Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

G.R. No. L-37908 October 23, 1981

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appelle,

vs.
BENJAMIN ONG y KHO, and BIENVENIDO QUINTOS y SUMALJAG previously convicted as
affirmed in G.R. No. L-34497, accused, BLDOMERO AMBORSIO, alias "VAL", Defendant-
appellant.

On the night of April 23, 1971, victim Henry Chua was last seen alive in the company of his friend
Benjamin Ong. As Chua failed to return to his home,his family, alarmed by his mysterious
desappearance, sought the help of the National Bureau of Investigation, the Manila Police Department,
and the Philippine Constabulary to locate him. Knowing that Bajamin Ong was the last person with
Chua before the disappearance of the latter, the NBI tried to contact Ong. Ong also disappeared, so the
various police agnecies began a manhunt for the apprehension of Ong.

Banjamin Ong was apprehended on August 29, 1971, in Stio patanda, Barrio Balugo, Oas, albay,
Brouth to Ligao, Albay, Ong denied any knowledge of the desappearance of Chua. When Ong was
transferred to CampVicente Lim in Laguna, he attempted to commit suicide. On September 1, 1971,
when Ong was turned over to the NBI for investigation, he unhesitatingly confessed his responsiblity for
the killing of Henry Chua. Ong implicated Bienvienido Quintos as one of his companions in the cirme.
When quintos was arrested he also admitted his participation in the crime, and pointed to Fernando Tan
and Baldomero Ambrosio as their companions in the perpetration of the crime, stating the details of its
execution.

Based on the confessions of Ong and Quintos, the NBI and the Manila Police Department were able to
recover the body of Henry Chua in a state of advanced decomposition. The Identity of the body of Chua
was confirmed by Siy Giap Chua, brother of Henry.   both Benjamin Ong and Bienvenido Quintos were
1

tried (CCC-VII-922-Rizal, for "kidnapping with Murder") and convicted by the Circuit Criminal Court of
Pasig, Rizal, Seventh, Judicial District, (Judge Onofre A.Villaluz) in the "Sentence", dated October 11,
1971.   As both Ong and Quintos were sentenced to death, the criminal case was elevated on
2

automatic review to this Court (G.R. No. L-34497). This Court in its decision dated January 30,
1975,   found the two accused Benjamin Ong y Kho and Bienvenido Quintos y Sumaljag guilty beyond
3

reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, with the qualifying circumstance of treachery, and the
aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and use of motor vehicle offset by the mitigating
circumstances of plea of guilty and one analoguous to passion or obfuscation, thereby imposing the
penalty of reclusion perpetua on both of them.   Said decision became final and executory on February
4

19, 1975. 5

At the time Benjamin Ong and Bienvenido Quintos were tried and convicted by the trial court, accused
Baldomero Ambrosio and Fernando Tan, Alias Oscar Tan, were still at large.  6

After the arrest of accused Baldomero Ambrosio sometime in August of 1972,   an information was filed
7

by the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal against him, to wit:

The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses Benjamin Ong y Kho, Bienvenido Quintos y
Sumaljag, Fernando Tan alias "Oscar Tan", and Baldomero Ambrosio alias "Val" of the
crime of Kidnapping with Murder, committed as follows:

That on or about April 23 to April 24, 1971, inclusive, in the municipality of Parañaque,
province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable court, the
above named accused, being then private individuals, conspiring and confederating
totether and mutually helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
with treachery and known premeditation and for the purpose of killing one Henry Chua
and thereafter extorting money from his family through the use of a ransom note,
 kidnapped and carried away said Henry Chua, initially by means of friendly gestures
and later through the use of force, in an automobile, and later after having taken him to
an uninhabited place in Caloocan City, with the use of force detained him (Henry Chua)
and killed him in the following manner, to wit: The accused after gagging and tying up
Henry Chua and repeatedly threatening him with death, assured him that if he would
write and sign a ransom note for the payment by his family of the sum of $50,000.00
(US), he would not be killed and would be released upon receipt of the ransom note, he
was again gagged and tied up by the accused, and thereafter stabbed in the abdominal
region, several times with an ice-pick, inflicting upon him (Henry Chua) mortal wounds
on his vital organs, which directly caused his death.

