Home Blog Page 3

House Bill 3611 – No Homework Policy for Kinder to Grade 12

0

House Bill 3611, otherwise known as An Act Promoting the Holistic Development of Basic Education Students By Establishing a No-Homework Policy for Kinder to Grade 12 and Proscribing the Taking of Textbooks Out of the School for Kinder to Grade 6 Students in all Public and Private Schools, was finally filed before the House of Representatives Bills and Index Division last August 7, 2019.  The short title of the bill is “Taking of Textbooks Out of School and No-Homework Policy of 2019” act.  The said bill was introduced by House Deputy Speaker Evelina G. Escudero.

Under the explanatory note of the bill, House Bill No. 3611 “seeks the elimination of homework assignments and prohibiting the taking of textbooks outside of the school” to “lighten the physical burden of schoolchildren and promote quality family interaction” and “to compel schools and teachers to come up with a more holistic and effective pedagogy”.

House Bill No. 3611 was proposed pursuant to the aim of the State to safeguard the general welfare and interests of school children and protect them from conditions that may adversely affect their health and their right to a balanced life.

The pertinent provisions of House Bill No. 3611 provide:

Sec. 4. No-homework Assignment. – All basic education schools shall make sure that their respective teachers shall not give homework assignments to Kinder to Grade 12 students by conducting all lessons and activities in school.

Sec. 5. No Taking of Textbooks Home. – All basic education schools shall ensure that all Kinder to grade 6 students shall deposit and leave their textbooks in school and no textbooks shall be brought home to prevent the adverse effects of carrying heavy bags to-and-from school.

Sec. 6. Lockers. – All basic education schools shall ensure that each student shall have a locker or a dedicated space that will serve as safe depository for students’ textbooks.

On the other hand, Representative Alfred Vargas has also introduced House Bill 3883 entitled An Act Establishing a No Homework Policy for all Elementary and High Schools in the Country. 

The explanatory notes of House Bill 3883 states that in 2018, a study in South Africa shows that “homework is burdensome for students and parents” and it also “undermines learning interest” and does impact family life in a negative way.  Said studies show also that “homework is associated with academic achievement”. 

Section 2 of the said HB 3883 states that “All Elementary and High Schools in the country shall not allow teachers to give any homework or assignments to their students over the weekend”.

The public has mixed opinions on the move to ban elementary and high school students from doing homework.  Around social media, some welcome this policy, agreeing that homework is a stressor for children that would deprive them of quality time with family at home.  However, the other side of the coin vehemently argues that doing homework teaches the children the value of hard work and diligence and instills discipline in them, which values are helpful when they become adults in the future.  Moreover, it is also contended that taking homework out of the equation does not necessarily equate to more family time because it cannot be discounted that with much free time at home after school, the children will have idle time to hang out in the internet which would be counter- productive, not to mention that their parents may also be busy as well.

The Department of Education has expressed its support on the No-Homework Policy.

Download a copy of House Bill 3611

Download a copy of House Bill 3883

IRR for Republic Act 10592 – The Proper Procedure for Granting Good Conduct Time Allowance

0

What are the procedures for the grant of good conduct time allowance under Republic Act 10592?  The current mess in the implementation of the Good Conduct Time Allowance pursuant to RA 10592 reveals that there is evidently misinterpretation and laxity in the enforcement thereof. 

The Grant of Good Conduct Time Allowance was an amendment to Articles 29, 94, 97, 98 and 99 of the Revised Penal Code and was yet approved in May 29, 2013 by then President Benigno S. Aquino III.  However, it was only lately that this law became controversial when Ex-Mayor Antonio Sanchez was reported to be released under Republic Act 10592.

Under Rule V Section 3 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act 10592, the Management, Screening and Evaluation Committee (MSEC) on the grant of good conduct time allowance comprised of the following with their mandated duties, to wit:

  1. The Director of BUCOR, Chief of the BJMP and Wardens of various provinces, cities, districts and municipalities are mandated to assess, evaluate and grant time deduction to a deserving prisoner, whether detained or convicted by final judgment, in the form of GCTA, STAL and TASTM as prescribed by these Rules through the creation of the MSEC.
  2. The composition of the MSEC shall be determined by the Director of the BUCOR, Chief of the BJMP or Wardens of Provincial and Sub-Provincial, District, City, and Municipal Jails, respectively. Membership shall not be less than five (5) and shall include a probation and Parole Officer, and if available, a psychologist and a social worker.
  3. The MSEC shall prepare minutes of every meeting to record each proceeding.

Rule V Section 4 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations provide for the Procedures for the Grant of Good Conduct Time Allowance under Republic Act 10592:

The following procedures shall be followed in the grant of GCTA:

A. The BUCOR, BJMP and Provincial Jails shall give special considerations to satisfactory behavior of a detention or convicted prisoner consisting of active involvement in rehabilitation programs, productive participation in authorized work activities or accomplishment of exemplary deeds. It is understood that in all instances, the detained or convicted prisoner must faithful obey all prison/jail rules and regulations;

B. The BUCOR, BJMP and Provincial Jails shall each create the MSEC or such appropriate number of MSECs task to manage, screen and evaluate the behavior or conduct of a detention or convicted prisoner;

C. After due consideration of the behavior or conduct shown by a detained or convicted prisoner, the MSEC shall then recommend to the appropriate official the appropriate GCTA that may be credited in favor of said prisoner ranging from the minimum allowable credit to the maximum credit thereof;

D. Acting on the recommendation of the MSEC, the appropriate official named in Section 1 of Rule VIII hereof shall either:

  1. Approve the recommendation and issue a certification granting GCTA to the prisoner of the particular period;
  2. Disapprove the recommendation if the prisoner recommended is not qualified to be granted the benefit or that errors or irregularities attended the evaluation of the prisoner; or
  3. Return the recommendation, without action, for corrections as regards the name, prison number or other clerical or inadvertent errors, or for further evaluation of the conduct or behavior of the prisoner concerned.

E. The appropriate official concerned shall ensure that GCTAs are processed each month and that there is proper recording of a prisoner’s good behavior in the jail or prison records.

Download the full copy of the IRR of Republic Act 10592 below:

Related stories:
DOCUMENTS: GCTA Law Manual and IRR
RA 10592 – Good Conduct Time Allowance Law [Full Text]
GCTA’s IRR not ‘scrutinized well’ during term of De Lima, Roxas – Año | Inquirer.net 

Manny Pacquiao: Five Impressive Facts About The Pinoy Boxing Legend

0

Manny Pacquiao’s early personal background is riddled with unmistakable signs that he would not make a good mark in life, much less become the boxing great that he is today. As a child he had wanted to become a priest someday, but a clarion call to fight the rigors of life strictly demanded his presence inside the boxing ring.

Manny Pacquiao’s parents separated when he was in sixth grade. To survive, he sold cigarettes along sidewalks when he was 12, and took many more odd jobs on what would be his inevitable journey as a pugilist- upon God’s will- as he likes to say.

Nicknamed “Pac-Man,” the legendary Filipino boxer got his first huge break in 2001 when he was asked to fight Lehlohonolo Ledwaba as a last minute replacement, winning the match by TKO, before an enchanted crowd at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, Nevada.

His next big break, one that would eventually shape his boxing career in the long run, was against the Mexican great Marco Antonio Barrera who had never been knocked out.

Manny Pacquiao’s unusual fighting style — often hard to predict for his broken rhythm, being relentlessly offense-oriented — greatly appealed beyond the circles of hardcore boxing fans. But beyond his impressive boxing skills, here are some equally impressive and inspiring facts about the greatest Pinoy Boxer ever.

Manny Pacquiao Height

Officially listed at 5 ft 5’5 in by Boxrec, Manny Pacquiao is considered to be a small welterweight. Manny’s height disadvantage, however, is offset by his offensive skills, durability, and stamina. Long-time coach Freddie Roach believes his ward is a natural 140-pounder who fights at 147 since that’s where the best competitors in the sport are.

Having originally competed only as a flyweight in 1995, the Pac-man has fought as a super middleweight, fighting towering opponents like the close to 6 ft Antonio Margarito, who was in his prime reputed to be the most feared boxer in his division. Not an easy feat considering that Manny Pacquiao’s height is only 5 ft 5 in.

More recently, Manny Pacquiao has become the oldest welterweight champion at 40 years old following his win over Keith Thurman.

Manny Pacquiao Cars

Long gone are the days when the Pac-man used to sleep on card boxes absent a foam for his bed, and fight for crumbs. Even in the twilight of his career, he was guaranteed $10 million to fight Keith Thurman. As of 2019, his net worth is approximately $190 million, which bodes well for an increasing number of Manny Pacquiao Cars

As one of the most affluent men in the Philippines, his notable auto collection includes:

  • Porsche Cayenne Turbo S
  • Lincoln Navigator
  • Ferrari 458 Italia : Grey Edition
  • Mercedes SL550
  • Chevrolet Suburban
  • Cadillac Escalade
  • Hummer H2

And do not think his imagination to be limited to automobiles. Aside from the Manny Pacquiao cars, the champ is also a proud owner of a M2 Cyclone 1200cc Motorcycle. Manufactured by Buell, a Harley Davidson sister company, this customized bike’s worth is estimated to be P2.5 million.

Manny Pacquiao House

The boxing champ is a proud owner of multiple houses in the Philippines and the US. Still a top ten active boxer, Pound 4 Pound, with various businesses established, the Pac-man seems set to live the life of Riley. Among the list of Manny Paquiao houses are:

  • Pac-man’s first mansion located in General Santos
  • White House in Gen San
  • Laguna mansion within the proximity of his kids’ school
  • Tuka Beach House, Sarangani
  • North Forbes Park high-end residence
  • Mansion in Dasmarinas Village
  • 2-story home in Los Angeles, California
  • Beverly Hills residence

Manny Pacquiao Quotes

The legendary Filipino boxer used to skip classes as a child so he could help his mother work in a laundry. He eventually dropped out of school to pursue his boxing career, to put food on the table.

