Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

SIXTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE CA-G.R. CR HC No. 13050

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Members:

GARCIA, CHAIRPERSON,
MARTIN, &
- versus - QUIMPO-SALE, JJ.**

Promulgated:

JERICHO L. NOLASCO,* 16 NOVEMBER 2021

Accused-Appellant.
____________________

DECISION

MARTIN, J.:

This is an appeal1 under Rule 122 of the Rules of Court filed by

accused-appellant Jericho L. Nolasco (appellant) assailing the Decision2
dated 10 April 2019 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial
Region, Iba, Zambales, Branch 71 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. RTC-10769-
1 which found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape
under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. The RTC also sentenced
appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay
the victim P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and
P75,000.00 as exemplary damages with an interest of 6% per annum on the
monetary awards reckoned from the finality of the decision until fully paid.

*
This case was submitted for Decision on 17 November 2020.
**
Acting Junior Member pursuant to Office Order No. 304-21-RSF dated 27 October 2021.
1
Records, Notice of Appeal dated 17 May 2019, pp. 128-129.
2
Records, Decision, pp. 120-125.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 13050 Page 2 of 12
DECISION
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

THE FACTS

Appellant was charged with the crime of rape under Article 266-A of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, otherwise known as
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, in an Information which reads as follows:

“That on the 21st day of May 2017 at about 3:30 A.M., in Purok 3,
Barangay Balincaguing, Municipality of San Felipe, Province of
Zambales, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the said accused, with lewd design, and through force, threat and
intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge of 15-year old AAA,3 against her will and consent, to
the damage and prejudice of said AAA.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”4

When arraigned on 22 June 2017, appellant, assisted by his counsel

de officio, pleaded “not guilty” to the crime charged. 5 Pre-trial was
conducted on 8 September 2017.6 Trial on the merits ensued, thereafter.

AAA was 16 years old at the time of her testimony, and she presented
her Certificate of Live Birth7 as evidence. AAA testified that around 3:00
a.m of 21 May 2017, she was in their house sleeping beside her younger
brother, BBB when she sensed a stranger inside their house because she
smelled someone smoking a cigarette upon waking up. 8 AAA further
testified that she was certain it was 3:00 a.m. because she checked her cell
phone and by reason of the light it emitted, she was able to identify the said
man smoking as none other than appellant in the case at bar. AAA explained
that appellant had a drinking spree with her grandfather and even asked her
to buy softdrinks in the evening prior which was why she was certain the
man was indeed appellant.9 According to AAA, she already knew appellant
even before that night as her mother took pity on him because appellant's
3
The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, as well
as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act
No. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination, And for Other Purposes; Republic Act No. 9262, An Act Defining
Violence Against Women And Their Children, Providing For Protective Measures for Victims,
Prescribing Penalties Therefor, And for Other Purposes; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC,
known as the Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children, effective November 15, 2004
(People of the Philippines v. Juan Richard Tionloc y Marquez, G.R. No. 212193, 15 February 2017,
citing People v. Dumadag, G.R. No. 176740, 22 June 2011); Supreme Court Administrative Circular
No. 83-2015 issued on 27 July 2015, Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and
Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders using Fictitious Names.
4
Records, Information, pp. 2-3.
5
Records, Order dated 22 June 2017, pp. 15-16; Certificate of Arraignment, p. 17.
6
Records, Pre-trial Order dated 8 September 2017, pp. 26-27.
7
Records, Exh. “E”, Certificate of Live Birth, p. 9.
8
TSN dated 29 May 2018, Direct Examination of AAA, pp. 5-7.
9
Id, p. 9.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 13050 Page 3 of 12
DECISION
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

wife was pregnant so her mother allowed him to stay at her grandfather's
hut. AAA added that upon noticing appellant, she tried to call the attention
of her grandfather, but that appellant suddenly covered her mouth and
threatened to kill her if she shouted. AAA stated that her grandfather and
grandmother were sleeping in the hut around 8 meters away from the room
where she and BBB were sleeping.10 AAA also stated that appellant then told
her that if she reports the matter to her grandparents, he will kill them and
her parents. AAA disclosed that she tried to defend herself with the use of a
nail pusher but that appellant overpowered her and thereafter lifted her
towards her mother's room11 where she was laid down, undressed, and her
shorts and panty were removed. AAA narrated that appellant held her hands
as she struggled which was why he threatened her again then went on top of
her, and inserted his organ inside her private part all the while kissing her
neck and body.12 AAA stated that when appellant was finished, he removed
his organ from her private part, after which, BBB called her so she answered
“nandito ako.” AAA explained that BBB proceeded to the kitchen thinking
she was there so she promptly got dressed while appellant hid under the
bamboo bed.13 AAA said that she then reported what happened to her
grandfather who wanted to confront appellant but that she stopped him
because appellant had told her he is a member of the CIDG. 14 AAA
identified appellant in open court as well as the Certificate 15 issued by Dr.
Salome Arinduque who was the doctor who examined her.16

