Delgado v Gonzales

7/16/2015 G.R.No.184337

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/184337.htm 1/22

FIRSTDIVISION

HEIRSOFFEDERICOC.DELGADOandANNALISAPESICO,Petitioners,versus

LUISITOQ.GONZALEZandANTONIOT.BUENAFLOR,Respondents.

G.R.No.184337Present:

CARPIO,Chairperson,CARPIOMORALES,*

VELASCO,JR.,*LEONARDODECASTRO,andBERSAMIN,JJ.Promulgated:August7,2009

xx

DECISION

CARPIO,J.:

TheCase

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari[1] assailing the Amended

Decision[2] dated 29 August 2008 of the Court of Appeals Former Special Seventh

Division,which reversed theOriginalDecision[3]dated18March2008of theCourtofAppealsSeventhDivision,inCAG.R.SPNo.101196.

TheAntecedentFacts

7/16/2015 G.R.No.184337


O11March2007,thepolicefoundthedeadbodyofFedericoC.Delgado(Delgado)athisresidence in Mayflower Building, 2515 Leon Guinto corner Estrada Streets, Malate,Manila.ThepolicewasalertedbyAnnalisaD.Pesico(Pesico),whoallegedlywaspresent

atthetimeofthecommissionofthecrimeandwaslikewiseinjuredintheincident.[4]

On1June2007,onbehalfofPesicoandtheheirsofDelgado(petitioners),[5]theManilaPoliceDistrict(MPD),representedbyAlejandroB.YanquilingJr.,ChiefoftheHomicide

Section, filed a complaintaffidavit[6]with theOffice of theCityProsecutor ofManila.TheMPDchargedrespondentsLuisitoQ.Gonzalez(Gonzalez)andAntonioT.Buenaflor(Buenaflor)withthemurderofDelgadoandfrustratedmurderofPesico.Gonzalezisthestepbrother of the deceased andBuenaflorwas a former driver for 15 years ofCitadelCorporation,ownedbytheDelgadofamily.Togetherwiththecomplaintaffidavit,thepolicepresentedthefollowingdocuments:

1.SwornStatement(SinumpaangSalaysay)ofPesicodated11March2007[7]

2. Supplemental Sworn Statement (Karagdagang Sinumpaang Salaysay) of

Pesicodated15March2007[8]and3.CrimeandProgressReportsofSeniorPoliceOfficer2(SPO2)Virgo

BanVillarealdated23March2007.[9]

At petitioners request, the casewas transferred to theDepartment of Justice (DOJ) for

preliminary investigation.[10] On 20 June 2007, the MPD filed a Supplemental

ComplaintAffidavit[11]andattachedthefollowingadditionaldocuments:

1.SceneoftheCrimeOperation(SOCO)Reportdated11March2007[12]

2.MedicalCertificateofPesicofromtheOspitalngMayniladated7June2007[13]

3.CartographicSketchofoneofthesuspectsdated13March2007,drawnbyanartist

sketcheroftheMPD,asdescribedbyPesico[14]

4.PhotographsofcriminalsandDelgadosfamilymembers,relatives,friendsandemployees,showntoPesico,wheresherecognizedGonzalezandBuenaflorastheones

7/16/2015 G.R.No.184337


whomauledherandmurderedDelgado[15]

5.AffidavitofSPO2VirgoBanVillarealdated15June2007attestingtotheidentification

madebyPesicoafterviewingsaidphotographs[16]

6.AffidavitofRetiredPoliceSuperintendentLeonitoManipolCantollas,theforensicdocumentexaminerwhoanalyzedthequestionedhandwrittenwordFRANCO,the

inscriptiononawallfoundatthecrimescene[17]

7.QuestionedDocumentExaminationReportNo.00407ofLeonitoManipolCantollas[18]

8.CurriculumVitaeofLeonitoManipolCantollas[19]

9.ComplaintAffidavitforRobberyfiledbyJoseMariC.Delgado,stepbrotherof

Gonzalez,againstRubyQ.GonzalezMeyer,sisterofGonzalez[20]

10.Letterviaelectronicmaildated4July2003writtenbyRubyQ.GonzalezMeyer

toherandGonzalezsmother,VickyQuirinoGonzalezDelgado[21]

11. Newspaper clipping taken from the Philippine Daily Inquirer dated 26March2007,whereGonzalezswife,KuhLedesma,talkedabouthim,theirrelationship

andtheaccusationsthatherhusbandwasfacing[22]

12. Newspaper clipping taken from the Philippine Daily Inquirer dated 22March2007,referringtothefamilyfeudbetweentheDelgadoandGonzalezsiblings[23]and

13. Police Blotter dated 16March 2007 reported byAtty. AugustoM. Perez, Jr.,lawyerofFranciscoFrancoDelgadoIII,regardingathreateningphonecallbyan

unknowncallermadeon15March2007atthelattersresidence.[24]

GonzalezandBuenaflorfiledtheirCounterAffidavits,respectively.[25]Togetherwithhis

counteraffidavit,Gonzalezattachedrelevantdocuments[26]establishinghisconfinementattheNeuroPsychiatricUnitoftheMakatiMedicalCenterfrom7March2007until18March 2007 and the corroborative affidavits of 29 impartial and independentwitnesses

composed of physicians, nurses and personnel of said hospital.[27] On the other hand,Buenaflor presented the affidavit of his employer, who attested that Buenaflor was on

dutyanddrivingforhimatthetimeofDelgadosdeath.[28]

7/16/2015 G.R.No.184337


ActingCityProsecutorofManilaCielitolindoA.Luyun(InvestigatingProsecutor)conductedthepreliminaryinvestigationandevaluatedtheevidencesubmittedbytheMPD,aswellasrespondentsCounterAffidavits,corroboratingaffidavitsof29witnesses,andsupportingdocumentaryevidence.InaResolutiondated10September2007,theInvestigatingProsecutordismissedthecomplaintforlackofprobablecausethat

respondentscommittedthecrimesofmurderandfrustratedmurder.[29]

On18September2007,petitionersfiledaPetitionforReviewwiththeSecretaryofJustice.On15October2007,thenActingSecretaryofJusticeAgnesVSTDevanadera(ActingSecretaryDevanadera)reversedthefindingoftheInvestigatingProsecutoranddirectedthefilingofseparateinformationsformurderandlessseriousphysicalinjuries

againstrespondents.[30]

On18October2007,respondentsfiledaMotionforReconsiderationwhichwasdeniedby

ActingSecretaryDevanaderainaResolutiondated26October2007.[31]

