Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 164815 September 3, 2009
SR. INSP. ERR! C. "#$EROSO, Petitioner,
vs.
COURT O% #PPE#$S &'( PEOP$E O% T)E P)I$IPPINES, Respondents.
R S O ! " T I O N
N#C)UR#, J.:
#or resolution is the !etter$%ppeal
&
of Senior Inspector 'Sr. Insp.( )err* +. Valeroso 'Valeroso(
pra*in, that our #ebruar* --, -../ Decision
-
and )une 0., -../ Resolution
0
be set aside and a
ne1 one be entered ac2uittin, hi3 of the cri3e of ille,al possession of firear3 and a33unition.
The facts are briefl* stated as follo1s4
Valeroso 1as char,ed 1ith violation of Presidential Decree No. &/55, co33itted as follo1s4
That on or about the &.th da* of )ul*, &665, in 7ue8on +it*, Philippines, the said accused 1ithout
an* authorit* of la1, did then and there 1illfull*, unla1full* and 9no1in,l* have in his:her
possession and under his:her custod* and control
One '&( cal. 0/ ;+harter %r3s; revolver bearin, serial no. <-0&< 1ith five '<( live a33o.
1ithout first havin, secured the necessar* license:per3it issued b* the proper authorities.
+ONTR%R= TO !%>.
?
>hen arrai,ned, Valeroso pleaded ;not ,uilt*.;
<
Trial on the 3erits ensued.
Durin, trial, the prosecution presented t1o 1itnesses4 Senior Police Officer 'SPO(- %ntonio
Disuanco 'Disuanco( of the +ri3inal Investi,ation Division of the +entral Police District
+o33and@ and pifanio Deri2uito 'Deri2uito(, Records Verifier of the #irear3s and Aplosives
Division in +a3p +ra3e. Their testi3onies are su33ari8ed as follo1s4
On )ul* &., &665, at around 640. a.3., Disuanco received a Dispatch Order fro3 the des9 officer
directin, hi3 and three '0( other police3en to serve a >arrant of %rrest, issued b* )ud,e I,nacio
Salvador, a,ainst Valeroso for a case of 9idnappin, 1ith ranso3.
5
%fter a briefin,, the tea3 conducted the necessar* surveillance on Valeroso chec9in, his
hideouts in +avite, +aloocan, and Bulacan. ventuall*, the tea3 3e3bers proceeded to the
Inte,rated National Police 'INP( +entral Police Station in +uliat, 7ue8on +it*, 1here the* sa1
Valeroso about to board a tric*le. Disuanco and his tea3 approached Valeroso. The* put hi3
under arrest, infor3ed hi3 of his constitutional ri,hts, and bodil* searched hi3. The* found a
+harter %r3s revolver, bearin, Serial No. <-0&<, 1ith five '<( pieces of live a33unition, tuc9ed in
his 1aist.
C
Valeroso 1as then brou,ht to the police station for 2uestionin,. "pon verification in the #irear3s
and Aplosives Division in +a3p +ra3e, Deri2uito presented a certification
/
that the subDect
firear3 1as not issued to Valeroso, but 1as licensed in the na3e of a certain Raul Palencia
Salvatierra of Sa3paloc, Manila.
6
On the other hand, Valeroso, SPO0 %,ustin R. Ti3bol, )r. 'Ti3bol(, and %drian =uson testified
for the defense. Their testi3onies are su33ari8ed as follo1s4
On )ul* &., &665, Valeroso 1as sleepin, inside a roo3 in the boardin, house of his children
located at Sa,ana Ho3es, Baran,a* Ne1 ra, 7ue8on +it*. He 1as a1a9ened b* four '?(
heavil* ar3ed 3en in civilian attire 1ho pointed their ,uns at hi3 and pulled hi3 out of the
roo3.
&.
The raidin, tea3 tied his hands and placed hi3 near the faucet 'outside the roo3( then
1ent bac9 inside, searched and ransac9ed the roo3. Mo3ents later, an operative ca3e out of
the roo3 and eAclai3ed, ;Ho*, 3a* na9uha a9on, baril sa loobE;
&&
Disuanco infor3ed Valeroso that there 1as a standin, 1arrant for his arrest. Ho1ever, the raidin,
tea3 1as not ar3ed 1ith a search 1arrant.
