9/10/21, 12:10 AM G.R. No.

205228, July 15, 2015

764 Phil. 144

FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 205228, July 15, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS.

ROLLY ADRIANO Y SAMSON, LEAN ADRIANO @ DENDEN, ABBA
SANTIAGO Y ADRIANO, JOHN DOE AND PETER DOE, ACCUSED,
ROLLY ADRIANO Y SAMSON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

DECISION

PEREZ, J.:

This is an appeal of the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals dated 30 May 2011 in CA-G.R. CR-
HC No. 04028, which affirmed the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court dated 7 April 2009,
convicting accused-appellant Rolly Adriano y Santos (Adriano) for the crime of Homicide
(Crim. Case No. 13159-07) for the killing of Ofelia Bulanan (Bulanan) and for the crime of
Murder (Crim. Case No. 13160-07) for the killing of Danilo Cabiedes (Cabiedes) in "People of
the Philippines v. Rolly Adriano y Sales."

Adriano was charged with two (2) counts of Murder. The two (2) sets of Information read:

Crim. Case No. 13159-07

On or about March 13, 2007, around 8:00 o'clock (sic) in the morning, in Malapit,
San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, conniving together, with intent to kill, treachery and abuse of
superior strength, willfully shot several times with assorted firearms Ofelia Bulanan,
hitting her on the different parts of her body, resulting in her death to the damage of
her heirs.[3]

Crim. Case No. 13160-07

On or about March 13, 2007, around 8:00 o'clock (sic) in the morning, in Malapit,
San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, conniving together, with intent to kill, treachery and abuse of
superior strength, willfully shot several times with assorted firearms Danilo
Cabiedes, hitting him on the different parts of his body, resulting in his death to the
damage of his heirs.[4]

Version of the Prosecution:

On 13 March 2007, at around 8:00 a.m., Police Officer 1 Matthew Garabiles (PO1 Garabiles)
and PO2 Alejandro Santos (PO2 Santos), in civilian clothes, were on their way to Camp Olivas,
file:///C:/Users/Acer/Desktop/Aly/Law School/Juris/2015/1443405492868176707.html 1/10
9/10/21, 12:10 AM G.R. No. 205228, July 15, 2015

Pampanga, riding a motorcycle along Olongapo-Gapan National Road.[5]

While they were at Barangay Malapit San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, a speeding blue Toyota Corollo
(Corollo) with plate no. WHK 635, heading towards the same direction, overtook them and the
car in front of them, a maroon Honda CRV (CRY) with plate no. CTL 957.[6]

When the Corollo reached alongside the CRY, the passenger on the front seat of the Corollo shot
the CRY and caused the CRY to swerve and fall in the canal in the road embankment. Four (4)
armed men then suddenly alighted the Corollo and started shooting at the driver of the CRY,
who was later identified as Cabiedes. During the shooting, a bystander, Bulanan, who was
standing near the road embankment, was hit by a stray bullet. The four armed men hurried back
to the Corollo and immediately left the crime scene. PO1 Garabiles and PO2 Santos followed
the Corollo but lost track of the latter.[7]

Later, both Cabiedes and Bulanan died from fatal gunshot wounds: Cabiedes was pronounced
dead on arrival (DOA) at the Good Samaritan General Hospital due to three (3) gunshot wounds
on the left side of his chest while Bulanan died on the spot after being shot in the head.

During the investigation, the police learned that the Corollo was registered under the name of
Antonio Y. Rivera (Rivera). Upon inquiry, Rivera admitted that he is the owner of the Corollo
but clarified that the Corollo is one of the several cars he owns in his car rental business, which
he leased to Adriano. Later that day, Adriano arrived at Rivera's shop with the Corollo, where he
was identified by PO2 Santos and PO1 Garabiles as one of the four assailants who alighted from
the passenger's seat beside the driver of the Corollo and shot Cabiedes. He was immediately
arrested and brought to the Provincial Special Operations Group (PSOG) headquarters in
Cabanatuan City.[8]

In examining the crime scene, the Nueva Ecija Provincial Crime Laboratory Office recovered
one (1) deformed fired bullet from a .45 caliber firearm and five (5) cartridges from a .45 caliber
firearm.[9]

Yersion of the Defense

Adriano testified that on 13 March 2007, at about 6:00 a.m., at the time of the incident, he was
at his house in Dolores, Magalang, Pampanga, washing the clothes of his child. After doing the
laundry, he took his motorcycle to a repair shop and left it there.[10]