On30October2007,thecorrespondingInformationswerefiled.ThechargeforthecrimeofmurderwasfiledbeforetheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofManila,Branch32,docketedasCriminalCaseNo.07257487.ThechargeoflessseriousphysicalinjurieswasfiledbeforetheMetropolitanTrialCourtofManila,Branch9,docketedasCriminal

CaseNo.441878.[32]

Thereafter,respondentsfiledwiththeCourtofAppealsapetitionforcertiorariandprohibitionunderRule65,docketedasCAG.R.SPNo.101196,assailingtheResolutions

ofActingSecretaryDevanaderadated15October2007and26October2007.[33]

TheRulingoftheCourtofAppeals

On18March2008,theCourtofAppeals,initsOriginalDecision,dismissedthepetitionanddeniedrespondentsapplicationforpreliminaryand/orpermanentinjunctivewrit.Theappellate court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of Acting SecretaryDevanadera in issuing theResolutions dated 15October 2007 and 26October 2007. Itaffirmed the existence of probable cause when Pesico, the lone eyewitness of thecommission of the crime, positively identified respondents as the perpetrators. TherelevantportionoftheOriginalDecisionstates:

Asheldbypublic respondent,probablecausewasmet,andrightlyso,whenPesico, the

7/16/2015 G.R.No.184337


lone eyewitness of the commission of the crime positively identified petitioners as theauthorsof thebestialact.TocastdoubtonPesicospositive identificationofpetitioners,the latterpointed to thealleged inconsistencies in the twoaffidavits that the formerhasexecutedandsuchothercircumstancessurroundingthecommissionofthecrimeshowingtheimprobabilityofidentification.Butascorrectlyruledbypublicrespondent, theseareminor inconsistencies and matters which are not enough, at that stage in time, tooverthrowthepossibilityandcredibilityofidentification.

Ontheonehandarethefollowingfacts,establishedbythecomplaints:(1)ThatPesico,whowaslikewiseinjured,witnessedthecommissionofthecrime(2)Hercondition,despitetheinjurycausedbythebluntobjectthatwasusedtomaulher,withswolleneyes,tiedinthearmsandlegs,doesnottotallyforestallthepossibilitythatshecouldhaveseenandidentifiedtheassailants(3)Pesicoidentifiedpetitionersastheauthorsofthecomplainedactsand(4)NoevidencetoshowthatPesicoandpetitionersknoweachotherastoentertainanypossibilitythatheridentificationmayhavebeenpromptedbyillmotive.Ontheother,arepetitionersdefenseofalibianddenialwhichtheyassertwerenotconsideredbypublicrespondent.Inordertooverthrowthejurisprudentialinjunctionofgivingsuperiorregardtopositiveidentificationoverthedefensesofalibianddenial,thesedefensesshouldbeclearlyestablishedandmustnotleaveanyroomfordoubtastoitsplausibilityandverity.It(alibi)cannotprevailoverthepositivetestimoniesoftheprosecutionwitnesseswhohavenomotivetotestifyfalselyagainsttheaccused.Theburdenofevidence,thus,shiftsontherespondentstoshowthattheirdefensesofalibianddenialarestrongenoughtodefeatprobablecause,whichwasengenderedbytheprosecutionsallegedeyewitnesspositiveidentificationofthemastheassailantstothecrimeunderinvestigation.Moreover,foralibitoprosper,theremustbeproofthatitwasphysicallyimpossiblefortheaccusedtobeatthesceneofthecrimeatthetimeitwascommitted.Atthisjuncture,Wenotetheundisputedfact,concerningtheaccessibilityofthedistancebetweenthecrimesceneandthehospitalwherepetitionerGonzale[z]allegedtohavebeendetailed/admitted.ThesameistruewithpetitionerBuenaflorwhowasonlyinthevicinityofRoxasBoulevard.Consideringthedistanceofthelocuscriminisandtheplacespetitionersallegedtheywereatthetimeofthecommissionofthecrime,neithertheirargumentsnortheaffidavitsoftheirwitnessesdrawoutthepossibility,naycreatephysicalimpossibility,thattheymayhavebeenatthesceneofthecrimewhenitwascommitted.xxxINVIEWOFTHEFOREGOING,WefindnograveabuseofdiscretiononthepartoftheActingSecretaryofJusticeinissuingtheResolutionsdated15October2007and26October2007.ACCORDINGLY,thepresentPetitionisherebyDISMISSEDandpetitionersapplicationforpreliminary(and/orpermanent)injunctivewritisnecessarilydenied.

SOORDERED.[34]

Respondents then filed aMotion forReconsiderationwith theCourt ofAppeals on 27

March2008.[35]

7/16/2015 G.R.No.184337


Meanwhile,on3July2008,theRTCorderedthatwarrantsofarrestbeissuedagainst

respondents.[36]On16and21July2008,GonzalezandBuenaflor,respectively,

surrenderedvoluntarilytothepolice.[37]On28July2008,respondentsfiledwiththeRTCaMotionforReconsideration(oftheOrderdated3July2008).Toaddressthemotionforreconsiderationfiledbyrespondents,theCourtofAppealsheldoralargumentson17July2008.Aftersaidhearing,theappellatecourtissuedanAmendedDecisiondated29August2008.IntheAmendedDecision,theCourtofAppealsgrantedthemotionforreconsiderationandorderedthattheInformationschargingpetitionerswithmurderandlessseriousphysicalinjuriesbequashedanddismissed.TherelevantportionoftheAmendedDecisionstates:

This Court has carefully evaluated the evidence of the parties once more, and itsreassessment of the evidence compels it to reconsider its previous affirmationof publicrespondent Acting Secretary of Justices finding of probably cause.The Courts incisivescrutinyoftheevidenceledittotheconclusionthattherewasreallyinsufficientevidencetosupportpublicrespondentActingSecretaryofJusticesfindingofprobablecause.Itissignificanttostressatthispointthatwhileprobableguiltandevidencelessthansufficientforconviction is the threshold inprobablecausedeterminations, it isalso importantnayindispensablethattherebesufficientandcredibleevidencetodemonstratetheexistenceofprobablecause.

xxx

Public respondent Acting Secretary of Justices finding of probable cause against thepetitioners is based solely on the account of the prosecutions lone eyewitness, privaterespondentAnnalisaPesico.xxx

