G.R. No. 132319 May 12, 2000PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.FERNANDO MADARANG y MAGNO, accused-appellant.

PUNO, J.:What distinguishes man from beast is his intellect. Man's action is guided and controlled by his mind. Law is designed for rational beings as it is based on our inherent sense of right which is inseparable from reason. Thus, when man's reasoning is so distorted by disease that he is totally incapable of distinguishing right from wrong, he loses responsibility before the law. In the case at bar, we are asked to resolve whether or not the accused, invoking insanity, can claim exemption from liability for the crime he committed.Accused FERNANDO MADARANG y MAGNO was charged with parricide for killing his wife LILIA MADARANG in an Information 1 which reads:That on or about September 3, 1993, at Poblacion, municipality of Infante, province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with evident premeditation and treachery, armed with a bladed weapon, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack and stab LILIA M. MADARANG, his legitimate wife, inflicting upon her stab wound 4 1/2 inches by 1 1/2 inch(es) long and 3/16 of an inch wide, located just below the left clavicle 1 3/4 inch(es) lateral to the supra-sternal notch, and plowed along the interpace slightly coursing upward and posteriorly and stab wound 1 inch in length, gaping and 3 1/2 inch(es) deep, located at the right arm at its medial aspect, coursing upwards and medially towards the apex of the right axilla which caused her instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of Lilia M. Madarang.Contrary to Art. 246 of the Revised Penal Code.At the arraignment, the accused refused to enter a plea. Pursuant to the Rules, the trial court entered a "not guilty" plea for him. At the initial hearing of the case on May 5, 1994, the accused's counsel manifested that his client had been observed behaving in an abnormal manner inside the provincial jail. Thus, the Court called the accused to the stand but he refused to answer any of the questions propounded by the court. Hence, on the same date, the Court issued an Order 2 directing the transfer of the accused to the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) for psychiatric evaluation to determine his fitness to stand trial.The initial examination of the accused at the NCMH revealed that he was suffering from a form of psychosis known as schizophrenia. The accused was detained at the hospital and was administered medication for his illness. On June 19, 1996, after more than two (2) years of confinement, the accused was discharged from the NCMH and recommitted to the provincial jail as he was already found fit to face the charges against him. 3At the resumption of the hearing, a reverse trial was conducted. The accused proceeded to adduce evidence on his claim of insanity at the time he committed the offense.As culled from the testimonies of the accused, his mother-in-law AVELINA MIRADOR, and his daughter LILIFER MADARANG, the following facts were established: The accused and Lilia Mirador were legally married and their union was blessed with seven (7) children. The accused worked as a seaman for sixteen (16) years. He was employed in a United States ship until 1972. In 1973, he worked as a seaman in Germany and stayed there for nine (9) years, or until 1982. Thereafter, he returned to his family in Infanta, Pangasinan, and started a hardware store business. His venture however failed. Worse, he lost his entire fortune due to cockfighting. 4In the latter part of July 1993, the accused, his wife Lilia and their children were forced to stay in the house of Avelina Mirador as the accused could no longer support his family. Moreover, Lilia was then already heavy with their eight child and was about to give birth. 5On September 3, 1993, at about 5:00 p.m., the accused and Lilia had a squabble. The accused was jealous of another man and was accusing Lilia of infidelity. In the heat of the fight and in the presence of their children, the accused stabbed Lilia, resulting in her untimely demise. 6AVELINA MIRADOR was then in the pigpen when she heard the children of the accused shouting and crying inside her house. She called out to them and asked what was wrong. She received no reply. Her nephew barged into the house and brought out the children one at a time, leaving the accused with Lilia. While passing by Avelina, her nephew warned her: "You better run." Avelina then saw the accused emerge from the house holding a bolo. She scampered for safety. 7She declared that during the period that the accused and his family stayed in her house, she did not notice anything peculiar in accused's behavior that would suggest that he was suffering from any mental illness. Neither did she know of any reason why the accused killed his wife as she never saw the two engage in any argument while they were living with her. 8The accused declared that he has absolutely no recollection of the stabbing incident. He could not remember where he was on that fateful day. He did not know the whereabouts of his wife. It was only during one of the hearings when his mother-in-law showed him a picture of his wife in a coffin that he learned about her death. He, however, was not aware of the cause of her demise. He claimed that he did not know whether he suffered from any mental illness and did not remember being confined at the NCMH for treatment. 9DR. WILSON S. TIBAYAN, a resident doctor of the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH), declared that the accused was committed to the NCMH on July 4, 1994 upon order of the court. The NCMH conducted three (3) medical and psychiatric evaluations of the accused during his confinement therein. Based on the first medical report, dated August 2, 1994, 10 the accused was found to be suffering from insanity or psychosis, classified as schizophrenia. Dr. Tibayan explained that schizophrenia is a mental abnormality characterized by impaired fundamental reasoning, delusions, hallucinations, preoccupation with one's thoughts, poor self-care, insight and judgment, and impaired cognitive, social and occupational functions. The patient may be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong or know what he is doing. He may become destructive or have a propensity to attack any one if his hallucinations were violent. 11 A schizophrenic, however, may have lucid intervals during which he may be able to distinguish right from wrong. 12 Dr. Tibayan opined that the accused's mental illness may have begun even prior to his admission to the NCMH and it was highly possible that he was already suffering from schizophrenia prior to his commission of the crime. 1By December 21, 1994, as per the second medical report, the accused was still suffering from schizophrenia. After one and a half years of confinement, the third psychiatric evaluation of the accused, dated May 27, 1996, 14 showed that his mental condition considerably improved due to continuous medication. The accused was recommended to be discharged from the NCMH and recommitted to jail to stand trial. 15The trial court convicted the accused as his evidence failed to refute the presumption of sanity at the time he committed the offense. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that accused Fernando Madarang is of sound mind at the time of the commission of the offense and that he failed to rebut by convincing proof the evidence on record against him to exempt him from criminal liablity. And since the death penalty was suspended or abolished at the time of the commission of the offense, this Court hereby sentences the accused FERNANDO MADARANG y MAGNO to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos.SO ORDERED. 16Hence this appeal.The appellant insists that at the time he stabbed his wife, he was completely deprived of intelligence, making his criminal act involuntary. His unstable state of mind could allegedly be deduced from the following:First. He had no recollection of the stabbing incident. Hence, he was completely unaware of his acts that fateful day and must have committed the crime without the least discernment.Second. His behavior at the time of the stabbing proved he was then afflicted with schizophrenia. He cited the testimony of Dr. Tibayan that a schizophrenic may go into extremes he may be violent and destructive, or very silent and self-focused. The appellant exhibited his violent tendencies on that fateful day. He killed his wife and Avelina and her nephew were so frightened that they ran away at the sight of him holding a bolo. He did not seem to recognize anybody and could have turned to anyone and inflicted further injury. He avers that this is peculiar only to persons who are mentally deranged for a sane person who just committed a crime would have appeared remorseful and repentant after realizing that what he did was wrong.Third. The appellant also relies on Dr. Tibayan's opinion that there was a high possibility that he was already suffering from insanity prior to his commission of the crime on September 3, 1993. 17 The defense posits that his mental illness may have been caused by his loss of fortune. His hardware business, which he started through 16 years of working as a seaman, went bankrupt. He ended up virtually dependent on his mother-in-law for his family's support and all these may have been beyond his capacity to handle.The appellant further contends that the fact that he and his wife never engaged in a fight prior to that fateful day should be considered. The marked change in his behavior when he uncharacteristically quarreled with his wife on that day and suddenly turned violent on her confirms that he was mentally disturbed when he committed the crime.Lastly, the appellant urges that he had no motive to kill Lilia who was scheduled to give birth to their eighth child three (3) days prior to the killing. Unless overpowered by something beyond his control, nobody in his right mind would kill his wife who was carrying his child. Jealousy, the appellant posits, is not a sufficient reason to kill a pregnant spouse.We find these arguments without merit.In all civilized nations, an act done by a person in a state of insanity cannot be punished as an offense. The insanity defense is rooted on the basic moral assumption of criminal law. Man is naturally endowed with the faculties of understanding and free will. The consent of the will is that which renders human actions laudable or culpable. Hence, where there is a defect of the understanding, there can be no free act of the will. An insane accused is not morally blameworthy and should not be legally punished. No purpose of criminal law is served by punishing an insane accused because by reason of his mental state, he would have no control over his behavior and cannot be deterred from similar behavior in the future. 