At about 8:00 a.m., Adriano went to the house of his friend, Ruben Mallari (Mallari), to ask for
a lighter spring needed to repair his motorcycle. After having coffee in Mallari's house, Adriano
went home and brought his child to his mother. On his way to his mother's house, he met his
brother-in­-law, Felix Aguilar Sunga (Sunga). After leaving his child at his mother's house,
Adriano went to the cockpit arena to watch cockfights, where he saw his friend, Danilo Dizon
(Dizon). After the fights, he left the cockpit at about 2:00 p.m. and went home and took a rest.
[11]

After resting, Adriano picked-up his motorcycle and proceeded to a store and stayed there. At
around 5:00 p.m., he went back home. After a while, he received a call from a certain Boyet
file:///C:/Users/Acer/Desktop/Aly/Law School/Juris/2015/1443405492868176707.html 2/10
9/10/21, 12:10 AM G.R. No. 205228, July 15, 2015

Garcia (Garcia), who borrowed the Corollo from him, which he rented from Rivera.[12]

At 8:00 p.m., he met with Garcia to get the Corollo back. After dropping Garcia off, Adriano
went to Rivera to return the Corollo, where he was arrested by police officers, thrown inside the
Corollo's trunk, and brought to a place where he was tortured.[13]

The other defense's witnesses, Lucita Tapnio (Tapnio), Mallari, Sunga, and Dizon corroborated
Adriano's testimony.[14]

When arraigned, Adriano pleaded not guilty. The other accused, Lean Adriano alias "Denden,"
Abba Santiago y Adriano, John Doe, and Peter Doe remained at large.

During trial, the prosecution presented eight (8) witnesses: (1) PO1 Garabiles, (2) PO2 Santos,
(3) Police Senior Inspector Roger V. Sebastian, (4) SPO2 Alejandro Eduardo, (5) PO2 Jay
Cabrera, (6) PO3 Antonio dela Cruz, (7) Adelaida Cabiedes, widow of Cabiedes, and (8) Ricky
Flores.

On the other hand, the defense presented Adriano, Tapnio, Sunga, Mallari, and Dizon as
witnesses.

Ruling of the Lower Courts

After trial, the RTC convicted Adriano. The RTC rejected Adriano's defense of alibi on the
ground that it was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. According to the RTC,
Adriano's alibi cannot prevail over the testimonies of credible witnesses, who positively
identified Adriano as one of the perpetrators of the crime. Also, contrary to the allegations of
the defense, the RTC gave full credence to the testimony of prosecution witnesses, PO1
Garabiles and PO2 Santos. The RTC determined that the defense failed to show proof that will
show or indicate that PO1 Garabiles and PO2 Santos were impelled by improper motives to
testify against Adriano.

The RTC found as proven the assessment of damages against the accused. Thus did the RTC
order Adriano to pay the heirs of Cabiedes the amount of P222,482.00 based on the following:
(1) One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as funeral expenses; (2) Sixty Thousand Pesos
(P60,000.00) as expenses for the food served during the burial; (3) Twelve Thousand Four
Hundred Eighty Two Pesos (P12,482.00) as groceries used and served during the wake; and
Sixty Thousand Pesos (P60,000.00) for the parts and service repair of the CRV.[15]

The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision dated 7 April 2009 reads:

WHEREFORE, finding accused ROLLY ADRIANO guilty beyond reasonable doubt

of Murder, as charged, for the death of Danilo Cabiedes, there being no aggravating
or mitigating circumstance that attended the commission of the crime, he is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused Rolly Adriano is also
ordered to indemnify the heirs of Danilo Cabiedes in the amount of Php50,000.00
and to pay the sum of Php222,482.00 as actual damages.

file:///C:/Users/Acer/Desktop/Aly/Law School/Juris/2015/1443405492868176707.html 3/10

9/10/21, 12:10 AM G.R. No. 205228, July 15, 2015

And finding ROLLY ADRIANO also guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide,
as charged, for the death of Ofelia Bulanan, likewise, there being no aggravating or
mitigating circumstance that attended the commission of the offense, he is further
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from Eight (8) years
and One (1) day of prision mayor medium, as minimum, to Seventeen (17) years and
Four (4) months of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum, and to indemnify the
heirs of Ofelia Bulanan in the amount of Php50,000.00.[16]

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Adriano alleged that the RTC erred when it failed to
appreciate his defense of alibi, as well as the testimonies of the other defense's witnesses.
Adriano contended that the RTC erred when it gave credence to the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses which are inconsistent and contradictory. In detail, Adriano referred to the following
particulars: 1) whether the culprits started shooting when the victim's vehicle was still in
motion; 2) which side of the vehicle did the shooters alight from; 3) the identity of the culprit
who triggered the fatal shot; 4) whether the trip of PO1 Garabiles and PO2 Santos going to
Camp Olivas, Pampanga was official business; 5) the precise distance of the assailants' vehicle
from that of the two (2) eyewitnesses; and 6) the precise minutes of the shooting incident.