ItisonceapparentthatpublicrespondentActingSecretaryofJusticedidnotreallydwellontheessentialfactsofthecase,muchlessdigthroughthecrucialdetailsofprivaterespondentPesicosaccount.Curiously,aclosereadingofpublicrespondentActingSecretaryofJusticesassailedresolutionrevealsthatexceptfortherathersweepingfindingthatprivaterespondentPesicopositivelyidentifiedthepetitioners,mostofitwererestatements,withoutmore,ofbroadprinciplesandpresumptionsincriminallaw,suchasthedoctrinesonalibi,denial,andpositiveidentification.SuchdispositionutterlyfallsshortoftheadmonitionsenunciatedinSalongaandreiteratedinAllado.Indeed,whileprobablecauseshouldbedeterminedinasummarymanner,thereisaneedtoexaminetheevidencewithcaretopreventmaterialdamagetoapotentialaccusedsconstitutionalrighttolibertyandtheguaranteesoffreedomandfairplay,andtoprotecttheStatefromtheburdenofunnecessaryexpensesinprosecutingallegedoffensesandholdingtrialsarisingfromfalse,fraudulentorgroundlesscharges.xxxThepivotalquestionthenis,wastherereallypositiveidentificationofthepetitioners?InPeoplevs.Teehankee,Jr.,theSupremeCourtexplainedtheprocedureforoutofcourtidentificationandthetesttodeterminetheadmissibilityofsuchidentification,thus:

x x x Outofcourt identification is conducted by the police in variousways.Itisdonethrushowupswherethesuspectaloneisbroughtfaceto

7/16/2015 G.R.No.184337


facewith thewitness for identification. It is done thrumug shots wherephotographsareshowntothewitnesstoidentifythesuspect.Itisalsodonethrulineupswhereawitnessidentifiesthesuspectfromagroupofpersonslined up for the purpose. Since corruption of outofcourt identificationcontaminates the integrityof incourt identificationduringthe trialof thecase, courts have fashioned out rules to assure its fairness and itscompliance with the requirements of constitutional due process. Inresolvingtheadmissibilityofandrelyingonoutofcourtidentificationofsuspects,courtshaveadoptedthetotalityofcircumstancestestwheretheyconsiderthefollowingfactors,viz:(1)thewitnessopportunitytoviewthecriminalatthetimeofthecrime(2)thewitnessdegreeofattentionatthattime(3)theaccuracyofanypriordescriptiongivenbythewitness(4)thelevelofcertaintydemonstratedbythewitnessattheidentification(5)thelength of time between the crime and the identification and (6) thesuggestivenessoftheidentificationprocedure.

Takingintoconsiderationtheforegoingtest,thisCourtfindssufficientreasonstoseriouslydoubttheidentificationmadebyprivaterespondentPesicopointingtothepetitionersastheculprits.First,acarefulanalysisofprivaterespondentPesicosaccountwouldrevealthatshedidnotreallyhavesufficientopportunitytoviewtheassailantsatthetimeofthecommissionofthecrime.Byherownaccount,privaterespondentPesiconarratedthatastheywereabouttoenterFedericosroom,two(2)mensuddenlycameoutfromtheroomandimmediatelystabbedFederico,whileshewasalsohitwithahardobjectonherheadandbody.Consideringthesuddennessoftheattackplusthefactthattheassailantshadcoversormasksontheirfaces,itwascertainlynotpossible,atthatinstance,thatshecouldhaveseentheirfaces.Inalaterstatementwhichsheexecutedfour(4)daysafter,shenonethelessrepairedheraccountbyexplainingthatwhilepetitionershadcoversontheirfacesandwhileherownfacewascoveredwithtowelandsomepiecesofclothing,shenevertheless,canstillseethroughthem,asinfact,shesawthefaceofpetitionerLuisitoGonzale[z]whenthelatterallegedlyremovedthecoverinhisfacebecauseofthehumidityinsidetheroom.Atthispoint,privaterespondentPesicowasobviouslyreferringatthatparticularinstancewhenshewaslyingdownonthefloorinsidethedressingroom.ThisCourtentertainsnaggingdoubtsinthisrespect.xxxSecond,privaterespondentPesicoutterlymissedoutimportantdetailsinherfirstnarrationoftheeventsthattranspiredduringthecommissionofthecrime.Significantdetailssuchasthecoversormasksonthefacesoftheassailants,thestrongVisayanaccentofoneoftheassailant,thatthetelevisionwasturnedon,thattheassailantsremovedtheirmasksbecauseoftheheatintheroom,thatherfacewascoveredwithtowelandsomepiecesofclothing,etc.,wereentirelylackinginherfirstswornstatement,andwereonlysuppliedlaterinhersecondswornstatement.Whileherfirstswornstatementundoubtedlycountsasafreshaccountoftheincident,therearevalidreasonstosuspectthatthesecondswornstatementcouldhavebeentainted,ifnotsuppliedorsuggested,consideringtheinterveningtimebetweentheexecutionofthefirstandsecondstatements.Third,therewaslittlecertaintyinprivaterespondentPesicosidentification.Therewasnomentionatallofanydistinguishingcharacteristicsliketheheight,weight,built,complexion,hair,moles,mustache,etc.oftheassailants,nottomentiontheattireorthecoloroftheirclothing,individualmannerismsorgestures,accessories,ifany,thatcouldperhapsspecificallyidentifythepetitionersastheassailants.TherewasofcourseprivaterespondentPesicosaccountthatoneoftheassailantshadastrongVisayanaccent,fierceeyesandpointedfacebutsuchwasrathertoogeneraladescriptiontodiscriminatepetitionersagainstathousandandonesuspectswhowouldsimilarlypossesssuchdescription.