18A number of tests evolved to determine insanity under the law. In Anglo-American jurisprudence, the traditional test is the M'Naghten rule of 1843 which states that "to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong." The M'Naghten rule is a cognitive measure of insanity as the accused is required to know two things: the nature and quality of the act, and that the act was wrong. This rule has been criticized for its ambiguity. It was debated whether the word "wrong" referred to moral or legal wrong. The importance of the distinction was illustrated by Stephen 19 as follows: A kills B knowing that he is killing B and it is illegal to kill B but under an insane delusion that God has commanded him to kill B to obtain the salvation of the human race. A's act is a crime if the word "wrong" means illegal but it is not a crime if the word "wrong" means morally wrong. The word "know" was also assailed as it referred solely to intellectual reason and excluded affective or emotional knowledge. It was pointed out that the accused may know in his mind what he is doing but may have no grasp of the effect or consequences of his actions. 20 M'Naghten was condemned as based on an obsolete and misleading concept of the nature of insanity as insanity does not only affect the intellectual faculties but also affects the whole personality of the patient, including his will and emotions. It was argued that reason is only one of the elements of a personality and does not solely determine man's conduct. 21Subsequently, M'Naghten was refined by the "irresistible impulse" test which means that "assuming defendant's knowledge of the nature and quality of his act and knowledge that the act is wrong, if, by reason of disease of the mind, defendant has been deprived of or lost the power of his will which would enable him to prevent himself from doing the act, then he cannot be found guilty." Thus, even if the accused knew that what he was doing was wrong, he would be acquitted by reason of insanity if his mental illness kept him from controlling his conduct or resisting the impulse to commit the crime. This rule rests on the assumption that there are mental illnesses that impair volition or self-control, even while there is cognition or knowledge of what is right and wrong. 22 This test was likewise criticized on the following grounds: (1) the "impulse" requirement is too restrictive as it covers only impulsive acts; (2) the "irresistible" requirement is also restrictive as it requires absolute impairment of the freedom of the will which cases are very rare; (3) it will not serve the purpose of criminal law to deter criminals as the will to resist commission of the crime will not be encouraged, and; (4) it is difficult to prove whether the act was the result of an insane, irresistible impulse. 2Then came the Durham "product" test in 1954 which postulated that "an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect." 24 Critics of this test argued that it gave too much protection to the accused. It placed the prosecution in a difficult position of proving accused's sanity beyond reasonable doubt as a mere testimony of a psychiatrist that accused's act was the result of a mental disease leaves the judge with no choice but to accept it as a fact. The case thus becomes completely dependent on the testimonies of experts. 25Then came the ALI "substantial capacity" test, integrated by the American Law Institute (ALI) in its Model Penal Code Test, which improved on the M'Naghten and irresistible impulse tests. The new rule stated that a person is not responsible for his criminal act if, as a result of the mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his act or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. 26 Still, this test has been criticized for its use of ambiguous words like "substantial capacity" and "appreciate" as there would be differences in expert testimonies whether the accused's degree of awareness was sufficient. 27 Objections were also made to the exclusion of psychopaths or persons whose abnormalities are manifested only by repeated criminal conduct. Critics observed that psychopaths cannot be deterred and thus undeserving of punishment. 28In 1984, however, the U.S. Congress repudiated this test in favor of the M'Naghten style statutory formulation. It enacted the Comprehensive Crime Control Act which made the appreciation test the law applicable in all federal courts. The test is similar to M'Naghten as it relies on the cognitive test. The accused is not required to prove lack of control as in the ALI test. The appreciation test shifted the burden of proof to the defense, limited the scope of expert testimony, eliminated the defense of diminished capacity and provided for commitment of accused found to be insane. 29In the Philippines, the courts have established a more stringent criterion for insanity to be exempting as it is required that there must be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, i.e., the accused is deprived of reason; he acted without the least discernment because there is a complete absence of the power to discern, or that there is a total deprivation of the will. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. 30The issue of insanity is a question of fact for insanity is a condition of the mind, not susceptible of the usual means of proof. As no man can know what is going on in the mind of another, the state or condition of a person's mind can only be measured and judged by his behavior. Establishing the insanity of an accused requires opinion testimony which may be given by a witness who is intimately acquainted with the accused, by a witness who has rational basis to conclude that the accused was insane based on the witness' own perception of the accused, or by a witness who is qualified as an expert, such as a psychiatrist. 31 The testimony or proof of the accused's insanity must relate to the time preceding or coetaneous with the commission of the offense with which he is charged. 32In the case at bar, the appellant was diagnosed to be suffering from schizophrenia when he was committed to the NCMH months after he killed his wife. Medical books describe schizophrenia as a chronic mental disorder characterized by inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality and often accompanied by hallucinations and delusions. Formerly called dementia pracecox, it is the most common form of psychosis. 3 Symptomatically, schizophrenic reactions are recognizable through odd and bizarre behavior apparent in aloofness or periods of impulsive destructiveness and immature and exaggerated emotionality, often ambivalently directed. The interpersonal perceptions are distorted in the more serious states by delusions and hallucinations. In the most disorganized form of schizophrenic living, withdrawal into a fantasy life takes place and is associated with serious thought disorder and profound habit deterioration in which the usual social customs are disregarded. 34 During the initial stage, the common early symptom is aloofness, a withdrawal behind barriers of loneliness, hopelessness, hatred and fear. Frequently, the patient would seem preoccupied and dreamy and may appear "far away." He does not empathize with the feelings of others and manifests little concern about the realities of life situations. The schizophrenic suffers from a feeling of rejection and an intolerable lack of self-respect. He withdraws from emotional involvement with other people to protect himself from painful relationships. There is shallowness of affect, a paucity of emotional responsiveness and a loss of spontaneity. Frequently, he becomes neglectful of personal care and cleanliness. 35 A variety of subjective experiences, associated with or influenced by mounting anxiety and fears precede the earliest behavioral changes and oddities. He becomes aware of increasing tension and confusion and becomes distracted in conversation manifested by his inability to maintain a train of thought in his conversations. Outwardly, this will be noticed as blocks or breaks in conversations. The schizophrenic may not speak or respond appropriately to his companions. He may look fixedly away, or he may appear to stare, as he does not regularly blink his eyes in his attempt to hold his attention. 36None of the witnesses presented by the appellant declared that he exhibited any of the myriad symptoms associated with schizophrenia immediately before or simultaneous with the stabbing incident. To be sure, the record is bereft of even a single account of abnormal or bizarre behavior on the part of the appellant prior to that fateful day. Although Dr. Tibayan opined that there is a high possibility that the appellant was already suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the stabbing, he also declared that schizophrenics have lucid intervals during which they are capable of distinguishing right from wrong. 37 Hence the importance of adducing proof to show that the appellant was not in his lucid interval at the time he committed the offense. Although the appellant was diagnosed with schizophrenia a few months after the stabbing incident, the evidence of insanity after the fact of commission of the offense may be accorded weight only if there is also proof of abnormal behavior immediately before or simultaneous to the commission of the crime. Evidence on the alleged insanity must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the very moment of its execution. 38In the case at bar, we find the evidence adduced by the defense insufficient to establish his claim of insanity at the time he killed his wife. There is a dearth of evidence on record to show that the appellant was completely of unsound mind prior to or coetaneous with the commission of the crime. The arguments advanced by the appellant to prove his insanity are speculative and non-sequitur. For one, his claim that he has absolutely no recollection of the stabbing incident amounts to a mere general denial that can be made with facility. The fact that Avelina and her nephew were frightened at the sight of the appellant holding a bolo after he killed his wife does not, by any stretch of imagination, prove that the appellant has lost his grip on reality on that occasion. Neither is the appellant's seemingly non-repentant attitude immediately after he stabbed his wife an indicium of his alleged insanity. Even criminals of stable mental condition take this non-remorseful stance. Similarly, that the appellant and his wife were never seen quarreling prior to that fateful day does not by itself prove the appellant's unstable mental condition. Neither can it be said that jealousy is not a sufficient reason to kill a pregnant spouse. Our jurisprudence is replete with cases where lives had been terminated for the flimsiest reason.The appellant attributes his loss of sanity to the fact that he lost his business and became totally dependent on his mother-in-law for support. We find this, however, purely speculative and unsupported by record. To be sure, there was no showing of any odd or bizarre behavior on the part of the appellant after he lost his fortune and prior to his commission of the crime that may be symptomatic of his mental illness. In fact, the appellant's mother-in-law declared that during the time that she knew the appellant and while he lived in her house, she did not notice anything irregular or abnormal in the appellant's behavior that could have suggested that he was suffering from any mental illness.An accused invoking the insanity defense pleads not guilty by reason thereof. He admits committing the crime but claims that he is not guilty because he was insane at the time of its commission. Hence, the accused is tried on the issue of sanity alone and if found to be sane, a judgment of conviction is rendered without any trial on the issue of guilt as he had already admitted committing the crime. 39 As the appellant, in the case at bar, failed to establish by convincing evidence his alleged insanity at the time he killed his wife, we are constrained to affirm his conviction.IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Decision of the trial court convicting the appellant of the crime of parricide is AFFIRMED in toto.SO ORDERED.Case Digest on People v Madarang Gr. No. 132319 May 12,2000November 27, 2010