All contrary to law with the following generic aggravating circumstances:

(a) Evident premeditations;

(b) Grave abuse of confidence;

(c) Nighttime;

(d) Use of an motor vehicle ;

(e) Use of uperior strenght;

(f) Cruelty.  8

The accused Baldomero Ambrosio pleaded not guilty upon arraignment on August 26, 1972, was tried,
and the trial court rendered its decision dated October 17, 1973, with dispositive portion, to wit:

WHEREFORE, finding the accused Baldomero Ambrosio, Guilty, beyond reasonable

doubt of the crime of Kidanapping with Murder as defined under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article 267 thereto, as charged in the Information, the
Court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Death; to indemnify the heirs of the
offended party the amount of P12,000.00; to pay moral damges in the amount of
P10,000.00 and another P10,000.00 as exemplary damges jointly and severally with
Benjamin Ong and Bienvienido Quintos; and to pay his proportionable share of the
costs.

So Ordered.  9

The evidence for the prosecution, essentially the same as presented and reviewed by automatic
appeal, by this Court in G.R. No. L,34497, established its version as follows:

Dr. Ricardo Ibarrola, Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation stated that he
conducted the autopsy of the deceased Henry Chua, and prepared the necropsy report Exh. "M". The
body of the deceased at the time of the autopsy was already in a far advanced state of decomposition.
The brains, lungs. and other soft tissues of the body were already tot:ally decomposed while some of
the internal organs, like the heart and the liver were already autolized. Dr. Ibarrola located two stab
wounds on the liver, caused by a sharp pointed piercing implement, most probably an ice-pick. He
attributed death to these stab wounds, although he gave the considered opinion that death could have
been hastened by asphyxiation as the probability existed that Henry Chua was by alive.  10

The body of Henry Chua was Identified by his brother, Siy Giap who was present when the body was
exhumed from a shallow grave in Barrio Makatipo Caloocan City. His Identification of the body was
based on the clothes and shoes worn by the deceased, as well as the personal effects found on it,
including an expensive Piaget white gold watch, a lighter, a wallet with driver's license, Diner's card and
other personal papers.  11
Agents Enrique Lacanilao and Diego Gutierrez of the National Bureau of Investigation investigated the
accused Benjamin Ong and Bienvenido Quintos. The original and supplementary extrajudicial
confessions of Ong and Quintos   which led to the successful discovery of the place where Henry Chua
12

was buried and the subsequent exhumation of the body   were Identified by these agents. These
13

witnesses also revealed the recovery of the rope with which Chua's hands were tied and the flannel
cloth with which he was gagged when he was killed.   Both agents testified on the re-enactment of the
14

crime."   In the course of investigation of accused Benjamin Ong and Bienvenido Quintos, the accused
15

Baldomero Ambrosio was implicated. When accused Ambrosio was arrested in August of 1972, he was
brought to the NBI office by the Chief of Police of Batan, Aklan. Ambrosio voluntarily gave the
extrajudicial statement Exhibit "S".  16

Ceferino Castro of the Baliwag Police Department narrated the discovery of Henry Chua's Mustang car
with Plate No. 1602 which was abandoned near a gasoline station at barrio They, Baliwag, Bulacan.
The pictures of the car were identified.  17

Patrolman Marciano Roque of the Caloocan City Police Department, narrated the alleged plan to kin
Chua as initiated by Benjamin Ong. Roque knew Ong for more than five years as the Assistant
Manager of the Acme Shoes Rubber and Plastic Corporation, a company situated in Caloocan City,
owned by Ong's brother-in-law Chua Pak. During the first week of April, 1971, Roque went to the Acme
office to get a pair of rubber sandals. Benjamin Ong invited Roque for a ride in Ong's car, where Ong
revealed his plan to kidnap a person who allegedly cheated Ong in gambling games. Roque tried to
discourage Ong from carrying out his plan. The latter insisted and asked Roque to assist him during the
several meetings that followed between Ong and Roque. Roque claimed he was taken by Ong to Barrio
Matipo, Caloocan City, and shown the place where Ong planned to bury the person he planned to
kidnap and kill. In one of the meetings between Roque and Ong, the former saw a man seated at the
rear of Ong's car and the latter referred to that man as his godson who will help him in the execution of
the crime. That man turned out to be the accused Baldomero Ambrosia Ong tried to persuade Roque to
join the plan as the father of the intended victim happens to be a very rich man and the ransom money
they expected to get would enable Roque to leave the police force and retire. Roque tried to avoid Ong
and urged the latter to forget the matter.  18