As a guest speaker at the Oxford University in 2018, Pacquiao was forthcoming in letting his audience know that what he had to say had not been learned through the academe, but in the hard knocks of life. Now a Philippine senator, a favorite Manny Pacquiao quote as a political figure would be, “The most important thing as a leader is your relationship with God.”

As a fearless fighter, boxing fans often relate to a Manny Pacquiao quote that goes: “Only in death will I relinquish my belts. “

Manny Pacquiao and Family

Despite calls for his retirement by no less than his wife, mother, and close family members, Manny Pacquiao insists he still has a few more fights left in him. But no matter what happens henceforth, the Pac-man has reached a level of success where he shall forever be looked upon with veneration among our mental tableau of all-time boxing greats such as Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, and Sugar Ray Leonard who, like himself and many others before him, had refused to be overwhelmed by poverty and hardship.

RA 10592 – Good Conduct Time Allowance Law [Full Text]

0

Good Conduct Time Allowance – Republic Act No. 10592 (RA 10592) REPOST

AN ACT AMENDING ARTICLES 29, 94, 97, 98 AND 99 OF ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

Section 1. Article 29 of Act No. 3815, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

“ART. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment. – Offenders or accused who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing after being informed of the effects thereof and with the assistance of counsel to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the following cases:

“1. When they are recidivists, or have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime; and

“2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily.

“If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall do so in writing with the assistance of a counsel and shall be credited in the service of his sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment.

“Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be deducted from thirty (30) years.1âwphi1

“Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review. Computation of preventive imprisonment for purposes of immediate release under this paragraph shall be the actual period of detention with good conduct time allowance:Provided, however, That if the accused is absent without justifiable cause at any stage of the trial, the court may motu proprio order the rearrest of the accused: Provided, finally, That recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded from the coverage of this Act. In case the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is lestierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment.”

Section 2. Article 94 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read as follows:

“ART. 94. Partial extinction of criminal liability. – Criminal liability is extinguished partially:

“1. By conditional pardon;

“2. By commutation of the sentence; and

“3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is undergoing preventive imprisonment or serving his sentence.”

Section 3. Article 97 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read as follows:

“ART. 97. Allowance for good conduct. – The good conduct of any offender qualified for credit for preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of this Code, or of any convicted prisoner in any penal institution, rehabilitation or detention center or any other local jail shall entitle him to the following deductions from the period of his sentence:

“1. During the first two years of imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of twenty days for each month of good behavior during detention;

“2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a reduction of twenty-three days for each month of good behavior during detention;

“3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of twenty-five days for each month of good behavior during detention;

“4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of thirty days for each month of good behavior during detention; and

“5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, he shall be allowed another deduction of fifteen days, in addition to numbers one to four hereof, for each month of study, teaching or mentoring service time rendered.

“An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of entitlement to the above allowances for good conduct.”

Section 4. Article 98 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read as follows:

“ART. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. – A deduction of one fifth of the period of his sentence shall be granted to any prisoner who, having evaded his preventive imprisonment or the service of his sentence under the circumstances mentioned in Article 158 of this Code, gives himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe referred to in said article. A deduction of two-fifths of the period of his sentence shall be granted in case said prisoner chose to stay in the place of his confinement notwithstanding the existence of a calamity or catastrophe enumerated in Article 158 of this Code.

“This Article shall apply to any prisoner whether undergoing preventive imprisonment or serving sentence.”

Section 5. Article 99 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read as follows:”

“ART. 99. Who grants time allowances. – Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, the Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology and/or the Warden of a provincial, district, municipal or city jail shall grant allowances for good conduct. Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked.”

Section 6. Penal Clause. – Faithful compliance with the provisions of this Act is hereby mandated. As such, the penalty of one (1) year imprisonment, a fine of One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) and perpetual disqualification to hold office shall be imposed against any public officer or employee who violates the provisions of this Act.

Section 7. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – The Secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) shall within sixty (60) days from the approval of this Act, promulgate rules and regulations on the classification system for good conduct and time allowances, as may be necessary, to implement the provisions of this Act.

Section 8. Separability Clause. – If any part hereof is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of the provisions not otherwise affected shall remain valid and subsisting.

Section 9. Repealing Clause. – Any law, presidential decree or issuance, executive order, letter of instruction, administrative order, rule or regulation contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act is hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly.

Section 10. Effectivity Clause. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days from its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) new papers of general circulation.

Approved,

(Sgd.) JUAN PONCE ENRILE
President of the Senate
(Sgd.) FELICIANO BELMONTE JR.
Speaker of the House of Representatives

This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 3064 and House Bill No. 417 was finally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on November 5, 2012 and January 28, 2013, respectively.

(Sgd.) EDWIN B. BELLEN
Acting Senate Secretary
(Sgd.) MARILYN B. BARUA-YAP
Secretary General
House of Representatives

Approved: MAY 29 2013

(Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO III
President of the Philippines

Relates stories:
Palace blames De Lima, Roxas for the GCTA law’s implementing rules | GMA News Online
THE NEW GOOD CONDUCT TIME ALLOWANCE FOR PRISONERS and related DOJ Opinion on the Penal Colonist Status
IRR for Republic Act 10592 – The Procedures for Granting Good Conduct Time Allowance
PDF Download: Full copy of the IRR of Republic Act 10592

Maternity leave rules for female workers in the public sector under RA 11210

0

Rule V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 11210 (RA 11210) otherwise known as the Expanded Maternity Leave Law lay down the rules for the female workers in the public sector, reproduced as follows:

Section 1.  Eligibility. – Any pregnant female worker in the government service, regardless of employment status and length of service, in National Government Agencies (NGAs), Local Government Units (LGUs), Government-Owned or – Controlled Corporations (GOSCCs), State Universities and Colleges (SUCs), opr local Universities and Colleges (LUCs) shall be granted maternity leave of one hundred five (105) days with full pay regardless of the manner of delivery of the child, and an additional fifteen (15) days paid leave if the female workers qualifies as a solo parent under Republic Act No. 8972, or the “Solo Parents’ Welfare Act of 2000”.

She shall be entitled to maternity leave of sixty (60) days with full pay for miscarriage or emergency termination of pregnancy.

Section 2.  Notice of Pregnancy and Application for Maternity Leave. – The female worker shall give prior notice to the head of agency of her pregnancy and her availment of maternity leave at least thirty (30) days in advance, whenever possible, specifying the effective date of the leave. The female worker shall use the prescribed civil service form in the filing of the maternity leave application, supported by a medical certificate.

Section 3. Maternity Leave in the Teaching Profession. – Female teachers in the teaching profession may also avail of maternity leave even during long vacations, i.e., summer and Christmas vacations, in which case, both the maternity leave benefits and the proportional vacation pay (PVP) shall be granted.

Section 4.  Extended Maternity Leave. – In cases of live childbirth, the female worker has the option to extend her maternity leave for an additional thirty (30) days without pay, or use her earned sick leave credits for extended leave with pay. In case the sick leave credits are exhausted, the vacation leave credits may be used.

Section 5.  Manner of Payment of Maternity Leave Benefits. – the female worker shall be entitled to full pay during maternity leave which shall be paid by the agency. The female worker shall have the option to receive full pay either through lump sum payment or regular payment of salary through agency payroll. A clearance from money, property and work-related accountabilities shall be secured by the female worker. Money, property and work-related accountabilities as well as pending administrative case shall not deprive the female worker of the availment of her maternity leave benefits.

Section 6.  Consecutive pregnancies and multiple childbirths. – In case of overlapping maternity benefit claims, e.g., one miscarriage or emergency termination of pregnancy after the other or followed by live childbirth, the female member shall be granted maternity benefits for the two contingencies in a consecutive manner. The female woker shall be paid only one maternity benefit, regardless of the number of offspring, per childbirth/delivery.

Section 7.  Dispute Resolution. – Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to the payment of full pay shall be filed by the concerned female worker initially to the head of agency and may be appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Regional Office having jurisdiction over the agency, and to the Commission Proper, respectively. The agency shall not hold or delay the payment of full pay to the female worker pending the resolution of the dispute, controversy or claim.

Download the full text of the implementing rules and regulations of RA 11210 below.

[Full Text] People of the Philippines vs. Mayor Antonio L. Sanchez, et al.

0

(Reposting the Decision of the Supreme Court)

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 121039-45. January 25, 1999.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAYOR ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ, GEORGE MEDIALDEA, ZOILO AMA, BALDWIN BRION, LUIS CORCOLON, ROGELIO CORCOLON, and PEPITO KAWIT, Accused-Appellants.

D E C I S I O N

MARTINEZ, J.:

.” . . a plot seemingly hatched in hell . . .”

This was how Judge Harriet O. Demetriou 1 of the Pasig City Regional Trial Court, Branch 70, in her 132-page Decision dated March 11, 1995 now before us on review, emphatically described the “Allan Gomez-Eileen Sarmenta rape-slay” that drew strong condemnation from an outraged populace in the middle of 1993. After a protracted and grueling 16-month trial, she found all those charged therewith, namely: Calauan Mayor Antonio Sanchez (hereafter the Mayor), George Medialdea, Luis and Rogelio Corcolon, Zoilo Ama, Baldwin Brion and Pepito Kawit (appellants herein), guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide on seven counts and sentenced each one of them.

“. . . to suffer the maximum penalty of reclusion perpetua for each of the seven offenses or a total of seven reclusion perpetua for each accused. In addition, the Court hereby orders all the accused to jointly and severally pay the victims’ respective families the following sums by way of civil indemnity:

1. the sum of P3,432,650.00 representing the actual damages sustained by the Sarmenta family;

2. the sum of P3,484,000.00 representing the actual damages sustained by the Gomez family;

3. the sum of P2,000,000.00 as moral damages sustained by the Sarmenta family;

4. the sum of P2,000,000.00 as moral damages sustained by the Gomez family;

5. the sum of P191,000.00 as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses incurred by the Gomez family; and

6. the sum of P164,250.00 for litigation expenses incurred by the Sarmenta family.”

As to the antecedents, appellants all appear to agree that the trial court, in the very words of counsel 2 who prepared the consolidated brief for the Mayor and Medialdea, “made a very detailed summary of both the prosecution and defense evidence.” 3 This Court can thus conveniently provide a briefer but fairly accurate account of the respective versions of the State and the defense on the basis of the trial court’s “summary,” rather than combing the heap of evidence presented by both sides.