&-
Ti3bol testified that he issued to Valeroso a Me3orandu3 Receipt
&0
dated )ul* &, &660 coverin,
the subDect firear3 and its a33unition, upon the verbal instruction of +ol. %n,elito Moreno.
&?
On Ma* 5, &66/, the Re,ional Trial +ourt 'RT+(, Branch 6C, 7ue8on +it*, convicted Valeroso as
char,ed and sentenced hi3 to suffer the indeter3inate penalt* of four '?( *ears, t1o '-( 3onths
and one '&( da*, as 3ini3u3, to siA '5( *ears, as 3aAi3u3. The ,un subDect of the case 1as
further ordered confiscated in favor of the ,overn3ent.
&<
On appeal, the +ourt of %ppeals '+%( affir3ed
&5
the RT+ decision but the 3ini3u3 ter3 of the
indeter3inate penalt* 1as lo1ered to four '?( *ears and t1o '-( 3onths.
On petition for revie1, 1e affir3ed
&C
in full the +% decision. Valeroso filed a Motion for
Reconsideration
&/
1hich 1as denied 1ith finalit*
&6
on )une 0., -../.
Valeroso is a,ain before us throu,h this !etter$%ppeal
-.
i3plorin, this +ourt to once 3ore ta9e a
conte3plative reflection and deliberation on the case, focusin, on his breached constitutional
ri,hts a,ainst unreasonable search and sei8ure.
-&
Mean1hile, as the Office of the Solicitor Feneral 'OSF( failed to ti3el* file its +o33ent on
ValerosoGs Motion for Reconsideration, it instead filed a Manifestation in !ieu of +o33ent.
--
In its Manifestation, the OSF chan,ed its previous position and no1 reco33ends ValerosoGs
ac2uittal. %fter a second loo9 at the evidence presented, the OSF considers the testi3onies of
the 1itnesses for the defense 3ore credible and thus concludes that Valeroso 1as arrested in a
boardin, house. More i3portantl*, the OSF a,rees 1ith Valeroso that the subDect firear3 1as
obtained b* the police officers in violation of ValerosoGs constitutional ri,ht a,ainst ille,al search
and sei8ure, and should thus be eAcluded fro3 the evidence for the prosecution. !astl*,
assu3in, that the subDect firear3 1as ad3issible in evidence, still, Valeroso could not be
convicted of the cri3e, since he 1as able to establish his authorit* to possess the ,un throu,h
the Me3orandu3 Receipt issued b* his superiors.
%fter considerin, ane1 ValerosoGs ar,u3ents throu,h his !etter$%ppeal, to,ether 1ith the OSFGs
position reco33endin, his ac2uittal, and 9eepin, in 3ind that substantial ri,hts 3ust ulti3atel*
rei,n supre3e over technicalities, this +ourt is s1a*ed to reconsider.
-0
The !etter$%ppeal is actuall* in the nature of a second 3otion for reconsideration. >hile a second
3otion for reconsideration is, as a ,eneral rule, a prohibited pleadin,, it is 1ithin the sound
discretion of the +ourt to ad3it the sa3e, provided it is filed 1ith prior leave 1henever
substantive Dustice 3a* be better served thereb*.
-?
This is not the first ti3e that this +ourt is suspendin, its o1n rules or eAceptin, a particular case
fro3 the operation of the rules. In De Fu83an v. Sandi,anba*an,
-<
despite the denial of De
Fu83anGs 3otion for reconsideration, 1e still entertained his O3nibus Motion, 1hich 1as actuall*
a second 3otion for reconsideration. ventuall*, 1e reconsidered our earlier decision and
re3anded the case to the Sandi,anba*an for reception and appreciation of petitionerGs evidence.
In that case, 1e said that if 1e 1ould not co3passionatel* bend bac91ards and fleA
technicalities, petitioner 1ould surel* eAperience the dis,race and 3iser* of incarceration for a
cri3e 1hich he 3i,ht not have co33itted after all.