7/16/2015 G.R.No.184337


Furthermore,whileprivaterespondentPesicoclaimedtohaveseenthefacesofboththeassailant,therewasonlyonecartographicsketchofonesuspect.Oddlyenough,thecartographicsketchdoesnotevenstrikeanycloseresemblancetothefacialfeaturesofanyoneofthepetitioners.Fourth,therewassufficientlapseoftimebetweenthetimeofthecommissionofthecrimeswhenprivaterespondentPesicoallegedlysawtheassailantsandthetimeshemadeheridentification.Theinterveningperiod,i.e.,four(4)daystobeexact,wasmorethansufficienttohaveexposedwhatwasotherwiseaccurateandhonestperceptionoftheassailantstoextraneousinfluences,whichmoreorlessleadsthisCourttoconcludethatprivaterespondentPesicosidentificationofthepetitionerscouldnothavebeenuncontaminated.This,inlightofthefactthatpriortotheidentification,privaterespondentPesicowaspartofthejointinspectionofthecrimesceneconductedbythepoliceinvestigatorswiththemembersoftheDelgadofamily,who,atthattimefloatedthefamilyfeudtheoryofthecase.Fifth,thisCourtfindsthephotolineupidentificationconductedbythepoliceinvestigatorstobetotallyunreliableandparticularlydangerous,thesamebeingimpermissiblysuggestive.ThepicturesshowntoprivaterespondentPesicoconsistedmainlyofthemembersoftheDelgadofamily,employeesandcloseassociates,letalonethefactthatintheparticularpicturefromwhichpetitionerLuisitoGonzale[z]wasidentifiedbyprivaterespondentPesicoasoneoftheassailants,hewastheonlymaleindividual.Juxtaposedwiththefamilyfeudangleofthecase,thereiscompellingreasontobelievethatpetitionerLuisitoGonzale[z]wasisolatedandsuggested,wittinglyorunwittingly,bythepoliceinvestigatorsasaprimesuspectinthecase.Insum,thisCourtisoftheviewthatpetitionerLuisitoGonzale[z]sidentificationwaslessthantrustworthyandcouldnothavebeenpositivebutmerelyderivative.xxxInlightofthesignificantimprobabilities,uncertaintiesandinconsistenciesinprivaterespondentPesicosaccount,aswellasthetotalunreliabilityoftheidentificationshemade,thepetitionersalibianddenialthusassumecommensuratestrength.Theiralibianddenialassumeparticularimportanceinthiscaseasthesamearecorroboratedbynolessthantwentynine(29)impartialanddisinterestedwitnesses.xxxThustakingintoaccountthese29swornstatements,itwascertainlyimpossibleforthepetitionerstohavebeenatthelocuscriminis.xxxAlibiisnotalwaysundeservingofcredit,fortherearetimeswhentheaccusedhasnootherpossibledefenseforwhatcouldreallybethetruthastohiswhereaboutsatthe

crucialtime,andsuchdefensemayinfacttiltthescalesofjusticeinhisfavor.[38]

TheSolicitorGeneral,whoisnowAgnesVSTDevanadera,didnotappealtheappellatecourtsAmendedDecisionwhichreversedherResolutionsof15October2007and26October2007whenshewasActingSecretaryofJustice.InG.R.No.184507,theSolicitorGeneralfiledaMotionforExtensionofTimetofileaPetitionforReviewunderRule45beforethisCourt.However,the30dayextensiongivenhadlapsedwithoutthefilingofsaidpetition.Thus,theCourt,inaResolutiondated8December2008,declaredG.R.No.184507closedandterminated.On10September2008,respondentsfiledwiththeCourtofAppealsanUrgentMotionto

7/16/2015 G.R.No.184337


OrdertheAmendedDecisiondated29August2008asImmediatelyExecutory.[39]

On18September2008,petitionersfiledaPetitionforReviewunderRule45beforethis

Court.[40]Respondents,inconnectionwiththePetitionforReview,filedaMotionfortheRelease(OnBond,IfRequired).On2October2008,theCourtofAppealsissuedaResolutiondenyingthemotionfiledon

10September2008.[41]Thereafter,respondentsfiledaMotionforReconsideration.Meanwhile,on7October2008,theRTCissuedanOrdersuspendingtheproceedingsinCriminalCaseNo.07257487andeffectivelydeferredtheresolutionofrespondentsMotionforReconsideration(oftheOrderdated3July2008)pendingadecisionbythisCourtonthePetitionforReviewfiledbypetitioners.TheRTCalsoorderedthatboth

respondentsremainincustody.[42]

On5November2008,theCourtofAppealsissuedanotherResolutiondenyingthemotionforreconsiderationofits2October2008Resolution,statingthatwithduedeferencetotheSupremeCourtasthefinalarbiterofallcontroversies,theCourtofAppealsforbidsitselffromdeclaringthe29August2008AmendedDecisionasimmediatelyexecutory.ItheldfurtherthatsinceanappealbycertioraritotheSupremeCourthadalreadybeenfiledbypetitioners,anymotionforexecutionpendingappealshouldnowbefiledwiththe

SupremeCourt.[43]

Hence,thispetition.On10December2008,thisCourtconductedoralargumentstoheartherespectivepartiessides.InaResolutiondated17December2008,thisCourt,actingupontheMotionfortheRelease(OnBond,IfRequired)filedbyrespondents,orderedtheRTCofManila,Branch32,tohearrespondentsapplicationforbailwithdeliberatedispatch,sincethisCourtisnotinapositiontograntbailtorespondentsassuchgrantrequiresevidentiaryhearingthatshouldbeconductedbythetrialcourtwherethemurdercaseispending.On5January2009,respondentsfiledaMotionforReconsiderationofthisCourtsResolutiondated17December2008.On16March2009,thisCourtdeniedthemotionforreconsiderationanddirectedtheRTCofManila,Branch32,toconductasummaryhearingonbailandtoresolvethesamewithinthirty(30)daysfromreceiptoftheresolution.TheRTCofManila,Branch32,issuedanOrderdated27March2009settingahearingonbailon2April2009.On7April2009,respondentsfiledwiththisCourtaManifestationWaivingtheMotionfortheRelease(OnBond,IfRequired)dated17November2008.

7/16/2015 G.R.No.184337


Respondentsmanifestedthattheywaiveandabandontheirmotionforbail.TheIssues

Petitionerssubmitthefollowingissuesforourconsideration:

1.Whetherpetitionerspossessthelegalstandingtosueandwhetherpetitionerscan be considered as the real parties in interest that the DOJ Secretary asrepresentedbytheSolicitorGeneralisamerenominalpartythatthePeopleasrepresentedbytheCityProsecutorofManilawasnotanimpleadedpartybeforethe Court of Appeals that, unnotified of, and unserved with the amendeddecision of the Court of Appeals, the People is not bound thereby and that,therefore, neither the Secretary of Justice nor the Peoplewere called upon to

appealtotheSupremeCourt.[44]

2.WhethertheamendeddecisionoftheCourtofAppealsisfinalandcanbethe

subjectofexecutionpendingappeal.[45]

3.WhethertheCourtofAppealscommittedreversibleandwhimsicalerrorsof

lawintheamendeddecisionwarrantingreversalofthesame[46]inviewofthefollowingreasons:a. There were plain, speedy and adequate remedies available to respondents

priortotheirfilingofcertioraribeforetheCourtofAppeals.[47]

b. The Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion in her

determinationofprobablecause.[48]

c. The Court of Appeals strayed from the determination of grave abuse ofdiscretion and instead evaluated the evidence de novo, and erroneously

increasedthequantumofevidencerequiredfordeterminingprobablecause.[49]

d.TheCourtofAppealserroneouslysubstituteditsjudgmentfortheSecretaryofJustice.[50]

e.TheCourtofAppealsunderminedthejurisdictionoftheRTCoverthecriminal

proceedingsbyvirtueofthefilingoftheInformationtherein.[51]