Appellant was convicted of parricide for stabbing his wife, causing her death. Appellant alleges he was in a state of insanity and claims he had no recollection of the stabbing incident.He insists that he was deprived of intelligence , making his act involuntary.His psychiatric evaluation revealed he was suffering from schizophrenia but after two years in the National Center for Mental Health his condition improved thus, he was released.Held:In the Philippines, the courts have established a more stringent criterion for insanity to be exempting as it is required that there must be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act,i.e., the accused is deprived of reason; he acted without the least discernment because there is a complete absence of the power to discern, or that there is total deprivation of the will.Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability.The issue of insanity is a question of fact.The state or condition of a mans mind can only be measured and judged by his behavior.Establishing ones insanity requires testimony of an expert witness, such as a psychiatrist.The proof must relate to the time preceding or coetaneous with the commisssion of the offense with which he is charged.None of the witnesses declared that he exhibited any of the symptoms associated with schizophrenia immediately before or simultaneous with the stabbing incident.Also schizophrenics have lucid intervals during which they are capable of distinguishing right from wrong.

G.R. No. 166040 April 26, 2006NIEL F. LLAVE, Petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. D E C I S I O NCALLEJO, SR., J.:Before the Court is a Petition for Review of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 26962 affirming, with modification, the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 109, in Criminal Case No. 02-1779 convicting Petitioner Neil F. Llave of rape.On September 27, 2002, an Information charging petitioner (then only 12 years old) with rape was filed with the RTC of Pasay City. The inculpatory portion of the Information reads:That on or about the 24th day of September 2002, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, NEIL LLAVE Y FLORES, aka NIEL F. LLAVE, a minor over nine (9) years of age and under fifteen (15) but acting with discernment, by means of force threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously have carnal knowledge of the complainant, DEBBIELYN SANTOS y QUITALES, a minor, seven (7) years of age, against her will and consent.Contrary to law.3 The Case for the ProsecutionThe spouses Domingo and Marilou Santos were residents of Pasay City.4 One of their children, Debbielyn, was born on December 8, 1994.5 In 2002, she was a Grade II student at the Villamor Air Base Elementary School in Pasay City6 and attended classes from 12:00 noon to 6:00 p.m.7 Domingo eked out a living as a jeepney driver, while Marilou sold quail eggs at a nearby church.8 Adjacent to their house was that of Teofisto Bucud, a barbecue vendor who would usually start selling at 6:30 p.m.9 Next to Teofistos residence was a vacant house.10 Debbielyn testified that on September 24, 2002, she arrived home at past 6:00 p.m. She changed her clothes and proceeded to her mothers store. Marilou asked her daughter to bring home the container with the unsold quail eggs.11 Debbielyn did as told and went on her way. As she neared the vacant house, she saw petitioner, who suddenly pulled her behind a pile of hollow blocks which was in front of the vacant house. There was a little light from the lamp post.12 She resisted to no avail.13 Petitioner ordered her to lie down on the cement. Petrified, she complied. He removed her shorts and underwear then removed his own. He got on top of her.14 She felt his penis being inserted into her vagina. He kissed her.15 She felt pain and cried.16 She was sure there were passersby on the street near the vacant house at the time.It was then that Teofisto came out of their house and heard the girls cries. He rushed to the place and saw petitioner on top of Debbielyn, naked from the waist down. Teofisto shouted at petitioner, and the latter fled from the scene. Teofisto told Debbielyn to inform her parents about what happened.17 She told her father about the incident.18 Her parents later reported what happened to the police authorities.19 Debbielyn told the police that petitioner was a bad boy because he was a rapist.20Teofisto testified that at about 6:25 p.m. on September 24, 2002, he went out of their house to get his barbecue grill. He heard someone moaning from within the adjacent vacant house.21 He rushed to the place and saw petitioner, naked from waist down, on top of Debbielyn, making pumping motions on her anus.22 The girl was crying. He shouted at petitioner, "Hoy, bakit ginawa mo yan?"23 Petitioner hurriedly put his shorts on and fled.24 Neighbors who had heard Teofisto shouting arrived.25 Later, Teofisto gave a written statement to the police investigator regarding the incident.26Domingo Santos testified that at about 6:30 p.m. that day, he was inside their house. His daughter, Kimberly Rose, suddenly told him that Debbielyn had been raped near the vacant house by petitioner.27 He rushed to the place and found her daughter crying. When he asked her what happened, she replied that she had been abused. He brought Debbielyn to their house and then left.28 He then looked for petitioner and found him at his grandmothers house. A barangay tanod brought petitioner to the barangay hall.29 On September 25, 2002, he brought her daughter to the Philippine General Hospital Child Protection Unit at Taft Avenue, Manila where she was examined by Dr. Mariella S. Castillo.Dr. Castillo declared on the witness stand that she was a physician at the Child Protection Unit of the Philippine General Hospital. On September 25, 2002, she interviewed the victim who told her "Masakit ang pepe ko," "Ni-rape ako."30 Dr. Castillo also conducted a genital examination on the child, and found no injury on the hymen and perineum, but found scanty yellowish discharge between the labia minora.31 There was also a fresh abrasion of the perineal skin at 1 oclock position near the anal opening.32 She declared that the findings support the theory that blunt force or penetrating trauma (such as an erect penis, finger, or any other foreign body33) was applied to the perineal area34 not more than six or seven days before.35 The abrasion could have been caused on September 24, 2002. She found no spermatozoa in the vaginal area or injury at the external genitalia;36 neither did she find any other injury or abrasion on the other parts of the victims body.37 She concluded that her findings were consistent with the victims claim that she was sexually abused by petitioner.Barangay Tanod Jorge Dominguez, for his part, testified that on September 24, 2002, Marilou Santos arrived at the barangay hall and reported that her daughter had been raped by petitioner who was then in his aunts house at Cadena de Amor Street. Barangay Captain Greg Florante ordered him and Barangay Tanod Efren Gonzales to proceed to Cadena de Amor Street and take the boy into custody, and they did as they were told.38 The Case for the AccusedPetitioner, through counsel, presented Dr. Castillo as witness. She declared that the abrasions in the perineal area could have been caused while the offender was on top of the victim.39 She explained that the distance between the anus and the genital area is between 2.5 to 3 centimeters.40 The abrasion was located at of an inch from the anal orifice. Petitioner testified and declared that he was a freshman at the Pasay City South High School.41 He had been one of the three outstanding students in grade school and received awards such as Best in Mathematics.42 He also finished a computer course and received a Certificate of Completion from the Philippine Air Force Management Information Center.43 He denied having raped the private complainant. He declared that at 6:30 p.m. on September 24, 2002, he was outside of their house to buy rice in the carinderia44 and he saw her on his way back.45 He also met his father, who asked him what he had done to their neighbor. He was also told that the victims father was so angry that the latter wanted to kill him.46 He did not ask his father for the name of the angry neighbor. He was also told to pass by Cadena de Amor Street in going to his aunts house. Petitioner also declared that his mother prodded him to go to his aunts house.47 Later, Domingo and Barangay Tanod Jorge Dominguez arrived at his aunts house and brought him to the barangay hall. He did not know of any reason why Debbielyn and her parents would charge him with rape.48 Petitioner also declared that he played cards with Debbielyn.49 While confined at the Pasay City Youth Home during trial, he had a crush on "Issa," a young female inmate. Using a piece of broken glass (bubog) about half-an-inch long, he inscribed her name on his right thigh, left leg and left arm.50Nida Llave testified and identified her sons Certificate of Live Birth, in which it appears that he was born on March 6, 1990.51 She declared that at about 6:30 p.m. on September 24, 2000, Marilou Santos and Marilyn Bucud arrived in their house looking for her son. According to Marilyn, her son had raped the private complainant. She went to their house to look for her son and came across Domingo Santos who threatened to kill her son. She and her husband proceeded to the house of his sister Josefina at Cadena de Amor Street where petitioner had hidden for a while.52 At the conclusion of the trial, the court rendered judgment convicting Neil of the crime charged. The decretal portion of the decision reads:FROM ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court opines that the prosecution has proven the guilt of the xxx Niel Llave y Flores beyond reasonable doubt when he forcibly pulled the complainant towards the vacant lot, laid on top of her