The prosecution’s version of the events on that horrible night of June 28, 1993 was based mainly on the recollections of its star witnesses Aurelio Centeno and Vicencio Malabanan (a member of appellant Sanchez’ security team) — co-conspirators turned state witnesses. Both admitted having taken part in the abduction of Eileen and Allan, but denied any personal involvement in the rape of Eileen and the twin killings that followed. Here’s their story.

Medialdea (then the Deputy Chief of the PNP Calauan), together with Centeno who was driving an ambulance, fetched witness Malabanan at his residence in the early morning of June 28, 1993 on the pretext that they will apprehend one Rodolfo Calva alias “Tisoy” — a notorious gun runner and drug pusher in the locality. Next to be picked up was Ama in Barangay Masiit, then Luis Corcolon (hereafter, Luis] in Barangay Mabacan. On board the ambulance, the five (5) men made stopovers in Barangays Imok and Wawa until they headed back for Calauan at past 7:00 o’clock in the evening, upon orders of Luis.

At the Shell gas station in the poblacion of Calauan, the five (5) men met and picked up Rogelio Corcolon (hereafter, Boy), Kawit and Brion, then they proceeded to Los Baños. Along the way, Luis announced to the group that the real purpose behind the Los Baños trip is to take a pretty young lass long desired by the Mayor and offer her to him as a gift. Luis, to satisfy his companions’ curiosity, even guaranteed that her beauty will make their saliva drip.

Not for long, the ambulance arrived at the U.P. Los Baños grounds. Witness Centeno drove the ambulance around the campus at a snail’s pace while Luis scoured the area with watchful eyes. As the search inside the campus proved fruitless, Luis then ordered Centeno to slowly drive out of the university compound and to stop upon reaching the vicinity of the Agrix complex. Luis, Boy, Ama, Brion and Kawit alighted from the ambulance and went inside the Agrix complex. Witness Centeno overhead Medialdea informing the “Boss,” via the radio, that they were already in the area. The “Boss” was the Mayor.

Inside the Agrix complex is a restaurant called Cafe Amalia. Parked in front of that establishment was a Tamaraw van. Eileen and Allan were its passengers, both occupying the front seats. She was wearing a T-shirt, white shorts and rubber shoes. Armed with guns, Luis and Boy approached Eileen and Allan, forcibly took the two and loaded them at the back of the van. All the appellants boarded the van while Centeno and Malabanan stayed in the ambulance. Both vehicles then headed for Erais Farm situated in Barangay Curba, owned by the Mayor.

As soon as the group arrived at the farm, the two (2) captives were brought down the van. Eileen was gagged by a handkerchief and her hands, like Allan, were tied. A white towel was wound around Allan’s mouth. The Mayor, then wearing a jogging attire, emerged from the resthouse and asked the group: “My children, what’s the problem?” To this Luis responded: “Mayor, this is our gift to you, the girl you’ve been longing, for.” “She’s really beautiful. But who’s that man?” asked the Mayor; “Eileen’s companion, boss.” Medialdea replied. “We brought him along to avoid complications,” he continued.

The two youngsters were then brought inside the resthouse where Eileen was taken to the Mayor’s room. Allan was badly beaten up by Luis, Boy, Ama and Medialdea and thereafter thrown out of the resthouse. Kawit followed-up by striking Allan’s diaphragm with the butt of an armalite, causing Allan to fall against a cement box. Brion thought Allan was already dead, but Kawit said: “His death will come later.”cralaw virtua1aw library

Meanwhile, Centeno, while waiting for further orders, joined the Mayor’s personal aides Edwin Cosico and Raul Alorico watch television at the adjacent resthouse. Alorico told Centeno that the Mayor had been eagerly waiting for the group and worried that they will not arrive.

At around 1:00 a.m. of the next day, a crying Eileen was dragged out of the resthouse by Luis and Medialdea — her hair dishevelled, mouth covered by a handkerchief, hands still tied and stripped of her shorts. The Mayor, clad merely in white polo, appeared and thanked Luis and Medialdea for the “gift.” “I am through with her. She’s all yours,” the Mayor uttered in contentment. When asked what will happen to Allan, Medialdea assured the Mayor that they will also kill him for full measure. Eileen and Allan were then loaded in the Tamaraw van by the appellants and headed for Calauan, followed closely by the ambulance.

En route to Calauan, Centeno, who was driving the ambulance, noticed the van swaying from side to side. Then he heard gunfire coming therefrom. The van pulled over whereupon Kawit dragged Allan, whose head was already drenched in blood, out of the vehicle onto the road and finished him off with a single gunshot from his armalite. The ambulance and van then sped away.

The next destination was a sugarcane field in Sitio Paputok, Kilometro 74 of Barangay Mabacan. It was here that Luis announced that it’s time for the group to feast on Eileen (the exact words of Luis were “Turbohin na rin natin ang tinurbo ni Boss”). She was laid at the back of the van, with her hands and legs being held by the appellants while waiting for their turn. Then the gang-rape began. The first to ravish Eileen was Luis, then Medialdea, Boy, Ama, Brion and finally, Kawit. Bewailing the helplessness of her situation, Eileen pleaded, in between sobs and whimpers, for the torture to stop. However, her tears for compassion fell, weak and ineffective, upon the insensitive brutes. Kawit invited Centeno to join the sexual fiasco but the latter refused as he cannot, in conscience, bear the bestiality being committed on Eileen who appeared to be dead. After Kawit’s turn, Eileen knelt on the seat of the van and begged for her life. Unmoved, Luis muted Eileen’s cries by forcing an object into her mouth and then fired his baby armalite at her. Centeno was thereafter ordered to get rid of Eileen’s dead body. Moments later, all eight (8) men boarded the ambulance and proceeded to Calauan, leaving the Tamaraw van with Eileen’s remains behind. Along the way, Centeno and Malabanan watched in dismay as Luis, Boy, Medialdea, Ama, Brion and Kawit savored the night’s escapade, to their sickening delight. Appellants and Malabanan were then brought to their respective homes by Centeno.

June 29, 1993 and the day following were tense moments for the group. In the morning of June 29, Medialdea and Centeno fetched Malabanan, Luis and Ama. They were going to Barangay Imok to make it appear that they were conducting some police operations in that area. Upon reaching Barangay Imok, the group saw Allan’s body which they dumped a few hours earlier. Luis, Medialdea and Malabanan alighted from the ambulance, whereupon Luis ordered Centeno to drive back to the municipal hall.

Boy Corcolon, who was at the municipal hall, informed Ama that a dead female loaded inside a Tamaraw van was found in Barangay Mabacan. Ama then radioed the PNP Chief of Calauan, Major Caño, who at that time was summoned by the Mayor. Major Caño thereafter arrived and ordered one SPO2 Melencio Nuñez to investigate the matter. Meanwhile, Centeno received word that he was to fetch Malabanan, Luis and Medialdea in Barangay Imok. After picking up the three (3), Centeno drove the ambulance to Barangay Mabacan where the dead Eileen was found.

Eileen’s body lying inside the Tamaraw van was a pitiful sight. Her face bore a gunshot wound; a handkerchief was stuffed in her mouth; her T-shirt was rolled up revealing her breasts; and her panty was rolled down on one of her feet still with her rubber shoes on. Medialdea covered Eileen’s exposed private parts by fixing her T-shirt and underwear and by placing a sackcloth over her lower body. The group then escorted the van with Eileen’s body in it, to the UP Los Baños police station where students milled around and identified the cadaver to be Eileen indeed. Later on, the van carrying Eileen, as well as Allan’s body, was brought to the Calauan municipal hall. There, Centeno saw a prisoner named Arnold cleaning the van.

Meanwhile, Malabanan, Ama and Medialdea, on June 29, went to the site (Bgy. Imok) where Allan’s body was found, started asking residents about the incident and were able to retrieve an empty armalite shell. Malabanan thereafter handed the empty shell to Major Caño at the police station. The three (3) men and one SPO3 Rizaldy Belen, sometime in the afternoon of the same day, visited the Mayor at his house in Bay, Laguna. Medialdea informed the Mayor of the presence of people from the CIS, NBI and press in the locality. The Mayor flared up and blame them for not using their heads. But he later on assured them that he could fix the problem in less the amount of a brand new car.

The following day, June 30, Medialdea, upon the Mayor’s directive, handed a pair of white walking shorts to Major Caño. When Malabanan asked Medialdea whose pair of shorts was that, the letter replied that it was the shorts of Eileen which the Mayor wanted to be delivered to Major Caño.

That same day of June 30, Centeno went to see the Mayor at his house in Calauan about his worries over reports that the driver of the ambulance involved in the rape-slay was being hunted down. The Mayor gave Centeno P2,000.00 and advised him to keep silent or better yet, to go into hiding. Centeno did hide himself until CIS agents accosted him at the Divisoria market on August 10, 1993. As to Malabanan, he, Medialdea and Ama were brought to the PNP Sta. Cruz Command to shed light on the cleaning of the Tamaraw van.

Coming now to the defense, each of the appellants had an alibi to tell and sought to put the blame on Kit Alqueza, the son of a feared general (Dictator Alqueza) who earned the monicker “Barako” from the local residents.

The Mayor claimed that he was at the residence of his mistress Elvira in Bay, Laguna in the morning of June 28, 1993. They left for Makati City at about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon thereafter proceeded to San Pablo City at around 4:00 p.m., left that city at 7:30 p.m. and then returned to Elvira’s house in Bay at around 10:00 p.m. He and Elvira retired at around 12:30 in the morning. He woke up at 5:00 a.m. Jogging was his favorite form of exercise, but foul weather prevented him from running that morning. His three (3) children with Elvira greeted him at around 6:30 a.m. before heading for school. He took his breakfast and lunch at Elvira’s house.