The Court of Appeals rejected Adriano's attempt to becloud the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses. According to the Court of Appeals, the prosecution witnesses' positive identification
of Adriano as one of the perpetrators of the crime cannot be overcome by minor inconsistencies
in their testimony. The Court of Appeals ruled that these trivial differences in fact constitute
signs of veracity.

On the defense of alibi, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the RTC that Adriano's
claim that he was in Dolores, Magalang, Pampanga at the time of the incident does not convince
because it was not impossible for Adriano to be physically present at the crime scene, in
Barangay Malapit, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, which can be reached by car in less than an hour.
[17] The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Gapan City, Nueva Ecija, Br. 36, in Crim. Case Nos. 13159-07 and 13160-07 is
AFFIRMED subject to the Modification that the award of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(Php50,000.00) as civil indemnity to the heirs of Danilo Cabiedes is INCREASED
to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (Php75,000.00). In addition, the Accused-
Appellant is ORDERED to pay the heirs of Danilo Cabiedes the amount of Seventy-
Five Thousand Pesos (Php75,000.00) as moral damages; and the heirs of Ofelia
Bulanan the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) as moral damages.

SO ORDERED.[18]

Our Ruling

In cases of murder, the prosecution must establish the presence of the following elements:

1. That a person was killed.

file:///C:/Users/Acer/Desktop/Aly/Law School/Juris/2015/1443405492868176707.html 4/10

9/10/21, 12:10 AM G.R. No. 205228, July 15, 2015

2. That the accused killed him.

3. That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances

mentioned in Art. 248.

4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide.

In the case at bar, the prosecution has established the concurrence of the elements of murder: (1)
the fact of death of Cabiedes and Bulanan; (2) the positive identification of Adriano as one of
perpetrators of the crime; and (3) the attendance of treachery as a qualifying aggravating
circumstance and use of firearms and abuse of superior strength as generic aggravating
circumstances.

Death of Cabiedes

The present case is a case of murder by ambush. In ambush, the crime is carried out to ensure
that the victim is killed and at the same time, to eliminate any risk from any possible defenses or
retaliation from the victim[19] ambush exemplifies the nature of treachery.

Paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) defines treachery as the direct
employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the
defense which the offended party might make. In order for treachery to be properly appreciated,
two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to
defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means,
methods or forms of attack employed by him.[20] The "essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance
to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of himself."[21]

Clearly, treachery is present in the case at bar as the victims were indeed defenseless at the time
of the attack. Adriano, together with the other accused, ambushed Cabiedes by following the
unsuspecting victim along the national highway and by surprise, fired multiple shots at
Cabiedes and then immediately fled the crime scene, causing Cabiedes to die of multiple
gunshot wounds. When the Corollo swerved into the CRV's lane, Cabiedes was forced to swiftly
tum to the right and on to the road embankment, finally falling into the canal where his CRV
was trapped, precluding all possible means of defense. There is no other logical conclusion, but
that the orchestrated ambush committed by Adriano, together with his co-accused, who are still
on the loose, was in conspiracy with each other to ensure the death of Cabiedes and their safety.
The means of execution employed was deliberately and consciously adopted by Adriano so as
to give Cabiedes no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate.[22]

All these circumstances indicate that the orchestrated crime was committed with the presence of
the aggravating circumstances of treachery, which absorbs the aggravating circumstance of
abuse of superior strength, and use of firearms. Indeed, Cabiedes had no way of escaping or
defending himself.

