THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 238622, December 07, 2020 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RANDY LICAROS Y FLORES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
Assailed in this ordinary appeal[1] is the Decision[2] dated August 14, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08235 which affirmed the Decision[3] dated March 16, 2016 of Branch 214, Regional Trial Court (RTC), xxxxxxxxxxx finding Randy Licaros y Flores (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape under paragraph 1, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of Rape under paragraph 1, Article 266-A of the RPC in an Information[4] dated July 3, 2009 which reads:
Version of the Prosecution
On April 9, 2009, AAA, who was then living with her aunt, BBB, engaged in a drinking spree with her uncle, BBB, and some neighbors at BBB's house. The drinking started earlier that day. Accused-appellant, AAA's cousin, later arrived and joined the drinking spree.[8]
At around 11:00 p.m., AAA felt dizzy from drinking alcohol and decided to go to sleep. Accused-appellant assisted AAA in going to the bedroom upstairs. When they reached the room, he helped AAA as she lied down on the floor to sleep. To AAA's shock and surprise, she felt accused-appellant suddenly move on top of her and kiss her from her neck downwards. AAA struggled to resist his advances by kicking and pushing him away, but accused-appellant refused to stop what he was doing. AAA also tried to shout, but no voice came out of her lips.[9]
Thereafter, accused-appellant began pulling down AAA's shorts and underwear while pinning with his one hand AAA's clenched fists to her chest. When AAA's garments reached below her knees, he tugged down his own basketball shorts and underwear, inserted his penis into AAA's vagina, and made push and pull movements. After several minutes, he was done with his dastardly act He then dressed up and left AAA crying alone in the room.[10]
Though shocked and dismayed with what happened to her, AAA continued to live in BBB's house. AAA, however, did not tell anyone about the incident out of fear that her father might kill accused-appellant, or the latter might be killed if the rape incident would be known.[11]
Eventually, AAA decided to confide to her stepmother, CCC, that she had been raped by accused-appellant CCC then contacted DDD, AAA's biological mother, who aAAA to the Women and Children Protection Desk at the xxxxxxxxxxx Police Station to report the rape incident AAA thereafter underwent a medical examination at the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame.[12] Per the medico-legal report, AAA's hymen had shallow healed lacerations at the 3 and 9 o'clock positions and a deep healed laceration at the 6 o'clock position which clearly evinced previous blunt force or penetrating trauma.[13]
Version of the Defense
For his part, accused-appellant raised the. defense of denial, viz.:
In a Decision[15] dated March 16, 2016, the RTC convicted accused-appellant of the crime charged.[16] It found AAA's testimony, which was fully supported by the medico-legal's findings,[17] to be a straightforward, categorical, and candid narration of the rape incident.[18] It also gave more weight to AAA's positive identification of accused- appellant as her rapist over the latter's defense of denial.[19]
Accordingly, the RTC sentenced accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay AAA the following amounts: (a) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P50,000.00 as moral damages; and (c) P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. It also imposed interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum on the monetary award from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.[20]
Accused-appellant thereafter appealed before the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its Decision[21] dated August 14, 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision with modification in that it increased the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to P75,000.00 each in view of recent jurisprudence.[22]
The CA ruled that AAA had given a clear, positive, and straightforward account of the rape incident.[23] It thus concluded that:
The Issues
Accused-appellant raises the following issues for the Court's resolution: first, whether the lower courts committed an error in giving full credence to AAA's "doubtful" and "improbable" testimony;[25] and second, whether the prosecution was able to prove the essential element of force or intimidation beyond reasonable doubt.[26]
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is without merit.
In cases where the issue rests upon the credibility of witnesses, the settled rule is that "appellate courts accord the highest respect to the assessment made by the trial court because of the trial judge's unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination."[27]
Thus, the Court explained in People v. Espino, Jr.[28] that the findings of the trial court will not be overturned unless it is clearly shown that it had overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance that could have altered the outcome of the case.[29] "The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the [CA]."[30]
In this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to overturn the RTC's factual findings and conclusions, as affirmed by the CA, since they are neither arbitrary nor unfounded.