Medialdea, Ama and Malabanan arrived between 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. and informed the Mayor of the rape-slay in which Kit Alqueza was the prime suspect. This made the Mayor very angry, for which he ordered a thorough investigation of the incident to avoid any whitewash. “I will not hesitate to have the perpetrators of this crime killed (by electric chair), whether a general’s son is involved or not, son of a bitch!,” he blurted. The Mayor then advised appellants not to worry if they were really innocent and that the primordial concern is that a full investigation be conducted.

The Mayor then went to his residence in Calauan. At around 4:00 p.m. of that same day (June 29), he sent his driver Mario Puyales to Barangays Masiit and Balayhangin to inquire from the residents about the crime. Puyales returned at around 7:00 p.m. and informed the Mayor that a card gambler was able to retrieve a pair of white shorts lying near the national highway in Barangay Balayhangin. Puyales was sent back to that barangay to advise the residents thereof to keep the shorts at their fence near the highway as it may later on aid the on-going investigation.

In the morning of June 30, 1993, the Mayor, with some companions, jogged towards the direction of Barangay Mabacan and at the same time inquired from residents whether they noticed anything unusual on the night of June 28, 1993. A certain “Mang Torio” told the Mayor that he found a pair of “maong” pants lying at the side of the road but left it there. After inspecting the dirty “maong” pants, the Mayor instructed Mang Torio to keep the pants as the former will send someone back to pick it up.

Eventually, the Mayor got hold of the pairs of white shorts and “maong” pants. The shorts was clean, with complete beltloops and without any tear. He then ordered his driver Puyales to send the articles to Medialdea for safekeeping. But during the trial, the Mayor, when shown the shorts and pants, claimed that they are quite different from the articles he got hold of previously. The “maong” pants shown to him by Mang Torio was of a darker shade of blue. As to the white shorts, it was the same pair he gave to Medialdea, but now it is torn and has some missing beltloops.

Based on his own investigation, the Mayor came to know that Kit Alqueza is a feared and dangerous student of the university, being a member of an elite fraternity in the campus and a general’s son at that. The Mayor later informed Congressman Tingzon of Kit’s probable involvement in the crime. Congressman Tingzon, in turn, disclosed that Kit, his nephew-in-law (the congressman’s wife is the sister of Gen. Alqueza’s wife), was hiding in his house and that the legislator will call Gen. Alqueza in Davao City to discuss the matter.

The Mayor also testified that he closely coordinated with Major Caño in investigating the case. This included frequent evening conferences with Malabanan, Medialdea and Ama who were members of Major Caño’s investigation team.

Subsequently, the Major was requested to facilitate the surrender of Luis and Boy Corcolon to Camp Crame since the CIS suspected them of being involved in the crime together with Kit. The Corcolon brothers, accompanied by the Mayor, peacefully surrendered to CIS operatives in the afternoon of July 12, 1993.

On August 10, 1993, the Mayor received an anonymous phone call advising him that he would better leave the country because he was to be arrested in three (3) days time. He refused to heed the advice because he had nothing to do with the crime. And so he was apprehended on August 13, 1993 at his Calauan residence and brought to Camp Vicente Lim where he was presented to the media. There he saw Centeno and Malabanan who did not greet him. General Salimbangon ordered the two (2) witnesses to implicate the Mayor. The general then ordered that the Mayor be handcuffed as he is the rapist. “You son of a bitch, Salimbangon. You frame me up,” the Mayor cursed.

The Mayor denied having given Centeno advice and P2,000.00 pocket money on June 30, 1993. It was only in the courtroom that he saw Centeno, although he knows the latter. The Mayor also denied Malabanan’s testimony implicating him in the crime. In fact, Malabanan wrote him letters asking for his help. The trial court noticed, however, that the letters adverted to by the Mayor were all addressed to Judge Baldo.

Appellant Medialdea was Calauan policeman until his summary dismissal on September 10, 1993. He claimed that he, being a member of a crack team formed by Major Caño and composed of Malabanan, Luis and Ama, was preoccupied the whole day of June 28, 1993 conducting police operations on board an ambulance in different barangays of the town in search of “Tisoy.” The fruitless “operations” ended at about 9:00 p.m. of June 28. Driving the ambulance, he got home at around 10:30 p.m. where he saw his wife playing “mahjong” with some friends. Medialdea joined the players for about an hour, then he slept until 5:00 a.m. of the next day (June 29).

The crack team met again in the morning of June 29, 1993 to continue the manhunt for “Tisoy.” At around 7:15 a.m. in Barangay Imok, they saw “Tisoy” speed by in a motorcycle. Medialdea and Luis fired shots in the air but Tisoy managed to escape. Centeno was not present when this event transpired because he was instructed to go to the municipal hall with the ambulance.

Upon hearing news over the radio that a dead body was found at Sitio Paputok, Km. 74, Barangay Mabacan, Medialdea radioed Centeno to fetch the group at the fishpond of one Gani. As soon as Centeno arrived at around 8:00 a.m., they proceeded to Km. 74 where they saw Eileen’s body inside the van parked in the sugarcane field. Major Caño and several policemen were already there. Medialdea had to pull down Eileen’s T-shirt and roll up her underwear to spare her from numerous kibitzers staring at her naked body. He recovered several scattered items inside the van like cigarette packs, a paddle, spike shoes, and 5 bottles of beer. The van was then driven by a certain Gener to the UP Los Baños escorted by the ambulance and Major Caño’s police car.

Thereafter, at around 9:30 a.m., Medialdea, on Major Caño’s directive, went to the Gomez’ residence and asked for Allan. The maid told him that Allan has not come home since the night before and that she last saw him at around 6:30 p.m. with one Jet Tejada. As there was no other person inside the house except the maid, Medialdea, with her permission, searched for Allan inside but to no avail. Before leaving, he instructed the maid to tell Allan that he better make good his hiding because Allan is a suspect in the crime. At the Tejada residence, Jet was neither there. So Medialdea proceeded to the boarding house of Eileen and instructed the landlady to inform calmly Eileen’s parents on what had happened to their daughter.

Medialdea then returned to the UP Los Baños security force where he told Major Caño that Allan had escaped. Before leaving the UP campus to bring Eileen’s body to Calauan, Major Caño ordered Medialdea to still look for Allan. When his efforts to find Allan inside the campus proved futile, Medialdea sought the aid of Barangay Captain Cesar Ruiz who brought him to the barangay hall where Jet Tejada was. Tejada strongly objected to Medialdea’s insinuation of his and Allan’s participation in the crime, saying that they can never do anything as dastardly as that.

Afterwards, a certain “Allan,” a barangay tanod, volunteered that he knew Allan. This “Allan” opined that if Allan was dead then Kit had a hand on it since Allan had earned Kit’s ire when the former began dating the latter’s girlfriend named Rose. Medialdea informed Major Caño that Allan perhaps has gone to Manila with his father. The Major replied that Allan is here, but is likewise dead.

Ama then informed Major Caño that they have a suspect named Kit who had an axe to grind against Allan. Then someone in the crowd uttered “Ako iyon” it approached and told Ama that he and Allan had patched up their differences three (3) months ago. Medialdea noticed a drop of blood on the middle of Kit’s right thigh. Kit explained that the blood oozed after punching a wall with his right knuckle.

At the municipal hall, Ama handed an empty armalite shell recovered from the site where Allan’s body was found. Thereafter, Arnold (the prisoner who was cleaning the van) was seen carrying the rubber matting of the Tamaraw van to hang it over the municipal fence to dry. Ama could not help but curse Arnold and ordered the latter to bring it back. Ama explained to Major Caño that they could be dragged to the case just like what happened to the policeman in the “Parañaque massacre” who burned a mosquito net and was thereafter sacked.

Medialdea also testified that it was Major Caño who ordered the cleaning of the van to diffuse the stench caused by the blood stains therein.

Then on July 6, 1993, Medialdea, together with Ama and Malabanan, went to the PNP Sta. Cruz Command to answer queries about the cleaning of the van. They were then brought to Canlubang where they executed their respective sworn statements. Medialdea also recalled that Major Caño instructed them not to say anything about the cleaning of the van. Afterwards, they were brought back to the PNP Sta. Cruz and detained therein pending the filing of formal charges against them.

Major Caño visited Medialdea the next day, July 7. The major advised him that they should just point to Malabanan as the one who cleaned the van. Medialdea did not heed his advice for he pitied Malabanan and besides, it was Major Caño who really ordered its cleaning. The major then reiterated the reason why he caused its cleaning (the unbearable stench of blood).

Days later, on July 16, 1993, Medialdea and Ama, together with Malabanan, were brought to the Department of Justice where Fiscal Abesamis asked them to sign a waiver of their detention. On July 24, 1993, the three (3) men were led back to PNP Canlubang where Colonels Gualberto and Tiangco began investigating them on July 27, 1993. During the investigation, Medialdea was being enticed by Col. Gualberto to cooperate with the government by testifying against the Mayor, as there is an order from the higher echelon to bring the Mayor down. He refused, saying that the Mayor is completely innocent because he is pro-poor and the Mayor even walks the church aisle on his knees. Col. Gualberto threatened that he will be dragged all the more to the case if he will not cooperate. Medialdea begged for mercy and suggested that they should investigate Kit instead. The colonel said that messing up with Kit is like ramming into a wall. Medialdea was then asked to sign a statement that contained inaccurate answers. The inaccuracies were supplied by Col. Gualberto.

Medialdea also professed his ignorance before Col. Tiangco. This colonel was less diplomatic. He splashed coffee on Medialdea’s face, cursed him and whipped his face. So was Malabanan. The investigators would hit them when they try to reason. Back to his cell, Medialdea heard Col. Tiangco order somebody to have him killed in the evening.


On August 13, 1993, one Colonel Versoza advised Medialdea to follow Malabanan in testifying against the Mayor. They will be placed under the Witness Protection Program where they would be entitled to allowances, free housing facilities and the chance to go abroad with their families where they can live peacefully, Col. Versoza assured them. Medialdea refused once again. Malabanan thereafter informed him that he and Centeno had already given false statements for they can no longer stand the torture inflicted on them. But Medialdea stood pat with his refusal, for he cannot testify falsely against his companions just to free himself. It is still better to live than to die a martyr, Malabanan answered.