-5
%lso in %stor,a v. People,
-C
on a second
3otion for reconsideration, 1e set aside our earlier decision, re$eAa3ined the records of the
case, then finall* ac2uitted Benito %stor,a of the cri3e of %rbitrar* Detention on the ,round of
reasonable doubt. %nd in Sta. Rosa Realt* Develop3ent +orporation v. %3ante,
-/
b* virtue of the
)anuar* &0, -..? n Banc Resolution, the +ourt authori8ed the Special #irst Division to suspend
the Rules, so as to allo1 it to consider and resolve respondentGs second 3otion for
reconsideration after the 3otion 1as heard on oral ar,u3ents. %fter a re$eAa3ination of the
3erits of the case, 1e ,ranted the second 3otion for reconsideration and set aside our earlier
decision.
+learl*, suspension of the rules of procedure, to pave the 1a* for the re$eAa3ination of the
findin,s of fact and conclusions of la1 earlier 3ade, is not 1ithout basis.
>e 1ould li9e to stress that rules of procedure are 3erel* tools desi,ned to facilitate the
attain3ent of Dustice. The* are conceived and pro3ul,ated to effectivel* aid the courts in the
dispensation of Dustice. +ourts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of Dudicial
discretion. In renderin, Dustice, courts have al1a*s been, as the* ou,ht to be, conscientiousl*
,uided b* the nor3 that, on the balance, technicalities ta9e a bac9seat to substantive ri,hts, and
not the other 1a* around. Thus, if the application of the Rules 1ould tend to frustrate rather than
to pro3ote Dustice, it 1ould al1a*s be 1ithin our po1er to suspend the rules or eAcept a particular
case fro3 its operation.
-6
No1 on the substantive aspect.
The +ourt notes that the version of the prosecution, as to 1here Valeroso 1as arrested, is
different fro3 the version of the defense. The prosecution clai3s that Valeroso 1as arrested near
the INP +entral Police Station in +uliat, 7ue8on +it*, 1hile he 1as about to board a tric*cle. %fter
placin, Valeroso under arrest, the arrestin, officers bodil* searched hi3, and the* found the
subDect firear3 and a33unition. The defense, on the other hand, insists that he 1as arrested
inside the boardin, house of his children. %fter servin, the 1arrant of arrest 'alle,edl* for
9idnappin, 1ith ranso3(, so3e of the police officers searched the boardin, house and forcibl*
opened a cabinet 1here the* discovered the subDect firear3.
%fter a thorou,h re$eAa3ination of the records and consideration of the Doint appeal for ac2uittal
b* Valeroso and the OSF, 1e find that 1e 3ust ,ive 3ore credence to the version of the
defense.
ValerosoGs appeal for ac2uittal focuses on his constitutional ri,ht a,ainst unreasonable search
and sei8ure alle,ed to have been violated b* the arrestin, police officers@ and if so, 1ould render
the confiscated firear3 and a33unition inad3issible in evidence a,ainst hi3.
The ri,ht a,ainst unreasonable searches and sei8ures is secured b* Section -, %rticle III of the
+onstitution 1hich states4
S+. -. The ri,ht of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects a,ainst
unreasonable searches and sei8ures of 1hatever nature and for an* purpose shall be inviolable,
and no search 1arrant or 1arrant of arrest shall issue eAcept upon probable cause to be
deter3ined personall* b* the Dud,e after eAa3ination under oath or affir3ation of the co3plainant
and the 1itnesses he 3a* produce, and particularl* describin, the place to be searched and the
persons or thin,s to be sei8ed.
#ro3 this constitutional provision, it can readil* be ,leaned that, as a ,eneral rule, the
procure3ent of a 1arrant is re2uired before a la1 enforcer can validl* search or sei8e the person,
house, papers, or effects of an* individual.
0.