and had carnal knowledge with the [complainant] against her will and consent who is only seven (7) years old (sic). Moreover, he being a minor, he cannot be meted with the Death penalty. WHEREFORE, the Court finds the CICL [Child in Conflict with the Law] Niel Llave y Flores guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and crediting him with the special mitigating circumstance of minority, this Court hereby sentences him to prision mayor minimum, Six (6) years and One (1) day to Eight (8) years, and pay civil indemnity of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00).53 The trial court declared that based on the evidence of the prosecution that petitioner pushed the victim towards the vacant house and sexually abused her, petitioner acted with discernment. It also considered petitioners declaration that he had been a consistent honor student.54 Petitioner appealed the decision to the CA, where he averred the following in his Brief as appellant therein:ITHE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT DISREGARDED THE MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES OF THE TESTIMONY OF COMPLAINING WITNESS WITH THAT OF THE MEDICAL REPORT ON THE FACTUAL ALLEGATION OF BLEEDING.IITHE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT GAVE CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESS TEOFISTO BUCUD WHO HAS REASON TO FABRICATE A SCENARIO AGAINST ACCUSED-APPELLANT BECAUSE HE HAS PERSONAL VENDETTA AGAINST THE LATTERS FAMILY/RELATIVES.IIITHE LOWER COURT ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE THEORY OF THE PROSECUTION OF RAPE BY HAVING CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, BEING CONTRARY TO THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.55The CA rendered judgment affirming the decision with modification as to the penalty meted on him.WHEREFORE, the decision subject of the instant appeal is hereby MODIFIED in that the accused-appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional medium as the minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium as the maximum. Additionally, the accused-appellant is ordered to pay the complaining witness the amount of P50,000 by way of moral damages and P20,000 by way of exemplary damages.SO ORDERED.56Petitioner filed a Motion for the Reconsideration,57contending that the prosecution failed to adduce proof that he acted with discernment; hence, he should be acquitted. The appellate court denied the motion in a Resolution58 dated November 12, 2004 on the following finding:As regards the issue of whether the accused-appellant acted with discernment, his conduct during and after the "crime" betrays the theory that as a minor, the accused-appellant does not have the mental faculty to grasp the propriety and consequences of the act he made. As correctly pointed out by the prosecution, the fact that forthrightly upon discovery, the accused-appellant fled the scene and hid in his grandmothers house intimates that he knew that he did something that merits punishment. Contrary to the urgings of the defense, the fact that the accused-appellant is a recipient of several academic awards and is an honor student further reinforces the finding that he [is] possessed [of] intelligence well beyond his years and is thus poised to distinguish, better at least than other minors his age could, which conduct is right and which is morally reprehensible.59Petitioner now raises the following issues and arguments in the instant petition before this Court:ISSUESIWHETHER OR NOT EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT PETITIONER BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.IIWHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER, WHO WAS A MINOR ABOVE 9 YEARS BUT BELOW 15 YEARS OF AGE AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME, ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT.IIIWHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW. ARGUMENTSITHE MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE TESTIMONY OF COMPLAINING WITNESS WITH THE MEDICAL REPORT BELIE THE FINDING OF RAPE.IIPRIVATE COMPLAINANT IS NOT A CREDIBLE WITNESS.IIIPETITIONER ACTED WITHOUT DISCERNMENT.IVTHE TESTIMONY RELIED UPON BY THE PROSECUTION IS HEARSAY.VTHE COMPLAINT IS FABRICATED.VIPETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW.60The issues raised by the petitioner in this case may be summarized as follows: (1) whether he was deprived of his right to a preliminary investigation; (2) whether he had carnal knowledge of the private complainant, and if in the affirmative, whether he acted with discernment in perpetrating the crime; (3) whether the penalty imposed by the appellate court is correct; and (4) whether he is liable to pay moral damages to the private complainant. On the first issue, petitioner avers that he was deprived of his right to a preliminary investigation before the Information against him was filed. On the second issue, petitioner claims that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had carnal knowledge of Debbielyn. He insists that her testimony is inconsistent on material points. He points out that she claimed to have felt pain in her vagina when petitioner inserted his penis to the point that she cried; this, however, is negated by Dr. Castillos report stating that there was no evidence of injury on the victims external genitalia. Petitioner maintains that as against the victims testimony and that of Dr. Castillos report, the latter should prevail. According to petitioner, mere touching of the female organ will not suffice as factual basis of conviction for consummated rape. Moreover, the victims testimony lacks credibility in view of her admission that, while she was being allegedly ravished by him, there were passersby along the street. Besides, petitioner avers, an abrasion may be caused by an invasion of the body through the protective covering of the skin. Petitioner insists that the prosecution failed to prove the cause of the abrasion.Petitioner also claims that the victim was tutored or coached by her parents on her testimony before the trial court. Dr. Castillo testified that when she interviewed Debbielyn, the latter admitted to her that she did not understand the meaning of the word "rape" and its Filipino translation, "hinalay," and that the genital examination of the girl was at the insistence of the latters parents.Petitioner avers that Teofisto Bucuds testimony has no probative weight because and had an ill-motive to testify against him. Petitioner stated, on cross-examination, that his uncle, Boy, had the house rented by Teofisto demolished. Petitioner avers that the witness persuaded the victims parents to complain against him, as gleaned from the testimony of Police Investigator Milagros Carroso.For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) avers that petitioner was subjected to an inquest investigation under Section 7, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as gleaned from the Certification of the City Prosecutor incorporated in the Information. It avers that the absence of external injuries does not negate rape; neither is it necessary that lacerations be found on the hymen of a victim. Rape is consummated if there is some degree of penetration within the vaginal surface. Corroborative evidence is not necessary to prove rape. As long as the testimony of the victim is credible, such testimony will suffice for conviction of consummated rape. When the victim testified that she was raped, she was, in effect, saying all that is necessary to prove that rape was consummated. Petitioners evidence to prove ill-motive on the part of Teofisto Bucud in testifying against him is at best flimsy. Moreover, it is incredible that the victim and her parents would charge petitioner with rape solely on Teofistos proddings. The OSG insists that the petitioner acted with discernment before, during, and after the rape based on the undisputed facts. The submission of the OSG follows: Petitioner argues that since he was only 12 years old at the time of the alleged rape incident, he is presumed to have acted without discernment under paragraph 3 of Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code. Under said provision, the prosecution has the burden of proving that he acted with discernment. In the instant case, petitioner insists that there was no evidence presented by the prosecution to show that he acted with discernment. Hence, he should be exempt from criminal liability.Petitioners arguments are bereft of merit.Discernment, as used in Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code is defined as follows: "the discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under fifteen (15) years of age but over nine (9), who commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong" (People v. Doquena, 68 Phil. 580 [1939]). For a minor above nine but below fifteen years of age, he must discern the rightness or wrongness of the effects of his act (Guevarra v. Almodova, G.R. No. 75256, January 26, 1989).Professor Ambrocio Padilla, in his annotation of Criminal Law (p. 375, 1998 Ed.), writes that "discernment is more than the mere understanding between right and wrong. Rather, it means the mental capacity of a minor between 9 and 15 years of age to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act" (People v. Navarro, [CA] [51 O.G. 4062]). Hence, in judging whether a minor accused acted with discernment, his mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, which may be known and should be determined by considering all the circumstances disclosed by the record of the case, his appearance, his attitude and his behavior and conduct, not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial should be taken into consideration (People v. Doquena, supra).In the instant case, petitioners actuations during and after the rape incident, as well as his behavior during the trial showed that he acted with discernment.The fact appears undisputed that immediately after being discovered by the prosecutions witness, Teofisto Bucud, petitioner immediately stood up and ran away. Shortly thereafter, when his parents became aware of the charges against him and that private complainants father was looking for him, petitioner went into hiding. It was not until the Barangay Tanod came to arrest him in his grandmothers house that petitioner came out in the open to face the charges against him. His flight as well as his act of going into hiding clearly conveys the idea that he was fully aware of the moral depravity of his act and that he knew he committed something wrong. Otherwise, if he was indeed innocent or if he was not least aware of the moral consequences of his acts, he would have immediately confronted private complainant and her parents and denied having sexually abused their daughter.During the trial, petitioner submitted documentary evidence to show that he was a consistent honor student and has, in fact, garnered several academic awards. This allegation further bolstered that he acted with discernment, with full