SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 191752. June 10, 2013.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. JOSE ARMANDO

CERVANTES CACHUELA and BENJAMIN JULIAN CRUZ IBAÑEZ,
accused.

BENJAMIN JULIAN CRUZ IBAÑEZ , accused-appellant.

DECISION

BRION, * J : p

We decide the appeal filed by appellants Jose Armando Cervantes

Cachuela and Benjamin Julian Cruz Ibañez assailing the August 7, 2009 decision
1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-HC No. 03474. The CA decision
affirmed with modification the July 14, 2008 decision 2 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 196, Parañaque City, finding the appellants guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, and
sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. TDcCIS

The prosecution's evidence revealed that on July 23, 2004, Ibañez went to
Weapons System Corporation (WSC) on board an old car, and told Henessy
Auron, WSC's Secretary and Sales Representative, that he was the one who
bought a gun barrel at the company's gun show in SM Megamall. Ibañez
inquired from Henessy about the schedule and the rates of WSC's firing range
and the amount of the membership fee of its gun club. He also asked the days
when there are many people in the firing range, and whether Henessy was
WSC's only female employee. 3
At around 9:00 a.m. of July 26, 2004, Henessy arrived at WSC and rang
the doorbell, but no one opened the door. She went to the back of the office
where the firing range was located, and called Zaldy Gabao, another employee
of WSC. Zaldy answered from inside the store but Henessy did not understand
what he said. Henessy returned to the front door and called again. Zaldy
replied that he could not open the door because his hands were tied. Henessy
called Raymundo Sian, the company's operations manager, and informed him
that Zaldy's hands had been tied. After one hour, the police arrived; they
opened the gate at the back using acetylene. When Henessy and the police
entered the premises, they saw that Zaldy had been handcuffed to the vault.
Zaldy informed the police that the company's gunsmith, Rex Dorimon, was
inside the firing range. The police entered the firing range, and saw the lifeless
body of Rex. 4 Dr. Voltaire Nulud conducted an autopsy on the body of Rex, and
found that the victim suffered several gunshot wounds on the head, thorax and
abdomen, caused by a .45 pistol. 5
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) received an information from
an asset that the group of Cachuela was involved in the robbery of WSC and in
the killing of one of its employees; and that Cachuela had been looking for
prospective buyers of firearms. The NBI formed an entrapment team and
proceeded to Bacoor, Cavite to execute the operation. Upon their arrival, Melvin
Nabilgas approached them and told them that he had been sent by Cachuela
and Ibañez to look for buyers of firearms. The police introduced themselves and
told Nabilgas that they were conducting an entrapment operation against the
suspects of the robbery at WSC. Nabilgas surrendered to the police, and gave
the names of the other persons involved in the crime. 6
Thereafter, the asset contacted Cachuela and informed him that Nabilgas
had already talked to the buyers, and that they would like to see the firearms
being sold. Cachuela set up a meeting with the buyers at a gasoline station in
Naic, Cavite. NBI Special Investigator Allan Lino, Supervising Agent Jerry Abiera
and the asset went to the agreed place. Cachuela came and talked to them, and
brought them inside his house where Cachuela showed them several firearms.
When the agents inquired from Cachuela whether the firearms had legal
documentation, the latter sensed that the meeting was a set-up. The NBI
agents arrested Cachuela before he could make any move. The agents
recovered four (4) firearms 7 from Cachuela's house, including a .9 mm
Bernardelli with serial number T1102-03E000151. 8 ScCIaA

The NBI conducted a follow-up operation on Ibañez whom the asset also
contacted. Ibañez directed the asset to bring the prospective buyers to his
residence in Imus, Cavite. The NBI agents went to Imus and there met Ibañez
whom they saw inside a Nissan California car bearing plate no. PMN 645. Lino,
Abiera and the asset entered the car, and asked Ibañez where the firearms
were. Ibañez brought out two (2) firearms, and showed them to the agents. The
agents asked whether the guns had legal documentation; they then arrested
Ibañez when they sensed that he was already becoming suspicious. The agents
recovered two guns from Ibañez, viz.: a .45 Glock 30 with serial number FML
245 and a .45 Llama with serial number 04490Z. 9
At the NBI Main Office, Zaldy pointed to the appellants, during a police
line-up, as the persons responsible for the robbery at WSC and for the killing of
Re x . 10 Nabilgas also executed a handwritten confession implicating the
appellants and Zaldy in the crime. 11
The prosecution filed an Information 12 for robbery with homicide before
the RTC against the appellants, Nabilgas and Zaldy, docketed as Criminal Case
No. 04-0943. The accused all pleaded not guilty on arraignment. 13 Trial on the
merits ensued thereafter. During trial, Zaldy died. 14
In its decision dated July 14, 2008, the RTC found the appellants guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide, and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. It
also ordered them to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of Rex P50,000.00 as
civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. The trial court likewise
ordered the appellants to pay Hector C. Rodriguez, Jr. 15 P1,563,300.00,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 representing the value of the firearms and ammunitions stolen from WSC.
Excepted from the conviction was Nabilgas whom the RTC acquitted on ground
of reasonable doubt.
The appellants filed an appeal with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CR.-HC
No. 03474. In its decision of August 7, 2009, the CA affirmed the RTC decision
with the following modifications: (a) the appellants were ordered to pay Arms
Depot Philippines, Inc. the amount of P1,093,947.50, representing the value of
the stolen firearms and ammunitions from WSC, with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of the decision until fully paid; and (b) they are
likewise ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of Rex P45,000.00 as
actual damages with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the
decision until fully paid. aDHCAE