A careful perusal of the records shows that AAA was straightforward, categorical, and candid when she described the rape incident in detail and identified accused-appellant as her assailant, viz.:
The Court disagrees. It is settled that the close proximity of other relatives to the scene of the rape does not render the commission of the crime impossible or incredible.[37] "Rape can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping."[38] After all, "[l]ust is no respecter of time and place; neither is it deterred by age nor relationship."[39]
Moreover, AAA's failure to shout for help does not in any way disprove the commission of the rape.[40] The absence of any physical injuries on AAA's body, too, does not imply that she had consented to the sexual act.[41] "The force used in the commission of rape need not be overpowering or absolutely irresistible."[42] In this case, it is sufficient that the force employed by accused-appellant when he pinned AAA down on the floor had enabled him to succeed in his lewd objective despite her persistent struggling.[43]
The Court likewise rejects the defense of denial proffered by accused-appellant to exonerate himself from the rape charge against him. "Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility."[44] In other words, a denial, which necessarily constitutes self-serving negative evidence, cannot prevail over the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[45] Here, AAA's positive and straightforward testimony that she was raped by accused-appellant deserves far greater evidentiary weight than the latter's uncorroborated denial of his participation in the incident.
In light of these, the Court finds that the prosecution had sufficiently established beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA, through force and intimidation, by inserting his penis into her vagina against her will and without her consent. Indeed, a rape victim's sole account of the incident is sufficient to support a conviction of rape if it is straightforward and candid;[46] especially so when it is corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, as in this case.[47]
As for the proper penalty, the crime of Simple Rape is penalized under Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, with reclusion perpetua. Given that the guilt of accused-appellant had been proven beyond reasonable doubt, the Court upholds the ruling of the lower courts sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,[48] and affirms the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages at P75,000.00 each, in conformity with prevailing jurisprudence.[49]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated August 14, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR -HC No. 08235 convicting accused-appellant Randy Licaros y Flores of the crime of Rape under paragraph 1, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code is hereby AFFIRMED.
Accordingly, accused-appellant Randy Licaros y Flores is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is further ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
All damages awarded shall be subject to legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen, (Chairperson), Hernando, Delos Santos, and Rosario, JJ., concur.
[1] See Notice of Appeal dated September 13, 2017, rollo, pp. 13-14.
[2] Id. at 2-12; penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. with Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a member of the Court) and Jhosep Y. Lopez, concurring.
[3] CA rollo, pp. 38-52; penned by Presiding Judge Imelda L. Portes-Saulog.
[4] Records, p. 1-2.
[5] The identity of the victim or any information to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. (RA) 7610, "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes;" RA 9262, "An Act Defining Violence against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes;" Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the "Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children," effective November 15, 2004; People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006); and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017, Subject: Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances.
[6] Records, p. 1.
[7] See Certificate of Arraignment, id. at 56.
[8] As culled from the Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee, CA rollo, p. 74.
[9] Id. at 75-76.
[10] Id. at 76-77.
[11] Id. at 77-78.
[12] CA rollo, pp. 78-79.
[13] See the Initial Medico-Legal Report signed by PCI Jesille Cui Baluyot, M.D., Duty Medico-Legal Officer, records, p. 11.
[14] CA rollo, p. 30.
[15] Id. at 38-52.
[16] Id. at 51.
[17] Id. at 50.
[18] Id. at 48-49.
[19] Id. at 49.
[20] Id. at 51.
[21] Rollo, p. 2-12.
[22] Id. at 11.
[23] Id. at 7.
[24] Id. at 10-11.
[25] As culled from the Brief for the Accused-Appellant, CA rollo, pp. 31-32.
[26] Id. at 33-34.
[27] People v. Aquino, 396 Phil. 303, 306-307 (2000).
[28] 577 Phil. 546 (2008).
[29] Id. at 562.