knowledge and intelligence. The fact that petitioner was a recipient of several academic awards and was an honor student further reinforces the finding that he was possessed of intelligence well beyond his years and thus was able to distinguish, better than other minors of his age could, which conduct is right and which is morally reprehensible. Hence, although appellant was still a minor of twelve years of age, he possessed intelligence far beyond his age. It cannot then be denied that he had the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. This is important in cases where the accused is minor. It is worthy to note that the basic reason behind the enactment of the exempting circumstances under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code is the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent on the part of the accused. In expounding on intelligence as the second element of dolus, the Supreme Court has stated: "The second element of dolus is intelligence; without this power, necessary to determine the morality of human acts to distinguish a licit from an illicit act, no crime can exist, and because the infant has no intelligence, the law exempts (him) from criminal liability" (Guevarra v. Aldomovar, 169 SCRA 476 [1989], at page 482).The foregoing circumstances, from the time the incident up to the time the petitioner was being held for trial, sufficiently satisfied the trial court that petitioner acted with discernment before, during and after the rape incident. For a boy wanting in discernment would simply be gripped with fear or keep mum. In this case, petitioner was fully aware of the nature and illegality of his wrongful act. He should not, therefore, be exempted from criminal liability. The prosecution has sufficiently proved that petitioner acted with discernment.61In reply, petitioner asserts that the only abrasion found by Dr. Castillo was on the peri-anal skin and not in the labia of the hymen. He further insists that there can be no consummated rape absent a slight penetration on the female organ. It was incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the accused acted with discernment but failed. The mere fact that he was an honor student is not enough evidence to prove that he acted with discernment.The petition is not meritorious.On the first issue, petitioners contention that he was deprived of his right to a regular preliminary investigation is barren of factual and legal basis. The record shows that petitioner was lawfully arrested without a warrant. Section 7, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: SEC. 7. When accused lawfully arrested without warrant. When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense which requires a preliminary investigation, the complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such investigation provided an inquest has been conducted in accordance with existing rules. In the absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the offended party or a peace officer directly with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or person.Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of his counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and the investigation must be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its inception.After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a preliminary investigation, the accused may, within five (5) days from the time he learns of its filing, ask for a preliminary investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in his defense as provided for in this Rule.As gleaned from the Certification62 of the City Prosecutor which was incorporated in the Information, petitioner did not execute any waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code before the Information was filed. He was arraigned with the assistance of counsel on October 10, 2002, and thereafter filed a petition for bail.63 Petitioners failure to file a motion for a preliminary investigation within five days from finding out that an Information had been filed against him effectively operates as a waiver of his right to such preliminary investigation.64 On the second issue, a careful review of the records shows that the prosecution adduced evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner had carnal knowledge of the private complainant as charged in the Information. In People v. Morata65 the Court ruled that penetration, no matter how slight, or the mere introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum, constitutes carnal knowledge. Hence, even if the penetration is only slight, the fact that the private complainant felt pains, points to the conclusion that the rape was consummated.66 From the victims testimony, it can be logically concluded that petitioners penis touched the middle part of her vagina and penetrated the labia of the pudendum. She may not have had knowledge of the extent of the penetration; however, her straightforward testimony shows that the rape passed the stage of consummation.67 She testified that petitioner dragged her behind a pile of hollow blocks near the vacant house and ordered her to lie down. He then removed her shorts and panty and spread her legs. He then mounted her and inserted his penis into her vagina:Fiscal Barrera:Q: From what time up to what time?A: From 12:00 oclock noon up to 6:00 p.m.Q: September 24, 2002 and going over the calendar, it was Tuesday. Did you go to school from 12:00 oclock noon up to 6:00 p.m.? A: Yes, Sir, on the same date I went to school.Q: At about 6:00 p.m., Sept. 24, 2002, where were you?A: I went home.Q: And by whom you are referring to your house at 1-C Carnation St., R. Higgins, Maricaban, Pasay City?A: Yes, Sir.Q: And what did you do after you went home?A: I changed my clothes and then I proceeded to the store of my mother.Q: And where is that store of your mother where you went?A: It is near our house, walking distance.Q: What is your mother selling in that store?A: She sells quail eggs.Q: And were you able to immediately go to the store of your mother where she was selling quail eggs?A: Yes, sir.Q: And that was past 6:00 p.m. already?A: Yes, sir.Q: And what happened when you went to the store where your mother is selling quail eggs past 6:00 p.m.?A: My mother asked me to bring home something. Q: What were these things you were asked by your mother to bring home?A: The things she used in selling.Q: And did you obey what your mother told you to bring home something?A: Yes, Sir.Q: And what happened to you in going to your house?A: Totoy pulled me.Q: Pulled you where?A: Totoy pulled me towards an uninhabited house.Q: What happened after Totoy pulled you in an uninhabited house? A: He told me to lie down on the cement.Q: What happened after he laid you down on the cement?A: He removed my shorts and panty. He also removed his shorts.Q: After Totoy removed your shorts and panty and he also removed his shorts, what happened next?A: He inserted his penis inside my vagina.Q: What did you feel when Totoy inserted his penis inside your vagina?A: It was painful.Q: Aside from inserting his penis inside your vagina, what else did you do to you?A: He kissed me on my lips.Q: After Totoy inserted his penis inside your vagina and kissed you on your lips, what did you do?A: I cried.Q: What happened when you were crying when he inserted his penis inside your vagina and kissed you on your lips. What happened next?A: Somebody heard me crying.Q: Who heard you crying?A: Kuya Teofe, Sir.Q: What happened after you cried and when somebody heard you crying?A: Totoy ran away.Q: After Totoy ran away, what happened next?A: When Totoy ran away, I was left and Kuya Teofe told me to tell the matter to my parents.Q: Did you tell your parents what Totoy did to you?A: Yes, Sir.68 On cross-examination, the victim was steadfast in her declarations:ATTY. BALIAD:Q: Again, in what particular position were you placed by Totoy when he inserted his penis inside your vagina?A: I was lying down.Q: Aside from lying down, how was your body positioned at that time?A: He placed on top of me.Q: After he placed on top of you, what else did he do to you, if any?A: He started to kiss me and then he inserted his penis inside my vagina.Q: Did you feel his penis coming in into your vagina?A: Yes, Sir.Q: Are you sure that his penis was inserted inside your vagina?A: Yes, Sir.69When questioned on cross-examination whether she could distinguish a vagina from an anus, the victim declared that she could and proceeded to demonstrate. She reiterated that the penis of petitioner penetrated her vagina, thus, consummating the crime charged: Atty. Baliad:Q: Do you recall having stated during the last hearing that the accused, Neil Llave or "Totoy" inserted his penis in your vagina, do you recall that?A: Yes, Sir.Q: And likewise, you testified that you feel that the penis of Neil entered your vagina?A: Yes, Sir.Q: Could you distinguish vagina from your anus?A: Yes, Sir.Q: Where is your "pepe"?A: (Witness pointing to her vagina.)Q: Where is your anus?A: (Witness pointing at her back, at the anus.)Q: In your statement, am I correct to say that Neil, the accused in this case penetrated only in your vagina and not in your anus?A: Yes, Sir.Q: So that, your anus was not even touched by the accused neither by his penis touched any part of your anus?A: He did not insert anything on my anus, Sir.70 While it is true that Dr. Castillo did not find any abrasion or laceration in the private complainants genitalia, such fact does not negate the latters testimony the petitioner had carnal knowledge of her. The absence of abrasions and lacerations does not disprove sexual abuses, especially when the victim is a young girl as in this case.71 According to Dr. Castillo, the hymen is elastic and is capable of stretching and reverting to its original form.72 The doctor testified that her report is compatible with the victims testimony that she was sexually assaulted by petitioner:Atty. Baliad:Q: Do you recall having stated during the last hearing that the accused, Neil Llave or "Totoy" inserted his penis in your vagina, do you recall that?A: Yes, Sir.Q: And likewise, you testified that you feel (sic) that the penis of Neil entered your vagina?A: Yes, Sir.Q: Could you distinguish vagina from your anus?A: Yes, Sir.Q: Where is your "pepe"?A: (Witness pointing to her vagina.)Q: Where is your anus?A: (Witness pointing at her back, at the anus.)Q: In your statement, am I correct to say that Neil, the accused in this case penetrated only in your vagina and not in your anus?A: Yes, Sir.Q: So that, your anus was not even touched by the accused neither by his penis touched any part of your anus?A: He did not insert anything on my anus, Sir.x x x xFiscal Barrera:Q: Based on your testimony doctor, and the medico genital examination propounded on the report that the victim here, Debbielyn Santos is complaining that around 6:00 in the evening of September 24, 2002, she was sexually abused and that on the following day, September 25, you interviewed her and stated to you that her genitalia was hurting and in binocular (sic) "masakit ang pepe ko, ni-rape ako," would your findings as contained in this Exh. B and C be compatible with the allegation if the minor victim that she was sexually abused on September 24. 