FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 145336. February 20, 2013.]

REYNANTE TADEJA, RICKY TADEJA, RICARDO TADEJA and

FERDINAND TADEJA , petitioners, vs . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ,
respondent.

RESOLUTION

SERENO , C.J : p

On the strength of their co-accused Plaridel Tadeja's extrajudicial confession, taken

after his apprehension on 29 November 2006, petitioners pray for the reopening of the
homicide case against them. Their prayer is for the reception of newly discovered
evidence, despite the fact that this Court's Decision a rming their conviction already
became nal and executory on 26 July 2007. Notably, the O ce of the Solicitor General
(OSG) does not object to the reopening of the case.
As found by the trial court, 1 the incident happened while prosecution witnesses
Maria Elena Bernardo Almaria (Elena) and Jacinta del Fierro (Jacinta) were watching a
public dance around midnight on 3 May 1994, during the celebration of the annual esta of
Barangay Talabaan, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro. It was then that they witnessed Ruben
Bernardo (Elena's brother and Jacinta's uncle) being hacked to death by the brothers
Reynante, Ricky, Ricardo, and Ferdinand (petitioners), and petitioners' first cousin Plaridel —
all surnamed Tadeja. They also testi ed that Plaridel accidentally hit Reynante while trying
to hack Ruben; hence, Reynante's injuries. According to them, they stayed at the scene of
the incident until Ruben was brought to the hospital. 2
On the other hand, petitioners alleged 3 that Ruben and his sons, Russell and
Robenson Bernardo, went to the barangay plaza shortly after Rusell n had been twice
prevented by barangay tanods from entering the dance hall due to his drunken state and
inappropriate attire (no upper garment). Ruben was brandishing a knife and cursing at the
crowd. The Bernardos challenged Reynante, who was then waiting for his children and
sisters still inside the dance hall. Reynante's brothers (Ricky, Ricardo, and Ferdinand)
testified that they were together at their mother's house at the time. SCDaET

Reynante was able to evade the rst knife attack by Ruben. Barangay Chairperson
Lolito Tapales tried to intervene, but he was threatened by Ruben as well. The latter then
turned his attention back to Reynante, who tried to run away, and gave chase. Russell and
Robenson blocked the path of Reynante, causing him to lose his balance and fall to the
ground. The Bernardos then took turns in attacking him. Ruben got hold of Reynante's right
hand and shouted to his two sons to run away. He then stabbed Reynante on the right part
of the chest and the left side of the body before running away.
Reynante struggled back to the plaza. From there, he was taken to the hospital by
Eddie Eraso (Eddie) and two others, using a jeep. Upon boarding the jeep and turning on its
lights and engine, they all saw Ruben about 15 meters away, still holding a knife.
Thereafter, Eddie reported the incident to the police. In response, Police O cer 3 Ronaldo
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Flores went to the hospital to question Reynante. The latter narrated how he was stabbed
by the Bernardos. The inquiry was interrupted when Ruben arrived at the emergency room
of the hospital in serious condition. He later died of "hypovolemic shock secondary to
acute blood loss" due to multiple stab wounds and a hacking wound.
The next day, 4 May 1994, Senior Police O cer 3 Rogelio Tomayosa went to the
hospital to continue questioning Reynante. Based on the latter's account, an O cial Signal
Dispatch was sent to the Philippine National Police Provincial Headquarters in San Jose,
Occidental Mindoro, stating: "VICTIM REYNANTE TADEJA ARRIVED TO FETCH HIS
CHILDREN BUT WAS CHASED BY RUBEN BERNARDO AND STABBED [BY] HIM WHEN HE
LOST BALANCE." 4
On 15 July 1994, an Information 5 for homicide for the death of Ruben was led
against Reynante, Ricky, Ricardo, Ferdinand, and Plaridel. Thus, Criminal Case No. Z-814
was led with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro (RTC).
TSADaI

