EN BANC

[G.R. No. 126043. April 19, 2000.]

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

MAGAYAC, defendant-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Public Attorney's Office for accused-appellant.

SYNOPSIS

In an Information dated 4 March 1994 the accused was charged with Murder for
feloniously shooting to death Jiminardo Jimmy Lumague with the qualifying
circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation and generic aggravating
circumstance of taking advantage of public position as a member of the CAFGU. The
accused invoked self-defense. After trial, the accused failed to persuade the court to
lean to his side. It found him guilty of murder qualified by treachery or evident
premeditation and aggravated by cruelty and taking advantage of his public
position. His voluntary surrender was appreciated as a mitigating circumstance.
Nevertheless, he was sentenced to death. He was also ordered to indemnify the
heirs of the victim and to pay actual damages.

The Supreme Court was not convinced of the accused's theory of self-defense. There
was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Contrary to his story, the
prosecution had established through its eyewitnesses that it was he and not the
victim who was constantly making unlawful aggressive moves. It was the accused
who boxed and threatened the victim the day previous to the incident. The accused
was the one who challenged the victim to a fight that morning of the incident. He
was the one who approached the unarmed Jimmy and pumped nine (9) bullets into
the hapless victim, causing his instantaneous death. More so will the plea be
disregarded when the number of wounds on the victim's body is considered. cECTaD

The lower court correctly concluded that there was evident premeditation, and it
was this aggravating circumstance, not treachery, which qualified the killing to
murder. However, the eight (8) shots on the victim's back cannot ipso facto be
considered as cruelty or ignominy. The mere fact of inflicting various successive
wounds upon a person in order to cause his death, no appreciable time intervening
between the infliction of one (1) wound and that of another to show that he had
wanted to prolong the suffering of his victim, is not sufficient for taking this
aggravating circumstance into consideration.

As to abuse of public position, the fact that accused-appellant was a member of the
dreaded CAFGU and used his government-issued M-14 rifle to kill the victim did not
necessarily prove that he took advantage of his public position to commit the crime.
When the commission of the offense is attended by a mitigating circumstance, in
this case voluntary surrender, and there is no other aggravating circumstance, the
lesser penalty shall be applied. Hence, the imposable penalty in the case at bar is
reclusion perpetua and not death. The Court, therefore, affirmed with modification
the decision of the trial court.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW; JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; PLEA OF SELF-DEFENSE;

ELEMENTS. — The invocation of self-defense is an admission of the killing and of its
authorship. By this admission, the burden of proof shifts to the accused who must
now establish with clear and convincing evidence all the elements of this justifying
circumstance, to wit: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b)
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and, (c) lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense. In proving
these elements, the accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence. He can
no longer assail the weakness of the evidence against him simply because it cannot
be disbelieved after his open admission of responsibility for the killing.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; LACK OF UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION ON PART OF VICTIM;

CASE AT BAR. — Neither are we convinced of the accused's theory of self-defense.
There was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim to speak of. Contrary to
his story, the prosecution had established through its eyewitnesses that it was he
and not the victim who was constantly making unlawful aggressive moves. It was
the accused who boxed and threatened Jimmy the day previous to the incident. The
accused was the one who challenged the victim to a fight that morning of the
incident. He was the one who approached the unarmed Jimmy and pumped nine (9)
bullets into the hapless victim, causing his instantaneous death.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; CANNOT BE APPRECIATED WHEN UNCORROBORATED BY

INDEPENDENT AND COMPETENT EVIDENCE BUT ALSO EXTREMELY DOUBTFUL BY
ITSELF. — A plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated where it is not
only uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence, but also extremely
doubtful by itself. We have ruled in People v . Gil Tadeje that in the absence of any
other proof presented showing unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, there
can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; DISPROVED BY NATURE AND NUMBER OF WOUNDS INFLICTED

