THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 139576. September 2, 2002.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGER or

ROGELIO PUEDAN, accused-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Public Attorney's Office for accused-appellants.

SYNOPSIS

Appellant was found guilty by the trial court of the crime of murder
qualified by treachery. On appeal, appellant argued that the killing should be
treated under Article 247 of the Revised Penal C ode and that treachery should
not be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.
In affirming the decision of the trial court, the Supreme Court ruled that
by raising Article 247 of the Revised Penal C ode as his defense, appellant
admitted that he killed the victim. By invoking this defense, appellant waives
his right to the constitutional presumption of innocence and bears the burden of
proving the following: (1) that a legally married person (or a parent) surprises
his spouse (or his daughter, under 18 years of age and living with him), in the
act of committing sexual intercourse with another person; (2) that he or she
kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any or both of them any serious
physical injury in the act or immediately thereafter; and (3) that he has not
promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife (or daughter) or that he or
she has not consented to the infidelity of the other spouse. To satisfy this
burden, appellant must prove that he actually surprised his wife and the victim
in flagrante delicto, and that he killed the man during or immediately
thereafter. However, all that appellant established was the victim's promiscuity,
which was inconsequential to the killing. What is important is that his version of
the stabbing incident is diametrically opposed to the convincing accounts of the
prosecution witnesses.
The Court likewise ruled that treachery attended the killing. Appellant
came from nowhere and suddenly stabbed the unsuspecting victim five times.
He deliberately and consciously adopted his mode of attack by lunging at the
victim with his knife without any warning whatsoever, giving the latter no
opportunity to defend himself.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW; DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED UNDER

EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES; ELEMENTS. — By raising Article 247 of the
Revised Penal C ode as his defense, appellant admits that he killed the victim.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 This provision reads as follows: "ART. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted
under exceptional circumstances. — Any legally married person who, having
surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another
person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately
thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the
penalty of destierro. . . ." By invoking this defense, appellant waives his right to
the constitutional presumption of innocence and bears the burden of proving
the following: "1. That a legally married person (or a parent) surprises his
spouse (or his daughter, under 18 years of age and living with him), in the act
of committing sexual intercourse with another person. "2. That he or she kills
any or both of them or inflicts upon any or both of them any serious physical
injury in the act or immediately thereafter. "3. That he has not promoted or
facilitated the prostitution of his wife (or daughter) or that he or she has not
consented to the infidelity of the other spouse." TAEDcS

2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; FINDINGS

THEREON BY TRIAL COURT, GENERALLY NOT DISTURBED ON APPEAL. — Well-
settled is the rule that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their
testimonies is best undertaken by the trial court, because it had the opportunity
to observe them firsthand and to note their demeanor and conduct on the
witness stand. For this reason, its findings on such matters, absent any
arbitrariness or oversight of facts or circumstances of weight and substance,
are final and conclusive upon this Court and will not to be disturbed on appeal.
3. ID.; ID.; FLIGHT, AN INDICATION OF GUILT; CASE AT BAR. — Further
eroding the defense of appellant is the fact that he immediately fled from the
crime scene right after the stabbing incident. He hid for about three years until
he was arrested by the authorities on March 16, 1998. His flight betrays his
defense, because he could have easily relayed his story to the proper
authorities, if he had indeed caught his wife and Florencio in flagrante delicto.
Through flight, one impedes the course of justice by avoiding arrest, detention,
or the continuance of criminal proceedings. As with self-defense, the
exceptional circumstance provided under Article 247 of the Revised Penal C de
may not prevail in the face of the flight of appellant from the crime scene and
his failure to inform the authorities of the incident. Flight bespeaks guilt and
gives credence to the version of the prosecution in this case.
4. CRIMINAL LAW; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; TREACHERY;
ESTABLISHED IN CASE AT BAR. — For treachery to be present, the means,
methods or forms of execution should give the person attacked no opportunity
for self-defense or retaliation. And it must be proven that such means, methods
or forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted without
danger to appellant. In the present case, the RTC correctly ruled that treachery
attended the killing. Appellant came from nowhere and suddenly stabbed the
unsuspecting Florencio five (5) times. He deliberately and consciously adopted
his mode of attack by lunging at the victim with his knife without any warning
whatsoever, giving the latter no opportunity to defend himself.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 DECISION