Meanwhile, Reynante led a complaint for frustrated homicide against Russell and
Robenson, later docketed as Criminal Case No. Z-815 before the RTC. Criminal Case Nos.
Z-814 and Z-815 were tried jointly. 6
On 15 July 1997, the RTC issued a Decision 7 in Criminal Case No. Z-814 nding
Reynante, Ferdinand, Plaridel, Ricardo and Ricky guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
homicide. The trial court sentenced them to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment
from six (6) years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight
(8) months and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. It also ordered them to
indemnify the heirs of Ruben in the amount of P50,000 and to pay the costs.
In Criminal Case No. Z-815, the RTC acquitted Russell and Robenson of frustrated
homicide in its 14 July 1997 Decision.
Except for Plaridel, who absconded, all the other accused (petitioners herein)
appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). IHcSCA

On 8 March 2000, the CA issued a Decision 8 in CA-G.R. CR No. 21740 a rming the
ndings and Decision of the RTC in Criminal Case No. Z-814. The CA held that although the
prosecution witnesses were relatives of the victim, they had no evil motive to testify falsely
or to concoct a story against petitioners. In fact, the injuries sustained by Ruben matched
the stab wounds as testi ed to by Elena and Jacinta. While three of the petitioners claimed
to have been asleep in their mother's house during the incident, the place was only about
one kilometer away and may be reached in twenty (20) minutes by foot or ve (5) minutes
by tricycle. Thus, it was not physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime
at the time it was committed.
The CA also found that conspiracy was properly appreciated by the RTC on the
basis of su cient evidence. It did not give credence to the apparently con icting
testimonies of Reynante, Plaridel and Ricky regarding what happened at the time of the
incident. The CA explained:
The defenses of Reynante and Plaridel were even more confusing. Both
claimed that at that precise time, around 12:00 midnight, Ruben Bernardo, for no
reason at all, chased Reynante and hit him with his knife. Then Reynante was
brought to the hospital. At the same time, Ruben Bernardo again without any
reason, chased Plaridel Tadeja. But this time, Ruben Bernardo was holding a
stainless bladed weapon and was with his two (2) sons Russel, holding a .29
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 knife (Balisong) and Robenson with a bat (panggarote). However, despite the
alleged attack of the Bernardos on Plaridel, Plaridel was not hurt. It was Ruben
Bernardo, who was killed, not by Plaridel but by two (2) men who allegedly held
Ruben Bernardo. What is unbelievable, Plaridel did not see or know these two (2)
men that he claimed killed Ruben Bernardo. On the other hand, Ricky Tadeja
testified that Plaridel Tadeja was with him in their house sleeping. 9

Petitioners moved for reconsideration and submitted the transcripts of the

testimonies of Leticia Bernardo, Maria Regina Cortuna (Regina), and Eduardo Eraso. 1 0
These witnesses, whose testimonies were missing from the records of Criminal Case No.
Z-814 forwarded to the CA, testi ed in Criminal Case No. Z-815. 1 1 Petitioners believed
their testimonies could debunk the main basis of the RTC Decision. CcaDHT

The CA denied the motion for reconsideration in a Resolution 1 2 dated 25

September 2000 on the ground that nothing in the transcripts provided would affect the
positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses Elena and Jacinta.
Petitioners then led with this Court a Petition for Review 1 3 under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the CA Decision and Resolution.
Petitioners claimed that since Criminal Case Nos. Z-814 and Z-815 were tried jointly,
and all pieces of evidence presented by the parties in one case were adopted in the other,
all the evidence in both cases should have been considered and given due weight in the
resolution of the two cases. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in Criminal
Case No. Z-814 as to how Ruben was killed ran counter to the testimony given by Regina
(neighbor to both parties), who was presented by Russel and Robenson as defense
witness in Criminal Case No. Z-815. Elena and Jacinta testi ed that they had witnessed the
stabbing of Ruben and stayed with him until he was brought to the hospital. However,
Regina testi ed that the two women were with her in Lola Tinay's house that night. They
allegedly stayed on after Regina proceed to Amado Alfaro's house, where she saw Ruben
leaning on the fence alone, already wounded.
Petitioners stressed that the testimonies of Elena and Jacinta were not credible
since, among other objections, these were given nearly a year after the incident; and
Jacinta never executed a statement immediately thereafter to aid her later recollection. aCATSI