BY ACCUSED. — The plea of self-defense must be disregarded when we take into
account the number of wounds on Jimmy's body — four (4) simultaneous gunshot
wounds at the back, two (2) gunshot wounds at the upper back, two (2) gunshot
wounds at the back of arms and only one (1) gunshot wound at the front left hip. It
is an oft-repeated rule that the nature and number of wounds inflicted by the
accused are constantly and unremittingly considered as important indicia which
disprove a plea for self-defense because they demonstrate a determined effort to kill
the victim and not just defend oneself.
5. ID.; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; TREACHERY; NOT PRESENT IN CASE
AT BAR. — Treachery is present when there is the employment of means of
execution that give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or
retaliate and the method of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted. In
this case, there is no showing that the accused employed means to ensure
execution of the crime without any risk to himself, more so that he did it
deliberately. The prosecution showed that Jimmy was amply warned by his mother
of Magayac's possible murderous intention, a warning that he at first ignored but
later heeded when he saw the accused walking towards him with a gun. That
Jimmy was put on guard was gleaned from his immediate reaction of trying to run
away at the sight of the accused. Even when he was becalmed by the assuring
words of the accused that he would not hurt him, the deceased was again alerted on
the real intentions of the accused when the latter warned Jack Balana, "Jack, umalis
ka na, baka mapadamay ka pa." Also, that Jimmy had deduced the subsequent
actions of the accused was shown by his second attempt to run just before he was
hit on the hip. Thus, far from being caught unaware by any act of the accused,
Jimmy was given every opportunity to avoid the danger he was in. Not even the
fact that the victim was shot repeatedly on the back while he was kneeling on the
ground with hands upraised and begging for his life be considered as treacherous.
The subsequent firing was a mere continuation of the assault in which the deceased
was wounded as no appreciable time intervened in between the successive firing of
the rifle.

6. ID.; ID.; CRUELTY; WHEN IT MAY BE APPRECIATED. — For cruelty to be

appreciated against the accused, it must be shown that the accused, for his pleasure
and satisfaction, caused the victim to suffer slowly and painfully as he inflicted on
him unnecessary physical and moral pain. The crime is aggravated because by
deliberately increasing the suffering of the victim the offender denotes sadism and
consequently a marked degree of malice and perversity. The mere fact of inflicting
various successive wounds upon a person in order to cause his death, no appreciable
time intervening between the infliction of one (1) wound and that of another to
show that he had wanted to prolong the suffering of his victim, is not sufficient for
taking this aggravating circumstance into consideration.

7. ID.; ID.; EVIDENT PREMEDITATION; WHEN IT EXISTS; CASE AT BAR. — To

establish premeditation, it must be shown that there was a period sufficient to
afford full opportunity for reflection and a time adequate to allow the conscience of
the actor to overcome the resolution of his will. The circumstances shown herein are
more than enough to convince this Court that prior to the killing accused-appellant
had resolved to exact his pound of flesh and the rain of bullets from the M-14 rifle
which snuffed out the life of J immy was the result of a cold and dispassionate
calculation on the part of accused-appellant.

8. ID.; ID.; ID.; APPRECIATED IN CASE AT BAR. — The lower court correctly
concluded that there was evident premeditation, and it was this aggravating
circumstance, not treachery, which qualified the killing to murder. To recall, prior to
the shooting, the following transpired: (a) Jimmy and the father of accused-
appellant almost came to blows while fishing in the open sea on 11 February 1994
at 9:00 o'clock in the evening after the latter hit Jimmy for no apparent reason at
all; (b) two (2) hours later, while Jimmy was on board the banca and pulling the
fishnet, accused-appellant and his father pounced on Jimmy. When asked by his
uncle why they were ganging up on his nephew, accused-appellant retorted, Bakit,
lalaban ba kayo, bukas lagot kayo sa akin; and, (c) at 7:00 o'clock in the morning of
that fateful day, Jimmy and accused-appellant had a fistfight where Jimmy
supposedly won. It is not difficult to conclude that the above circumstances fuelled
the resentment felt by accused-appellant which culminated in his predetermined
plan to spite and kill Jimmy. There is no ambiguity in those ominous words directed
at Jimmy and his uncle, Bakit, lalaban ba kayo, bukas lagot kayo sa akin. Here was a
man bent on requital, vengeance. And between those threatening utterances and
the one-on-one confrontation where the victim emerged as the victor, and the
actual gunning down of the victim, more than eleven (11) hours intervened thus
giving accused-appellant sufficient time to ponder on the consequences of his
malevolent plan.