2002 at around 6:00 p.m.?Atty. Baliad:Objection, Your Honor. The one who narrated the incident is the mother.Court:What is your objection?Atty. Baliad:The objection, Your Honor, is the question propounded is that it was the minor who made the complaint regarding the allegation.Fiscal Barrera:The answer were provided..Court:The doctor is being asked whether or not her findings is compatible with the complaint of the minor. Overruled. Answer.Witness:A It is compatible with the allegation of the minor. Fiscal Barrera:Confronting you again with your two (2) medico-genital documents, the Provincial and Final Report mark[ed] in evidence as Exhs. B and C, at the lower portion of these two exhibits there appears to be a signature above the typewritten word, Mariella Castillo, M.D., whose signature is that doctor?A Both are my signatures, Sir.73Dr. Castillo even testified that the abrasion near the private complainants anal orifice could have been caused by petitioner while consummating the crime charged:Fiscal Barrera:Q: With your answer, would it be possible doctor that in the process of the male person inserting his erect penis inside the vagina, in the process, would it be possible that this abrasion could have been caused while in the process of inserting the penis into the vagina touch the portion of the anus where you find the abrasion?A: It is possible, Sir.Q: Now, are you aware, in the course of your examination, that the alleged perpetrator is a 12-year-old minor?A: I only fount it out, Sir, when I testified.Q: Do you still recall your answer that a 12-year-old boy could cause an erection of his penis?A: Yes, sir.Q: To enlight[en] us doctor, we, not being a physician, at what age could a male person can have erection?A: Even infants have an erection.74Petitioners contention that the private complainant was coached by her parents into testifying is barren of merit. It bears stressing that the private complainant testified in a straightforward and spontaneous manner and remained steadfast despite rigorous and intensive cross-examination by the indefatigable counsel of the petitioner. She spontaneously pointed to and identified the petitioner as the perpetrator. It is inconceivable that the private complainant, then only a seven- year old Grade II pupil, could have woven an intricate story of defloration unless her plaint was true.75 The Presiding Judge of the trial court observed and monitored the private complainant at close range as she testified and found her testimony credible. Case law is that the calibration by the trial court of the evidence on record and its assessment of the credibility of witnesses, as well as its findings of facts and the conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded conclusive effect by this Court unless facts and circumstances of substance were overlooked, misconstrued or misinterpreted, which, if considered would merit a nullification or reversal of the decision. We have held that when the offended party is young and immature, from the age of thirteen to sixteen, courts are inclined to give credence to their account of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter to which they testified is not true.76 Neither do we lend credence to petitioners claim that the charge against him is but a fabrication and concoction of the private complainants parents. Indeed, petitioner admitted in no uncertain terms that the spouses had no ill-motive against him. Thus, Neil testified as follows: Fiscal Barrera:Q: As you testified earlier that you have played post cards with Debbielyn Santos alias Lyn-lyn and you have no quarrel or misunderstanding with Lyn-lyn. Do you know of any reason why Lyn-lyn complaint (sic) against you for sexual abuse? A: I dont know of any reason, Sir.Q: You also testified that you do not have any quarrel or misunderstanding with Lyn-lyns parents, spouses Domingo Santos, Jr. and Marilou Santos, do you think of any reason as to why they would file a complaint against you for molesting their 7-year-old daughter?A: I do not know of any reason why they filed a complaint against me, Sir.Fiscal Barrera:That would be all, Your Honor.77There is no evidence that the parents of the offended party coached their daughter before she testified. No mother or father would stoop so low as to subject their daughter to the tribulations and the embarrassment of a public trial knowing that such a traumatic experience would damage their daughters psyche and mar her life if the charge is not true.78On the other hand, when the parents learned that their daughter had been assaulted by petitioner, Domingo tried to locate the offender and when he failed, he and his wife reported the matter to the barangay authorities. This manifested their ardent desire to have petitioner indicted and punished for his delictual acts.That petitioner ravished the victim not far from the street where residents passed by does not negate the act of rape committed by petitioner. Rape is not a respecter of time and place. The crime may be committed by the roadside and even in occupied premises.79 The presence of people nearby does not deter rapists from committing the odious act.80 In this case, petitioner was so daring that he ravished the private complainant near the house of Teofisto even as commuters passed by, impervious to the fact that a crime was being committed in their midst.Case law has it that in view of the intrinsic nature of rape, the only evidence that can be offered to prove the guilt of the offender is the testimony of the offended party. Even absent a medical certificate, her testimony, standing alone, can be made the basis of conviction if such testimony is credible. Corroborative testimony is not essential to warrant a conviction of the perpetrator.81 Thus, even without the testimony of Teofisto Bucud, the testimonies of the offended party and Dr. Castillo constitute evidence beyond reasonable doubt warranting the conviction of petitioner.Teofistos testimony cannot be discredited by petitioner simply because his uncle caused the demolition of the house where Teofisto and his family were residing. It bears stressing that Teofisto gave a sworn statement to the police investigator on the very day that the petitioner raped Debbielyn and narrated how he witnessed the crime being committed by the petitioner.82 In the absence of proof of improper motive, the presumption is that Teofisto had no ill-motive to so testify, hence, his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.83 The trial court correctly ruled that the petitioner acted with discernment when he had carnal knowledge of the offended party; hence, the CA cannot be faulted for affirming the trial courts ruling.1wphi1Article 12, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a person over nine years of age and under fifteen is exempt from criminal liability, unless he acted with discernment. The basic reason behind the exempting circumstance is complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action of the offender which is an essential element of a felony either by dolus or by culpa. Intelligence is the power necessary to determine the morality of human acts to distinguish a licit from an illicit act.84 On the other hand, discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. The prosecution is burdened to prove that the accused acted with discernment by evidence of physical appearance, attitude or deportment not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and during the trial.85 The surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing and that it was wrong. Such circumstance includes the gruesome nature of the crime and the minors cunning and shrewdness.In the present case, the petitioner, with methodical fashion, dragged the resisting victim behind the pile of hollow blocks near the vacant house to insure that passersby would not be able to discover his dastardly acts. When he was discovered by Teofisto Bucud who shouted at him, the petitioner hastily fled from the scene to escape arrest. Upon the prodding of his father and her mother, he hid in his grandmothers house to avoid being arrested by policemen and remained thereat until barangay tanods arrived and took him into custody. The petitioner also testified that he had been an outstanding grade school student and even received awards. While in Grade I, he was the best in his class in his academic subjects. He represented his class in a quiz bee contest.86 At his the age of 12, he finished a computer course. In People v. Doquea,87 the Court held that the accused-appellant therein acted with discernment in raping the victim under the following facts:Taking into account the fact that when the accused Valentin Doquea committed the crime in question, he was a 7th grade pupil in the intermediate school of the municipality of Sual, Pangasinan, and as such pupil, he was one of the brightest in said school and was a captain of a company of the cadet corps thereof, and during the time he was studying therein he always obtain excellent marks, this court is convinced that the accused, in committing the crime, acted with discernment and was conscious of the nature and consequences of his act, and so also has this court observed at the time said accused was testifying in his behalf during the trial of this case.88 The CA ordered petitioner to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages. There is no factual basis for the award of exemplary damages. Under Article 2231, of the New Civil Code, exemplary damages may be awarded if the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. In this case, no aggravating circumstance was alleged in the Information and proved by the People; hence, the award must be deleted.IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 26962 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION that the award of exemplary damages is DELETED.SO ORDERED.LLAVE V. REPUBLICG.R. No. 169766, [March 30, 2011]PROCEDURAL HISTORY:This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision dated August 17, 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 61762 and its subsequent Resolution dated September 13, 2005, which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 89 declaring petitioner Estrellita Juliano-Llave s (Estrellita) marriage to Sen. Mamintal A.J. Tamano (Sen. Tamano) as void ab initio.FACTS: Around 11 months before his death, Sen. Tamanomarried Estrellita twice initially under the Islamic laws and tradition on May 27, 1993 in Cotabato City and, subsequently, under a civil ceremony officiated by an RTC Judge at Malabang, Lanao del Sur on June 2, 1993. In their marriage contracts, Sen. Tamano s civil status was indicated as divorced. Since then, Estrellita has been representing herself to the whole world as Sen. Tamano s wife, and upon his death, his