Bienvenido Quintos who was previously accused and convicted of the crimes," of murder,   implicated
19

Balintawak. Ambrosio when the former testified in his defense during that trial of CCC-VII-922-Rizal
against Ong and Quintos.   Quintos stated that he could recognize his co-accused, then at large,
20

Fernando Tan and Baldomero Ambrosia On April 23, 1971, Quintos and Tan met Ong and Ambrosio at
the Barrio Fiesta restaurant in Caloocan City. At about 9:00 p.m. they went to the Brown Derby
restaurant at Quezon Boulevard Extension, riding in the Chevrolet car of Ong. They , proceeded
afterwards to Roxas Boulevard where Ong ordered his driver Ambrosio to stop at the Amihan Night
Club. While Ambrosio and Quintos stayed in the car, Ong and Tan went inside the night club. Tan
returned to the car and invited Quintos to go to the nearby Wigwam Night Club. After a while, Tan and
Quintos returned. Tan sat beside the driver Ambrosio while Quintos sat at the rear seat. They followed
another car — a Mustang — from Dewey Boulevard to Cruelty Hall, then to Quiapo, Espana and
Quezon Boulevard Extension, Quezon City. They passed Sto. Domingo Church, made a U-turn, and
turned right to Talayan Village. Quintos saw the car they were following stop in a dark place, and
Ambrosio alighted from their Chevrolet car. Tan pulled a gun as he went to the other parked car — the
Mustang. Quintos followed the two and he saw Tan approach and point a gun at a man while Ambrosio
pulled that man out of the Mustang. That man was the victim, Henry Chua. Tan and Ambrosio forced
Chua to the rear seat of the Chevrolet car, then compelled him to lie down on the floor. Ambrosio took a
rope and tied the feet and hands of the victim, while Tan took a flannel cloth and gagged that man.
They took the route going to San Francisco del Monte Avenue. In the meantime, Ong rode in the
Mustang car and followed them. They, all went to Novaliches road. At a narrow street along the way
both cars stopped. Tan and Ambrosio took the victim from the car as Ong arrived. That man was made
to walk and then made to lie down face up. Ong gave Tan an ice-pick and ordered "patayin na iyan "
(kill him already), who in turn gave the ice-pick to Ambrosia For his part, Ambrosio gave the ice-pick to
Quintos. However, Quintos returned it to Tan, who said "Hindi ka pa pala puwede " (You are not
capable yet). Whereupon, Tan told Ambrosio to focus a flashlight on the center of the front side of the
body of Henry Chua. Tan stabbed Chua twice on the chest. While Tan lighted their way, Ambrosio
carried the upper portion of the body, while Quintos carrying the lower portion. When Quintos got tired,
Tan gave him the flashlight while Tan and Ambrosio carried the body to a hole. The hole was covered
by Ambrosio Ong then stepped repeatedly over the covered hole to compress the earth. They, returned
to the car. Ong drove the Mustang car together with Tan. Quintos and Ambrosio rode in the Chevrolet
car, driven by the latter. They, followed the Mustang to the highway. Later, it was parked and
abandoned near a gasoline station. Then Ong and Tan joined Quintos and Ambrosio in the Chevrolet
and they proceeded to Manila.  21

The version of the defense is as follows:

Accused Baldomero Ambrosio stated that in 1971, he was a family driver of Roger Chen, and before
that employment, he worked for seven years at the Acme Shoes Rubber Corporation. Accused
Benjamin Ong was the manager of the Acme Shoes Rubber Corporation while the accused Tan was a
supervisor in the same company. Ambrosio alleged that Tan was a man of bad reputation, involved in a
killing incident and kidnapping of a woman.  22