To underscore the si,nificance the la1 attaches to the funda3ental ri,ht of an individual a,ainst
unreasonable searches and sei8ures, the +onstitution succinctl* declares in %rticle III, Section
0'-(, that ;an* evidence obtained in violation of this or the precedin, section shall be inad3issible
in evidence for an* purpose in an* proceedin,.;
0&
The above proscription is not, ho1ever, absolute. The follo1in, are the 1ell$reco,ni8ed instances
1here searches and sei8ures are allo1ed even 1ithout a valid 1arrant4
&. >arrantless search incidental to a la1ful arrest@
-. HSei8ureI of evidence in ;plain vie1.; The ele3ents are4 a( a prior valid intrusion based
on the valid 1arrantless arrest in 1hich the police are le,all* present in the pursuit of their
official duties@ b( the evidence 1as inadvertentl* discovered b* the police 1ho have the
ri,ht to be 1here the* are@ c( the evidence 3ust be i33ediatel* apparent@ and d( ;plain
vie1; Dustified 3ere sei8ure of evidence 1ithout further search@
0. Search of a 3ovin, vehicle. Hi,hl* re,ulated b* the ,overn3ent, the vehicleGs inherent
3obilit* reduces eApectation of privac* especiall* 1hen its transit in public thorou,hfares
furnishes a hi,hl* reasonable suspicion a3ountin, to probable cause that the occupant
co33itted a cri3inal activit*@
?. +onsented 1arrantless search@
<. +usto3s search@
5. Stop and #ris9@
C. Ai,ent and e3er,enc* circu3stances.
0-
/. Search of vessels and aircraft@ HandI
6. Inspection of buildin,s and other pre3ises for the enforce3ent of fire, sanitar* and
buildin, re,ulations.
00
In the eAceptional instances 1here a 1arrant is not necessar* to effect a valid search or sei8ure,
1hat constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or sei8ure is purel* a Dudicial 2uestion,
deter3inable fro3 the uni2ueness of the circu3stances involved, includin, the purpose of the
search or sei8ure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the 3anner in 1hich the search
and sei8ure 1as 3ade, the place or thin, searched, and the character of the articles procured.
0?
In li,ht of the enu3erated eAceptions, and appl*in, the test of reasonableness laid do1n above,
is the 1arrantless search and sei8ure of the firear3 and a33unition validJ
>e ans1er in the ne,ative.
#or one, the 1arrantless search could not be Dustified as an incident to a la1ful arrest. Searches
and sei8ures incident to la1ful arrests are ,overned b* Section &0, Rule &-5 of the Rules of
+ourt, 1hich reads4
S+. &0. Search incident to la1ful arrest. K % person la1full* arrested 3a* be searched for
dan,erous 1eapons or an*thin, 1hich 3a* have been used or constitute proof in the co33ission
of an offense 1ithout a search 1arrant.
>e 1ould li9e to stress that the scope of the 1arrantless search is not 1ithout li3itations. In
People v. !ean,siri,
0<
People v. +ubcubin, )r.,
05
and People v. stella,
0C
1e had the occasion to
la* do1n the para3eters of a valid 1arrantless search and sei8ure as an incident to a la1ful
arrest.
>hen an arrest is 3ade, it is reasonable for the arrestin, officer to search the person arrested in
order to re3ove an* 1eapon that the latter 3i,ht use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape.
Other1ise, the officerGs safet* 3i,ht 1ell be endan,ered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In
addition, it is entirel* reasonable for the arrestin, officer to search for and sei8e an* evidence on
the arresteeGs person in order to prevent its conceal3ent or destruction.
0/
Moreover, in la1ful arrests, it beco3es both the dut* and the ri,ht of the apprehendin, officers to
conduct a 1arrantless search not onl* on the person of the suspect, but also in the per3issible
area 1ithin the latterGs reach.
06
Other1ise stated, a valid arrest allo1s the sei8ure of evidence or
dan,erous 1eapons either on the person of the one arrested or 1ithin the area of his i33ediate
control.
?.
The phrase ;1ithin the area of his i33ediate control; 3eans the area fro3 1ithin 1hich
he 3i,ht ,ain possession of a 1eapon or destructible evidence.