widow.On November 23, 1994, private respondents Haja Putri Zorayda A. Tamano (Zorayda) and her son Adib Ahmad A. Tamano (Adib), in their own behalf and in behalf of the rest of Sen. Tamano s legitimate children with Zorayda, filed a complaint with the RTC of Quezon City for the declaration of nullity of marriage between Estrellita and Sen. Tamano for being bigamous. The complaint alleged that Sen. Tamano married Zorayda on May 31, 1958 under civil rites, and that this marriage remained subsisting when he married Estrellita in 1993.ISSUE: Whether the marriage between Estrellita and the late Sen. Tamano was bigamous.HELD: Yes. The civil code governs the marriage of Zoraydaand late Sen. Tamano; their marriage was never invalidatedby PD 1083. Sen. Tamano s subsequent marriage to Estrellita is void ab initio.RATIO: The marriage between the late Sen. Tamano and Zorayda was celebrated in 1958, solemnized under civil and Muslim rites. The only law in force governing marriage relationships between Muslims and non-Muslims alike was the Civil Code of 1950, under the provisions of which only one marriage can exist at any given time. Under the marriage provisions of the Civil Code, divorce is not recognized except during the effectivity of Republic Act No. 394 which was not availed of during its effectivity.As far as Estrellita is concerned, Sen. Tamano s prior marriage to Zorayda has been severed by way of divorce under PD 1083, the law that codified Muslim personal laws. However, PD 1083 cannot benefit Estrellita. Firstly, Article 13(1) thereof provides that the law applies to marriage and divorce wherein both parties are Muslims, or wherein only the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in accordance with Muslim law or this Code in any part of the Philippines. But Article 13 of PD 1083 does not provide for a situation where the parties were married both in civil and Muslim rites.HELD: The petition is DENIED.G.R. Nos. 106210-11 January 30, 1998PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ROBERTO "RAMBO" LISING, RODOLFO MANALILI, FELIMON GARCIA, ENRICO DIZON, and ROBIN MANGA, accused-appellants.KAPUNAN, J.:The parents of Cochise and Beebom must have lifted their sorrowful faces heavenward and blurted out an anguished cry: "Oh God! Why must it be they, so young, so loving, so beautiful and so promising, to be brutally snatched from our embrace and never to be seen again?"Cochise, whose full name was Ernesto Bernabe II, was 26 years old on the fateful day of April 26, 1990 and Ana Lourdes Castaos, or Beebom to her family friends, was 22. Cochise had just graduated from the University of the Philippines with a degree of Bachelor of Laws and was reviewing for the bar examinations, while Beebom was a graduating student at the College of Mass Communications from the same university. Both excelled in academic and extra-curricular activities.The senseless and gruesome killing of the young man and woman, both full of promise, horrifies us. But what makes this crime more despicable in our eyes is the involvement of people sworn to uphold the law.For the crimes for which they were charged and sentenced, appellants now come to this Court asking us to give their case a second look, insisting on their innocence.Sometime in March, 1990, Rodolfo Manalili, a businessman asked Felimon Garcia, his townmate, if he knew somebody who could allegedly effect the arrest of one Robert Herrera, the suspect in the killing of his brother, Delfin Manalili.Felimon Garcia said he knew one and arranged a meeting with him.On April 21, 1990, Felimon Garcia called up Manalili and informed him that he already contacted a policeman to help him and said that the policeman wanted to talk to him. So an appointment was set at 12:00 p.m. of April 22, 1990 at Dau Exit, North Expressway, Mabalacat, Pampanga.On said date Manalili, together with his son Richard, arrived at the Dau Exit at about 12:30 p.m. of April 22, 1990. Felimon Garcia was already there waiting for Manalili.They proceeded to the Golden Palace Chinese Restaurant where they would meet Roberto Lising. They, however, had to change venue because Roberto Lising's live-in-partner, Ligaya Fausto and other companions were in the restaurant. So they went instead to a nearby carinderia and instructed Felimon Garcia to follow them there.Shortly, Felimon Garcia arrived and introduced Roberto Lising, Enrico Dizon and another man armed with a service pistol to Manalili. During the meeting, Manalili offered to pay them P50,000.00 for the job. Initially, Manalili gave them P2,000.00 and instructed them to go and see Vic Nabua,* his employee who will point them the person to be arrested.On April 23-24, Lising's group went to Quezon City and met with Vic Lisboa. They conducted a surveillance on the Castaos residence in the hope of seeing Herrera. Failing to do so, the group was asked to come back the next day.On April 25, the same group arrived at the vicinity of the Castaos residence at around 5:00 p.m. to resume their surveillance. Two hours later, Lisboa alerted the group after allegedly spotting Herrera entering the Castaos residence.Later, the group saw a man and a woman who happened to be Cochise and Beebom leave to the Castaos residence in a green box type Lancer car. The group followed the Lancer car with Lising, Dizon and Manga riding in a black car and Lisboa and Garcia in a motorcycle.The Lancer car went to Dayrit's Ham and Burger House on Timog Circle, Quezon City where the couple intended to have dinner. Alighting from the car, they were accosted by Dizon and Manga who were both carrying firearms. Amidst protestations, Dizon poked his gun at Cochise, handcuffed him, and shoved him into the car. Beebom protested loudly at the arrest and was also shoved into the back of the car.The young couple's failure to go home that night and the next day alarmed their parents, so a search was then initiated by close friends and relatives inquiring from hospitals, restaurants, friends' houses and possible places where the couple would go.One group chanced upon Dayrit's Ham and Burger House where they were told that a couple who fitted their descriptions were taken by three (3) men believed to be from the military in the evening of April 25, 1990.The abduction of Cochise and Beebom hit the front pages. Appeals by the parents to locate them reached the authorities where all possible angles of their disappearance were explored but there were no significant leads. After about two (2) months of futile search for their whereabouts, a break came on June 21, 1990 when two (2) security guards working in a Shellane Warehouse in San Fernando, Pampanga went to see Ms. Rosie Bernabe at her Pasay City Hall office and had information concerning her son, Cochise. Mrs. Bernabe referred the two guards to the CAPCOM who interviewed them.The two guards told the CAPCOM that their friends Raul Morales and Jun Medrano, both employees of Roberto Lising, informed them that Lising killed a mestisuhin man and a woman in their warehouse.On June 23, 1990, Raul Morales was picked up and told his story. In a sworn statement executed on even date, he stated that he was a pahinante residing in the warehouse where LPG cylinders are stored, located near Valle Verde Drive-In Lodge in San Fernando, Pampanga, owned by Ligaya Fausto, common-law wife of Roberto Lising alias "Rambo." In the main, he said:21. T: Sa ikaliliwanag ng pagsisiyasat na ito, maaari bang isalaysay mo ang sinasabi mong hindi pangkaraniwang pangyayari?S: Nangyari yan alas 2:00 ng madaling araw ng 26 April 1990 natutulog ako, nang mayron kumatok sa pinto ng bodega at nagising ako. Tinawag ko si Aida Morales para buksan ang gate tapos sabi ni Aida "Ikaw na lang ang magbukas" pagkatapos kinuha ko yung susi sa kanya para buksan yong gate. Noong binubuksan ko yong gate sabi sa akin ni Roberto Lising, "Bakit ang tagal mo" tapos pakabukas ko ng gate pumasok yong dalawang kotse, una yong itim pagkatapos yong green na kotse na Lancer, tapos unang bumaba sa kotse na itim si Rambo, pangalawa si Felimon bumaba sa kotse na Lancer may dala na pala. Pagkatapos lumabas ng gate si Felimon may dala na pala. Si Rambo naman binuksan yong dalawang pinto ng kotseng itim bumaba yong babae at saka yong lalaki hinila palabas ni Rambo. Pagkatapos tinalian niya ng alambre bukod pa sa pagtali ng alambre pati pa yong mukha tinalian ng damit. Pagkatapos pagtali ni Rambo, biglang dumating si Felimon dala pa yong pala pagkatapos sininyasan si Rambo na ilabas na iyong lalaki. Dinala ulit ni Rambo ang pala noong palabas na sila noong lalaki. Pagkatapos ayaw nga lumabas ng lalaki, itinulak ni Rambo papunta sa labas, sabi naman ng babae maawa naman po kayo sa amin dahil wala kaming kasalanan" pagkatapos tinutukan ni Rambo yong babae at sabi "Putang ina mo, wag kang maingay, papatayin rin kita". Noong dinala na ni Rambo, umiiyak na lang yong babae. Mga kalahating oras bago bumalik si Rambo sa bodega na hindi na kasama yong lalaki. Nakahubad siya at pinapawisan, bukod pa yan, naghugas pa ng kamay siya. Pagkatapos nag-usap-usap silang tatlo, si Rambo, si Felimon at yong kasama ni Rambo. Pagkatapos nagsabi si Rambo sa akin na buksan na ang gate at aalis na sila. Binuksan ko ang gate at nagsakayan sila sa kotse, si Rambo sa itim at saka yong babae, sa Lancer naman ang nakasakay yong kasama niya at si Felimon, at pagkatapos lumabas na sila, tuloy tuloy na umalis. 1On June 25, 1990, the body of Cochise was exhumed. An autopsy was conducted where the finding was: Cause of Death: "Multiple Stab Wounds"The next day, Beebom's body, which was in an advanced decomposing stage was exhumed from a shallow grave, two (2) kilometers from where Cochise's body was found.After evading arrest the previous days, Roberto Lising was finally apprehended on June 30, 1990. In a Sworn Statement executed on the same day at Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, he implicated Felimon Garcia and Rodolfo Manalili. According to him, this is what happened:. . . at about 11:00 o'clock in the evening of April 25, 1990, he received a telephone call from FELIMON GARCIA informing that he and his companions were at Valle Verde Lodge at San Fernando, Pampanga and that they have a problem. He immediately went to that place and saw FELIMON GARCIA who introduced to him RUDY MANALILI who was then accompanied by six (6) other men; that he saw a yellow Mercedez Benz, a black Torana and a green Lancer; that on board the Lancer were a man and a woman who were blindfolded and were introduced to him by RUDY MANALILI as ROBERTO HERRERA and JOY MANALILI; that they proceeded to one of the rooms of the motel where MANALILI told him that the two persons should die because they killed his brother DELFIN MANALILI; that afterwards RUDY MANALILI paid the chit and they proceeded to the warehouse at Villa Victoria, San Fernando, Pampanga, owned by LIGAYA FAUSTO where he bound COCHISE and led him to the back of the warehouse; that MANALILI stabbed COCHISE and he acted only as a look-out; that FELIMON GARCIA and another person brought the blindfolded