TheCourtsRulingOnpetitionersstandingtofilethepetitionand

7/16/2015 G.R.No.184337


thefinalityoftheAmendedDecisionPetitioners contend that the parties impleaded in the Petition for Certiorari filed byrespondents before the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 101196 were ActingSecretaryDevanadera,HeirsofFedericoC.DelgadoandAnnalisaD.Pesico.ThePeopleofthePhilippineswasnevermadeasoneofthepartiesandneitherwasitnotifiedthrough

theCityProsecutorofManila.[52]Petitionersclaimthatincriminalproceedingswheretheonly issue isprobablecauseorgraveabuseofdiscretion in relation thereto, theprivatecomplainantandtheprivaterespondentaretheparties.Insuchproceedings,thePeopleofthePhilippinesisnotyetinvolvedasitbecomesapartytothemaincriminalproceedings

onlywhentheInformationisfiledwiththetrialcourt.[53]

PetitionersallegethatalthoughInformationswerefiledbeforethelowercourtsafterrespondentsfiledaPetitionforReviewwiththeCourtofAppeals,itdoesnotchangetherealitythatalltheproceedingsbeforetheDOJ,CourtofAppealsandthisCourtinvolveonlytheissueson(1)probablecause,(2)theallegedgraveabuseofdiscretionbytheActingSecretaryofJustice,and(3)thereversibleerrorsoflawandgraveabuseofdiscretiononthepartoftheCourtofAppealsinpromulgatingtheassailedAmendedDecision.ItispetitionerscontentionthatwhiletheActingSecretaryofJusticeisapublicrespondent,sheisatbestanominalorproformaparty.Hence,theSolicitorGeneralhadnoobligationtoappealthecasetothisCourttorepresenttheSecretaryofJusticeasa

nominalparty.[54]Further,theSolicitorGeneralsnonparticipationinthiscaseisnotafataldefectthatjeopardizespetitionerslegalstandingascomplainantsinthepreliminaryinvestigationproceedings,appellantsbeforetheSecretaryofJustice,respondentsinthe

CourtofAppealsandpetitionersbeforethisCourt.[55]

Petitionersstatethattheyaretherealpartiesininterestwhocannaturallybeexpectedto

fileacaseforthedeathoftheirbrother.CitingNarcisov.Sta.RomanaCruz,[56]

petitionersclaimthatasisterofthedeceasedisaproperpartylitigantwhoisakintotheoffendedparty.Respondentsarguethatpetitionerscannotclaimthattheinstantproceedingisnotpartofthecriminalcaseproperbecausethepreliminaryinvestigationhasalreadybeen

concluded.[57]QuotingSection9ofthe2000NationalProsecutionServiceRuleon

7/16/2015 G.R.No.184337


Appeal,[58]respondentsclaimthataninformationmaybefiledevenifthereviewoftheresolutionbytheSecretaryofJusticeisstillavailable.Thepreliminaryinvestigation,havingbeenconcluded,theprivateoffendedpartiesnolongerhavethepersonalitytoparticipatebythemselvesinthesucceedingproceedings.Respondentsinsistthatwhenpetitionersassertedtheirrighttoprosecuteapersonforacrime,throughthefilingofaninformation,theState,throughitsprosecutorialarm,isfromthatpointon,theonlyreal

partyininterest.[59]

RespondentsmaintainthatonlytheSolicitorGeneralmayrepresenttheStateinappellate

proceedingsofacriminalcase.[60]TheActingSecretaryofJusticecannotbeproperlycharacterizedasanominalpartybecauseitistherealpartyininterest,whoserighttoprosecuteoffensesisatstake.TheActingSecretaryofJustice,inissuingaresolutionthatthereisprobablecausetochargeapersonwithanoffense,assertstherightoftheStateto

prosecuteapersonforthecommissionofacrime.[61]Thus,theparticipationoftheprivateoffendedpartiesbeforetheCourtofAppealsisnotnecessaryforcompleterelieftobe

had,anditiscertainlynotindispensableforafinaldeterminationofthecase.[62]

Section35,Chapter12,TitleIII,BookIVoftheAdministrativeCodeof1987statesthattheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralshallrepresenttheGovernmentofthePhilippines,itsagenciesandinstrumentalitiesanditsofficialsandagentsinanylitigation,proceeding,investigationormatterrequiringtheservicesoflawyers.Likewise,theSolicitorGeneralshallrepresenttheGovernmentintheSupremeCourtandtheCourtofAppealsinallcriminalproceedings,thus:

Section35.PowersandFunctions.TheOfficeof theSolicitorGeneralshallrepresent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies andinstrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding,investigationormatterrequiringtheservicesoflawyers.Whenauthorizedbythe President or head of the office concerned, it shall also representgovernment owned or controlled corporations. The Office of the SolicitorGeneralshallconstitutethelawofficeoftheGovernmentand,assuch,shalldischargedutiesrequiringtheservicesoflawyers.Itshallhavethefollowingspecificpowersandfunctions:(1)RepresenttheGovernmentintheSupremeCourtandtheCourtofAppealsinallcriminalproceedingsrepresenttheGovernmentanditsofficersintheSupremeCourt,the Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and specialproceedings inwhich theGovernmentoranyofficer thereof inhisofficialcapacity isaparty.(Emphasissupplied)

ThelawclearlyrequirestheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneraltorepresenttheGovernment

7/16/2015 G.R.No.184337


intheSupremeCourtinallcriminalproceedingsbeforethisCourt.Asineverycaseofstatutoryconstruction,webeginouranalysisbylookingattheplainandliterallanguageofthetermcriminalproceeding.Criminalproceedingisdefinedasaproceedinginstituted

todetermine apersonsguilt or innocenceor to set a convictedpersonspunishment.[63]

Proceeding is defined as any procedural means for seeking redress from a tribunal or

agency.Itisthebusinessconductedbyacourtorotherofficialbody.[64]

Section1(a)ofRule110oftheRulesofCourtprovides:

Section1.Institutionofcriminalactions.Criminalactionsshallbeinstitutedasfollows:

(a)Foroffenseswhereapreliminaryinvestigationisrequiredpursuanttosection1ofRule112,byfilingthecomplaintwiththeproperofficerforthepurposeofconductingtherequisitepreliminaryinvestigation.