In the evening of April 23, 1971, Ong, with Tan and Quintos, picked up Ambrosio from his place so that
the latter could drive for Ong. They, went to a restaurant at Balintawak known as Barrio Fiesta. They
then went to the Amihan Night Club at the Dewey Boulevard. Ong, Quintos and Tan alighted from the
car while Ambrosia remained in the car and he slept. (Barrio trio woke up Ambrosio at about 1:00 a.m.
Tan and Quintos rode with Ambrosio where Ong was riding. They went towards Espana. At the Araneta
Avenue, the car where Ong was riding stopped. Tan ordered Ambrosio to stop in front of the car. Tan
and Quintos went to the other car. Tan introduced himself as a policeman, then he opened the door of
the car and pulled the driver out.  23

'The narration of Ambrosio as to how the crimes," happened substantially coincided in details to the
manner it was described by Quintos.   Ambrosia however, claimed that he did not participate voluntarily
24

in the crime, but rather he was ordered by Tan as to all the acts he did during the execution of the
offense.

Accused Ambrosio admitted that at about 4:00 p.m. of April 24, 1971, he and his wife went to Arayat,
Pampanga. They, stayed two days in Arayat, then he proceeded to his brother's place in Balintawak.
He then went to Aklan up to the time he.   He denied that Ong pointed was arrested in August of 1972.
25

to him as a godson in the presence of Patrolman Roque.   Ambrosio likewise denied that even before
26

April 23, 1971, he was already with Ong, Quintos and Tan and that Ambrosio already dug that hole in
Novaliches where the body of Chua was placed.  27

He also claimed that the extrajudicial statement Exhibit S " was signed by him because he was
maltreated. 28

The principal thrust of the defense's argument that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the
subject matter of this case (complex crimes," of kidnapping with murder) because its jurisdiction as a
Circuit Criminal Court is limited to ... (a) crimes committed by public officers, crimes against persons
and crimes against property as defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code, whether simple
or complex with other crimes," and kidnapping is not one of the crimes that may be tried and decided by
that court, becomes of no moment when this Court in G.R. No. 34497 ruled that Ong and Quintos were
guilty of murder and not kidnapping with murder.   The co-accused of Ambrosio were, therefore, tried
29

and convicted of the crimes," of murder, a crimes," against persons, certainly within the jurisdiction of
the circuit criminal court that rendered judgment in this case.

The only issue in this case, therefore, is whether or not the accused Ambrosio voluntarily participated in
the commission of the crime. That the crimes," of murder was committed has already been established
by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt when this Court convicted Ong and Quintos in G.R. No. L-
34497. This Court already ruled that "Conspiracy, connivance and unity of purpose and intention among
the accused were present throughout in the execution of this crime. The four participated in the
planning and execution of the crimes," and were at the scene in all its stages. They cannot escape the
consequences of any of their acts even if they deviated in some detail from what they originally thought
of. Conspiracy implies concert of design and not participation in every detail of the execution. Thus,
treachery should be considered against all persons participating or cooperating in the perpetration of
the crime." 
30
The defense of the accused Ambrosio that he was an unwilling participant in the killing of Henry Chua
because of threats made by Fernando Tan, to Our mind, cannot be given credence. Quintos, as shown
in his testimony, (Exh. "1") by narrated how Ambrosio participated in the crime, manifesting
voluntariness in his acts throughout the execution of the same. Ambrosio was the one who pulled Chua
from the Mustang car. Ambrosio provided the rope and tied the hands and feet of Chua. He was the
one who drove the car with the victim inside to that place in Novaliches where they by Chua after killing
him. He focused the flashlight on the chest of the victim when Tan stabbed him. He helped carry the
victim to the hole where he was buried, and Ambrosio covered the hole with earth using a spade.
Exhibit "I" for the defense is certainly binding on it.