On cross-examination, AAA clarified that their one storey house has

two rooms and that on the night of 21 May 2017, she was sleeping with
BBB on a single bed.17 AAA also clarified that she shouted “Tatay!” before
appellant covered her mouth and nose.18 AAA explained that when her
brother woke up, he asked who she was talking to and answered she was not
talking to anyone. According to AAA, her grandparents were sleeping in the
hut where appellant was allowed to stay, and that no one stayed in the
second room of their house as her parents were in Manila.19

The parties stipulated on the testimony of PO2 Joana Rabaca (PO2

Rabaca) that if presented, she will testify about the following matters: that
she was assigned at San Felipe Municipal Police Station, San Felipe,
Zambales; that on the date of the incident, she was assigned as the Women's
Desk Investigator; that in relation to this case, she prepared documents
10
Id, pp. 8-9.
11
Id, p. 10.
12
Id, p. 11.
13
Id, p. 12.
14
Id, p. 14.
15
Records, Exh. “F”, Certificate issued by Dr. Salome Arinduque, p. 6.
16
TSN dated 29 May 2018, Direct Examination of AAA, p. 13.
17
Id, p. 4.
18
Id, p. 5.
19
Id, p. 6.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 13050 Page 4 of 12
DECISION
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

regarding the incident; that the accused was turned over to her, and
thereafter, she executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay marked as Exh. “C” for the
prosecution. The defense admitted PO2 Rabaca's testimony with the
qualification that she has no personal knowledge as to how the incident
transpired and how appellant was arrested.20

Dr. Salome Arinduque, for her part, testified that she examined AAA
who was brought to the Rural Health Unit at 8:00 a.m. of 21 May 2017,
complaining that she was sexually abused. Dr. Arinduque further testified
that she remembered having issued a handwritten Medico-Legal Certificate 21
with the finding that AAA had a laceration at the 6 o'clock position of her
genital area which could only be brought about from a trauma of a foreign
object inserted in the vaginal area. 22 Dr. Arinduque also stated that her RHU
staff on duty at that time interviewed AAA and relayed to her the complaint
that AAA was sexually abused.23

On cross-examination, Dr Arinduque explained that there was

erythema (pamumula ng pisngi ng ari ng pasyente) found on the genital area
of AAA with a white foul-smelling discharge. Dr. Arinduque clarified that
considering AAA's complaint, she had to look for evidence that there really
was penetration and that she found a 3 mm long laceration on the 6 o'clock
position of AAA's genital area. Dr. Arinduque also explained that the said
laceration and erythema is also consistent with a person who had consensual
sex. Dr. Arinduque also stated that she did not notice any other abrasion or
hematoma or any evidence showing physical resistance on AAA's part,
except in the vaginal area.24

On re-direct examination, Dr. Arinduque divulged that AAA's

underwear had bloodstains but that she did not appear scared or shaken.25

CCC, for his part, testified that he is AAA's father and presented her
Certificate of Live Birth26 as proof.27 CCC also testified that his father, DDD
hired appellant as a farm helper and that their house is adjacent to the house
of his father. CCC narrated that after finding out about the incident through
his sister,28 he went home immediately. CCC further testified that when he
arrived home, AAA was already at the Municipal Hall and that AAA was