9. ID.; ID.; ABUSE OF PUBLIC POSITION; NOT PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR. — As to

abuse of public position, the essential question is whether the accused abused his
office in order to commit the crime. That accused-appellant was a member of the
dreaded CAFGU and used his government issued M-14 rifle to kill Jimmy does not
necessarily prove that he took advantage of his public position to commit the crime.

10. ID.; MURDER; PENALTY WHEN ATTENDED BY A MITIGATING

CIRCUMSTANCE AND NO OTHER AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE. — The penalty for
murder under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659, is
reclusion perpetua to death. When the commission of the offense is attended by a
mitigating circumstance, in this case voluntary surrender, and there is no other
aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Hence, the imposable
penalty in the case at bar is reclusion perpetua and not death.
AICEDc

11. CIVIL LAW; DAMAGES; ACTUAL DAMAGES; AWARD THEREOF DELETED FOR
LACK OF PROOF. — As no evidence, testimonial or documentary, was presented as
proof, the award of P20,000.00 for funeral expenses should be deleted.

DECISION

BELLOSILLO, J : p

MANUEL MAGAYAC, a member of the CAFGU, was found guilty of MURDER and
sentenced to DEATH by the court a quo. His conviction is the subject of this
automatic review. 1

The records show that on 11 February 1994 at around 9:00 o'clock in the evening
Jiminardo Jimmy Lumague, Edwin Lumague, Tino Magayac, Manuel Magayac and
other menfolk of Barangay Paraiso, Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, were on the
shore preparing for night fishing. 2 Jimmy was sitting on the kamarote when Tino
Magayac, father of the accused, pushed Jimmy for no apparent reason. When Jimmy
asked, " Bakit mo ako tinabig (Why did you push me)?" Tino answered, " Bakit,
lalaban ka baga (Why, do you want to fight)?" Tino then hit Jimmy at the back
(dinagukan). Before they could come to blows, cooler heads intervened.

Two (2) hours later, as the group was already at sea and the Lumague brothers
were pulling the fishnet for the night catch, Tino once more approached Jimmy and
without any preliminaries hit him at the collar and at the stomach. Accused Manuel
Magayac also advanced towards Jimmy and tried to box him with his right hand. 3
Again, the fight was averted with the captain threatening to drop them into the sea
if they did not stop. When Jimmy's Uncle Kanuto asked, "Why are you ganging up
on my nephew?" the accused answered, "Bakit, lalaban ba kayo? Bukas lagot kayo
sa akin. (Why, do you want to fight? Tomorrow, you will see)." 4

At about 7:00 o' clock early next morning, Jimmy Lumague and the accused met
again and exchanged blows. 5 In this one-on-one fight, it seemed that Jimmy was
the better fighter. 6 The protagonists were once more separated; it was however
apparent that the accused was furious for having obviously been beaten.

At about 6:00 o'clock the following evening, 12 February 1994, Eliza Lumague,
Jimmy's mother, was at home with her husband and Edwin when they saw the
accused carrying a long rifle pass by the store of Pikong Paez . 7 Advised by her
husband to follow the accused and warn Jimmy of possible reprisal, Eliza looked for
her son at Nestor Balana's house near the beach. She found him there sitting on a
bench talking with Nicanor Jack Balana at the balisbisan of Balana's house. 8 Eliza
warned Jimmy of the accused's impending arrival and urged him to go home. But he
replied, "Inay, manguna na po kayo at ako ay susunod" (Mother, please go ahead,
I'll follow you). As Eliza turned to go, she saw the accused approached Jimmy, the
former saying to the latter, "Huwag kang tumakbo, hinde kita aanuhin" (Don't run,
I won't do anything to you). Jimmy who as about to run, upon hearing the remark,
stopped. 9