Death of Bulanan

file:///C:/Users/Acer/Desktop/Aly/Law School/Juris/2015/1443405492868176707.html 5/10

9/10/21, 12:10 AM G.R. No. 205228, July 15, 2015

We refer back to the settled facts of the case. Bulanan, who was merely a bystander, was killed
by a stray bullet. He was at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Stray bullets, obviously, kill indiscriminately and often without warning, precluding the
unknowing victim from repelling the attack or defending himself. At the outset, Adriano had no
intention to kill Bulanan, much less, employ any particular means of attack. Logically,
Bulanan's death was random and unintentional and the method used to kill her, as she was killed
by a stray a bullet, was, by no means, deliberate. Nonetheless, Adriano is guilty of the death of
Bulanan under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code,[23] pursuant to the doctrine of aberratio
ictus, which imposes criminal liability for the acts committed in violation of law and for all the
natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom. While it may not have been Adriano's
intention to shoot Bulanan, this fact will not exculpate him. Bulanan's death caused by the bullet
fired by Adriano was the natural and direct consequence of Adriano's felonious deadly assault
against Cabiedes.

As we already held in People v. Herrera[24] citing People v. Hilario,[25] "[t]he fact that accused
killed a person other than their intended victim is of no moment." Evidently, Adriano's original
intent was to kill Cabiedes. However, during the commission of the crime of murder, a stray
bullet hit and killed Bulanan. Adriano is responsible for the consequences of his act of shooting
Cabiedes. This is the import of Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code. As held in People v.
Herrera citing People v. Ural:

Criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the

wrongful act be different from that which is intended. One who commits an
intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may naturally or
logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not. The rationale of the
rule is found in the doctrine, 'el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado',
or he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.[26]

As regards the crime(s) committed, we reiterate our ruling in People v. Nelmida.[27] In the
aforesaid case, we ruled that accused-appellants should be convicted not of a complex crime but
of separate crimes of two counts of murder and seven counts of attempted murder as the killing
and wounding of the victims were not the result of a single act but of several acts.[28] The
doctrine in Nelmida here is apt and applicable.

In Nelmida, we distinguished the two kinds of complex crime: compound crime, when a single
act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, and complex crime proper, when an
offense is a necessary means for committing the other. Moreover, we also made a distinction
that "when various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct
crimes,"[29] not a complex crime.

As borne by the records, the Nueva Ecija Provincial Crime Laboratory Office recovered six (6)
cartridges of bullets from a .45 caliber firearm. This does not indicate discharge by a single
burst. Rather, separate shots are evidenced. One or more of which, though fired to kill Cabiedes,
killed Bulanan instead. There is thus no complex crime. The felonious acts resulted in two
separate and distinct crimes.
file:///C:/Users/Acer/Desktop/Aly/Law School/Juris/2015/1443405492868176707.html 6/10
9/10/21, 12:10 AM G.R. No. 205228, July 15, 2015

Finally, we ask, may treachery be appreciated in aberratio ictus?

Although Bulanan's death was by no means deliberate, we shall adhere to the prevailing
jurisprudence pronounced in People v. Flora,[30] where the Court ruled that treachery may be
appreciated in aberratio ictus. In Flora, the accused was convicted of two separate counts of
murder: for the killing of two victims, Emerita, the intended victim, and Ireneo, the victim killed
by a stray bullet. The Court, due to the presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery,
qualified both killings to murder. The material facts in Flora are similar in the case at bar. Thus,
we follow the Flora doctrine.

Also, contrary to the defense's allegation that Bulanan's death was not established, a perusal of
the records would reveal that Bulanan's fact of death was duly established as the prosecution
offered in evidence Bulanan's death certificate.[31]

On the alibi as defense, time and again, we have ruled alibis like denials, are inherently weak
and unreliable because they can easily be fabricated.[32] For alibi to prosper, the accused must
convincingly prove that he was somewhere else at the time when the crime was committed and
that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene.[33] In the case at bar, Adriano
claimed he was in Dolores, Magalang, Pampanga at the time of incident. Adriano's claim failed
to persuade. As admitted, Dolores, Magalang, Pampanga was only less than an hour away from
the crime scene, Barangay Malapit, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija. Hence, it was not physically
impossible for Adriano to be at the crime scene at the time of the incident.

It is likewise uniform holding that denial and alibi will not prevail when corroborated not by
credible witnesses but by the accused's relatives and friends. Therefore, the defense's evidence
which is composed of Adriano's relatives and friends cannot prevail over the prosecution's
positive identification of Adriano as one of the perpetrators of the crime.

The penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to
death. In the case at bar, as the circumstance of abuse of superior strength concurs with
treachery, the former is absorbed in the latter. There being no aggravating or mitigating
circumstance present, the lower penalty should be imposed, which is reclusion perpetua, in
accordance with Article 63, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code.