PANGANIBAN, J : p

By invoking the defense of surprising his spouse in the very act of sexual
intercourse with the victim, the accused admits authorship of the killing. Having
waived his constitutional right to be presumed faultless, he now bears the
burden of proving his innocence. Furthermore, his flight negates his self-
righteous proclamation of being the victim of in flagrante adultery. Indeed, if
what he claims is true, he should have reported the incident to the authorities
immediately, instead of hiding from them for over three years.
The Case
Rogelio Puedan appeals the June 16, 1999 Decision 1 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of the City of Malaybalay (Branch 8) in Criminal Case No. 7482-95,
finding him guilty of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, as
follows:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused
Rogelio Puedan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by
treachery. In the absence of any other aggravating and/or a mitigating
circumstance, accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, and to indemnify the heirs of his victim Florencio
Ilar the sum of P50,000.00." 2

The Information 3 dated June 20, 1995, charged appellant in these words:
"That on or about the 21st day of February, 1995, in the morning,
at Purok 2, [B]arangay Paitan, Municipality of Quezon, [P]rovince of
Bukidnon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill [and] by means of
treachery and evident premeditation, armed with a sharp bladed
instrument (flamingo), did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
criminally attack, assault and stab FLORENCIO ILAR, hitting and
inflicting upon the latter the following, to wit:

— Multiple stab wounds

which caused the instant[an]eous death of FLORENCIO ILAR, to
the damage and prejudice of the legal heirs of FLORENCIO ILAR in such
amount as may be allowed by law." 4

Upon his arraignment on June 9, 1998, 5 appellant, assisted by his

counsel, 6 pleaded not guilty. After trial in due course, the court a quo rendered
the assailed Decision.
The Facts
Version of the Prosecution
In its Brief, 7 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) presents the
prosecution's version of the facts as follows:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 "In the morning of February 21, 1995, Florencio Ilar,
accompanied by his six-year old grandson, Reymark Anthony Ilar, went
to the house of Luceno Tulo to buy a piglet.
"Luceno Tulo was fashioning out a mortar (for pounding palay)
near his house when Florencio and his grandson arrived.
"Florencio told Luceno that he wanted to buy a piglet from him.

"Appellant Roger Puedan suddenly arrived and stabbed Florencio

five (5) times, first in the abdomen, with a sharp, pointed knife locally
known as 'plamingco'. Terrified of what he witnessed, Luceno fled
towards the house of his neighbor. Young Reymark ran back to his
parents' house and told his mother, Erlinda Ilar, what transpired.

"Erlinda Ilar ran swiftly to Luceno's place but Florencio was

already dead when she arrived. Florencio was bathed in his own blood
and lying by the side of the rice paddy.
"The body of Florencio Ilar remained where it had fallen until the
arrival of the police later that day." 8 (Citations omitted)