woman to Brgy. San Agustin where she was killed; that before he, FELIMON GARCIA and RUDY MANALILI parted ways, MANALILI told him to take care of the Lancer, change its color and later he will get it and after that he was given P40,000.00 in check which he encashed at the UCPB Diliman Branch, Quezon City on April 26, 1990; that he gave P15,000.00 to FELIMON GARCIA and kept the rest; that he had the Lancer repainted and used it. 2Thereafter, the manhunt for Felimon Garcia and Rodolfo Manalili began. One by one, the men responsible for the killing of Cochise and Beebom fell into the hands of the authorities.On January 4, 1991, Garcia surrendered and was brought to the NBI. He named Pat. Enrico Dizon as the companion of Lising when Cochise and Beebom were kidnapped and brought to Valle Verde Lodge. He refused to make a statement or give further information until Rodolfo Manalili was arrested.On January 16, 1991, Enrico Dizon was turned over by his superiors to the NBI. He named a certain CIC Robin Manga as one of their companions and owner of the car they used when Cochise and Beebom were kidnapped. Thus, Manga was also picked up.Meanwhile, Rodolfo Manalili, who was in Australia at that time was fetched by then NBI Director Alfredo Lim and Atty. Diego Gutierrez after proper representations were made with the Australian police.On January 17, 1991 Felimon Garcia, with the assistance of his counsel, Atty. Redemberto Villanueva, executed a statement revealing that:. . . he met RODOLFO MANALILI sometime in April 1987 in his office at No. 71 Mapang-akit Street corner V. Luna, Quezon City while soliciting contribution for the Barangay fiesta of San Isidro, Minalin. The relationship continued until he was requested by MANALILI to look for persons who could help in arresting ROBERTO HERRERA, the suspect in the killing of his brother DELFIN MANALILI. He contacted ROBERTO LISING alias RAMBO, a policemen assigned with Pampanga PC Intelligence Unit, thru LIGAYA FAUSTO, his relative and live-in-partner of LISING, to help in the arrest of HERRERA, and on April 21, 1990, while in the residence of LISING, he placed a long-distance call to MANALILI to inform him that LISING is willing to help. They talked over the phone and agreed to meet the following day in Dao.He met MANALILI at the Dao-Mabalacat exit and accompanied the latter to LISING, ENRICO DIZON AND ANOTHER MAN ARMED WITH SERVICE PISTOL (.45 CALIBER) AND Armalite. MANALILI, during the meeting, said that VIC NABUA, his employee, will act as pointer of the persons to be arrested and LISING agreed and asked from MANALILI P50,000.00 for the job to which MANALILI agreed. Initially MANALILI gave P2,000.00 to LISING as expenses.He together with LISING, ENRICO DIZON and the driver of a Tamaraw went to Quezon City on April 23 and 24, 1990, but VIC NABUA failed to spot HERRERA. On April 25, 1990, LISING and DIZON returned on board a black car, Colt Galant (sic) driven by ROBIN MANGA and NABUA finally told them that HERRERA was at a house near the Camelot. After a few minutes of surveillance NABUA approached them and told them to follow the car driven by a man with a woman companion. Said car proceeded to Timog Circle and parked in front of Dayrit Hamburger House, followed by the Colt Galant which they likewise followed on board a motor and handcuffed the man and the woman. Then LISING instructed him to contact MANALILI and to follow them to Pampanga. He, MANALILI and VIC NABUA proceeded to Pampanga PC where they were instructed by the military on duty to proceed to Valle Verde Lodge, San Fernando, Pampanga. There they saw LISING and ERNESTO COCHISE BERNABE and BEEBOM CASTAOS. MANALILI identified them and instructed him and LISING to release COCHISE and BEEBOM and assured that whatever MANALILI promised to LISING WILL BE PAID. Lising AGREED. However, after MANALILI left, LISING told him to bring COCHISE and BEEBOM to a warehouse owned by LIGAYA FAUSTO where COCHISE was killed by LISING. Thereafter BEEBOM was forced by ENRICO DIZON and ROBIN MANGA top board the Galant car which left the warehouse towards Barangay San Agustin.He and LISING were left in the warehouse and proceeded to the house of LIGAYA FAUSTO at MALIGAYA Village in San Fernando. At about 9:00 a.m. he and LISING went to the warehouse of MANALILI at Xavierville Subdivision, Quezon City and there a check of P40,000.00 was given to LISING who encashed it with Fareast Bank and went to Pampanga. He alighted at Sto. Domingo, Minalin, Pampanga after LISING gave him P500.00. 3Rodolfo Manalili, on the other hand, with the assistance of Atty. Rodolfo Jimenez manifested on January 18, 1991:that he met LISING through FELIMON GARCIA whom he requested to look for some police officers who could help in the arrest of ROBERTO HERRERA, the accused in the killing of his brother DELFIN MANALILI.He met LISING together with a certain Pat. ENRICO DIZON of the Guagua police and another police officer in Dau, Pampanga on April 22, 1990, and gave them a sketch of HERRERA. On April 24, 1990, he told GARCIA to postpone their plan against HERRERA due to his forthcoming travel to Germany on April 25. However, at about 10:00 p.m. of April 25, GARCIA came to his office at No. 71 Mapangakit, Diliman, Quezon City and informed that they have already arrested HERRERA with a lady companion and that he was instructed to go to Pampanga, which he did. He was accompanied in his car by GARCIA and VICTOR LISBOA. They proceeded to Valle Verde Hotel in San Fernando, Pampanga, and brought him to Room 213 where he saw a man slumped on the floor with his eyes and mouth covered with tape. The lady companions sitting on the bed had her eyes also taped. He told LISING that the man is not HERRERA. He was forced to peek (sic) inside the room anew, and this time recognized the woman to be BEEBOM CASTAOS. He pleaded LISING and his companions to release them and would give them whatever amount he promised them.After he was told that BEEBOM and COCHISE would be released he instructed GARCIA to stay behind and see to it that his instructions were complied with. Then, he returned with VICTOR LISBOA. The following day, at about 8:00 a.m., LISING and GARCIA came to his house and told him that the man and BEEBOM were already released and in turn gave them a Far East Bank check in the amount of P40,000.00.On April 26, he left for Germany and returned on May 28, 1990. While still in Germany his wife and househelps have been receiving threatening telephone calls and on the first week of June he received a call from GARCIA who gave the telephone to LISING who asked for P60,000.00, otherwise he will kill him or implicate him in the crime.On June 21, 1990 he left for Hongkong then to Melbourne for fear of his life and that of his family.He claimed that the police officers he saw in Valle Verde Hotel were Pampanga policemen and not Quezon City policemen. 4Consequently, two (2) Amended Informations were filed in court against Roberto "Rambo" Lising, Rodolfo Manalili, Felimon Garcia, Enrico Dizon, Robin Manga, and Ligaya Fausto.Criminal Case No. Q-90-15239For Carnapping (Violation of Republic Act No. 6539) 5That on or about the 25th day of April 1990, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, P/Pfc. Roberto Lising y Canlas, Enrico Dizon, Robin Manga y Quimzon, being then members of the Integrated National Police with Presidential waiver, and Rodolfo Manalili, Felimon Garcia and Ligaya Fausto, private individuals and several Does, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one another, with intent to gain, and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, by means of violence and intimidation against persons, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, rob and carry away one G.T. Lancer, with Plate No. PER 942 in an undetermined value and belonging to Ernesto Bernabe II, to the damage and prejudice of the offended party in such amount as may be awarded under the provisions of the Civil Code. 6Criminal Case No. Q-90-15240For: Kidnapping with Double Murder 7That on or about the 25th day of April, 1990, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, P/Pcf. Roberto "Rambo" Lising y Canlas, Enrico Dizon, Roberto (sic) Manga y Quimzon, being then members of the Integrated National Police with Presidential waiver, and Rodolfo Manalili, Felimon Garcia, both private individuals, and several Does, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one another, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and for the purpose of detaining Ernesto Bernabe II y Blanco @ "Cochise" and Ana Lourdes Castaos y Jis de Ortega @ "Beebom," kidnap or in any manner deprive them of their liberty and thereafter, pursuant to their conspiracy, took them to San Fernando, Pampanga, and with intent to kill, with treachery, evident premeditation and cruelty, did, then and there stab them several times in the chest and slit open their necks, augmenting their sufferings which were the direct and immediate cause of their deaths and thereafter burying them to prevent discovery, and Ligaya Fausto, also a private individual, knowing the criminal intent of the above-named principal accused cooperated in the execution of the crime by supplying material and/or moral aid, to the damage and prejudice of the Heirs of said victims in such amounts as may be awarded to them under the provisions of the New Civil Code. 8Upon arraignment, all the accused pleaded not guilty.In building up their case, the prosecution presented two vital witnesses: Froilan Olimpia, who witnessed the abduction of the young couple at Dayrit's Ham and Burger House; and Raul Morales, the pahinante who testified on the killing of Cochise.On May 27, 1991, Froilan Olimpia testified in court and stated that he was 31 years old and was formerly a security guard of Nationwide Security and Investigation Agency. He was assigned at the Rotonda Wine Station, the establishment beside Dayrit's Ham and Burger House along Timog Circle, Quezon City. His tour of duty on April 25, 1990 was from 12:00 noon to 12:00 midnight.At about 7:00 to 7:30 in the evening, Olimpia was at his post in front of the Wine Station. There was a green box type Lancer car which parked in front of the Dayrit's Ham and Burger House carrying a man and a woman. Then a black car with no license plate parked behind the green car and two men alighted from it carrying guns. They announced that they were policemen, one was carrying a .45 caliber firearm in his holster and the other was carrying a long firearm. These men went towards the green box type Lancer car and handcuffed its driver. He only heard the man being handcuffed retort "Bakit?" When asked about the female companion, he said that his attention was more focused on the handcuffing incident and just later noticed that the woman was already seated at the back of the car. He did not even see the other man driving the black car.Olimpia further explained that the security guard of Dayrit's Ham and Burger House, Anastacio dela Cruz, was not really able to witness the whole incident since he was busy buying