20
Records, Order dated 18 September 2018, p. 55.
21
Records, Exh. “F”, Certificate issued by Dr. Salome Arinduque, p. 6.
22
TSN dated 11 December 2018, Direct Examination of Dr. Salome Arinduque, pp. 4-5.
23
Id, p. 5.
24
Id, pp. 5-6.
25
Id, pp. 7-8.
26
Records, Exh. “E”, Certificate of Live Birth, p. 9.
27
TSN dated 11 December 2018, Direct Examination of CCC, p. 10.
28
TSN dated 11 December 2018, Direct Examination of CCC, p. 12.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 13050 Page 5 of 12
DECISION
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

crying and trembling while the investigator talked to her.29

On the other hand, appellant's Sinumpaang Kontra-Salaysay30 was

adopted as his direct testimony essentially stating that around 6:00 p.m. of
21 May 2017, he woke up in his hut in the farm where several people
suddenly mauled him. Appellant stated that he was brought to the barangay
hall where he was again mauled and that after several hours, several
policemen arrived and brought him to the police station. Appellant further
stated that at the police station, he was again mauled by two policemen
because he had allegedly raped someone and that after a while, the relatives
of his supposed victim arrived then beat him up again. According to
appellant, on the night of 20 May 2017, he was asleep in his hut after
working in the farm and that his hut is far from AAA's house so he does not
know why he was being accused of rape in this case. 31 Appellant added that
before 21 May 2018, he saw AAA crying together with her grandfather, and
that he even asked why she was crying. Appellant disclosed that AAA
supposedly told him that her mother's cousin attempted to rape her which
was why he was surprised he was the one being accused of rape in this
case.32

RULING OF THE RTC

On 10 April 2019, the RTC rendered a Decision,33 the dispositive

portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused JERICHO L.

NOLASCO is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape
under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code as amended and he is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Moreover, accused is ordered to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil

indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 as exemplary
damages, and the same shall earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.”34

Hence, this appeal.

29
Id, p. 13.
30
Records, Exh. “1”, Sinumpaang Kontra-Salaysay of Jericho L. Nolasco, pp. 108-109.
31
Id, p. 108.
32
Id, p. 109.
33
Records, Decision, pp. 120-125.
34
Id, p. 125.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 13050 Page 6 of 12
DECISION
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

“I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE INCONCLUSIVE FINDINGS
OF THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, DR. SALOME ARINDUQUE.

II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO
THE OVERWHELMINGLY CONTRADICTING AND INCREDULOUS
TESTIMONY OF AAA.

III.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF RAPE
DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF THE ELEMENT OF FORCE AND
INTIMIDATION.”35

THE COURT'S RULING

Appellant's guilt was proven

beyond reasonable doubt

Appellant contends that the element of force and intimidation was not
proven and that AAA testimony was incredible and unbelievable such that
the RTC erred in convicting him in the case at bench.

Appellant enumerates the following allegedly incredible aspects of

AAA's testimony, to wit: BBB remained asleep even if he shared one bed
with AAA in the same room, and despite the ruckus created by BBB
struggle;36 BBB when awakened merely asked who AAA was talking to and
that AAA denied anyone was even there;37 AAA remarkably called for her
grandfather who was not even in the house when it was more logical to seek
the help of BBB himself;38 it was supposedly physically impossible for him
to carry AAA to the other room while covering her mouth at the same time; 39
when BBB called AAA, she responded in a soft voice when AAA could have
easily shouted for help;40 and, instead of escaping when he had supposedly

35
Rollo, Appellant's Brief, p. 43.
36
Id, p. 49.
37
Id, pp. 50-51.
38
Id, p. 51.
39
Id.
40
Id, p. 52.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 13050 Page 7 of 12
DECISION
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

hidden under the bamboo bed, AAA inexplicably remained inside the
room.41

Appellant's arguments deserve scant consideration.

Article 266-A, paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) reads
as follows:

“Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. — Rape is committed

—
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of
the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise
unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is
demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be
present.”

Accordingly, to sustain a conviction for rape through sexual

intercourse, the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond
reasonable doubt, namely, (i) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the
victim; and (ii) that the said act was accomplished (a) through the use of
force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, or (c) by means of fraudulent machination or grave
abuse of authority, or (d) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is
demented.42

Carnal knowledge is proven by proof of the entry or introduction of

the male organ into the female organ; the touching or entry of the penis into
the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum of the victim's
genitalia constitutes consummated rape.43

All the elements of the crime of rape under Article 266-A(1) of the
RPC are present in this case.