Version of the Defense

Appellant contends that he deserves acquittal, because the killing falls
under the exceptional circumstance referred to in Article 247 of the Revised
Penal Code. He claims to have surprised his spouse whom he had caught in the
act of committing sexual intercourse with another person. Appellant narrates
his version of the facts in the following manner:
"The defense had a different version of the incident that led to
the death of Florencio Ilar. To lay the basis of the questionable
character of the deceased[,] [t]he defense presented the testimony of
JENNEFER NADELA, who claimed that she was once a househelp in the
residence of the Ilars.' During her stay, which lasted only from July 1 to
July 30, 1992, the deceased used to fondle her private parts against
her will. The deceased likewise proposed an amorous relationship with
her, in exchange for some money, which she declined.
"Corroborative of the testimony of Nadela, anent the character of
the deceased, was the testimony of witness VINESA QUINTERO .
Quintero's father and the deceased were drinking buddies. Sometime
in December 1982, when she took her vacation at her parent's house,
her father and Florencio Ilar had a drinking session. When the duo were
through drinking, she washed the drinking glasses of their kitchen.
Florencio Ilar, however, followed her inside the kitchen and without
warning embraced and kissed her. Ilar then proposed that they go
outside in exchange for some amount of money. She declined the
proposition. The incident was repeated during the next weekend when
her father and Ilar had another drinking session. The witness likewise
averred that she heard one of Florencio Ilar's daughter-in-law, Erlinda,
confiding to her mother that Florencio Ilar was a sex maniac, who was
bent on molesting her.
"LEAH PUEDAN, the wife of the accused, admitted having an illicit
relationship with the deceased, Florencio Ilar. The illicit relationship had
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 been going on for two years and was known in their barangay, except
her husband. On February 21, 1995, at about 8:00 o'clock in the
morning, Florencio Ilar came to their house, while she was
breastfeeding her child, and was looking for her husband, Roger
Puedan. When she retorted that Roger was out putting the carabao in a
shade, Florencio then suggested that they have a quick sexual
intercourse, and ordered her to remove her skirt and panty, while also
undressing himself. While they were having sex, Roger suddenly
appeared and was stunned by what he saw. Roger then struck
Florencio with his bolo and the two men grappled with each other. She
then gathered her young child and ran away from the house.
"Accused ROGER PUEDAN, testifying on his behalf, averred that
Florencio Ilar was one of the patrons in the ricefields [where] he works.
As such patron, Florencio usually [brought] him wine and 'pulutan'
which they partook at his house. On February 21, 1995, at around 8:00
o'clock in the morning, he brought his carabao to a shade. Upon his
return, he heard some noises emanating from their bedroom. His
curiosity aroused, he went inside the room and found the already
undressed Florencio having sexual intercourse with his wife. Shaken
and dumbfounded by the revelation, he shouted invectives upon the
copulating pair and found a bolo to stab them. The first thrust was
parried by Florencio, who grappled for the bolo and wrestled with him.
As they wrestled with each other, they fell to the ground, and his hand
was freed from the grip of Florencio. He then stabbed Florencio and hit
him on the stomach. He then proceeded upstairs in search of his wife,
who had already fled." 9 (Citations omitted)

Ruling of the Trial Court

The RTC opined that the prosecution witnesses "were straightforward and
candid in relating the incident." 10 Moreover, "[n]o motive has been shown, and
the court did not find any, why they would fabricate a story." 11 They were able
to establish the fact that appellant suddenly stabbed Florencio Ilar, who was
then buying a piglet outside Luceno Tulo's house.

One of the investigating policemen, SPO4 Antonio B. Inihao, testified that

they found Florencio's body slumped lifeless on a rice paddy near Tulo's house.
This fact, according to the trial court, belied the claim of appellant that it was
outside his house where he had killed Florencio. The body remained where it
had fallen, unmoved and untouched, until the policemen arrived a few hours
later. It was properly clad in a shirt and a pair of buttoned pants. Had appellant
really surprised his wife having sexual intercourse with him, Florencio would not
have had the opportunity to put on and button up his pants, parry the
immediate bolo thrust of appellant then grapple with him.
Appellant thereafter fled and was finally arrested on March 16, 1998, or
about three years after the killing. The trial court observed that his flight was a
strong indication of his guilt.