Petitioners also alleged that while alibi is a weak defense, there are times when it is
the plain and simple truth. 1 4 Moreover, considering the surrounding circumstances in this
case, their non- ight was allegedly a "logical and favorable consideration pointing to their
innocence." 1 5
When required 1 6 to comment on the petition, the OSG countered 1 7 that the
testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in another, depending on
the corroborative evidence and probabilities of the case. Thus, even if the narration of
Regina was true, "the same cannot pose a legal obstacle to the nding of the court a quo in
regard [to] petitioners' direct and actual participation in the killing of Ruben Bernardo as
the court a quo has the discretion to believe or not to believe a witness' testimony." 1 8
Also, while Elena and Jacinta were relatives of the victim, it did not necessarily make
them biased in his favor. 1 9 As to petitioners' claim that it was unnatural for the
prosecution witnesses to have noticed and recalled every blow to Ruben and who in icted
it, the OSG alleged 2 0 that the natural reaction of the victims of criminal violence was to
note the appearance of their assailant and observe the manner in which the crime was
committed. The same reaction was expected from the victim's relatives, who would also
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 naturally want to bring the malefactors to justice. Finally, the OSG asserted that while ight
is indicative of guilt, there is no jurisprudence holding that non- ight is an indication of
innocence.
This Court issued a Decision 2 1 dated 21 July 2006 a rming the Decision and
Resolution of the CA. We held that while petitioners were correct in asserting that the
totality of the evidence in Criminal Case Nos. Z-814 and Z-815 should have been
considered and given due weight, the testimonies of Leticia, Regina and Eduardo would not
have altered the judgment of conviction by the RTC. For instance, Regina's testimony did
not indicate that there were no witnesses to the incident, or that Ruben was alone at the
time. Contrary to petitioners' argument, we held that blood relationship may even fortify
credibility, because it would be unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse a
person other than the actual culprit. As regards the defense of alibi put forward by
Ferdinand, Ricky and Ricardo, we saw that it was not physically impossible on their part to
be at the scene of the crime at the time of its occurrence.TAaHIE

Petitioners moved for reconsideration, 2 2 alleging that this Court had failed to
reconcile the testimonies of witnesses Elena and Jacinta on the one hand and Regina on
the other. On 23 October 2006, 2 3 we denied the motion with finality.
On 6 November 2006, petitioners led a Motion with Leave of Court to Vacate
Judgment, 2 4 invoking the power of the Supreme Court to suspend its own rules for the
purpose of substantial justice and to remand the case to the RTC for further reception of
evidence. Petitioners attached the sworn statements of Maryjane Togas, 2 5 Dennis
Laudiangco, 2 6 Heneroso Anoba 2 7 and Francisco de Veyra, Jr. 2 8 The a ants all
corroborated the story of Reynante that it was Ruben who had chased and stabbed the
former when he lost his footing. However, the a ants added that Reynante was aided by
Plaridel, who slashed (kinilik) Ruben in the neck and repeatedly stabbed the latter until he
fell. Thereafter, Plaridel scurried away (tumalilis palayo), while the people brought Reynante
and Ruben to the hospital. The a ants also stated that Ricky, Ricardo, and Ferdinand were
not at the place during the incident. It was only then that the a ants stepped forward and
told the truth about the incident out of fear of reprisal from Plaridel, who was a known
criminal.
Also attached was the Pinagsamang Salaysay 2 9 signed by 228 residents of
Barangay Talabaan attesting to petitioners' innocence of the crime charged.
Later, petitioners led a Supplemental Motion to Motion with Leave of Court to
Vacate Judgment Due to Supervening Event 3 0 alleging that on 29 November 2006, the
Mamburao Municipal Police Force of Occidental Mindoro nally arrested Plaridel at Area 1,
Talanay, Batasan Hills, Quezon City. Attached was the Spot Report Re-Apprehension of a
Long Time Wanted Person. 3 1
Also attached was a statement, 3 2 executed by Plaridel with the assistance of Atty.
Cirilo Tejoso, Jr. admitting therein that he had killed Ruben, Plaridel narrated that on 3 May
1994, he was at Highway, Talabaan. He was looking for his child when he saw his rst
cousin Reynante being chased by Ruben. He aided Reynante by grabbing the knife of Ruben
and stabbing the latter with it. Reynante was then transported to the hospital and Plaridel
followed him there, leaving Ruben in the street. Upon reaching the hospital, Plaridel was
arrested by the police.
Plaridel did not know why Ruben had chased Reynante with a knife. Neither did he
see Ricardo, Ricky or Ferdinand at the scene of the incident. Plaridel admitted to the crime
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 only later, because he allegedly felt afraid during the trial of the case and thus absconded.
He did not know why petitioners were also charged with Ruben's killing.
With the arrest of Plaridel and his account of what happened, petitioners argued that
the situation called for the application of the rules on newly discovered evidence, which
provided grounds for a new trial. Since the statement of Plaridel was obtained only after
his arrest, it was not produced or presented during the trial and even during the pendency
of the appeal. Petitioners then reiterated their prayer that the judgment of conviction
meted out to them be vacated and the entire records of the criminal case remanded to the
RTC for the conduct of a new trial. TaCDIc