The accused then turned to Nicanor and said, "Jack, umalis ka na baka mapadamay
ka pa (Go, Jack, you might get involved)." 10 Nicanor immediately retreated to his
brother's house, a distance of two (2) to five (5) meters away. Jimmy was trying to
leave the place when he was shot by the accused and hit on his right stomach.
J immy fell down on his knees and collapsed on the ground, face down. Manuel
cocked his gun again and shot at Jimmy's back several times. Manuel then went to
the 262nd PC Mobile Force where he surrendered. 11

Jimmy's body was autopsied by Dr. Rosalinda Baldos at 9:00 o' clock that same
evening who reported: "FINDINGS: General Physical Appearance shows a sthenic
body with Multiple Gunshot Wounds described as follows: (1) Four (4) Gunshot
Wounds 0.5 CM in diameter at the Left Posterior Chest with exit wounds (9
lacerated) at the Anterior Chest Left; (2) Two (2) Gunshot Wounds Right Posterior
Chest measuring 0.5 CM; (3) Gunshot Wound Hip Anterior left 0.5 CM in diameter
with exit wound at the Right Buttocks; and, (4) Two (2) Gunshot Wounds Arm
Posterior with exit wound at the Anterior Portion with Complete Fracture of the
Humerus. CONCLUSION: The cause of death is Cardiorespiratory Failure due to
Shock due to Severe External and Internal Hemorrhages due to Multiple Gunshot
Wounds Body and Extremities." 12

In an Information dated 4 March 1994 the accused was charged with Murder for
feloniously shooting to death Jiminardo J i m m y Lumague with the qualifying
circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation and generic aggravating
circumstance of taking advantage of public position as a member of the CAFGU. 13

The accused invoked self-defense. With himself as sole witness in his behalf he
asserted that between 5:30 and 6:00 o' clock in the afternoon of 12 February 1994
he was walking to the PC Camp to report for duty as CAFGU when Jimmy suddenly
appeared about four (4) armslength away. Jimmy was holding a balisong (fan knife)
on his right hand. He rushed towards him (Manuel) so he had to fire his gun as he
could no longer retreat. His back was already against a housewall. He shot Jimmy on
the front right side above his right thigh and then promptly surrendered to Sgt.
Martin Calingasan at the PC Camp. 14

The accused failed to persuade the court to lean to his side. It found him guilty of
murder qualified by treachery or evident premeditation and aggravated by cruelty
and taking advantage of his public position as member of the CAFGU. His voluntary
surrender was appreciated as a mitigating circumstance. Nevertheless, he was
sentenced to death. He was also ordered to indemnify the heirs of Jiminardo Jimmy
Lumague with P50,000.00 for loss of life and P20,000.00 for funeral expenses. 15

The accused now contends that the trial court erred in not acquitting him on the
ground of self-defense, and for appreciating treachery and evident premeditation as
qualifying aggravating circumstances along with the generic aggravating
circumstances of cruelty and taking advantage of public position in the commission
of the crime.

The invocation of self-defense is an admission of the killing and of its authorship. By

this admission, the burden of proof shifts to the accused who must now establish
with clear and convincing evidence all the elements of this justifying circumstance,
to wit: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of
the means employed to prevent or repel it; and, (c) lack of sufficient provocation on
the part of the person resorting to self-defense. 16 In proving these elements, the
accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence. He can no longer assail the
weakness of the evidence against him simply because it cannot be disbelieve after
his open admission of responsibility for the killing. 17

Neither are we convinced of the accused's theory of self-defense. There was no

unlawful aggression on the part of the victim to speak of. Contrary to his story, the
prosecution had established through its eyewitnesses that it was he and not the
victim who was constantly making unlawful aggressive moves.

It was the accused who boxed and threatened J im m y the day previous to the
incident. The accused was the one who challenged the victim to a fight that
morning of the incident. He was the one who approached the unarmed Jimmy and
pumped nine (9) bullets into the hapless victim, causing his instantaneous death.