In the case of People v. Galvez,44 the Supreme Court ruled that what is
merely required in establishing rape through testimonial evidence is that the
41
Id.
42
People v. Laguerta, G.R. No. 233542, 9 July 2018.
43
People v. Galvez, G.R. No. 212929, 29 July 2015.
44
Id, citing People v. Gecomo, G.R. Nos. 115035-36, 23 February 1996.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 13050 Page 8 of 12
DECISION
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

victim be categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank in her

statements about the incident of rape. Here, there is no doubt that appellant
had carnal knowledge of AAA who never wavered in her narration of her
harrowing ordeal at the hands of appellant in this case. AAA categorically
testified that in the early morning of 21 May 2017, she was sleeping beside
her younger brother BBB, when she was awakened and then sensed the
presence of someone by reason of the strong scent of someone smoking a
cigarette. AAA categorically testified that she saw appellant beside her
cabinet and that she was certain it was appellant as he had a drinking session
with her grandfather the night prior and that he even asked her to buy
softdrinks for them. AAA narrated that she tried to call the attention of her
grandfather, but that appellant swiftly covered her mouth then threatened to
kill her, her parents, and grandparents if she shouted. AAA stated that she
tried to defend herself with a nail pusher, but that appellant was able to
overpower her. AAA disclosed that appellant thereafter carried her to her
mother's room, where appellant laid her down, undressed her, went on top of
her, and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina. There is no doubt
therefore that AAA's testimony was straightforward, honest, and consistent
on all material points and it is sufficient to establish carnal knowledge in the
instant case of rape.

More significantly, AAA's testimony was corroborated by Dr.

Arinduque's testimony as well as the latter's findings in the Medico-Legal
Certificate45 that AAA had a laceration at the 6 o'clock position of her genital
area, which could only be brought about from a trauma of a foreign object
inserted in her vaginal area. Thus, it is well-settled that when the testimony
of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, there is sufficient
basis to conclude that there has been carnal knowledge.46

The element of force, threat, or intimidation is also undeniably present

in this case. Force, as an element of rape, must be sufficient to consummate
the purposes which the accused had in mind. On the other hand, intimidation
must produce fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of
the accused, something would happen to her at that moment or even
thereafter as when she is threatened with death if she reports the incident.
Intimidation includes the moral kind as the fear caused by threatening the
girl with a knife or pistol.47

Here, AAA was unable to resist or cry for help precisely because
appellant covered her mouth as she was bodily carried towards her mother's

45
Records, Exh. “F”, Certificate issued by Dr. Salome Arinduque, p. 6.
46
People v. Galvez, G.R. No. 212929, 29 July 2015 citing People v. Mercado, G.R. No. 189847, 30 May
2011.
47
Id.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 13050 Page 9 of 12
DECISION
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

room where appellant was able to consummate his beastly desires. While
AAA tried to defend herself using a nail pusher, her strength was simply no
match to appellant who as a farm-worker was definitely much stronger than
her.

In addition, appellant sufficiently intimidated AAA by threatening to

kill her, her parents, and her grandparents if she shouted for help. As a result,
appellant succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA.

Likewise, the fact that AAA failed to shout for help or wake her
brother should not be taken against her. In rape, the force and intimidation
must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the
time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule. 48 As
long as the force or intimidation is present, whether it was more or less
irresistible is beside the point.49 The victim's failure to tenaciously resist
appellant's advances should not be taken against her since such negative
assertion would not ipso facto make voluntary her submission to appellant's
criminal act.50

Besides, it is well-settled that not all victims react the same way. Some
people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility,
while others may appear to yield to the intrusion. Some may offer strong
resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all.
Nevertheless, resistance is not an element of rape.51

Also, appellant's assertion that AAA purportedly did nothing when

appellant hid under the bamboo bed is apparently false and misleading. AAA
adequately explained in her Sinumpaang Salaysay52 that:

“Pagkabitaw niya sa akin ay nagmadali na ako na lumabas ng

kwarto at pinuntahan ko ang aking kapatid at umalis na kami ng bahay
namin at nagpunta na kami sa kubo na pinagtutulugan ng lolo at lola ko.”

Thus, AAA was in fact desperate to escape from the clutches of

appellant which belies appellant's self-serving assertion that she practically
did nothing as he hid under the bed. If at all, the fact that appellant never
disputed that he hid under the bamboo bed betrays his guilt and shame as a
consequence of his uncontrollable evil urge and deed.