[30] Id. at 563, citing People v. Cabugatan, 544 Phil. 468, 479 (2007). Emphasis ommitted.
[31] TSN, October 11, 2011, pp. 3-4. Italics supplied.
[32] Id. at 5-7. Italics supplied.
[33] Id. at 8-9. Italics supplied.
[34] Id. at 11-12. Italics supplied.
[35] See Brief for the Accused-appellant, CA rollo, p. 31.
[36] Id. at 33.
[37] People v. Descartin, Jr., 810 Phil. 881, 892 (2017).
[38] Id.
[39] Id., citing People v. Cabral, 623 Phil. 809, 815 (2009).
[40] See People v. Pareja, 724 Phil. 759, 778 (2014).
[41] See People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 210435, August 15, 2018, 877 SCRA 424, 440.
[42] People v. Barangan, 560 Phil. 811, 836 (2007), citing People v. Villaflores, 255 Phil. 776, 784 (1989).
[43] See People v. Ramos, supra.
[44] People v. Descartin, Jr., supra note 37 at 894, citing People v. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576 (2014).
[45] See People v. Deloso, 822 Phil. 1003, 1013-1014 (2017), citing People v. Francisco, 397 Phil. 973, 985 (2000).
[46] See People v. Baraoil, 690 Phil. 368 (2012).
[47] See People v. Agalot, 826 Phil. 541, 555 (2018), citing People v. Lumaho, 744 Phil. 233, 243 (2014).
[48] Item II(1) of A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, entitled "Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase 'Without Eligibility for Parole' in Indivisible Penalties," dated August 4, 2015 provides:
Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of Rape under paragraph 1, Article 266-A of the RPC in an Information[4] dated July 3, 2009 which reads:
That on or about the 9th day of April 2009, in the xxxxxxxxxxx Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of [AAA],[5] against her will and consent.During his arraignment on February 15, 2011, accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the charge against him.[7] Trial ensued.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]
On April 9, 2009, AAA, who was then living with her aunt, BBB, engaged in a drinking spree with her uncle, BBB, and some neighbors at BBB's house. The drinking started earlier that day. Accused-appellant, AAA's cousin, later arrived and joined the drinking spree.[8]
At around 11:00 p.m., AAA felt dizzy from drinking alcohol and decided to go to sleep. Accused-appellant assisted AAA in going to the bedroom upstairs. When they reached the room, he helped AAA as she lied down on the floor to sleep. To AAA's shock and surprise, she felt accused-appellant suddenly move on top of her and kiss her from her neck downwards. AAA struggled to resist his advances by kicking and pushing him away, but accused-appellant refused to stop what he was doing. AAA also tried to shout, but no voice came out of her lips.[9]
Thereafter, accused-appellant began pulling down AAA's shorts and underwear while pinning with his one hand AAA's clenched fists to her chest. When AAA's garments reached below her knees, he tugged down his own basketball shorts and underwear, inserted his penis into AAA's vagina, and made push and pull movements. After several minutes, he was done with his dastardly act He then dressed up and left AAA crying alone in the room.[10]
Though shocked and dismayed with what happened to her, AAA continued to live in BBB's house. AAA, however, did not tell anyone about the incident out of fear that her father might kill accused-appellant, or the latter might be killed if the rape incident would be known.[11]
Eventually, AAA decided to confide to her stepmother, CCC, that she had been raped by accused-appellant CCC then contacted DDD, AAA's biological mother, who aAAA to the Women and Children Protection Desk at the xxxxxxxxxxx Police Station to report the rape incident AAA thereafter underwent a medical examination at the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame.[12] Per the medico-legal report, AAA's hymen had shallow healed lacerations at the 3 and 9 o'clock positions and a deep healed laceration at the 6 o'clock position which clearly evinced previous blunt force or penetrating trauma.[13]
For his part, accused-appellant raised the. defense of denial, viz.:
The RTC Ruling
In a Decision[15] dated March 16, 2016, the RTC convicted accused-appellant of the crime charged.[16] It found AAA's testimony, which was fully supported by the medico-legal's findings,[17] to be a straightforward, categorical, and candid narration of the rape incident.[18] It also gave more weight to AAA's positive identification of accused- appellant as her rapist over the latter's defense of denial.[19]
Accordingly, the RTC sentenced accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay AAA the following amounts: (a) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P50,000.00 as moral damages; and (c) P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. It also imposed interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum on the monetary award from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.[20]
Accused-appellant thereafter appealed before the CA.