We quote with approval the following findings of the trial court — 18

This (theory of accused) was simply unbelievable and very far-fetched. In

the first place, it was shown during his cross-examination that from his
(accused's) house going to the PC Camp where accused was supposed to
report, one does not have to pass by the seashore where the victim and his
friend were chatting. The accused could simply walk straight from his house
to his Camp which was only a short distance away without taking a longer
and more cumbersome way passing by the seashore. And in the second
place, the Court finds it hard to believe that the victim would be stupid
enough to attack a member of the dreaded CAFGU who was armed with a
long rifle, even admitting arguendo that the victim had a knife in his right
hand. It is simply against human behaviour. And besides, there was no
evidence showing the existence of any knife whatsoever. Immediately after
the killing, comrades in arms of the accused (the PC) came to the place of
the incident to investigate and there was no report regarding the presence
of any knife whatsoever or any bladed instrument for that matter.

Indeed, a plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated where it is not only

uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence, but also extremely
doubtful by itself. 19 We have ruled in People v. Gil Tadeje 20 that in the absence of
any other proof presented showing unlawful aggression on the part of the victim,
there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete.

More so will the plea be disregarded when we take into account the number of
wounds on Jimmy's body — four (4) simultaneous gunshot wounds at the back, two
(2) gunshot wounds at the upper back, two (2) gunshot wounds at the back of arms
and only one (1) gunshot wound at the front left hip. It is an oft-repeated rule that
the nature and number of wounds inflicted by the accused are constantly and
unremittingly considered as important indicia which disprove a plea for self-defense
because they demonstrate a determined effort to kill the victim and not just defend
oneself. 21

However, there is need to reexamine the appreciation by the trial court of the
qualifying and aggravating circumstances.

Treachery is considered present when there is the employment of means of

execution that give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or
retaliate and the method of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted. 22 In
this case, there is no showing that the accused employed means to ensure
execution of the crime without any risk to himself, more so that he did it
deliberately.

The prosecution showed that Jimmy was amply warned by his mother of Magayac's
possible murderous intention, a warning that he at first ignored but later heeded
when he saw the accused walking towards him with a gun. That Jimmy was put on
guard was gleaned from his immediate reaction of trying to run away at the sight of
the accused. Even when he was becalmed by the assuring words of the accused that
he would not hurt him, the deceased was again alerted on the real intentions of the
accused when the latter warned Jack Balana, "Jack, umalis ka na, baka mapadamay
ka pa." 23 Also, that Jimmy had deduced the subsequent actions of the accused was
shown by his second attempt to run just before he was hit on the hip. Thus, far from
being caught unaware by any act of the accused, J i m m y was given every
opportunity to avoid the danger he was in.

Not even the fact that the victim was shot repeatedly on the back while he was
kneeling on the ground with hands upraised and begging for his life be considered as
treacherous. The subsequent firing was a mere continuation of the assault in which
the deceased was wounded as no appreciable time intervened in-between the
successive firing of the rifle. 24

It is also for this reason that the eight (8) shots on the victim's back cannot ipso
facto be considered as cruelty or ignominy. For cruelty to be appreciated against the
accused, it must be shown that the accused, for his pleasure and satisfaction, caused
the victim to suffer slowly and painfully as he inflicted on him unnecessary physical
and moral pain. The crime is aggravated because by deliberately increasing the
suffering of the victim the offender denotes sadism and consequently a marked
degree of malice and perversity. The mere fact of inflicting various successive
wounds upon a person in order to cause his death, no appreciable time intervening
between the infliction of one (1) wound and that of another to show that he had
wanted to prolong the suffering of his victim, is not sufficient for taking this
aggravating circumstance into consideration. 25

But the lower court correctly concluded that there was evident premeditation, and it
was this aggravating circumstance, not treachery, which qualified the killing to
murder. To recall, prior to the shooting, the following transpired: (a) Jimmy and the
father of accused-appellant almost came to blows while fishing in the open sea on
11 February 1994 at 9:00 o'clock in the evening after the latter hit Jimmy for no
apparent reason at all; (b) two (2) hours later, while Jimmy was on board the banca
and pulling the fishnet, accused-appellant and his father pounced on Jimmy. When
asked by his uncle why they were ganging up on his nephew, accused-appellant
retorted, Bakit, lalaban ba kayo, bukas lagot kayo sa akin; and, (c) at 7:00 o'clock in
the morning of that fateful day, Jimmy and accused-appellant had a fistfight where
Jimmy supposedly won.

