2016.

1. Rollo, pp. 3-21; Penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy with Associate
Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Pamela Ann Abella Maxino concurring.
2. Records (Crim. Case No. CC-2007-1640), pp. 186-205; Presided by Acting Presiding Judge
Yolanda U. Dagandan.
3. Records (Crim. Case No. CC-2007-1640), p. 1.
4. Records (Crim. Case No. CC-2007-1650), pp. 1-2.
5. Records (Crim. Case No. CC-2007-1640), p. 43; Records (Crim. Case No. CC-2007-1650),
p. 22.

6. CA rollo, pp. 70-87.

7. Also referred to in the records as Sixto Elisan.

8. Also referred to in the records as "Mana Riting" & "Narita Gayuso."

9. TSN, 21 August 2008, pp. 5-8.
10. TSN, 19 June 2008, pp. 9-11.
11. TSN, 25 September 2008, pp. 4-5.
12. TSN, 21 August 2008, pp. 8-9.

13. Id. at 10.

14. TSN, 19 June 2008, pp. 34-38.

15. Id. at 16-21.

16. Id. at 22.

17. TSN, 29 January 2009, pp. 7-17 and 29-43.
18. TSN, 13 August 2009, pp. 9-11.

19. Id. at 12.

20. TSNs, 8 October 2009, p. 9 and 4 June 2009, pp. 13-14.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 21. Id. at 13; TSN, 8 October 2009, p. 9.

22. Id. at 14-17.

23. TSN, 13 August 2009, pp. 23 and 26.

24. Records (Crim. Case No. CC-2007-1640), pp. 204-205.

25. Rollo, p. 15.

26. Id. at 19-20.

27. Id. at 28-29.

28. Id. at 30 and 40-42.

29. CA rollo, p. 29.

30. Miclat, Jr. v. People, 672 Phil. 191, 203 (2013).

31. People v. Velasco, 722 Phil. 243, 252 (2013).

32. Rollo, p. 15.

33. People v. Ereño, 383 Phil. 30, 41 (2000).

34. People v. Rivera, 613 Phil. 660, 667 (2009).

35. Records (Crim. Case No. CC-2007-1640), p. 43.

36. Id. at 155.

37. People v. Dela Cruz, 626 Phil. 631, 639 (2010).

38. Cirera v. People, G.R. No. 181843, 14 July 2014, 730 SCRA 27, 47 citing Revised Penal
Code, Art. 14 (16).

39. People v. Pirame, 384 Phil. 286, 301 (2000) citing People v. Gatchalian, 360 Phil. 178,
196-197 (1998).

40. Serrano v. People, 637 Phil. 319, 335 (2010).

41. TSN, 29 January 2009, p. 38.

42. People v. Ballesteros, 349 Phil. 366, 374 (1998).

43. Cupps v. State, 97 Northwestern Reports, 210.

44. 717 Phil. 670, 680-681 (2013).
45. Records, pp. 36-37 and 96.

46. TSN, 19 June 2008, pp. 14-16.

47. TSN, 21 August 2008, pp. 11-14.

48. People v. Abat, G.R. No. 202704, 2 April 2014, 720 SCRA 557, 564 citingPeople v.
Banzuela, 723 Phil. 797, 814 (2013).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 49. People v. Barde, 645 Phil. 434, 457 (2010); People v. Berdin, 462 Phil. 290, 304 (2003);
People v. Francisco, 397 Phil. 973, 985 (2000).

50. People v. Cajumocan, 474 Phil. 349, 358 (2004).

51. TSN, 19 June 2008, p. 16.
52. TSN, 21 August 2008, p. 12.
53. TSN, 13 August 2009, pp. 19-22.

54. People v. Pagal, 338 Phil. 946, 951 (1997).

55. G.R. Nos. 105289-90, 21 July 1994, 234 SCRA 325, 332.
56. G.R. Nos. 108780-81, 29 April 1994, 232 SCRA 82, 96.
57. Records, p. 41.

58. Celino v. CA, G.R. No. 170562, 553 Phil. 178, 185 (2007) citing People v. Ladjaalam, 395
Phil. 1 (2010).

59. People v. Avecilla, 404 Phil. 476, 483 (2001).

60. People v. Molina, 354 Phil. 746, 786 (1998).

61. Id. at 786-787.

62. Records, p. 41.

63. People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, 5 April 2016 citing People v. Gambao, 718 Phil. 507,
531 (2013).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com