The CA held that the following pieces of circumstantial evidence showed

that the appellants robbed WSC and killed Rex during the course of this
robbery: (1) Ibañez visited WSC two days before the robbery and asked several
questions from Henessy; (2) a robbery occurred at WSC where 53 firearms and
several ammunitions worth P1,563,300.00 had been stolen; (3) among the
firearms stolen were a .9 mm Bernardelli with serial number T1102-03E000151
and a .45 Glock 30 with serial number FML 245; (4) Rex, a gunsmith working in
WSC, was found dead at the firing range; (5) Rex sustained gunshot wounds on
different parts of his body; (6) Cachuela and Ibañez were caught trying to sell
the .9 mm Bernardelli, with serial number T1102-03E000151, and the .45 Glock
30, with serial number FML 245, respectively, in separate entrapment
operations; and (7) Cachuela and Ibañez were unable to explain how they came
into possession of the stolen firearms.
The CA ruled that the totality of these circumstances point to the
appellants as the perpetrators of the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide. It disregarded the appellants' defenses of alibi, denial and frame-up
for being self-serving. The CA likewise found unmeritorious the appellants'
argument that the firearms confiscated from them were inadmissible in
evidence, pointing out that the seizures were the result of lawful entrapment
operations. It further held that the appellants failed to impute any ill or
improper motive against the police officers who conducted the entrapment
operations.

Our Ruling
In this final review, we deny the appeal, and resolve to increase the
amount for restitution by the appellants to Arms Depot Philippines, Inc. from
P1,093,947.50 to P1,481,000.00.

"A special complex crime of robbery with homicide takes place when a
homicide is committed either by reason, or on the occasion, of the robbery. To
sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the
following elements: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another;
(2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a
person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed. A conviction requires
certitude that the robbery is the main purpose, and objective of the malefactor
and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must
precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during or
after the robbery." 16 TSIDaH

Admissibility of the out-of-court

identification and the extrajudicial
confession
Lino testified that Zaldy identified the appellants as the persons involved
in the robbery of WSC and in the killing of Rex in a police line-up held at the NBI
Main Office on Taft Avenue, Manila. We note that Zaldy did not testify in court
since he was brought to the National Center for Mental Health, and
subsequently died there during the trial. For this reason, we examine with
greater scrutiny Lino's testimony regarding Zaldy's alleged out-of-court
identification.

People v. Algarme 17 explains the procedure for out-of-court identification

and the test to determine its admissibility, as follows:
Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in various
ways. It is done thru show-ups where the suspect alone is brought face-
to-face with the witness for identification. It is done thru mug shots
where photographs are shown to the witness to identify the suspect. It
is also done thru line-ups where a witness identifies the suspect from a
group of persons lined up for the purpose . . . In resolving the
admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects,
courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they
consider the following factors, viz.: (1) the witness' opportunity to view
the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness' degree of
attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description, given
by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness
at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the
identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness of the identification
procedure. [italics and emphasis supplied]

In the present case, Lino merely stated that Zaldy, during a police line-up,
identified the appellants as the persons involved in the robbery of WSC and in
the killing of Rex. Lino did not state when the line-up took place; how this line-
up had been conducted; who were the persons in the line-up with the
appellants (if there were indeed other persons included in the line-up); and
whether the line-up was confined to persons of the same height and built as the
appellants. Lino likewise did not indicate who accompanied Zaldy before and
during the line-up, and whether there had been the possibility of prior or
contemporaneous improper insinuations on Zaldy regarding the appearance of
the appellants.