It is not difficult to conclude that the above circumstances fuelled the resentment
felt by accused-appellant which culminated in his predetermined plan to spite and
kill Jimmy. There is no ambiguity in those ominous words directed at Jimmy and his
uncle, Bakit, lalaban ba kayo, bukas lagot kayo sa akin. Here was a man bent on
requital, vengeance. And between those threatening utterances and the one-on-one
confrontation where the victim emerged as the victor, and the actual gunning down
of the victim, more than eleven (11) hours intervened thus giving accused-appellant
sufficient time to ponder on the consequences of his malevolent plan.

As the trial court aptly observed, "Smarting from the licking he received the accused
carefully planned his revenge and some eleven (11) hours thereafter, somehow
learning that the victim was somewhere near the seashore, the accused armed with
an M-14 rifle issued to him by the Government as a member of the CAFGU,
purposely sought the victim out and immediately shot him after tricking the latter
into believing that he (accused) would not harm him (victim)." 26

To establish premeditation, it must be shown that there was a period sufficient to

afford full opportunity for reflection and a time adequate to allow the conscience of
the actor to overcome the resolution of his will. The circumstances shown herein are
more than enough to convince this Court that prior to the killing accused-appellant
had resolved to exact his pound of flesh and the rain of bullets from the M-14 rifle
which snuffed out the life of J immy was the result of a cold and dispassionate
calculation on the part of accused-appellant.

As to abuse of public position, the essential question is whether the accused abused
his office in order to commit the crime. 27 That accused-appellant was a member of
the dreaded CAFGU and used his government issued M-14 rifle to kill Jimmy does
not necessarily prove that he took advantage of his public position to commit the
crime.

The penalty for murder under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
RA 7659, is reclusion perpetua to death. When the commission of the offense is
attended by a mitigating circumstance, in this case voluntary surrender, and there is
no other aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Hence, the
imposable penalty in the case at bar is reclusion perpetua and not death.

As no evidence, testimonial or documentary, was presented as proof, the award of

P20,000.00 for funeral expenses should be deleted.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the trial court finding accused-appellant MANUEL

MAGAYAC guilty of murder and ordering him to pay the heirs of JIMINARDO Jimmy
LUMAGUE P50,000.00 is AFFIRMED, with the modification that he is sentenced to
suffer the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua. The award of funeral expenses is
DELETED for lack of factual basis.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima,
Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Vitug, J ., is on leave.
Footnotes

1. Decision penned by Judge Antonio R. Quizon, RTC-BR. 41, Oriental Mindoro; Rollo,
pp. 18-23.
2. TSN, 19 October 1994, pp. 14-15.

3. Ibid.

4. See Note 2, p. 16.

5. TSN, 14 June 1995, p. 6.

6. TSN, 19 October 1994, p. 18.

7. TSN, 24 January 1995, p. 2.

8. Id., pp. 8-13.

9. See Note 7, p. 3.

10. TSN, 14 July 1994, p. 4.

11. Id., pp. 5-8.

12. Records, p. 11.

13. Id., p. 1.

14. TSN, 14 June 1995, pp. 2-4.

15. See Note 1.

16. People v. Janairo, G.R. No. 129254, 22 July 1999.

17. People v. Tan, G.R. No. 132324, 28 September 1999.

18. Rollo, pp. 20-21.

19. See Note 16.

20. G.R. No. 123143, 19 July 1999.

21. People v. Bitoon , G.R. No. 112451, 28 June 1999; People v. De la Cruz , G.R. No.
130608, 26 August 1999.

22. People v. Bernas , G.R. Nos. 76416 and 94372, 5 July 1999.

23. See Note 10.

24. People v. Badon , G.R. No. 126143, 10 June 1999; People v. Manlapaz , G.R. No.
129033, 25 June 1999.

25. People v. Dayug, et al ., 49 Phil. 423 (1926). See also People v. Basao , G.R. No.
128286, 20 July 1999.

26. Rollo, pp. 21-22.

27. U.S. v. Rodriguez , 19 Phil. 150 (1911).