We now go to appellant Luis Corcolon’s story which painted the “Kit Alqueza angle” in greater detail. In the morning of June 25, 1993, three (3) men went to Luis’ residence in Barangay Mabacan. They told Luis that their boss, Edgardo Lavadia alias “Uod,” wanted to see him the next day. Lavadia is a very generous friend of Luis for so many years who, as a professional forget of checks, is being protected by General Alqueza.

Luis arrived at Lavadia’s house at around 2:00 p.m. of June 26. There he saw Kit and Lavadia’s men. Lavadia requested him to abduct and kill Allan because the latter has done something wrong to Kit. Luis asked what Allan’s fault was and then suggested that if it’s just a small squabble, they better forgive Allan. Lavadia insisted, but Luis appeared hesitant since it might put him in big trouble. Lavadia tempered his request by asking Luis to merely help in getting rid of the body. Luis agreed. He and Lavadia were to meet again on June 28, 1993 in the Bay cockpit. After this, Luis left.

Luis was also a member of the team formed by Major Caño to hunt down “Tisoy.” At around 8:30 in the morning of June 28, 1993, he was fetched by Medialdea, Ama, Malabanan and proceeded to Barangay Imok on board the ambulance driven by Centeno to apprehend Tisoy. At around 1:00 p.m., Luis left the group and went to Bay cockpit to meet Lavadia, as agreed upon the previous day. When he arrived at the cockpit, only Lavadia’s men were there. Luis then asked one of the men to tell Lavadia that he is backing out of the agreement. He first attended the derby being held at the cockpit before returning to Barangay Imok at around 5:00 p.m. and re-joined the team. They left Barangay Imok at around 7:30 p.m. and proceeded to Barangay Wawa, San Pablo City where they stayed for about two (2) hours waiting for Tisoy. Sensing that Tisoy would not be passing by, the team headed back for Calauan. Luis was driven home first and reached his house at around 9:30 p.m. A certain Ernesto Bustillo was waiting for him to borrow his passenger jeepney. Thereafter, Luis slept at around 10:30 p.m.

At around 4:45 a.m. of the next day (June 29) while Luis was preparing the breakfast of his children, a Tamaraw van, driven by Kit, stopped in front of his house honking its horn continuously. Four (4) motorcycle-riding men, each wearing bonnet masks and “maong” jackets, escorted the van. Kit sought his help in burying at once the dead female body inside the van. Luis inspected the van and saw a naked corpse of a woman. He refused Kit’s summons after which Luis immediately returned to his house, turned off the lights and closed door for fear that Kit’s escorts would shoot him. The convoy then headed towards the direction of Sitio Paputok, Km. 74.

At about 6:30 a.m., Luis, Centeno, Medialdea and Malabanan met and continued their surveillance of Tisoy at Barangay Imok. They saw Tisoy pass by at around 7:10 a.m. but were not able to apprehend him. The group thereafter went to Gani’s fishpond at about 8:30 a.m. then proceeded to Km. 74 to verify reports of a female’s death. There they saw the Tamaraw van with a dead woman inside. Luis recognized the vehicle as that driven by Kit hours earlier, but he kept silent. The group then brought the van to the UP Los Baños campus.

In the morning of June 30, 1993, Luis met the Mayor. The latter instructed him to investigate on who dumped Eileen’s body at Km. 74. Luis obliged and said that he will make a report within a week. He, however, did not tell the Mayor about Kit’s involvement in the crime.

On July 7, 1993, CIS agents of Canlubang raided his house during his absence thereat. The agents, his wife said, planted a gun inside. The next day, Luis read in the papers that a P100,000.00 reward has been offered for his and brother Boy’s capture. He rushed to the Mayor who advised him to remain quiet.

In the afternoon of July 12, 1993, Luis went to Boy’s house upon being summoned by the Mayor who was with General Quizon and Colonel Hilario. He and Boy were brought to Camp Crame for interview. After the interview, the CIS took their sworn statements. The answers therein, Luis said, were furnished by the agents. He signed the statement out of fear without the assistance of a lawyer of his own choice. For several days, he was investigated by PACC agents. Then on or July 20, 1993, he and Boy were transferred to CIS Canlubang and were interrogated by Col. Tiangco who repeatedly manhandled and cursed him. Luis insisted on his innocence and suggested that it is Kit who they should investigate. After the interview, Luis was tortured by way of water treatment, denied of food and was not allowed to receive visitors. In the afternoon of June 28, 1993, Luis was brought before the PACC where he was again manhandled during the 2-hour interrogation. He answered “yes” to all the questions hurled at him because he was already dizzy. He was also informed that Lavadia had already executed a statement saying that the latter paid him.

On August 1, 1993 at the PACC-TFH office, General Quizon was forcing him to testify against the Mayor. He was also interviewed by media after which, he was brought back to his cell where he met Lavadia. He cursed and strangled Lavadia. Luis suggested that they should now tell the truth about Kit’s involvement, but Lavadia advised him to remain silent because reprisal from General Alqueza would be far worse. Luis was detained at the PACC until the start of the trial. He also filed a complaint for torture before the Commission on Human Rights.

Boy Corcolon testified that he never left house on the night of June 28, 1993. He woke up at around 7:00 a.m. of the next day and proceeded to the Calauan police station on his motorcycle upon being informed of the discovery of a dead female in sitio Paputok, Km. 74. After going to the municipal building where he saw Ama, Major Caño and Judge Baldo, Boy followed Major Caño and his men in going to Km. 74. There he saw the naked body of the dead woman inside the van. Boy thereafter followed the van to the UP compound. Moments later, the van was brought to Calauan municipal hall compound. He did not stay in the municipal hall, but went straight home instead.

The CIS agents raided his house on July 7, 1993. The next day, Boy read in the papers that he and his brother Luis were being hunted down by the authorities and a P100,000.00 bounty is at stake for their capture. He rushed to the house of the Mayor to inform the latter of the raid. The Mayor advised him to remain calm and to avoid being visible.

In the afternoon of July 12, 1993, he and Luis were fetched by General Quizon and Colonel Hilario at Luis’ residence and thereafter brought to Camp Crame. At the camp, press people interviewed them after which they were led to a room for the taking of their respective sworn statements. Boy claimed that he was forced to give his statement after being kicked, slapped and cursed by the investigators. He tried to correct portions of his statement but the investigating officer did not allow him. Boy and Luis were detained at the camp until charges have been filed against them, for their refusal to cooperate with the CIS.

On July 20, 1993, the two (2) brothers were brought to an uninhabited place near a hill in Barangay Paliparan where they were made to stand in front of the military group consisting of Generals Quizon and Salimbangon, Colonel Gualberto and his men. Boy and Luis were each asked to hold an armalite rifle, and then pictures were taken of them handing the rifles over to the generals.

The next day (June 21), they were brought to CIS Canlubang and stayed there until the start of the trial in September, 1993. Boy claimed he was subjected to electric shock and water treatment to make him confess his guilt.

Ama, also a member of the team involved in the “Tisoy manhunt,” related a similar story on the group’s sorties in different barangays on June 28, 1993. After the failed mission, Centeno dropped him off at his residence in Barangay Masiit at about 10:00 p.m. of the same day and did not leave the house until the next morning.

At around 6:15 a.m. of the next day (June 29), he was at Barangay Balayhangin to wait for Tisoy per Medialdea’s instruction. Minutes later, he saw Tisoy pass by on a motorcycle and thereafter reported the matter to Medialdea. Ama learned of Eileen’s death at around 8:00 a.m. when he was at the Calauan police station. Centeno thereafter picked him up and they, together with Medialdea, Malabanan and Luis proceeded to Sitio Paputok where Eileen’s body was found.

From the university compound, he, Medialdea, Malabanan and a UP student named Butch went to Allan’s house but the latter was not there. They also went to Jet Tejada’s and Eileen’s boarding houses.

At Barangay Batong Malaki, Los Baños, barangay tanod “Allan” revealed to Medialdea that the dead Allan’s enemy was Kit. Allan was fond of girls and there was a time when Kit got angry at and threatened Allan when the latter dated Kit’s girlfriend Rose, the tanod narrated.

Ama and the rest of the group were able to talk to Jet Tejada who denied any involvement in the crime. After Major Caño informed him that Allan is already dead, Ama told the major about the friction between Allan and Kit. Then someone tapped Major Caño’s shoulder and identified himself as Kit who clarified that he had patched up with Allan about three (3) months ago. Kit angrily pointed his finger at Ama, then Major Caño pacified them. Ama asked Kit about the drops of blood on his right thigh. Kit explained that the blood came from his right knuckle. “He is our suspect” Ama blurted. Major Caño, however, reprimanded him for making such a loud comment.

*(On the cleaning of the van, Ama’s story is similar to Medialdea’s account heretofore discussed).

Thereafter, Ama, Medialdea and Malabanan found their way to the Mayor’s residence in Bay. Ama revealed to the Mayor that Kit is the suspect. The Mayor said that Kit comes from a very powerful and influential family, and that his father, General Alqueza, is a tough man. The Mayor nonetheless assured them of his support.

On July 1, 1993, Ama accompanied some CIS personnel at the site where Allan’s body was found. They found drops of blood, cigarette butts and wrappers in the area. Later in the afternoon, Ama went to Canlubang as he was asked by Colonel Roxas to make a written report on the “Kit Alqueza angle.” He completed his statement in about five (5) hours. The officer before whom he was sworn, Ama noticed, was drunk.

On July 3, 1993, he received word that he was to undergo counter-insurgency training effective that same day. Two (2) days after (July 5), he asked a certain Colonel Toco why he was being required to undergo training again. The colonel promised to look into the matter. On that same day, Malabanan informed him that Luis appeared panicky and was acting suspiciously, as the latter seemed to go back and forth to the municipal hall and kept asking Malabanan for the names of people investigating the case. Also on that day, Ama gave the NBI Regional Director some information about Kit and Luis which started the NBI investigation.