To our mind, Lino's failure to state relevant details surrounding the police
line-up is a glaring omission that renders unreliable Zaldy's out-of-court
identification. No way exists for the courts to evaluate the factors used in
determining the admissibility and reliability of out-of-court identifications, such
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 as the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; the
length of time between the crime and the identification; and the suggestiveness
of the identification procedure. The absence of an independent in-court
identification by Zaldy additionally justifies our strict treatment and assessment
of Lino's testimony. TSDHCc

The records also bear out that Nabilgas executed an extrajudicial

confession 18 at the NBI Main Office, where he implicated the appellants and
Zaldy in the crime charged. During trial, he repudiated this confession, and
claimed that he had been tortured by the NBI agents, and that he was forced to
copy a previously prepared statement.

After a careful examination of the evidence on hand, we hold that

Nabilgas' extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence. The Court has
consistently held that an extrajudicial confession, to be admissible, must satisfy
the following requirements: "(1) the confession must be voluntary; (2) it must
be made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel[,]
preferably of the confessant's choice; (3) it must be express; and (4) it must be
in writing." 19

We point out that Nabilgas was already under custodial investigation by

the authorities when he executed the alleged written confession. "A custodial
investigation is understood . . . as . . . any questioning initiated by law
enforcement authorities after a person is taken into custody or otherwise
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant manner. . . . It begins when
there is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and the
investigation has started to focus on a particular person as a suspect, i.e., when
the police investigator starts interrogating or exacting a confession from the
suspect in connection with an alleged offense. 20

In People v. Rapeza , 21 we explained that the lawyer called to be present

during custodial investigations should, as far as reasonably possible, be the
choice of the individual undergoing questioning. If the lawyer is furnished by
the police for the accused, it is important that the lawyer should be competent,
independent and prepared to fully safeguard the constitutional rights of the
accused, as distinguished from one who would merely be giving a routine,
peremptory and meaningless recital of the individual's constitutional rights.
After a close reading of the records, we rule that Nabilgas' confession was
not made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel. The
services of Atty. Melita Go, the lawyer who acted in Nabilgas' behalf, were
provided by the very same agency investigating Nabilgas — the NBI itself; she
was assigned the task despite Nabilgas' open declaration to the agency's
investigators that he already had a lawyer in the person of Atty. Donardo
Paglinawan. Atty. Paglinawan confirmed this fact when he stated that he was
already representing Nabilgas at the time his client made the alleged
confession. Nabilgas also testified that Atty. Go did not disclose that she was a
lawyer when she was called to assist him; she merely represented herself to be
a mere witness to the confession. There was also nothing in the records to show
that Atty. Go ascertained whether Nabilgas' confession was made voluntarily,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 and whether he fully understood the nature and the consequence of his
extrajudicial confession and its impact on his constitutional rights.TAEcCS

To be sure, this is not the kind of assistance required of lawyers in a

custodial investigation. "An 'effective and vigilant counsel' necessarily and
logically requires that the lawyer be present and [be] able to advise and assist
his client from the time the confessant answers the first question asked by the
investigating officer until the signing of the extrajudicial confession." 22 In
addition, the extrajudicial confession of Nabilgas was not corroborated by a
witness who was present at the time the written confession was made. We note
in this regard that the prosecution did not present Atty. Go at the witness stand
despite hints made during the early stages of the trial that she would be
presented.
At any rate, Nabilgas' extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence
against the appellants in view of the res inter alios acta rule. This rule provides
that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another. Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only
on the confessant and is not admissible against his or her co-accused because
it is considered as hearsay against them.
An exception to the res inter alias acta rule is an admission made by a
conspirator under Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. This provision
states that the act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy,
and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator
after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.
Thus, in order that the admission of a conspirator may be received against his
or her co-conspirators, it is necessary that: (a) the conspiracy be first proved by
evidence other than the admission itself; (b) the admission relates to the
common object; and (c) it has been made while the declarant was engaged in
carrying out the conspiracy. 23
This exception, however, does not apply in the present case since there
was no other piece of evidence presented, aside from the extrajudicial
confession, to prove that Nabilgas conspired with the appellants in committing
the crime charged. Conspiracy cannot be presumed and must be shown as
distinctly and conclusively as the crime itself. Nabilgas, in fact, was acquitted
by the trial court due to insufficiency of evidence to prove his participation in
the crime.
Sufficiency of the proven
circumstantial evidence
In view of the inadmissibility of Zaldy's out-of-court identification and
Nabilgas' extrajudicial confession, the prosecution's case rests purely on
circumstantial evidence. Conviction can be secured "on the basis of
circumstantial evidence if the established circumstances constitute an
unbroken chain leading to [a] fair and reasonable conclusion proving that the
accused is the author of the crime to the exclusion of all others." 24 There can
be conviction if the prosecution can establish the appellants' participation in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the crime through credible and sufficient circumstantial evidence that leads to
the inescapable conclusion that the accused, and none other, committed the
imputed crime. 25 IEDHAT

"Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and

circumstances from which the main fact in issue may be inferred based on
reason and common experience. Under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised
Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if the
following requisites concur: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the
facts from which the inferences are derived have been established; and (c) the
combination of all the circumstances unavoidably leads to a finding of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. These circumstances must be consistent with one
another, and the only rational hypothesis that can be drawn therefrom must be
the guilt of the accused." 26

In our view, no doubt exists, based on the appellants' actions, that their
primary objective was to rob WSC, and that the killing of Rex was done on
occasion, or by reason, of the robbery: first, Ibañez went to WSC on July 23,
2004, and inquired from Henessy about the schedule and the rates of the firing
range, the amount of the membership fee of the company's gun club, the days
when there are many people in the firing range, and whether she was the only
female employee of the company; second, when Henessy arrived at WSC at
9:00 a.m. on July 26, 2004, Zaldy informed her that he cannot open the front
door because his hands were tied; third, Henessy called the company's
operations manager and informed him that Zaldy had been tied; fourth, the
police saw Zaldy handcuffed to the vault when they opened the back gate;
fifth, the police saw the lifeless body of Rex lying on the floor with several
gunshot wounds when they entered the firing range; sixth, the operations
manager discovered that 53 guns and several ammunitions had been missing
from the gun store, including a .9 mm Bernardelli with serial number T1102-
03E000151 and a .45 Glock 30 with serial number FML 245; seventh, the NBI
agents caught Cachuela trying to sell the .9 mm Bernardelli with serial number
T1102-03E000151 in an entrapment operation in Cavite; eighth, the NBI
agents caught Ibañez trying to sell the .45 Glock 30 with serial number FML 245
and a .45 Llama with serial number 04490Z in a follow-up entrapment
operation in Cavite; ninth, Cachuela and Ibañez were unable to explain how
they came into possession of the stolen firearms; tenth, Police Inspector Armin
Austria, the PNP Forensic Firearm Examiner, found that the 98 pieces of .45
fired cartridge cases found at the crime scene were fired from the .45 Llama
with serial number 04490Z recovered from Ibañez; 27 and finally, Dr. Nulud
conducted an autopsy on the body of Rex, and found that the victim suffered
several gunshot wounds on the head, thorax, and abdomen caused by a .45
pistol.

From these established circumstances, the overriding intention of the

appellants cannot but be to rob WSC; the killing of Rex was merely incidental
to the robbery. "Intent to rob is an internal act, but may be inferred from proof
of violent unlawful taking of personal property." 28 Rex was killed to facilitate
the robbery; he was also the person who would have been a witness to the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 crime. In People v. De Leon, 29 we held that "[h]omicide is said to have been
committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if, for instance, it was
committed (a) to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to
preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of
the commission of the robbery; or, (d) to eliminate witnesses in the commission
of the crime."
In this regard, we cannot overlook the fact that another WSC employee —
Zaldy — was not killed, but merely tied to the vault. The Court cannot second-
guess on what could have been behind the malefactors' decision to spare
Zaldy's life, but we note that Zaldy became one of the accused in this case
after the Office of the City Prosecutor found probable cause to indict him in the
crime, as the robbery could have been the result of an "inside job."
Unfortunately, Zaldy was unable to testify during trial since the RTC ordered
that he be brought to the National Center for Mental Health for treatment.
Accordingly, Nabilgas' extrajudicial confession (which we ruled to be
inadmissible) was the only evidence linking Zaldy to the crime. For lack of
evidence, we cannot make any definite conclusion and can only speculate on
Zaldy's involvement in the crime charged.

We find it worthy to stress that the appellants failed to overcome the

disputable presumption that "a person found in possession of a thing taken in
the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole
act[.]"30 To recall, Ibañez was at WSC two days before the robbery, asking
questions to the company's secretary. Several days after the robbery, the
appellants were caught trying to sell firearms that were reported stolen from
WSC in separate entrapment operations; they could not satisfactorily explain
how and why these guns came to their respective possession. The appellants
likewise did not impute ill motive on the part of the arresting officers that would
impel the latter to fabricate evidence against them. These factors lead to no
other conclusion than that the appellants, to the exclusion of others, had
robbed WSC. cACDaH