?&
% ,un on a table or in a dra1er
in front of one 1ho is arrested can be as dan,erous to the arrestin, officer as one concealed in
the clothin, of the person arrested.
?-
In the present case, Valeroso 1as arrested b* virtue of a 1arrant of arrest alle,edl* for
9idnappin, 1ith ranso3. %t that ti3e, Valeroso 1as sleepin, inside the boardin, house of his
children. He 1as a1a9ened b* the arrestin, officers 1ho 1ere heavil* ar3ed. The* pulled hi3
out of the roo3, placed hi3 beside the faucet outside the roo3, tied his hands, and then put hi3
under the care of Disuanco.
?0
The other police officers re3ained inside the roo3 and ransac9ed
the loc9ed cabinet
??
1here the* found the subDect firear3 and a33unition.
?<
>ith such discover*,
Valeroso 1as char,ed 1ith ille,al possession of firear3 and a33unition.
#ro3 the fore,oin, narration of facts, 1e can readil* conclude that the arrestin, officers served
the 1arrant of arrest 1ithout an* resistance fro3 Valeroso. The* placed hi3 i33ediatel* under
their control b* pullin, hi3 out of the bed, and brin,in, hi3 out of the roo3 1ith his hands tied. To
be sure, the cabinet 1hich, accordin, to Valeroso, 1as loc9ed, could no lon,er be considered as
an ;area 1ithin his i33ediate control; because there 1as no 1a* for hi3 to ta9e an* 1eapon or
to destro* an* evidence that could be used a,ainst hi3.
The arrestin, officers 1ould have been Dustified in searchin, the person of Valeroso, as 1ell as
the tables or dra1ers in front of hi3, for an* concealed 1eapon that 3i,ht be used a,ainst the
for3er. But under the circu3stances obtainin,, there 1as no co3parable Dustification to search
throu,h all the des9 dra1ers and cabinets or the other closed or concealed areas in that roo3
itself.
?5
It is 1orth* to note that the purpose of the eAception '1arrantless search as an incident to a la1ful
arrest( is to protect the arrestin, officer fro3 bein, har3ed b* the person arrested, 1ho 3i,ht be
ar3ed 1ith a concealed 1eapon, and to prevent the latter fro3 destro*in, evidence 1ithin reach.
The eAception, therefore, should not be strained be*ond 1hat is needed to serve its purpose.
?C
In
the case before us, search 1as 3ade in the loc9ed cabinet 1hich cannot be said to have been
1ithin ValerosoGs i33ediate control. Thus, the search eAceeded the bounds of 1hat 3a* be
considered as an incident to a la1ful arrest.
?/
Nor can the 1arrantless search in this case be Dustified under the ;plain vie1 doctrine.;
The ;plain vie1 doctrine; 3a* not be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscri3inate
sei8ures or to eAtend a ,eneral eAplorator* search 3ade solel* to find evidence of defendantGs
,uilt. The doctrine is usuall* applied 1here a police officer is not searchin, for evidence a,ainst
the accused, but nonetheless inadvertentl* co3es across an incri3inatin, obDect.
?6
%s enunciated in People v. +ubcubin, )r.
<.
and People v. !ean,siri4
<&
>hat the ;plain vie1; cases have in co33on is that the police officer in each of the3 had a prior
Dustification for an intrusion in the course of 1hichH,I he ca3e inadvertentl* across a piece of
evidence incri3inatin, the accused. The doctrine serves to supple3ent the prior Dustification K
1hether it be a 1arrant for another obDect, hot pursuit, search incident to la1ful arrest, or so3e
other le,iti3ate reason for bein, present unconnected 1ith a search directed a,ainst the accused
K and per3its the 1arrantless sei8ure. Of course, the eAtension of the ori,inal Dustification is
le,iti3ate onl* 1here it is i33ediatel* apparent to the police that the* have evidence before
the3@ the ;plain vie1; doctrine 3a* not be used to eAtend a ,eneral eAplorator* search fro3 one
obDect to another until so3ethin, incri3inatin, at last e3er,es.