On July 6, 1993, Ama, together with Medialdea and Malabanan, executed his statement in CIS Canlubang assisted by one Atty. Exconde who asked him to sign the same even before Ama can read it. At PHQ Sta. Cruz, the Deputy Provincial Commander for Operations fumed when he declared in his statement that he was absent during the cleaning of the van. He declared so because Major Caño instructed him to keep silent on that matter. Subsequently (July 7), he learned of Malabanan’s escape.

On July 24, 1993, Ama, Malabanan and Medialdea were brought to CIS Canlubang. They ate drugged food which gave him chest pain and made him very weak and talkative. He saw Medialdea being whipped on the head with a newspaper by one official.

Five days later (July 29), they were brought to the PACC where Luis pointed to them before the media. The next day (July 30), he and General Alqueza met at the Department of Justice. The general cursed him for dragging Kit in the case and even challenged him to a fistfight outside the building.

On August 7, 1993, at General Salimbangon’s office, the general informed him that his summary dismissal is on hand unless he testifies against the Mayor. When he refused, the general cursed him. Colonel Gualberto also tried to convince him by offering promotion, house and lot, monthly allowance, or a chance to leave the country with his family. But Ama insisted on his innocence.

On August 13, 1993, a sobbing Malabanan embraced Ama and asked for his forgiveness because the former has already implicated him falsely in the crime. Malabanan said he could no longer bear the torture being inflicted on him and the threats on his life and family. He was also advised by Malabanan to follow suit, but he refused once again.

Brion is the Mayor’s nephew. He denied being in the company of any of the appellants on the evening of June 28, 1993 as he stayed at their house on J. del Valle St., Calauan the whole night. In the morning of July 29, 1993, he was arrested at his father-in-law’s house without any warrant. The arresting officer told him that Colonel Navarro (PNP Director of Laguna) wanted to interview him. Brion was brought to the Calamba police station from where he was taken to Canlubang. There, Col. Navarro cursed him for being so elusive. Brion answered that he never went into hiding. Col. Navarro informed him that Luis Corcolon has revealed that he was the third man to rape Eileen. Brion then heard Malabanan shouting that he is taking all the blame for the crime if they would just spare the two students (Brion and Kawit) who are totally innocent.

Brion, together with Malabanan, Ama and Luis, was brought to the office of the then Vice-President Estrada who asked Ama and Malabanan whether they raped Eileen. Ama belied the accusation. Malabanan, too, professed innocence and said that in the nine (9) years he stayed in Mindanao, it is his first time to cry this way. This convinced the vice-president of Malabanan’s innocence. Kawit also cried at this point. Brion saw Luis being held up by two men towards the room as Luis appeared to be on the brink of collapse. One of the escorts then raised Luis’ hand so as to point at Brion.

On July 30, 1993, Brion, Ama, Malabanan, Kawit, Luis and Boy were brought to the Department of Justice where Fiscal Zuño asked them to sign some papers. Luis was instructed to re-affirm his sworn statement before the PACC while Brion and Kawit were asked to sign a waiver of detention. The three (3), however, refused. Fiscal Zuño offered them a lawyer from the Public Assistance Office (PAO) to assist them but Brion rejected the offer.

On August 6, 1993, General Quizon asked Brion to sign a confession but he refused. When a second statement was prepared, he cried because he was allowed to read only that portion relating to his personal circumstances before being forced to sign it without the assistance of a lawyer. Thereafter, he was brought back to PHQ Sta. Cruz at around 5:00 p.m.

Brion related having executed a sworn statement detailing the methods of torture he underwent to force him into implicating the Mayor, Ama, Medialdea and Malabanan, viz:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1.) he would be placed in a doghouse-like cell fitted with loudspeakers;

2.) his, hands would be tied behind his back and he would be tied to a bench.. A towel wound be placed over his mouth and nostrils, then “7-up” is poured on his face;

3.) his body would be whipped with guns.

No medical examination was ever conducted on him. More, his captors would padlock his cell whenever Atty. Arias paid him a visit.

Kawit was a houseboy of the Mayor in his Calauan residence. He claimed he slept at around 9:00 p.m. of June 28, 1993 and woke up at 6:00 a.m. the following day to water the plants.

On July 16, 1993, he was interrogated in connection with the deaths of Eileen and Allan. Later in the day, Medialdea and some policemen fetched him at his house in Barangay Bagong Pook and brought him to PHQ Sta. Cruz. Kawit was led into a room where Medialdea, in the presence of Centeno and Malabanan, asked him the name of the girl who was reportedly shouting while Kawit was dragging her at CPAMMS. Kawit answered that there were two (2) bar girls, whose names are “Carla” and “Ninja Joyce,” who were shouting at Barangay Bagong Pook. Ama then entered the room and requested Malabanan and Medialdea not to hurt Kawit. When Malabanan and Medialdea left the room, Kawit explained to Ama that the two (2) bar girls complained of one Melvin Pajadan not paying them for their services.

Thereafter, Kawit was asked by one Major Uyami to make a statement. After signing the statement, Kawit was told by investigator Cansanay that the major wanted him to include in his statement the Mayor’s involvement in the Gomez-Sarmenta slaying, but Kawit refused. He was thus detained for the night. A policeman in civilian clothes thereafter asked him to sign a paper bearing his name and the handwritten words: “Pauuwiin ka na bukas ng umaga.” Kawit signed the paper, but he was not released the next day.

Before this Court, Mayor Sanchez and Medialdea filed their consolidated “Appellants’ Brief,” and so did Ama, Brion and Kawit. Brothers Luis and Boy Corcolon, on the other hand, filed separate appeal briefs. Briefly, the pith of the assigned errors and the focus of the appellants’ arguments is the issue of witnesses Centeno and Malabanan’s credibility, whose open-court narrations served as principal basis for the trial court’s rendition of a “guilty” verdict.

So oftenly repeated by this Court is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge 4 who had the unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and to assess their credibility by the various indicia available but not reflected in the record. The demeanor of the person on the stand can draw the line between fact and fancy. The forthright answer or the hesitant pause, the quivering voice or the angry tone, the flustered look or the sincere gaze, the modest blush or the guilty blanch — these can reveal if the witness is telling the truth or lying in his teeth. 5 

Judge Demetriou who presided over the entire trial until its very conclusion expressed her satisfaction with the way witnesses’ Centeno and Malabanan survived the “hot seat” with flying colors, so to speak. With respect to Centeno, the honorable Judge had this to say:


In thus passing upon the credibility of Centeno, this Court kept his alleged dubious reputation for veracity in mind. But, after careful reviewing the testimony of Centeno in his direct examination and gruelling (sic) cross-examination for almost 3 months, this Court, even with a jaundiced eye, could not help but be impressed about the myriad of details in his testimony and his frank, spontaneous and straightforward manner of testifying. The lengthy and punishing cross-examination by seven lawyers to which he was subjected failed to bring out any serious flaw or infirmity in his perception or recollection of events or destroy the coherence of his narration. That Centeno merely wove such a yarn from his fertile imagination, conflict with a multitude of details, is highly, improbable considering that his highest educational attainment was sixth grade in the elementary school.” 6 

Similarly, Malabanan “displayed a frank, straightforward manner of answering questions and a desire to state all the facts within his knowledge,” and his credibility “was never shaken on cross-examination; there was no indication of prevarication or evasiveness. Consequently, (his) testimony is entitled to full faith and credit,” the honorable Judge observed. 7 Her impressions of these star witnesses for the State bind this Court, for we accord great respect if not finality, to the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses. 8 They, therefore, ought not to be disturbed. 9 And once the prosecution witnesses are afforded full faith and credit, the defense’s version necessarily stands discredited. 10 

To recall, all the appellants relied on the defense of denial/alibi, i.e., they were at their respective homes on the night of the rape-slay. But Centeno and Malabanan confirmed the presence of all the appellants on the night of June 28, 1993 till the early morning of the following day and detailed the exact participation of each in the crime. Positive identification by credible witnesses of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime, as we have consistently held, demolishes the alibi 11 — the much abused sanctuary of felons. 12 Moreover, except for the Mayor who presented Ave Marie Tonee Jimenez Sanchez (his daughter with his mistress Elvira) and Medialdea who presented his neighbor Anastacia Gulay, the other appellants failed to present corroborating testimonial evidence to buttress their respective alibis. The defense of alibi is inherently weak especially when wanting in material corroboration. Categorical declarations of witnesses for the prosecution of the details of the crime are more credible than the uncorroborated alibi interposed by the accused. 13 Ave Marie’s testimony is of no help to the Mayor, since alibi becomes less plausible as a defense when it is invoked and sought to be crafted mainly by the accused himself and his immediate relatives. 14 Anastacia Gulay’s testimony is likewise worthless since the trial court found her testimony rehearsed. We will not disturb this finding because it touches on credibility.

In fine, the defense of alibi is an issue of fact that hinges on the credibility of witnesses, and the assessment of the trial court, unless patently and clearly inconsistent, must be accepted. 15 

In an attempt to discredit Centeno, appellants principally harp on the contradictions in four (4) Sworn Statements executed by Centeno on August 13, 1993, August 15, 1993, August 17, 1993 and August 30, 1993. The Solicitor General’s Office summarizes appellants’ asseverations on this point, viz:

“Appellants point out that while in his Sworn Statement dated August 13, 1993, Centeno stated that after the victims were seized, they were brought to CPAMMS, in his Sworn Statement dated August 15, 1993, he claimed that the two were brought to Erais Farm (p. 86-96, Sanchez and Medialdea; p. 11-12, Luis Corcolon; p. 38, Ama, Brion and Kawit; p. 10, Rogelio Corcolon). Appellants also point out that in the August 13, 1993 Sworn Statement, Centeno merely referred to a person named Edwin (without stating his family name) and another person he did not know who was in the place where the victims were brought. In his Sworn Statement dated August 17, 1993, Centeno supplied the family name of Edwin as Cosico and the name of the other person whom he did not know as Lito Angeles (pp. 96-97, Sanchez and Medialdea).