We treated 3 3 the motion of petitioners as a second motion for reconsideration of

the 21 July 2006 Decision and denied it on the ground that it was a prohibited pleading
under the Rules. We noted without action their supplemental motion, stated that no further
pleadings would be entertained, and directed that entry of judgment be made in due
course.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration 3 4 and later led a Supplemental Motion for
Reconsideration and/or Motion to Set Aside Minute Resolution Dated 22 January 2007. 3 5
They argued that their motion to vacate judgment could not be considered as a second
motion for reconsideration, because the relief prayed for was different from that which
had already been passed upon for review. Instead, the motion prayed for the reopening of
the case and its remand to the RTC for a new trial on grounds of newly discovered
evidence and supervening event.
We denied 3 6 the motion of petitioners with nality for lack of merit. The 21 July
2006 Decision was then recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments on 26 July 2007. 3 7
In a letter 3 8 dated 7 August 2007 addressed to then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno,
Ferdinand prayed for the reopening of the case on the basis of the confession of Plaridel.
We required the OSG to file its comment thereon. 3 9
In its Comment, 4 0 the OSG manifested that it was not posing any objection to the
reopening of the case. Ferdinand then led an Urgent Manifestation and/or Motion to
Suspend or Hold in Abeyance the Execution of the Decision Pending Resolution of the
Letter dated 7 August 2007. 4 1 ACTIHa

Meanwhile, the Court received a letter 4 2 from Sonia A. Bernardo, widow of Ruben,
manifesting her objection to the reopening of the case.
Following the receipt of another letter 4 3 from Ferdinand reiterating the request to
reopen the case, we issued a Resolution 4 4 denying the motion to suspend the execution of
our Decision, on the ground that there was no legal basis to justify the reopening of the
case.
Petitioners led a Motion for Reconsideration, 4 5 which we denied 4 6 with nality for
lack of merit, with a statement that no further pleading or motion shall be entertained in
the case.
On 27 January 2009, petitioners led a Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for
Reconsideration and/or for Review by En Banc, 4 7 which we denied 4 8 on the grounds that
it was a prohibited pleading, and that the Court En Banc is not an appellate court to which
decisions/resolutions of a Division may be appealed.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 A letter sent by Ferdinand and a Motion to Suspend Procedural Rules with Prayer to
Declare the Proceedings Below as a Mistrial and/or to Grant Petitioners a New Trial Due to
Newly Discovered Evidence were ordered expunged 4 9 from the records. This action was
taken in view of the entry of judgment on the case made on 26 July 2007 and of the
Resolutions dated 26 November 2008 and 23 September 2009 declaring that no further
pleadings shall be entertained.
Also expunged were another letter from Ferdinand and various pleadings led by
petitioners, on the ground that entry of judgment had already been made on 26 July 2007.
50