Conformably, the RTC overruled the contention of appellant that the

killing should be treated under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. It further
said that treachery qualified the killing to murder.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Hence, this appeal. 12

Issues
In his Brief, appellant raises the following alleged errors for our
consideration:
"I

The court a quo gravely erred in finding accused-appellant,

Roger or Rogelio Puedan, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
offense charged.
"II
The court a quo gravely erred in finding the accused guilty of the
crime of murder despite the clear failure of the prosecution to establish
the particulars leading to the stabbing incident." 13

In short, appellant argues that (1) Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code
should be applied in his favor, and (2) treachery should not be appreciated as a
qualifying circumstance.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal has no merit.
First Issue
Exceptional Circumstance
By raising Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code as his defense, appellant
admits that he killed the victim. This provision reads as follows:
"ART. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under
exceptional circumstances. — Any legally married person who, having
surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or
immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical
injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro. . . . "

By invoking this defense, appellant waives his right to the constitutional

presumption of innocence and bears the burden of proving the following:
"1. That a legally married person (or a parent) surprises his
spouse (or his daughter, under 18 years of age and living with him), in
the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person.
"2. That he or she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon
any or both of them any serious physical injury in the act or
immediately thereafter.
"3. That he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of
his wife (or daughter) or that he or she has not consented to the
infidelity of the other spouse." 14

To satisfy this burden, appellant must prove that he actually surprised his
wife and Florencio in flagrante delicto, and that he killed the man during or
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 immediately thereafter. However, all that appellant established was Florencio's
promiscuity, which was inconsequential to the killing. What is important is that
his version of the stabbing incident is diametrically opposed to the convincing
accounts of Prosecution Witnesses Luceno Tulo, Reymark Anthony Ilar, Erlinda
Ilar and Policeman Inihao.
Appellant assails the credibility of the prosecution witnesses by alleging
that Tulo was not at the crime scene when the stabbing occurred. Without
elaborating on the particulars that led to the incident, appellant claims that
Reymark and Erlinda merely underscored the fact that Florencio had been
stabbed. Thus, appellant argues that these witnesses were not able to
contradict his defense.
Well-settled is the rule that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses
and their testimonies is best undertaken by the trial court, because it had the
opportunity to observe them firsthand and to note their demeanor and conduct
on the witness stand. For this reason, its findings on such matters, absent any
arbitrariness or oversight of facts or circumstances of weight and substance,
are final and conclusive upon this Court and will not to be disturbed on appeal.
15

In this case, the RTC found the prosecution witnesses to be credible and
convincing. It observed that Tulo, Reymark and Erlinda were candid and
straightforward in relating their versions of the stabbing incident. Tulo narrated
that he was outside his house fashioning a mortar when Florencio —
accompanied by his then five-year-old grandson, Reymark — arrived in order to
buy a piglet. Standing about a meter away, Tulo recounted that appellant
suddenly appeared and stabbed Florencio on the abdomen with a knife. Tulo
testified thus:
"Q Yes, you said that Roger Puedan stabbed Florencio Ilar, did you
see him [stab] Florencio Ilar?
A That was the time when I turned my head as I was making a
mortar.

Q You mean, that was the time you saw Puedan [stab] Ilar?
A Yes.
Q Now, at the time you were making a mortar, where was this
incident [happening], at your front, at your back or at your side?
A On my side. (Witness referring to his right side).
Q How far were you [from] them when this incident happened?

A Just more than a meter.

COURT: (to witness)
Q You mean, while Florencio Ilar was there to buy [a] piglet you
continued to work on your mortar?
A Yes, Your Honor.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Q Before Roger Puedan actually stabbed Florencio Ilar, did you see
him coming?
A He came suddenly, he passed this way. (Witness pointing to his
front side).
Q He passed by in front of you or by your side?
A On my front, as I was making a mortar.
Q Was he running, walking fast or was walking naturally?

A He was walking fast.

Q Did you hear Puedan say anything when he stabbed Florencio
Ilar?
A No, Your honor.
Q What did he use in stabbing Florencio Ilar?
A A knife. (plamingco).
Q Where was Florencio Ilar hit?

A On his abdomen.
Q What was the position of Florencio Ilar when he was stabbed?
A He was standing on my side." 16

After witnessing the knife thrust, Tulo out of fear immediately ran to his
neighbor's house. He explained:
"Q Now, after you saw this Puedan [stab] Ilar, what did you do?