“Another major contradiction pointed out is that in his August 13, 1993 Sworn Statement, Centeno mentioned that he drove the Corcolon brothers to the house of Edgardo “Uod” Lavadia in Bangkal Street, Los Baños, Laguna. Upon arriving at the house of Lavadia, Centeno saw Lavadia and Teofilo Kit Alqueza talking. Later Lavadia handed an envelope to Luis Corcolon. In the latest Sworn Statement dated August 30, 1993, Centeno stated that they did not go to the house of Lavadia and that during the whole day of June 26, 1993, Centeno was with Malabanan (pp. 99-102, Sanchez and Medialdea; pp. 37-40, Ama, Brion and Kawit; p. 8, Rogelio Corcolon).” 16 

The trial judge found Centeno’s explanation on these inconsistencies satisfactory, justifying such finding with pertinent jurisprudence. The Court, therefore, affirms and adopts her disquisition on the matter, viz:

“With respect to the portion of his sworn statement dated August 13, 1993 which implicated Kit Alqueza, Centeno explained that it was dictated by a CIS agent named Rommel. He feared Rommel because the latter threatened him that he would be hurt if he did not cooperate. Even when his family was already under the custody of the CIS on August 15, 1993, he did not ask for the deletion of the said portion because he was still under the CIS custody. It was only on August 30, 1993 when he was placed under the Witness Protection Program that he found the courage to execute another sworn statement for the specific purpose of deleting the reference to Kit Alqueza. Although he was placed under the Witness Protection Program on August 17, 1993, there was a delay in his retraction of Kit Alqueza’s involvement due to his inability to reach Fiscal Arellano.

“Centeno’s explanation is quite believable because he had already implicated the accused Sanchez in his sworn statement of August 13, 1993. Thus, the portion implicating Kit Alqueza does not jibe with the main story of Centeno that Eileen Sarmenta was abducted by Medialdea, Ama, the Corcolon brothers, Brion and Kawit to be given as a gift to their boss, Mayor Sanchez.

“As to his sworn statement of August 15, 1993 where he stated that the victims were taken to Erais Farm instead of CPAMMS as originally indicated in his August 13, 1993 sworn statement, Centeno explained that when he gave his first statement he was still hoping that Mayor Sanchez would help him. Furthermore, he feared the power and influence of the Mayor. Thus, according to him, he gave the wrong place to mislead his investigators. It was only on August 15, 1993 when the accused Sanchez was already in prison that Centeno decided to correct his previous statements.

“This Court is inclined to accept the explanation of Centeno that his earlier attempt to mislead the investigators by saying that the victims were taken to CPAMMS was out of fear of the Mayor. Our Supreme Court has recognized that the inherent fear of reprisal by witnesses who refuse initially to disclose what they know about a crime is quite understandable, especially when the accused is a man of power and influence in the community (People v. Catao, 107 Phil. 861 [1960])

“In a recent case, People v. Pascua (206 SCRA 628 [1992]), the Supreme Court observed that ‘Fear for one’s life explains the failure on the part of a witness to immediately notify the authorities of what exactly transpired.’ And, ‘[o]nce such fear is overcome by a more compelling need to narrate the truth,’ the Supreme Court went on to say, ‘then the witness must be welcomed by the courts to help dispense justice.’

“Consequently, this Court will not reject the testimony of Centeno on the basis of inconsistencies in his sworn statements taken by police authorities which have been sufficiently explained. What is more important is that Centeno testified on the witness stand in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remained consistent on cross-examination. This Court, therefore, finds Centeno a credible witness.” 17 

To further fortify this observation, we advert to that all too familiar rule that discrepancies between sworn statements and testimonies made at the witness stand do not necessarily discredit the witnesses. 18 Sworn statements/affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to open court declarations because the former are often executed when an affiant’s mental faculties are not in such a state as to afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which has transpired. 19 Testimonies given during trials are much more exact and elaborate. 20 Thus, testimonial evidence carries more weight than sworn statements/affidavits.

Appellants would also quibble on the following portions of Centeno’s testimony, to wit:

1) he could not give exactly where the appellants went after sexually abusing Eileen;

2) he was unsure whether it was Eileen’s left or right foot that hit the chair of the van when she was struggling;

3) he was unsure of their speed while on their way to the UP compound;

4) he could not give the exact distance between the ambulance he was driving and the van;

5) he said he could see the protruding end of the roof of a “kubo” when he parked the ambulance in front of the “Big J” restaurant. Appellants claim that from where Centeno was allegedly standing, there was no way he could see the roof of that “kubo” ;

6) he was able to recall what appellants were wearing on that night of June 28, 1993;

7) he saw Kawit hit Allan at his diaphragm with the butt of an armalite, but the medico-legal finding of Dr. Escueta revealed no injury in the abdominal region of Allan;

8) his testimony that the appellants raped Eileen inside the van which has very limited space, while appellants could have chosen a far more comfortable or remote place to do the crime. With respect to the Mayor, it was very unbelievable for him to commit rape inside his room filled with religious adornments and in the process risk his reputation as mayor and an established man in the community;

9) his testimony to the effect that appellants rolled their pants down to their knees and then climbed the van to rape Eileen. Appellants would consider such testimony impossible, claiming that “the narrow circumference of the waistline will impede and obstruct the upward movement of the legs.”

10) his admission that he can lie for money, or out of fear.

It may be conceded that these inconsistencies marred Centeno’s testimony, but they refer to trivial details which do not, in actuality, touch upon the “whys” and “wherefores” of the crime committed. 21 Equally settled is the rule that inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses when referring only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect either the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony. Although there may be inconsistencies on minor details, the same do not impair the credibility of the witnesses where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailants, 22 as in this case. Slight contradictions in fact even serve to strengthen the sincerity of a witness and prove that his testimony is not rehearsed. 23 They are fail-safes against memorized perjury. 24 Besides, errorless testimonies cannot be expected especially when a witness is recounting details of a harrowing experience. 25 Even the most truthful witnesses can make mistakes but such innocent lapses do not necessarily affect their credibility. 26 Consequently, Centeno’s and Malabanan’s credibility still remains intact notwithstanding these inconsistencies.

Other pieces of evidence further enhance the damaging testimonies of Centeno and Malabanan. For one, a missing belt loop from the pair of white shorts worn by Eileen on the night of the crime was recovered from Erais Farm by prosecution a witness Major Lilita Chambers who, together with Col. Gualberto and other officers, went there on August 19, 1993 to effect service of the search warrant issued by RTC Judge Geraldez. Major Chambers, a forensic chemist, conducted a series of laboratory examinations and later concluded that the retrieved beltloop matched in color, size and fiber composition with a beltloop she detached from the white shorts of Eileen which she (Major Chambers) used as a standard.

Another corroborating evidence is the M16 empty bullet shell recovered at the site where Allan’s body was found. The ballistic examination on the empty shell conducted by FID-PNP Chief Ballistician Vicente de Vera revealed that the striations of the empty shell were the same as those registered by the cartridges from the M16 rifle bearing Serial No. 773159 surrendered by Luis Corcolon. Mr. De Vera also found the metallic fragments recovered from Eileen’s body, after conducting microscopic examinations thereof, to bear the same characteristics as those from a bullet fired from an M16 rifle.

The autopsy and vaginal examination conducted by prosecution witness Dr. Vladimir V. Villaseñor, medico-legal officer of the PNP-CIS, on Eileen’s cadaver buttresses all the more the gang-rape story of the prosecution. Dr. Villaseñor’s findings, in a nutshell, disclosed the presence of multiple contusions on Eileen’s body, fresh shallow lacerations on her hymen, a congested cervix, a gaping labia majora and oozing whitish fluid (tested positive for spermatozoa) from the vaginal opening. Oozing spermatozoa, Dr. Villaseñor explained, means that the amount of semen was much more than the vaginal canal could contain and that there were several seminal ejaculations that occurred therein. He also noted that a great quantity of whitish fluid continued to ooze from Eileen’s vaginal opening despite her death for several hours. Taking into account all these findings, Dr. Villaseñor ruled out the possibility of any consented sexual intercourse. In this connection, appellants would belittle Dr. Villaseñor’s findings by insisting as the more convincing opinion the defense’s medical expert witness, Dr. Ernesto Brion who testified to the effect that there can be no multiple rape if there is only one laceration on Eileen’s hymen as testified to by Dr. Villaseñor. We dismiss appellants’ argument by reiterating anew that the absence of extensive abrasions or contusions on the vaginal wall does not rule out rape because the slightest penetration is enough. 27 It is not an indispensable element for the successful prosecution of said crime. 28 Moreover, Dr. Brion is an uncle by consanguinity and erstwhile counsel of record of the Mayor, thus making his objectivity highly questionable.

Appellants Ama, Kawit and Brion would assail the trial court’s finding that they were part of the conspiracy to commit the rape-slay. Their concurrency of sentiment with the other appellants, however, was evident from the time they abducted Eileen and Allan, brought the two to Erais Farm where Eileen was raped by the Mayor and Allan beaten up black and blue, headed for a sugarcane field killing Allan along the way, sexually abused Eileen in rapid succession and finally killed her. In not an instance did any of the three appellants (Ama, Kawit and Brion) desist from that common design. 29 Likewise, the complicity of the Mayor in the crime can be deduced from the following conversations he had with some of the appellants at the Erais Farm (per Centeno’s testimony), viz.

LUIS CORCOLON:

Mayor, ito po yung regalo namin sa inyo. Ito po yung babae na matagal na po ninyong kursunada.

MAYOR:

Aba, ang ganda talaga ng babaeng yan. Pero sino yung kasama niyong lalake?

MEDIALDEA:

Boss, kasama ho yan ng babae yung lalake. Isinama na rin ho namin para wala pong bulilyaso.

After raping Eileen, the Mayor had this short exchange with Medialdea:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

MAYOR:

O sige mga anak, salamat sa regalo ninyo. Salamat sa regalo ninyo sa akin. Tapos na ako, sa inyo na iyan. Bahala na kayo diyan. Ano naman ang gagawin ninyo diyan sa lalake?

MEDIALDEA:

Boss, papatayin na rin po namin ito para wala pong bulilyaso.