Ambrosio admitted that he went to different places and to Aklan after the crimes," was committed, and
he was arrested only in August of 1972, nearly two years after the crimes," was committed. He never
revealed to the authorities the crimes," that he alleged to be an unwilling participant of in that long span
of time. He also admitted that there were at least two times when he could have escaped from the
group of Ong when the crimes," was being executed and yet Ambrosio never did so. During the
execution of the felon', Ambrosio never by act or deed protested to the group regarding its cruel
commission. We also cannot fully understand why Ambrosio had to join the group of Tan, if according
to Ambrosia himself, Tan was a man of bad reputation.   Tan has never been apprehended. The
31

defense of Ambrosio that he was threatened by Tan to participate in the crimes," stands
uncorroborated, as contradicted by the testimony of Quintos.The inevitable conclusion is that Ambrosio
voluntarily participated in the commission of the crime.

The trial court did not err in discrediting Ambrosio's claim that he was maltreated by the agents of the
law to extract his extra-judicial statement. (Exhs. "S"). He never did protest the alleged maltreatment
before the Regional Director Nestor Gonzales before whom he signed the statement. Although he had
all the chances to do so, he never filed charges against the persons who allegedly maltreated
him.   The confession of the accused Exhibits "S" is, therefore, admissible against him.
32

As to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances present in the commission of the crime, this Court
already ruled in G.R. No. L-34497, that treachery (alevosia) qualified the killing of Chua to murder.
Chua's hands were tied and his mouth was gagged when he was stabbed twice with an ice-pick. Chua
was defenseless and helpless enabling the accused to commit the crimes," without risk to them. The
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery. The aggravating
circumstance of nighttime (nocturnidad) cannot be absorbed in treachery because in this crimes,"
treachery arose from the defenseless position of Chua when he was killed, while nighttime was
purposely sought by the accused to facilitate immunity in the commission of the crime. The aggravating
circumstance of uninhabited place (despoblado) is also present, due to the deliberate selection of an
isolated place (Barrio Makatipo Novaliches, Caloocan City) for killing and burying the victim. Abuse of
confidence cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance present in the crime, because it does
not appear that the victim Chua ever reposed confidence on Ong. Chua knew that he was far stronger
in money and influence than Ong. The fact that Henry Chua invited Ong night clubbing on that fatal
evening and accommodated the latter in his car did not show that Chua had confidence in Ong.

The aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle in the commission of the crimes," can be
considered present because the Biscayne car of Ong was used to trail the victim's car and to facilitate
the commission of the crimes," and the escape of the accused.

Cruelty (ensañamiento) cannot be considered because there is no evidence that the victim Chua was
by while still alive to make him suffer.

Evident premeditation attended the commission of the crimes, because the accused meditated,
planned, and tenaciously persisted in the accomplishment of the crime.

Accused Ong was given the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and one analogous to passion
and obfuscation"   because Chua previously threatened Ong for non-payment of debt arising from
33

gambling, causing Ong humiliation and shame.  34

Taking into consideration the above aggravating and mitigating circumstances, Ong was sentenced
to reclusion perpetua.   Accused Quintos, although no mitigating circumstance could be appreciated in
35

his favor, was also sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Ong and Quintos were also sentenced "jointly and
severally to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Henry Chua in the amount of P12,000.00; to pay moral
damages in the asphyxiation of P50,000.00; and another P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; and to
pay their proportionate share of the costs. 
36

The present case (G.R. No. L-37908) already pending review iii this Court when G.R. No. L-34497 was
decided on January 30, 1975, should have been decided together with the latter case, as they arose
from the same crime, involving the same accused.

It is Our considered view that the accused Baidomero Ambrosio stands in this case on a similarly
situated position as convicted accused Bienvenido Quintos in G.R. No. L-34497, and should, therefore
be sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and not death.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court dated October 17, 1973, is hereby, MODIFIED, finding the
accused Baidomero Ambrosio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and sentencing
him to reclusion perpetual to indemnify jointly and severally with his co-accused, the heirs of the
deceased Henry Chua in the asphyxiation of P12,000.00; to pay moral damages in the asphyxiation of
P50,000.00; and another P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; and to pay his proportionate share of the
costs.

SOORDERED.

Fernando, C.J, Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and
Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

AQUINO, J., concurring:

The role played by Baldomero Ambrosio, the godson of Benjamin Ong, in the murder of Henry Chua, is
described in this Court's decision in People vs. Ong, L-34497, 62 SCRA 174, 2 10, as follows:

When they reached a dark and secluded place, Benjamin Ong urged Chua to stop the
car for the former to urinate to which the latter obliged. The Biscayne car where
Fernando Tan, Bienvenido Quintos and Baldomero Ambrosio were riding, stopped.
Fernando Tan poked his gun at Chua and pulled him down from his Mustang car with
Ambrosio giving help.