<-
Indeed, the police officers 1ere inside the boardin, house of ValerosoGs children, because the*
1ere supposed to serve a 1arrant of arrest issued a,ainst Valeroso. In other 1ords, the police
officers had a prior Dustification for the intrusion. +onse2uentl*, an* evidence that the* 1ould
inadvertentl* discover 3a* be used a,ainst Valeroso. Ho1ever, in this case, the police officers
did not Dust accidentall* discover the subDect firear3 and a33unition@ the* actuall* searched for
evidence a,ainst Valeroso.
+learl*, the search 3ade 1as ille,al, a violation of ValerosoGs ri,ht a,ainst unreasonable search
and sei8ure. +onse2uentl*, the evidence obtained in violation of said ri,ht is inad3issible in
evidence a,ainst hi3.1avvphi1
"nreasonable searches and sei8ures are the 3enace a,ainst 1hich the constitutional ,uarantees
afford full protection. >hile the po1er to search and sei8e 3a* at ti3es be necessar* for public
1elfare, still it 3a* be eAercised and the la1 enforced 1ithout trans,ressin, the constitutional
ri,hts of the citi8ens, for no enforce3ent of an* statute is of sufficient i3portance to Dustif*
indifference to the basic principles of ,overn3ent. Those 1ho are supposed to enforce the la1
are not Dustified in disre,ardin, the ri,hts of an individual in the na3e of order. Order is too hi,h a
price to pa* for the loss of libert*.
<0
Because a 1arrantless search is in dero,ation of a constitutional ri,ht, peace officers 1ho
conduct it cannot invo9e re,ularit* in the perfor3ance of official functions.
<?
The Bill of Ri,hts is the bedroc9 of constitutional ,overn3ent. If people are stripped na9ed of their
ri,hts as hu3an bein,s, de3ocrac* cannot survive and ,overn3ent beco3es 3eanin,less. This
eAplains 1h* the Bill of Ri,hts, contained as it is in %rticle III of the +onstitution, occupies a
position of pri3ac* in the funda3ental la1 1a* above the articles on ,overn3ental po1er.
<<
>ithout the ille,all* sei8ed firear3, ValerosoGs conviction cannot stand. There is si3pl* no
sufficient evidence to convict hi3.
<5
%ll told, the ,uilt of Valeroso 1as not proven be*ond
reasonable doubt 3easured b* the re2uired 3oral certaint* for conviction. The evidence
presented b* the prosecution 1as not enou,h to overco3e the presu3ption of innocence as
constitutionall* ordained. Indeed, it 1ould be better to set free ten 3en 1ho 3i,ht probabl* be
,uilt* of the cri3e char,ed than to convict one innocent 3an for a cri3e he did not co33it.
<C
>ith the fore,oin, dis2uisition, there is no 3ore need to discuss the other issues raised b*
Valeroso.
One final note. The +ourt values libert* and 1ill al1a*s insist on the observance of basic
constitutional ri,hts as a condition sine 2ua non a,ainst the a1eso3e investi,ative and
prosecutor* po1ers of the ,overn3ent.
</
>HR#OR, in vie1 of the fore,oin,, the #ebruar* --, -../ Decision and )une 0., -../
Resolution are R+ONSIDRD and ST %SID. Sr. Insp. )err* Valeroso is hereb*
%+7"ITTD of ille,al possession of firear3 and a33unition.
SO ORDRD.
#NTONIO E*U#R*O +. N#C)UR#
%ssociate )ustice
> +ON+"R4
CONSUE$O !N#RES,S#NTI#GO
%ssociate )ustice
+hairperson
MINIT# ". C)ICO,N#-#RIO
%ssociate )ustice
PRES+ITERO ."E$#SCO, R.
%ssociate )ustice
*IOS*#*O M. PER#$T#
%ssociate )ustice
% T T S T % T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution 1ere reached in consultation before the case
1as assi,ned to the 1riter of the opinion of the +ourtGs Division.
CONSUE$O !N#RES,S#NTI#GO
%ssociate )ustice
+hairperson, Third Division
+ R T I # I + % T I O N
Pursuant to Section &0, %rticle VIII of the +onstitution and the Division +hairpersonLs %ttestation, I
certif* that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the
case 1as assi,ned to the 1riter of the opinion of the +ourtGs Division.