Itshouldbeobservedthatacriminalactionshallbeinstitutedbyfilingthecomplaintwiththeproperofficerforthepurposeofconductingthepreliminaryinvestigation.Inthiscase,thecriminalactionwasinstitutedwhenAlejandroYanquiling,Jr.,ChiefoftheHomicideSectionoftheMPDfiledtheComplaintAffidavitwiththeOfficeoftheCityProsecutor

of Manila.[65] The ComplaintAffidavit was supported by Pesicos sworn statement,affidavit of consent from the heirs of Delgado, crime report, progress report, SOCO

report,andcartographicsketch.[66]

Preliminaryinvestigation,althoughanexecutivefunction,ispartofacriminalproceeding.Infact,nocriminalproceedingunderthejurisdictionoftheRegionalTrialCourtisbroughttotrialunlessapreliminaryinvestigationisconducted.Weexplained,thus:

[T]herighttohaveapreliminaryinvestigationconductedbeforebeingboundover for trial for a criminal offense, and hence formally at risk ofincarcerationorsomeotherpenalty,isnotamereformalortechnicalrightitis a substantive right. A preliminary investigation should therefore bescrupulouslyconductedsothattheconstitutionalrighttolibertyofapotential

accusedcanbeprotectedfromanymaterialdamage.[67]

InRicafortv.Fernan,[68]thisCourthadtheoccasiontorule:

Asstatedbycounselfortherespondents,thepetitionhereinisanoffshoot,anincidentof

7/16/2015 G.R.No.184337


saidcriminalcaseforqualifiedtheft.Forallpurposes,therefore,itisacontinuationofthatcaseandpartakesofthenatureofacriminalproceeding.Thisbeingso,thepartydefeatedby the order of the respondent Judge dismissing the information inCriminal CaseNo.2819ofthecourtofFirstInstanceofDavaomustbethePeopleofthePhilippinesandnotthe petitioner, the complaining witness. Consequently, the proper party to bring thispetitionistheStateandtheproperlegalrepresentationshouldbetheSolicitorGeneralandnot the attorney for the complaining witness who was the private prosecutor in saidCriminalCaseNo.2819.ItistruethatundertheRulesofCourttheoffendedpartymaytakepartintheprosecutionofcriminalcasesandevenappealincertaininstancesfromtheorderorjudgmentofthecourts,butthisisonlysoincaseswherethepartyinjuredhastoprotect his pecuniary interest in connection with the civil liability of the accused.Petitioner did not institute the case at bar for the purpose of protecting his pecuniaryinterest as supposed offended party of the crime charged in the information that wasdismissed,but tocause the restorationof thecaseand tohave it triedas ifnothinghadhappened.This,certainly,fallswithintheprovinceoftherepresentativeofthePeoplewhointhiscasehasnotappealednorjoinedtheprivateprosecutorinbringingthiscasebeforeUs.

Based on the above discussion, the term criminal proceeding includes preliminaryinvestigation. In any event, this issue is academic because on 30 October 2007, theInformationsagainstrespondentswerefiledwiththetrialcourt.PetitionersadmitthatthePeopleof thePhilippinesbecomesaparty in interest in a criminalproceedingwhenaninformationisfiledwiththetrialcourt.

Wehaveruledinanumberofcases[69]thatonlytheSolicitorGeneralmaybringordefendactionsinbehalfoftheRepublicofthePhilippines,orrepresentthePeopleorStateincriminalproceedingsbeforetheSupremeCourtandtheCourtofAppeals.However,jurisprudencelaysdowntwoexceptionswhereaprivatecomplainantoroffendedpartyinacriminalcasemayfileapetitiondirectlywiththisCourt.Thetwoexceptionsare:(1)whenthereisdenialofdueprocessoflawtotheprosecutionandtheStateoritsagentsrefusetoactonthecasetotheprejudiceoftheStateandtheprivate

offendedparty,[70]and(2)whentheprivateoffendedpartyquestionsthecivilaspectofa

decisionofalowercourt.[71]

ThefirstexceptioncontemplatesasituationwheretheStateandtheoffendedpartyaredeprivedofdueprocessbecausetheprosecutionisremissinitsdutytoprotecttheinterestoftheStateandtheoffendedparty.ThisCourtrecognizestherightoftheoffendedpartytoappealanorderofthetrialcourtwhichdeniedhimandtheStateofdueprocessoflaw.

InMercialesv.CourtofAppeals,[72]thisCourtgrantedthepetitionoftheoffendedpartyandruledasinvalidthedismissalofthecaseinthetrialcourtforlackofafundamental

7/16/2015 G.R.No.184337


prerequisite,thatis,dueprocess.Thepublicprosecutorwhohandledthecasedeliberatelyfailedtopresentanavailablewitnesswhichledthetrialcourttodeclarethattheprosecutionhadresteditscase.Inthissense,thepublicprosecutorwasremissinhisdutytoprotecttheinterestoftheoffendedparty.Asaresult,thepublicprosecutorwasfoundguiltyofblatanterrorandabuseofdiscretion,causingprejudicetotheoffendedparty.Thetrialcourtwaslikewisefoundguiltyforseriousnonfeasanceforpassivelywatchingthepublicprosecutorbunglethecasenotwithstandingitsknowledgethattheevidencefortheprosecutionwasinsufficienttoconvictanditcouldhave,motuproprio,calledforadditionalwitnesses.Thus,petitioner,whowasthemotheroftheprivateoffendedpartyinthecriminalcasesforrapewithhomicide,hadbeendeprivedofherdayincourt.Shecoulddonothingduringtheproceedings,havingentrustedtheconductofthecaseinthehandsofthepublicprosecutor.Allshecoulddowashelplesslywatchasthepublicprosecutor,whowasunderlegalobligationtopursuetheactiononthefamilysbehalf,renegeonthatobligationandrefusetoperformhisswornduty.ThisCourtexplainedthatitisnotonlytheState,butalsotheoffendedparty,thatisentitledtodueprocessincriminalcases.Theissueonwhetherprivatecomplainantcanbringanactionwas,however,renderedmootwhentheSolicitorGeneral,inrepresentationofthePeople,changedhispositionandjoinedthecauseofpetitioner,thusfulfillingtherequirementthatallcriminalactionsshallbeprosecutedunderthedirectionandcontrolofthepublicprosecutor.