His hands were tied, his mouth gagged with a flannel cloth, and he was placed in the
Biscayne car. Tan and Bienvenido Quintos then rested their feet on him. Then Ambrosio
drove the Biscayne while Ong drove the Mustang. They proceeded towards Barrio
Makatipo, Novaliches, Caloocan City, where Henry Chua was stabbed to death and
buried.

There can be no doubt as to Ambrosio's complicity in the murder of Chua.

Separate Opinions
AQUINO, J., concurring:

The role played by Baldomero Ambrosio, the godson of Benjamin Ong, in the murder of Henry Chua, is
described in this Court's decision in People vs. Ong, L-34497, 62 SCRA 174, 2 10, as follows:

When they reached a dark and secluded place, Benjamin Ong urged Chua to stop the
car for the former to urinate to which the latter obliged. The Biscayne car where
Fernando Tan, Bienvenido Quintos and Baldomero Ambrosio were riding, stopped.
Fernando Tan poked his gun at Chua and pulled him down from his Mustang car with
Ambrosio giving help.

His hands were tied, his mouth gagged with a flannel cloth, and he was placed in the
Biscayne car. Tan and Bienvenido Quintos then rested their feet on him. Then Ambrosio
drove the Biscayne while Ong drove the Mustang. They proceeded towards Barrio
Makatipo, Novaliches, Caloocan City, where Henry Chua was stabbed to death and
buried.

There can be no doubt as to Ambrosio's complicity in the murder of Chua.

Footnotes

1 pp. 393-395, Original Record, CC-VII-Rizal.

2 pp. 19-48, Id.

3 pp. 275-358, rollo, G.R. No. L-34497.

4 pp. 328-329, Id.

5 p. 364, Id.32

6 p. 20, Original Record, CCC-VIII-922-Rizal.

7 p. 59, Id.

8 p. 1, Original Record, CCC-VIII-922-22-Rizal.

9 pp. 472-473, Original Record, CCC-VIII-922-Rizal.

10 pp. 4-22, T.SN., Aug. 7, 1973.

11 Exhs. "I", "J", "K", "C", "H", "D", "E", "F" and "G", pp. 6-17, 47-60, T.SN., August 16,
1973.

12 Exhs "N", "R", "O" and "Q".

13 Exhs. "N-10", "N.l0-a". "N-11".

14 Exh. "L-1" and "L-2".

15 Exhs."P",'P-1"to"P-19".

16 pp. 24-99, T.SN., Aug. 7, 1973; pp. 18-47, T.SN., Aug. 16,1973; pp. 5-15, T.SN.,
Sept. 14, 1973.

17 pp. 61-66, T.SN., August 16, 1973.

18 pp. 2-60, T.SN., August 28, 1973; pp. 2-9, T.SN., Sept. 3, 1973.

19 G.R. No. L-34497.

20 Exhibit "l'.

21 Exh. "I", pp. 2-54, T.SN., September 22, 1971

22 pp. 16-20, T.SN., Sept. 14, 1973.

23 pp. 21-28, T.SN., Sept. 14, 1973.

24 pp. 20-40, T.SN., Sept. 14, 1973.

25 pp. 41-43, T.SN., Sept. 14, 1973.

26 44-45, T.SN., Sept. 14, 1973.

27 p. 46, T.SN., Sept. 14, 1973.

28 pp. 48-80. T.SN., Sept. 14, 1973.

29 pp. 328-329, rollo, G.R. No. L-34497.

30 p. 318, rollo, G.R. No. L-34497.

31 pp. 16-20, T.SN., Sept. 14, 1973.

32 pp. 59-64, T.SN., Sept. 14, 1973.

33 Art. 13, par. 10, Revised Penal Code.

34 pp. 317-328, rollo, G.R. No. L-34497.

35 p. 329, rollo, G.R. No. L-34497.

36 Id.