RE!N#TO S. PUNO
+hief )ustice
%oot'ote.
&
Rollo, pp. --6$-0-.
-
Id. at &?/$&5<.
0
Id. at --C.
?
Records, p. &.
<
Id. at 00.
5
Rollo, p. &?6.
C
Id.
/
Ah. ;+,; #older of Ahibits.
6
Rollo, pp. &?6$&<..
&.
Id. at 06.
&&
ValerosoGs testi3on* 1as corroborated b* =uson@ id. at &<&.
&-
Rollo, p. &<-.
&0
Ah. ;&,; #older of Ahibits.
&?
Rollo, p. &<-.
&<
The decision 1as penned b* )ud,e Oscar !. !eviste@ id. at 0/$?<.
&5
3bodied in a decision dated Ma* ?, -..?, penned b* %ssociate )ustice %ndres B.
Re*es, )r., 1ith %ssociate )ustices Danilo B. Pine and d,ardo #. Sundia3, concurrin,@
rollo, pp. &5$0&.
&C
Rollo, pp. &?/$&5<.
&/
Id. at &56$&CC.
&6
Id. at --C.
-.
Supra note &.
-&
Rollo, p. -0..
--
Id. at -06$-C..
-0
See De Fu83an v. Sandi,anba*an, 0-5 Phil. &/- '&665(.
-?
%stor,a v. People, F.R. No. &<?&0., %u,ust -., -..?, ?0C S+R% &<-, &<<.
-<
Supra note -0.
-5
De Fu83an v. Sandi,anba*an, id. at &6&.
-C
Supra note -?.
-/
F.R. Nos. &&-<-5 and &&//0/, March &5, -..<, ?<0 S+R% ?0-.
-6
%stor,a v. People, supra note -?, at &<<$&<5.
0.
People v. Sevilla, 06? Phil. &-<, &06 '-...(.
0&
Id.
0-
People v. Tudtud, F.R. No. &??.0C, Septe3ber -5, -..0, ?&- S+R% &?-, &<0$&<?@
+aballes v. +ourt of %ppeals, ?-? Phil. -50, -CC '-..-(@ People v. Sevilla, supra note 0.,
at &06$&?.@ People v. %ruta, 0<& Phil. /5/, /C6$//. '&66/(.
00
Nachura, %ntonio duardo B., Outline Revie1er in Political !a1, -..6, pp. &06$&?-.
0?
+aballes v. +ourt of %ppeals, supra note 0-, at -C/.
0<
0-- Phil. --5 '&665(.
05
?&0 Phil -?6 '-..&(.
0C
??0 Phil. 556 '-..0(.
0/
People v. stella, id. at 5/<.
06
People v. +ueno, 0<6 Phil. &<&, &50 '&66/(.
?.
People v. +ubcubin, )r., supra note 05, at -C&@ see People v. !ean,siri, supra note 0<.
?&
People v. stella, supra note 0C, at 5/<.
?-
Id.
?0
TSN, #ebruar* &6, &66C, pp. -&$-<.
??
TSN, March &C, &66C, p. -C.
?<
Id. at 0.
?5
People v. stella, supra note 0C, at 5/<.
?C
Id.
?/
Id. at 5/5.
?6
People v. +ubcubin, )r., supra note ?., at -C&@ People v. !ean,siri, supra note 0<, at
-?6.
<.
Supra note ?..
<&
Supra note 0<.
<-
People v. +ubcubin, )r., supra note 05, at -C-@ People v. !ean,siri, supra note 0<, at
-?6$-<..
<0
People v. %ruta, supra note 0-, at /6<.
<?
People v. +ubcubin, )r., supra note 05, at -C.$-C&.
<<
People v. Tudtud, supra note 0-, at &5/.
<5
People v. Sarap, ??C Phil. 5?-, 5<- '-..0(.
<C
Id. at 5<-$5<0.
</
People v. )anuario, 00< Phil. -5/, 0.? '&66C(.