To our mind, the fact that the cartridge bullet shells found at the firing
range (where the lifeless body of Rex had been discovered) matched with one
of the guns recovered from Ibañez during the entrapment operation clinches
the case against the appellants insofar as establishing the nexus between the
robbery and the victim's killing. Notably, the gunshot wounds suffered by Rex
also came from the same caliber of gun 31 recovered from Ibañez. In the final
analysis, the prosecution sufficiently established the direct and intimate
connection between the robbery and the killing, and that the death of Rex had
been committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. When homicide is
committed by reason or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part
as principals in the robbery would also be held liable as principals of the single
and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide, although they did not actually
take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to
prevent the same. 32
The penalty and the awarded civil
indemnities
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Robbery with homicide is a single indivisible crime punishable with
reclusion perpetua to death under paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended. We find that the trial and appellate courts correctly
sentenced the appellants to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua only in the
absence of any aggravating circumstance that attended the commission of the
crime.
We affirm the award of P50,000.00 civil indemnity and P50,000.00 moral
damages to the heirs of Rex, as these awards conform to prevailing
jurisprudence on robbery with homicide when the penalty imposed is only
reclusion perpetua. 33 We also affirm the award of P45,000.00 as actual
damages, as the prosecution successfully proved this amount through a
receipt.

The CA ordered the appellants to restitute the amount of P1,093,947.50,

representing of the value of the stolen firearms and ammunitions. We,
however, increase this amount to the total amount of P1,481,000.00 as this is
the value of the stolen items as proven by the evidence on record. 34
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the decision of the Court of
Appeals dated August 7, 2009 in CA-G.R. CR.-HC No. 03474 is AFFIRMED with
the MODIFICATION that the amount to be restituted by the appellants to Arms
Depot Philippines, Inc. be increased from P1,093,947.50 to P1,481,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
Del Castillo, Perez, Perlas-Bernabe and Leonen, ** JJ., concur.

Footnotes
*In lieu of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio per Special Order No. 1460 dated
May 29, 2013.

**Designated as Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio per

Special Order No. 1461 dated May 29, 2013.

1.Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, and concurred in by

Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Antonio L. Villamor; rollo, pp. 2-
44.
2.CA rollo, pp. 14-35.

3.TSN, June 9, 2005, pp. 19-23.

4.Id. at 7-12.
5.Records, p. 546.
6.TSN, July 7, 2005, pp. 8-15.
7.The other firearms recovered from Cachuela were a .22 Cooley Model 600 with
serial number 9196; a .45 Federal Caliber Pistol Receiver with serial number
502173; and a .45 Llama Pistol with serial number 07-04-15949-96.
8.TSN, July 7, 2005, pp. 15-18.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 9.Id. at 24-27.
10.Id. at 29-30.
11.Id. at 31.
12.Records, p. 2.

13.Id. at 166-169.
14.Id. at 620-621.
15.The Branch Manager of Arms Depot Philippines, Inc.
16.People v. Algarme , G.R. No. 175978, February 12, 2009, 578 SCRA 601, 621;
citations omitted.
17.Id. at 617-618, citing People v. Teehankee, Jr. , G.R. Nos. 111206-08, October 6,
1995, 249 SCRA 54.
18.Records, p. 21.
19.See People v. Bacor, 366 Phil. 197, 212 (1999).

20.See People v. Morial, 415 Phil. 310, 329 (2001); citation omitted, italics
supplied.

21.G.R. No. 169431, April 4, 2007, 520 SCRA 596, 623-624, citing People v.
Deniega , 321 Phil. 1028, 1041-1042 (1995); italics supplied.
22.See People v. Tomaquin , 478 Phil. 885, 901 (2004).

23.See People v. Bokingo , G.R. No. 187536, August 10, 2011, 655 SCRA 313, 332-
333.

24.People v. Umayam , 431 Phil. 23, 32 (2002).

25.See People v. Biglete , G.R. No. 182920, June 18, 2012, 673 SCRA 546, 554.
26.See People v. Romero , G.R. No. 181041, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 210,
214; citation omitted.
27.Per Firearms Identification Report No. FAIS-080-A-2004, no conclusion could be
rendered as to whether the seven other .45 fired bullets submitted for
examination had been fired from the Llama .45 pistol with serial number
04490Z.
28.See People v. De Leon , G.R. No. 179943, June 26, 2009, 591 SCRA 178, 193,
citing People v. De Jesus, 473 Phil. 405, 407 (2004).
29.Id. at 194.
30.Rules of Court, Rule 131, Section 3 (j).

31.The records do not indicate the gun's serial number.

32.See People v. Ebet, G.R. No. 181635, November 15, 2010, 634 SCRA 689, 705-
706.
33.See People v. Uy, G.R. No. 174660, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 236, 260.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 34.Records, pp. 71-73.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com