Likewise,inPeoplev.Nano,[73]thisCourttookcognizanceoftheoffendedpartyspetitionbecauseofthegravityoftheerrorcommittedbythejudgeagainsttheprosecutionresultingindenialofdueprocess.Asidefromthedenialofdueprocess,theSolicitorGeneralalsomanifestedtoadoptthepetitionasiffiledbyhisoffice.Thus,weruledinNano:

Thepetitionbeingdefectiveinform,theCourtcouldhavesummarilydismissedthecaseforhavingbeenfiledmerelybyprivatecounselfortheoffendedparties,thoughwiththeconformityoftheprovincialprosecutor,andnotbytheSolicitorGeneral.Whileit isthepublicprosecutorwhorepresentsthePeopleincriminalcasesbeforethetrialcourts,itisonly theSolicitorGeneral that is authorized to bringor defend actions in behalf of thePeopleorRepublicofthePhilippinesoncethecaseisbroughtupbeforethisCourtortheCourtofAppeals(Peoplev.Calo,186SCRA620[1990]citingRepublicv.Partisala,118SCRA320[1982]CityFiscalofTaclobanv.Espina,166SCRA614[1988]).Defectiveasitis,theCourt,nevertheless,tookcognizanceofthepetitioninviewofthegravityof the error allegedly committed by the respondent judge against the prosecutiondenialofdueprocessaswellasthemanifestationandmotionfiledbytheOfficeofthe SolicitorGeneral praying that the instant petition be treated as if filed by thesaidoffice.Inviewthereof,WenowconsiderthePeopleasthesolepetitionerinthecaseduly represented by the SolicitorGeneral. Payment of legal fees is therefore no longernecessary in accordance with Sec. 16, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. (Emphasissupplied)

Inthesecondexception,itisassumedthatadecisiononthemeritshadalreadybeen

7/16/2015 G.R.No.184337


renderedbythelowercourtanditisthecivilaspectofthecasewhichtheoffendedpartyisappealing.Theoffendedparty,whoisnotsatisfiedwiththeoutcomeofthecase,mayquestiontheamountofthegrantordenialofdamagesmadebythecourtbelowevenwithouttheparticipationoftheSolicitorGeneral.

InMobiliaProducts,Inc.v.Umezawa,[74]weruledthatincriminalcases,theStateistheoffendedparty.Privatecomplainantsinterestislimitedtothecivilliabilityarisingtherefrom.Weexplained:

Hence, if a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is anacquittal, a reconsideration of the order of dismissal or acquittal may beundertaken,wheneverlegallyfeasible,insofarasthecriminalaspectthereofisconcernedandmaybemadeonlybythepublicprosecutororinthecaseofan appeal, by theStateonly, through theOSG.Theprivate complainantoroffendedpartymaynotundertakesuchmotionforreconsiderationorappealon the criminal aspect of the case.However, the offended party or privatecomplainant may file a motion for reconsideration of such dismissal oracquittal or appeal therefrombut only insofar as the civil aspect thereof isconcerned.

InDelaRosav.CourtofAppeals,[75]citingPeoplev.Santiago,[76]weheld:

In a special civil action for certiorari filedunderSection1,Rule65of theRules ofCourtwherein it is alleged that the trial court committed a graveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackofjurisdictionoronotherjurisdictionalgrounds,therulesstatethatthepetitionmaybefiledbythepersonaggrieved.In such case, the aggrieved parties are the State and the private offendedpartyorcomplainant.Thecomplainanthasan interest in thecivilaspectofthecasesohemayfilesuchspecialcivilactionquestioningthedecisionoraction of the respondent court on jurisdictional grounds. In so doing,complainant should not bring the action in the name of the People of thePhilippines.Theactionmaybeprosecutedin(the)nameofsaidcomplainant.

Thesetwoexceptionsdonotapplyinthiscase.IntheMemorandum,petitionersallegethattheCourtofAppealscommittedreversibleandwhimsicalerrorsoflawintheAmendedDecision.Petitionersraisedthefollowingerrors:

a.Therewereplain,speedyandadequateremediesavailabletorespondents

7/16/2015 G.R.No.184337


priortotheirfilingofcertioraribeforetheCourtofAppeals.[77]

b.TheSecretaryofJusticedidnotcommitgraveabuseofdiscretioninherdetermination

ofprobablecause.[78]

c.TheCourtofAppealsstrayedfromthedeterminationofgraveabuseofdiscretionandinsteadevaluatedtheevidencedenovo,anderroneouslyincreasedthequantumof

evidencerequiredfordeterminingprobablecause.[79]

d.TheCourtofAppealserroneouslysubstituteditsjudgmentfortheSecretaryofJustice.[80]

e. The Court of Appeals undermined the jurisdiction of the RTC over the

criminalproceedingsbyvirtueofthefilingoftheInformationtherein.[81]

Petitioners do not claim that the failure of the SolicitorGeneral to appeal theCourt ofAppealsdecisionbeforethisCourtresultedinthedenialofdueprocesstotheStateandthe petitioners. Petitioners do not assert that the prosecution and the Solicitor GeneralwereremissintheirdutytoprotecttheinterestoftheStateandtheoffendedparty.Neitherdo petitioners claim that the Solicitor General is guilty of blatant error or abuse ofdiscretioninnotappealingtheCourtofAppealsdecision.TheSolicitorGeneraldidnotmanifesttoadoptpetitionersappealbeforethisCourt.Onthecontrary,theSolicitorGeneralmanifestedon3December2008itsrefusaltoparticipateintheoralargumentsofthiscaseheldon10December2008.ThisCourtcannottakecognizanceofthepetitionbecausethereisclearlynodenialofdueprocesstotheStateandthepetitioners.Inshort,thefirstexceptiondoesnotapplybecausepetitionersdonotclaim,andneitheristhereanyshowingintherecords,thattheStateandthepetitionershavebeendenieddueprocessintheprosecutionofthecriminalcases.TheSolicitorGeneral,on19September2008,hadfiledbeforethisCourtaMotionforExtensionofTimetofileaPetitionforReviewunderRule45,docketedasG.R.No.184507.However,the30dayextensiongivenhadlapsedwithoutthefilingofthepetition.[82]Consequently,thisCourt,inaResolutiondated8December2008,declaredG.R.No.184507closedandterminated.Petitioners are also not appealing the civil aspect of the criminal case since the lower

courts had not yet decided themerits of the case. InPeople v. Santiago,[83] this CourtexplainedthatincriminalcaseswheretheoffendedpartyistheState, theinterestoftheprivateoffendedpartyislimitedtothecivilliability.Ifacriminalcaseisdismissedbythe