In a letter 5 1 dated 17 May 2010 addressed to Chief Justice Renato Corona,

Ferdinand reiterated the request for the reopening of the case. Petitioners later led a Plea
for Alteration, Modi cation and/or Reversal of Resolutions (In the Sublime Interest of
Justice, Equity and Fair Play) with Leave of Court. 5 2 He alleged that, in a parallel case, 5 3
we had granted pro hac vice a motion to reopen a case for further reception of evidence
led by the accused, whose judgment of conviction had already been entered in the Book
of Entry of Judgments. aDCIHE

On 2 November 2010, petitioners led a letter manifesting the hope that their last
motion would be favorably acted upon by this Court and reiterating their request for the
reopening of the case to receive newly discovered evidence. 5 4 Petitioners also led an
Omnibus Motion for Leave to Set Aside Conviction and Remand the Case to the Trial Court
for Reception of Newly Discovered Evidence. 5 5
We resolve to DENY petitioners' motion to reopen the case for reception
of further evidence in the trial court.
Fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice necessitate that, at
the risk of occasional errors, the judgment or orders of courts should attain nality at
some definite time fixed by law. 5 6 Otherwise, there would be no end to litigation. 5 7 ECaITc

This is the reason why we have consistently denied petitioners' motions for
reconsideration of this Court's Decision and subsequent pleas for the reopening of the
case.
Section 1 of Rule 121 of the Rules of Court provides that a new trial may only be
granted by the court on motion of the accused, or motu proprio with the consent of the
accused "(a)t any time before a judgment of conviction becomes nal." In this case,
petitioners' judgment of conviction already became nal and executory on 26 July 2007 —
the date on which the Decision of this Court denying the petition and a rming the ruling of
the CA was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments. Thus, pleas for the remand of
this case to the trial court for the conduct of a new trial may no longer be entertained.
Petitioners premise their motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered
evidence, i.e., Plaridel's extrajudicial confession, executed with the assistance of Atty. Cirilo
Tejoso, Jr., and the spot report of the police on Plaridel's apprehension.
Newly discovered evidence refers to that which (a) is discovered after trial; (b) could
not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable
diligence; (c) is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and (d) is of
such weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted. 5 8
The most important requisite is that the evidence could not have been discovered
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 and produced at the trial even with reasonable diligence; hence, the term "newly
discovered." The confession of Plaridel does not meet this requisite. He participated in the
trial before the RTC and even gave testimony as to his defense. 5 9 It was only after he and
petitioners had been convicted by the trial court that he absconded. Thus, the contention
that his confession could not have been obtained during trial does not hold water. CHcESa

It is also noteworthy that Plaridel's confession does not jibe with Reynante's
narration of what happened during the incident. According to Reynante, Ruben stabbed him
in his right chest and the left side of his body. Upon seeing him bleeding profusely, Ruben
ran away. This narration contradicted the confession of Plaridel that when he saw the
stabbing incident, he approached and grabbed the knife from Ruben and immediately
stabbed the latter with it.
Furthermore, Plaridel stated in his confession that as he stabbed Ruben, Reynante
was being transported to the hospital. Plaridel then left Ruben on the road and followed
Reynante. If this version is true, then in no way can the story of Reynante be plausible,
considering that he allegedly still saw Ruben about 15 meters away holding the knife while
the former was being transported to the hospital.
Clearly, the cousins chose not to tell the truth during trial. Whatever their reasons
were, the inevitable conclusion is that Plaridel's version in his extrajudicial confession is
not newly discovered evidence that can be a ground for a new trial within the
contemplation of the rules. aDcEIH