48
Id.
49
People v. Bisora, G.R. No. 218942, 5 June 2017.
50
Id.
51
Id.
52
Records, Exh. “A”, Sinumpaang Salaysay of AAA, p. 4.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 13050 Page 10 of 12
DECISION
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

There is likewise nothing incredible when BBB was not awakened by

the supposed ruckus that appellant created while he was imposing his will on
the hapless AAA. It must be pointed out that BBB was only 11 years old at
the time of the rape incident. Thus, in People v. Sangil,53 the Supreme Court
held that:

“It is also not impossible nor incredible for the family members to
be in deep slumber and not be awakened while the sexual assault is being
committed. One may also suppose that growing children sleep more
soundly than grown-ups and are not easily awakened by adult
exertions and suspirations in the night. There is no merit in
appellant's contention that there can be no rape in a room where other
people are present. There is no rule that rape can be committed only in
seclusion. We have repeatedly declared that lust is no respecter of time and
place, and rape can be committed in even the unlikeliest of places.”
(emphasis supplied)

More importantly and also because BBB was only 11 years old at that
time, AAA obviously wanted to protect him and did not want to put her
younger sibling in peril and harm's way. Thus, AAA deemed it best to seek
help from her grandfather rather than from BBB. In fact, when BBB woke
up and sought out her sister, AAA understandably controlled the situation
and never panicked so as not to unduly imperil her younger brother. AAA's
kindness and concern for her relatives is best exemplified by the fact that
when her grandfather wanted to immediately confront appellant, AAA
instead restrained him knowing that appellant was a probable CIDG
personnel.

Time and again, the Supreme Court has held that when the offended
parties are young and immature girls, as in this case, courts are inclined to
lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their
relative vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to which they
would be exposed if the matter about which they testified were not true. A
young girl would not usually concoct a tale of defloration; publicly admit
having been ravished and her honor tainted; allow the examination of her
private parts; and undergo all the trouble and inconvenience, not to mention
the trauma and scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped and
been truly moved to protect and preserve her honor, and motivated by the
desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts committed against her. Moreover,
the Court has repeatedly held that the lone testimony of the victim in a rape
case, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction.54

Thus, appellant's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt and the
53
G.R. No. 113689, 31 July 1997.
54
People v. Fetalco, G.R. No. 241249, 28 July 2020.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 13050 Page 11 of 12
DECISION
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

RTC correctly gave weight and credence to AAA's testimony.

The RTC correctly relied on

Dr. Arinduque's testimony

Appellant nonetheless argues that as per Dr. Arinduque's testimony,

the presence of erythema or the redness of the vagina and hymenal
laceration may also result from consensual sex. Appellant contends that the
RTC overlooked the substantial circumstance in Dr. Arinduque's testimony
and lost its impartiality when it had to form its own conclusions beyond
what was presented as evidence by the prosecution just to render a decision
in AAA's favor.

Appellant's contentions are without basis and not impressed with

merit.

It must be stressed that based on Dr. Arinduque's findings, AAA's

hymen had a 3 mm laceration positioned at 6 o'clock, consistent with AAA's
testimony that she was raped. While it is true that Dr. Arinduque mentioned
that the erythema and hymenal laceration can also be the result of
consensual sexual intercourse, what is clear is the fact that there was
penetration.

Assuming arguendo that there was an inconsistency in Dr.

Arinduque's findings, AAA's positive testimony will still prevail over the
testimony of the forensic expert. This is because medical examination and
testimony are not indispensable elements in a prosecution for rape. An
accused can be convicted of rape on the basis of the sole testimony of the
victim. Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and not
essential to conviction.55

Furthermore, nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence

than that denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony
and identification of the complainant. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense
which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit
credibility.56

The amount of damages

awarded by the RTC is
correct
55
People v. Barberan, G.R. No. 208759, 22 June 2016.
56
People v. Ganaba, G.R No. 219240, 4 April 2018.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 13050 Page 12 of 12
DECISION
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

In the 2016 case of People v. Jugueta,57 the Supreme Court ruled that
in the crime of simple rape where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua,
the victim must be awarded P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as
moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. The amount of
damages awarded by the RTC is therefore in consonance with the ruling of
the Supreme Court in Jugueta.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED for lack

of merit. The Decision dated 10 April 2019 rendered by the Regional Trial
Court, Third Judicial Region, Iba, Zambales, Branch 71 in Criminal Case
No. RTC-10769-1 is AFFIRMED IN TOTO.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
RONALDO ROBERTO B. MARTIN
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED ORIGINAL SIGNED

RAMON R. GARCIA ANGELENE MARY W. QUIMPO-SALE
Associate Justice Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
RAMON R. GARCIA
Associate Justice
CHAIRPERSON, SIXTH DIVISION

57
G.R. No. 202124, 4 April 2016.