7/16/2015 G.R.No.184337


trialcourtorifthereisanacquittal,anappealfromthecriminalaspectmaybeundertakenonlybytheStatethroughtheSolicitorGeneral.OnlytheSolicitorGeneralmayrepresentthePeopleof thePhilippinesonappeal.Theprivatecomplainantoroffendedpartymaynotappealthecriminal,butonlythecivil,aspectofthecase.Here,sincetherewasnodecisionpromulgatedonthemeritsbythelowercourtandtheInformationshadbeenquashed,petitionershavenothingtoappealonthecivilaspectthatisdeemedimpliedlyinstitutedwiththecriminalcases.Thereisnolongeranycriminalcaseonwhichacivilcasecanbeimpliedlyinstituted.Petitionersrecourseistofileanindependentcivilactionontheirown.On31March2009,theSolicitorGeneralfiledaMotionforLeavetoAdmitAttached

CommentinG.R.No.184337.[84]TheSolicitorGeneralreasonedthatsheoptednottofileapetitionforreviewinG.R.No.184507becauseshelearnedthatasimilarpetitionwasfiledbeforeshecouldpreparetheintendedpetitionforreview.Inhercomment,theSolicitorGeneralstatedthatsheisnotadirectpartytothecase.However,theSolicitorGeneralallegedthatshewouldfileacommentasitisundeniablethatsheissuedtheResolutionsoftheDepartmentofJusticeatthetimesheheldthepositionofActingSecretaryofJusticeconcurrentwithherbeingtheSolicitorGeneral.TheSolicitorGeneralsubmittedthatherpositionontheissueofprobablecauseshouldbeheard.On17April2009,respondentsfiledanOppositionandMotiontoStrikeMotionforLeavetoAdmitAttachedCommentandComment.RespondentscontendedthattheSolicitorGeneralisnotapartytothecaseandhasnopersonalitytoparticipateinanymanner.RespondentsclaimedthattheSolicitorGeneralfailedtofileaPetitionforReviewonCertiorariwithintheprescribedperiodandshecannotnowuseaCommentasasubstituteforalapsedappeal.InaResolutiondated1June2009,thisCourtexpungedfromtherecordsthemotionforleavetoadmitattachedcommentandtheaforesaidcommentfiledbytheSolicitorGeneral.TheCourtruledthattheSolicitorGeneralisnotapartyinG.R.No.184337.WereiteratethatitisonlytheSolicitorGeneralwhomaybringordefendactionsonbehalfoftheStateinallcriminalproceedingsbeforetheappellatecourts.Hence,theSolicitorGeneralsnonfilingofapetitionwithinthereglementaryperiodbeforethisCourtrenderedtheassaileddecisionoftheCourtofAppealsfinalandexecutorywithrespecttothecriminalaspectofthecase.TheSolicitorGeneralcannottriflewithcourtproceedingsbyrefusingtofileapetitionforreviewonlytosubsequently,afterthelapseofthereglementaryperiodandfinalityoftheAmendedDecision,fileacomment.Inviewofourholdingthatpetitionershavenostandingtofilethepresentpetition,weshallnolongerdiscusstheotherissuesraisedinthispetition.

7/16/2015 G.R.No.184337


WHEREFORE,weDENYthepetition.WeAFFIRMthe29August2008AmendedDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.101196.Nopronouncementastocosts.SOORDERED.

ANTONIOT.CARPIOAssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES

AssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.TERESITAJ.LEONARDOAssociateJusticeDECASTROAssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMIN

AssociateJustice

7/16/2015 G.R.No.184337


ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIOAssociateJustice

Chairperson,FirstDivision

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13,ArticleVIII of theConstitution, and theDivisionChairpersonsAttestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached inconsultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the CourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNOChiefJustice

*DesignatedadditionalmemberperSpecialOrderNo.667.*DesignatedadditionalmemberperRaffledated29September2008.[1]

UnderRule45ofthe1997RevisedRulesofCivilProcedure.[2]

Rollo, pp. 80102.Penned by Justice Remedios A. SalazarFernando, with Justices Rosalinda AsuncionVicente andTeresitaDyLiaccoFlores,concurring.

[3]Id.at6278.PennedbyJusticeEnricoA.Lanzanas,withJusticesRemediosSalazarFernandoandRosalindaAsuncion

Vicente,concurring.

7/16/2015 G.R.No.184337


[4]Id.at9.

[5]Id.at400.AffidavitofConsentdated21March2007givenbyJoseMariC.Delgado,brotherofthedeceased,inbehalfof

hissiblings.[6]

Id.at396.[7]

Id.at397.PesicostatedinherfirststatementthatshewasDelgado'sfriendandwaspickedupbyDelgadobeforeteno'clockintheeveningof10March2007atBurgosSt.nearMakatiAve.,MakatiCity:xxxMgabandang9:45aysinundoakoniRicosamayBurgosSt.,saMakatiAve.atsumakayakosakanyangkotsepapuntangbahayniyasaLeonGuinto.xxx(Emphasissupplied)

[8]Id. at 398399. In her second statement, Pesico calledDelgado as her boyfriend: x x x Ako po ang nagbigay ng

kaukulangimpormasyonparamaiguhitngcartographerangmukhanglalakinaisasapumataysaakingnobyonasiFedericoDelgadonoonggabingika10ngMarso2007sagusalingMayFlower.xxx(Emphasissupplied)

[9]Id.at401403.

[10]Id.at168.

[11]Id.at404411.

[12]Id.at412421.

[13]Id.at422.

[14]Id.at423.

[15]Id.at424443.

[16]Id.at444.

[17]Id.at445446.

[18]Id.at447449.

[19]Id.at450455.

[20]Id.at456459.

[21]Id.at460.

[22]Id.at461462.

[23]Id.at463465.

[24]Id.at466.

[25]Id.at467550and616647.

[26]Id.at551615.

[27]Id.at652760.

[28]Id.at648650.

[29]Id.at6872and169170.

[30]Id.at103110.

[31]Id.at171.

[32]Id.

[33]Id.at172.

[34]Id.at7277.

7/16/2015 G.R.No.184337


[35]Id.at172.

[36]Id.at113114.

[37]Id.at820and835.

[38]Id.at90101.

[39]Id.at121132.

[40]Id.at354.

[41]Id.at839.

[42]Id.at389395.

[43]Id.at839841.

[44]Id.at958.

[45]Id.at971.

[46]Id.at976.

[47]Id.

[48]Id.at980.

[49]Id.at985.

[50]Id.at991.

Delgado v Gonzales

Documents

Transcript of Delgado v Gonzales