A I ran away.
Q How many times did you see Puedan stab Ilar?
A Only once.
Q And you said you ran away, towards where?
A To my neighbor." 17

Minutes later, Tulo with some other people went back to the crime scene
and found Florencio already dead, lying several meters away from the former's
house. 18

Similarly, young Reymark testified that appellant had stabbed his

grandfather Florencio five times. He testified thus:
"Q How many times [was he] stabbed by Roger?
A Five (5) times.
Q What instrument did Roger use in stabbing your Lolo?
A A knife.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 Q Where did Roger Puedan stab your Lolo, in what place?
A In the rice paddies.
COURT: (to witness)

Q Were you able to see all the incident?

A Yes, Your Honor.
Q You were at the rice paddies also?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q Why were you there?

A Because he asked me to accompany him.

Q Who asked you?
A Lolo." 19
There had been no untoward incident between appellant and Florencio
immediately before the stabbing, as shown by Reymark's testimony:
"COURT: (to witness)

Q Were you and your Lolo able to reach the house of Ceno before
he was stabbed?

A Yes, Your Honor.

Q So your Lolo was able to talk with Ceno?
A No.
Q Why?
A Because [he] was stabbed.

Q So he was still walking towards Ceno before he was stabbed?

A Not yet.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Did Roger Puedan and your Lolo have a fight before your Lolo
was stabbed?

A No.

Q Did they have [an] argument?

A No, Your Honor.
Q Who arrived at Ceno's place first, your Lolo or Roger?
A Lolo.
Q Where was your Lolo hit the first time he was stabbed?
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 A On his abdomen." 20

Reymark at first stated in his testimony that, before being stabbed, his
grandfather had not been able to talk to Tulo. From the boy's statement,
appellant concludes that Tulo was not at or even near the crime scene. 21 This
inconsistency was clarified when the trial court again questioned Reymark, who
this time stated that his grandfather had indeed been able to see Tulo on that
fateful morning. 22 As posited by the prosecution, such inconsistency in the
testimony of Reymark may be explained by the fact that he was very young
when the incident happened — only five years of age — and was still very
young when he testified on the witness stand three years later. Nonetheless, it
was established that he and his grandfather were at Tulo's place to buy a
piglet, that the boy himself saw his Lolo stabbed by appellant, and that Tulo
was there but disappeared immediately after the first knife thrust.
Even assuming arguendo that Tulo was not at the crime scene, Reymark's
testimony is sufficient to prove that appellant actually stabbed Florencio.
Appellant further alleges that Erlinda, who was the first to arrive at the
locus criminis,. did not see Tulo anywhere. This allegation, however, is
consistent with the testimony of Tulo that he ran to his neighbor's house right
after the first knife thrust.
Furthermore, the physical evidence shows that Florencio lay dead near
Tulo's — not appellant's — house. Erlinda testified that his body remained
unmoved and untouched where it had fallen until the policemen came. 23 In
addition, SPO4 Antonio Inihao's testimony on the attendant circumstances
inspires belief. He testified that the body lay 80 meters away from appellant's
house and only about 15 meters away from Tulo's. 24 This statement contradicts
the claim of appellant that he and Florencio grappled outside the former's
house, where the latter fell and was subsequently killed.

When found, the body of Florencio was fully clothed in a shirt and a pair of
pants, all its buttons intact. 25 We agree with the RTC that had the victim been
caught by surprise while engaged in the sex act, he would not have had the
opportunity to put on his pants, parry the forthcoming bolo thrusts, and then
grapple with appellant.
Appellant's Flight
Further eroding the defense of appellant is the fact that he immediately
fled from the crime scene right after the stabbing incident. He hid for about
three years 26 until he was arrested by the authorities on March 16, 1998. 27 His
flight betrays his defense, because he could have easily relayed his story to the
proper authorities, if he had indeed caught his wife and Florencio in flagrante
delicto.
Through flight, one impedes the course of justice by avoiding arrest,
detention, or the continuance of criminal proceedings. 28 As with self-defense,
the exceptional circumstance provided under Article 247 of the Revised Penal
Code may not prevail in the face of the flight of appellant from the crime scene
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 and his failure to inform the authorities of the incident. 29 Flight bespeaks guilt
and gives credence to the version of the prosecution in this case. 30