Petitioners point out that this Court has had occasion to grant a motion for a new
trial after the judgment of conviction had become nal and executory. In People v. Licayan ,
6 0 all the accused were convicted of the crime of kidnapping for ransom and sentenced to
death by the trial court. More than two years after their conviction became nal and
executory, 6 1 the accused Lara and Licayan led an Urgent Motion to Re-Open the Case
with Leave of Court. They attached thereto the Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by two of
their co-accused in the case, to the effect that Lara and Licayan had not participated in the
commission of the crime. Since the OSG also recommended the reopening of the case,
this Court remanded the case to the trial court for the reception of newly discovered
evidence.
It is worth pointing out that the motion in Licayan was granted pro hac vice, which is
a Latin term used by courts to refer to rulings rendered "for this one particular occasion."
6 2 A ruling expressly quali ed as such cannot be relied upon as a precedent to govern
other cases. 6 3
We do not presume to know the predicament of petitioners, who will face
incarceration in view of the instant Resolution. Courts are bound to apply the rules they
have laid down in order to facilitate their duty to dispense justice. However, we deem it
proper within the premises to refer the matter to the President through the Secretary of
Justice for a possible grant of clemency to petitioners.
WHEREFORE , the motion of petitioners to reopen the case for reception of further
evidence in the trial court is DENIED .
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the President of the Philippines, through
the Secretary of Justice, for consideration of the propriety of extending to petitioners the
benefits of executive clemency.
SO ORDERED . SaCIAE

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 Leonardo-de Castro, Bersamin, Villarama, Jr. and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 333-340, Decision in Criminal Case No. Z-814 dated 15 July 1997 issued by the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro.

2.Id. at 23.
3.Id. at 10-47.
4.Id. at 14.
5.Id. at 50.
6.Id. at 18-19.

7.Id. at 333-340.
8.Id. at 49-64. The Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) Fifth Division in CA-G.R. No. 21740
was penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando with Associate
Justices Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez (later a member of this Court) and Salvador
Valdez, Jr. concurring.
9.Id. at 62.
10.Id. at 66-67.

11.Id. at 24, 28.

12.Id. at 66-67.
13.Id. at 10-47.
14.Id. at 41-42.

15.Id. at 42.
16.Id. at 68.
17.Id. at 76-91.
18.Id. at 81.
19.Id. at 85.

20.Id. at 165-185.
21.Id. at 217-228. The Decision of the Court's Second Division was penned by Associate
Justice Cancio C. Garcia with Associate Justices Reynato S. Puno (later Chief Justice),
Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Renato C. Corona (later Chief Justice) and Adolfo S.
Azcuna concurring.
22.Id. at 238-252.
23.Id. at 253.

24.Id. at 254-261.
25.Id. at 262-263.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 26.Id. at 264-265.
27.Id. at 266-267.
28.Id. at 268-269.

29.Id. at 270-283.
30.Id. at 284-295, filed on 14 December 2006.
31.Id. at 289.
32.Id. at 290-295.
33.Id. at 296, Resolution dated 22 January 2007.

34.Id. at 299-302.
35.Id. at 304-316.
36.Id. at 323, Resolution dated 6 June 2007.
37.Id. at 325.

38.Id. at 330-406.
39.Id. at 407.
40.Id. at 411-415, dated 20 December 2007.
41.Id. at 416-427.
42.Id. at 464-468, received on 3 June 2008.

43.Id. at 470-480, dated 23 July 2008.

44.Id. at 483, dated 6 October 2008.
45.Id. at 484-501, dated 5 November 2008.
46.Id. at 502.
47.Id. at 504-511.

48.Id. (no pagination); Special Second Division Resolution dated 30 March 2009.
49.Id. at 675; First Division Resolutions dated 9 and 23 September 2009.
50.Id. at 914-915, 963 and 964-A; Resolutions dated 23 November 2009, 27 January 2010 and
10 March 2010, respectively.
51.Id. at 968-1046.
52.Id. at 1049-1080.
53.People v. Licayan, G.R. No. 140900 and 140911, Resolution dated 17 February 2004.

54.Rollo, pp. 1083-1110.

55.Id. at 1150-1165.
56.So v. CA, 415 Phil. 705, 711 (2001).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 57.Id.
58.People v. Judavar, 430 Phil. 366, 380 (2002).
59.Rollo, p. 338.
60.415 Phil. 459, 476 (2001).

61.Supra note 51.

62.Partido ng Manggagawa v. COMELEC, 519 Phil. 644, 671 (2006).
63.Id.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com