Finally, on appellants’ claim that the publicity given to this case impaired their right to a fair trial, we need only to revisit this Court’s pronouncements in People v. Teehankee, Jr. (249 SCRA 54), viz:

“We cannot sustain appellant’s claim that he was denied the right to impartial trial due to prejudicial publicity. It is true that the print and broadcast media gave the case at bar pervasive publicity, just like all high profile and high stake criminal trials. Then and now, we rule that the right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free press. To be sure, responsible reporting enhances an accused’s right to a fair trial for, as well pointed out, ‘a responsible press has always been regarded as the handmaiden of effective judicial administration, especially in the criminal field . . . The press does not simply publish information about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism.’

“Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. The mere fact that the trial of appellant was given a day-to-day, gavel-to-gavel coverage does not by itself prove that the publicity so permeated the mind of the trial judge and impaired his impartiality. For one, it is impossible to seal the minds of members of the bench from pre-trial and other off-court publicity of sensational criminal cases. The state of the art of our communication system brings news as they happen straight to our breakfast tables and right to our bedrooms. These news form part of our everyday menu of the facts and fictions of life. For another, our idea of a fair and impartial judge is not that of a hermit who is out of touch with the world. We have not installed the jury system whose members are overly protected from publicity lest they lose their impartiality. Criticisms against the jury system are mounting and Mark Twain’s wit and wisdom put them all in better perspective when he observed: ‘When a gentleman of high social standing, intelligence, and probity swears that testimony given under the same oath will outweigh with him, street talk and newspaper reports based upon mere hearsay, he is worth a hundred jurymen who will swear to their own ignorance and stupidity . . . Why could not the jury law be so altered as to give men of brains and honesty an equal chance with fools and miscreants?’ Our judges are learned in the law and trained to disregard off-court evidence and on-camera performances of parties to a litigation. Their mere exposure to publications and publicity stunts does not per se fatally infect their impartiality.

“At best, appellant can only conjure possibility of prejudice on the part of the trial judge due to the barrage of publicity that characterized the investigation and trial of the case. In Martelino, Et. Al. v. Alejandro, Et Al., we rejected this standard of possibility of prejudice and adopted the test of actual prejudice as we ruled that to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, there must be allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that they might be, by the barrage of publicity. In the case at bar, the records do not show that the trial judge developed actual bias against appellant as a consequence of the extensive media coverage of the pre-trial and trial of his case. The totality of circumstances of the case does not prove that the trial judge acquired a fixed opinion as a result of prejudicial publicity which is incapable of change even by evidence presented during the trial. Appellant has the burden to prove this actual bias and he has not discharged the burden.”

And so we come to hear another tale of woe, of an infamous public figure and his minions indicted for having raped and killed a young lady and a budding lad, of these victims who had led short obscure lives that earned an equally ignominious end, and of a criminal enterprise so despicable only the unthinking beasts can orchestrate. It was, indeed, a plot seemingly hatched in hell. And let it not be said that the full protection of the law has been deprived appellants. Even a beast cannot deny this.

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED in all respects. In addition, each of the appellants having been found guilty of seven (7) counts of rape with homicide and considering that existing jurisprudence pegs the amount of indemnity for the death of the victim at Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos, this Court hereby orders each of the appellants to pay the respective heirs of Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez the amount of Seven Hundred Thousand (P700,000.00) Pesos as additional indemnity.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Kapunan and Pardo, JJ., concur.

Republic Act No. 11313- The Safe Spaces Act of 2019

0

Republic Act No. 11313, the Safe Spaces Act of 2019, otherwise known as An Act Defining Danger Based Sexual Harassment in Streets, Public Spaces, Online, Workplaces, And Educational or Training Institutions, Providing Protective Measures And Prescribing Penalties Thereto was signed into law by President Rodrigo R. Duterte in April 17, 2019 and released last July 15, 2019.

Under Section 2 of the Safe Spaces Act, the law was enacted pursuant to the “policy of the State to value the dignity of every human person and guarantee full respect for human rights.  It is likewise the policy of the State to recognize the role of women in nation-building and ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.  The State also recognizes that both men and women must have equality, security and safety not only in private but also on the streets, public spaces, online, workplaces and educational and training institutions.”

The specific acts punished under the Safe Spaces Act are laid down in Section 11 thereof, to wit:

  1. Cursing, wolf-whistling, catcalling, leering and intrusive gazing, taunting, cursing, unwanted invitations, misogynistic, transphobic, homophobic, and sexist slurs, persistent unwanted comments on one’s appearance, relentless requests for one’s personal details such as name, contact and social media details or destination, the use of words, gestures or actions that ridicule on the basis of sex, gender or sexual orientation, identity and/or expression including sexist, homophobic, and transphobic statements and slurs, the persistent telling of sexual jokes, use of sexual names, comments and demands, and any statement that has made an invasion on a person’s personal space or threatens the person’s sense of personal safety;
  • Making offensive body gestures at someone, and exposing private parts for the sexual gratification of the perpetrator with the effect of demeaning, harassing, threatening or intimidating the offended party including flashing of private parts, public masturbation, groping and similar lewd sexual actions;
  • Stalking and any of the acts mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b), accompanied by touching, pinching, or brushing against the body of the offended person, or any touching, pinching, or brushing against the genitalia, face, arms, anus, groin, breasts, inner thighs, face, buttocks, or any part of the victim’s body, even when not accompanied by acts mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).

Download the full text of RA 11313.

Implementing Rules and Regulation of RA 11203 – Rice Tariffication Law

0

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 11203 otherwise known as the Rice Tariffication Law was signed by the representatives of the Department of Agriculture, National Economic and Development Authority and Department of Budget and Management in a Joint Memorandum Circular No. 1-2019 dated March 28, 2019.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Rice Tariffication Law clarified the following matters, among others, to wit:

  1. The National Food Authority will make sure that its buffer stock is at “optimal level”, taking also into consideration the provisions for emergency situations and disaster relief operations;
  2. The rice inventory or buffer stock held by the National Food Authority is only for Fifteen (15) days to Thirty (30) days’ worth;
  3. The National Food Authority will carry on its usual duty to survey commercial rice stock up only until December 2019.  The Philippine Statistics Authority will start conducting said survey by July 1, 2020;
  4. The IRR clarifies that in addition to issuing sanitary and phytosanitary import clearances (SPSIC), the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) will also maintain a trail of incoming rice and post on their website a list of accredited importers, along with the volume of rice they will import.
  5. Only traders who are members of the Department of Agriculture Trade System can apply for the SPSIC.
  6. Imported rice should arrive in the country before the SPSIC expires.  The IRR does not state the consequences if the rice imports are delayed.
  7. Complementing the Rice Competitiveness Enhancement Fund (RCEF), the IRR also mandates that a new rice road map will be crafted within 180 days;
  8. The President has the power to intervene, upon the recommendation of the NEDA Board and the NFA Council to “adjust existing rates of import duty up to the bound rate committed by the Philippines under the WTO (World Trade Organization) Agreement on Agriculture and under the ATIGA (ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement).” Said power of the President to is only available if Congress is not in session.

Download the full text of the IRR of RA 11203:

Lee Seung Gi Asia Fan Meeting Vagabond Voyage in Manila 2019

0

South Korean Triple Treat Star Lee Seung Gi is meeting his Filipino fans for the first time in Manila on October 12, 2019 as announced by entertainment company, Applewood, on its Facebook page today, August 8, 2019.

Lee Seung Gi is a multi-talented and multi-awarded singer, entertainer and actor in South Korea whose career spanning almost fifteen years include the dramas The Infamous Chil Sisters, Shining Inheritance, My Girlfriend is a Gumiho, The King Two Hearts, Kang Chi The Beginning, You’re All Surrounded, and A Korean Odyssey (Hwayugi); the films Love Forecast and The Princess and the Matchmaker; and variety shows 1 Night 2 Days, Strong Heart, New Journey to the West, Noonas Over Flowers, and All the Butlers. 

The fan meeting entitled, Vagabond Voyage In Manila is in line with Lee Seung Gi’s latest drama, Vagabond, which starts airing at Netflix on September 20, 2019.  Lee Seung Gi will also join the second season of Busted to air later this year in Netflix.

Lee Seung Gi Asia Fan Meeting Vagabond Voyage also has stops in Bangkok on October 19, 2019, Singapore on October 23, 2019 and Kuala Lumpur on November 30, 2019.

Details on the venue and tickets for the fan meeting in Manila are yet to be announced.

The Student Fare Discount Privilege (Republic Act No. 11314)

0

The Student Fare Discount Act was signed into law by President Rodrigo R. Duterto last April 17, 2017 but was only released a few days ago.  Republic Act No. 11314, otherwise known as An Act Institutionalizing the Grant of Student Fare Discount Privileges on Public Transportation and For Other Purposes, now puts the students at par with the senior citizens and persons with disabilities as they enjoy the twenty (20) percent discount on public utility vehicles. 

Under Section 5 of the Student Fare Discount Act, “A student under this Act shall be entitled to a grant of 20{affa41581c539e77a889a6a46af960df9ff1c7424670374343af90ba11e244ac} discount on domestic regular fares, upon personal presentation of their duly-issued school identification cards (IDs) or current validated enrolment form, supported by the prescribed government-issued identification document, subject to an appropriate verification mechanism to be provided in the implementing rules and regulations.  Provided that in the case of air transportation utilities, the discount shall only apply to the base fare or the price of the ticket before taxes and costs of ancillary services.” 

The students can avail the student fare discount on public utility busses (PUBs), public utility jeepneys (PUJs), taxis and other similar vehicles-for-hire, tricycles, passenger trains, aircrafts and marine vessels.  It can be availed of during the entire period while the student is enrolled, including weekends and holidays.

There shall be no student fare discount on the following transport services:

  1. School service
  2. Shuttle service
  3. Tourist service
  4. Any other similar service covered by contract or charter agreement and with a valid franchise or permit from the Land Transportation Franchising  and Regulatory Board (LTFRB).

The student fare discount is only available for Filipino students in elementary, secondary, technical-vocational, or higher education institutions.  It is not available for students in post graduate degree courses and informal short-term courses such as dancing, swimming, music, and driving lessons, and seminar type of courses.

Download the full copy of RA 11314:

766FansLike
0FollowersFollow
8FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe
Google search engine

Recent Articles

Trending Now