Second Issue
Treachery
Similarly without merit is appellant's contention that treachery did not
attend the killing. For treachery to be present, the means, methods or forms of
execution should give the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or
retaliation. And it must be proven that such means, methods or forms of
execution were deliberately and consciously adopted without danger to
appellant. 31
In the present case, the RTC correctly ruled that treachery attended the
killing. Appellant came from nowhere and suddenly stabbed the unsuspecting
Florencio five (5) times. He deliberately and consciously adopted his mode of
attack by lunging at the victim with his knife without any warning whatsoever,
giving the latter no opportunity to defend himself. HSAcaE

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision

AFFIRMED. Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Puno and Corona, JJ., concur.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., is on leave.

Footnotes
1. Written by Judge Vivencio P. Estrada.

2. RTC Decision, pp. 3-4; rollo, pp. 15-16; records, pp. 128-129.

3. Signed by Asst. Prov. Prosecutor Joselito M. Silvosa.

4. Rollo , p. 5; records, p. 19.
5. Order dated June 9, 1998; records, p. 44.

6. Atty. Hollis C. Monsanto.

7. Appellee's Brief was signed by Asst. Solicitors General Carlos N. Ortega and
Maria Aurora P. Cortes, and Solicitor Gabriel Francisco A. Ramirez Jr.

8. Appellee's Brief, pp. 2-3; rollo, pp. 69-70; signed by Asst. Sol. Gen. Carlos N.
Ortega, Asst. Sol. Gen. Maria Aurora P. Cortes and Solicitor Gabriel Francisco
A. Ramirez Jr.

9. Appellant's Brief, pp. 5-7; rollo, pp. 47-49. The Brief was signed by Attys.
Arceli A. Rubin, Amelia C. Garchitorena and (for) Nestor P. de los Reyes of the
Public Attorney's Office.
10. RTC Decision, pp. 2-3; rollo, pp. 14-15.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 11. Id., p. 15.
12. This case was deemed submitted for decision on May 31, 2002, upon
receipt by this Court of appellant's Manifestation (in lieu of Reply [Brief]).
13. Appellant's Brief, p. 1; rollo, p. 43. Original in upper case.

14. People v. Talisic , 278 SCRA 517, September 5, 1997, per Panganiban, J.;
citing People v. Gelaver, 223 SCRA 310, June 9, 1993, per Quiason, J.
15. People v. Magnabe Jr., G.R. No. 143071, August 6, 2002; People v. Obordo ,
G.R. No. 139528, May 9, 2002; People v. Bertulfo , G.R. No. 143790, May 7,
2002; People v. Pacantara , G.R. No. 140896, May 7, 2002.

16. TSN, July 16, 1998, pp. 8-10.

17. Id., p. 11.
18. Id., p. 14.
19. TSN, August 6, 1998, p. 7.

20. Id., pp. 18-19.

21. Id., pp. 12-14.
22. Id., p. 14.
23. TSN, July 30, 1998, p. 17.

24. TSN, February 19, 1999, pp. 5-6.

25. Id., p. 5.
26. TSN, January 27, 1999, p. 12.
27. Commitment Order dated March 16, 1998, records, p. 29; Order dated April
16, 1998, records, p. 36.

28. U.S. v. Alegado, 25 Phil. 510, October 10, 1913.

29. People v. Caguing , 347 SCRA 374, December 6, 2000.
30. People v. Silvano, G.R. No. 144886, April 29, 2002; People v. Enfectana ,
G.R. No. 132028, April 19, 2002.
31. People v. Bayotas, 348 SCRA 627, December 19, 2000; People v. Baltar Jr.,
347 SCRA 579, December 11, 2000; People v. Caber Sr. , 346 SCRA 166,
November 28, 2000.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com