To recover actual or compensatory damages, basic is the rule that the claimant must establish
with a reasonable degree of certainty, the actual amount of loss by means of competent proof or
the best evidence obtainable.[34] Documentary evidence support the award of actual damages in
this case. The RTC computed the amount of actual damages as P222,482.00. However, a perusal
of the records reveals that the amount of award of actual damages should be P232,482.00 as
duly supported by official receipts.[35] Therefore, we hereby increase the award of actual
damages from P222,482.00 to P232,482.00.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04028 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Appellant-appellant
ROLLY ADRIANO y SAMSON is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER
(Criminal Case No. 13160-07) for the killing of DANILO CABIEDES and is hereby sentenced
file:///C:/Users/Acer/Desktop/Aly/Law School/Juris/2015/1443405492868176707.html 7/10
9/10/21, 12:10 AM G.R. No. 205228, July 15, 2015

to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused­ appellant ROLLY ADRIANO y

SAMSON is ordered to pay the heirs of DANILO CABIEDES the amount of Seventy Five
Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as
moral damages, Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages, and Two Hundred
Thirty Two Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Two Pesos (P232,482.00) as actual damages.

Accused-appellant ROLLY ADRIANO y SAMSON is also found guilty beyond reasonable

doubt of the crime of MURDER (Criminal Case No. 13159-07) for the killing of OFELIA
BULANAN and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused-
appellant ROLLY ADRIANO y SAMSON is ordered to pay the heirs of OFELIA
BULANAN in the amount of the amount of Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil
indemnity, Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages, Thirty Thousand
Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages, and Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as
temperate damages in lieu of actual damages.

All monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality
until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C. J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.

[1]Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro with Associate Justices Amelita G.

Tolentino and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 142-161.

[2] Penned by Presiding Judge Arturo M. Bernardo; records, pp. 267-281.

[3] CA rollo, pp. 143-144.

[4] Id. at 144.

[5] Records, p. 271.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at 271-272.

[9] Exhibit "W", id. at 157.

[10] Id. at 277.

[11] Id.

file:///C:/Users/Acer/Desktop/Aly/Law School/Juris/2015/1443405492868176707.html 8/10

9/10/21, 12:10 AM G.R. No. 205228, July 15, 2015

[12] Id. at 277-278.

[13] Memorandum for the Accused; id. at 232.

[14] Id. at 294-295.

[15] Exhibits "O," "P," "Q," and "R," respectively, records, pp. 149-152.

[16] Id. at 280-281.

[17] CA rollo, p. 17.

[18] Id. at 160.

[19] People v. Obosa, 388 Phil. 445, 461 (2000).

[20]People v. Dolorido, 654 Phil. 467, 476 (2011), citing People v. Reyes, 350 Phil. 683, 693
(1998).

[21] Id. at 476-477, citing People v. Escote, Jr., 448 Phil. 749, 786 (2003).

[22] People v. Padlan, 352 Phil. 991, 1010 (1998).

[23] Art. 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended.

[24] 422 Phil. 830, 857 (2001).

[25] 407 Phil. 15, 27 (2001).

[26] People v. Herrera, supra note 24, citing People v. Ural, 155 Phil. 116, 123 (1974).

[27] G.R. No. 184500, 11 September 2012, 680 SCRA 386.

[28] Id. at 427.

[29]Id., citing People v. Gaffud, Jr., 587 Phil. 521, 534 (2008); People v. Orias, 636 Phil. 427,
447 (2010).

[30] 389 Phil. 601 (2000).

file:///C:/Users/Acer/Desktop/Aly/Law School/Juris/2015/1443405492868176707.html 9/10
9/10/21, 12:10 AM G.R. No. 205228, July 15, 2015

[31] Exhibit "L," Fonnal Offer of Evidence, records, p. 126.

[32] People v. Robles, 573 Phil. 577, 587 (2008).

[33] People v. Mosquerra, 414 Phil. 740,749 (2001).

[34] PNOC Shipping and Transport Corp. v. CA, 358 Phil. 38, 53-54 (1998).

[35]Exhibits "O" (P100,000.00 as funeral expenses); "P" (P60,000.00 as expenses for the food
served during the burial); "Q" (P12,482.00 as groceries used and served during the wake); and
"R" (P60,000.00 for the parts and service repair of the CRV), amounting to the total sum of
(P232,482.00), records, pp. 149-152.

file:///C:/Users/Acer/Desktop/Aly/Law School/Juris/2015/1443405492868176707.html 10/10