In its Decision[21] dated August 14, 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision with modification in that it increased the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to P75,000.00 each in view of recent jurisprudence.[22]
The CA ruled that AAA had given a clear, positive, and straightforward account of the rape incident.[23] It thus concluded that:
In the present case, it has been sufficiently established that the accused-appellant employed force in order to succeed in his lustful act. AAA testified that as soon as she was laid down on the floor, accused-appellant went on top of her, and pinned her hands to her chest as he removed her undergarments and inserted his penis into her vagina. The medico-legal report also revealed the presence of shallow healed lacerations at 3 and 9 o'clock positions and deep healed laceration at 6 o'clock position. Furthermore, the findings stated that there is clear evidence of previous blunt force or penetrating trauma. Clearly, the evidence shows that the accused-appellant employed force in order to attain his lustful act. And, when the consistent and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.[24]Thus, the instant appeal.
Accused-appellant raises the following issues for the Court's resolution: first, whether the lower courts committed an error in giving full credence to AAA's "doubtful" and "improbable" testimony;[25] and second, whether the prosecution was able to prove the essential element of force or intimidation beyond reasonable doubt.[26]
The appeal is without merit.
In cases where the issue rests upon the credibility of witnesses, the settled rule is that "appellate courts accord the highest respect to the assessment made by the trial court because of the trial judge's unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination."[27]
Thus, the Court explained in People v. Espino, Jr.[28] that the findings of the trial court will not be overturned unless it is clearly shown that it had overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance that could have altered the outcome of the case.[29] "The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the [CA]."[30]
In this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to overturn the RTC's factual findings and conclusions, as affirmed by the CA, since they are neither arbitrary nor unfounded.
A careful perusal of the records shows that AAA was straightforward, categorical, and candid when she described the rape incident in detail and identified accused-appellant as her assailant, viz.:
In an attempt to discredit the above-quoted testimony, accused- appellant posits that AAA's story was highly doubtful and inherently impossible due to the close proximity of her relatives and some neighbors to her bedroom where she was supposedly raped. He further questions AAA's failure to shout for help, or make any noise considering the presence of other people in the house during the incident.[35] Lastly, he asserts that the absence of any physical injury on AAA necessarily implied the lack of force or intimidation during the alleged commission of the rape.[36]
The Court disagrees. It is settled that the close proximity of other relatives to the scene of the rape does not render the commission of the crime impossible or incredible.[37] "Rape can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping."[38] After all, "[l]ust is no respecter of time and place; neither is it deterred by age nor relationship."[39]
Moreover, AAA's failure to shout for help does not in any way disprove the commission of the rape.[40] The absence of any physical injuries on AAA's body, too, does not imply that she had consented to the sexual act.[41] "The force used in the commission of rape need not be overpowering or absolutely irresistible."[42] In this case, it is sufficient that the force employed by accused-appellant when he pinned AAA down on the floor had enabled him to succeed in his lewd objective despite her persistent struggling.[43]
The Court likewise rejects the defense of denial proffered by accused-appellant to exonerate himself from the rape charge against him. "Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility."[44] In other words, a denial, which necessarily constitutes self-serving negative evidence, cannot prevail over the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[45] Here, AAA's positive and straightforward testimony that she was raped by accused-appellant deserves far greater evidentiary weight than the latter's uncorroborated denial of his participation in the incident.
In light of these, the Court finds that the prosecution had sufficiently established beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA, through force and intimidation, by inserting his penis into her vagina against her will and without her consent. Indeed, a rape victim's sole account of the incident is sufficient to support a conviction of rape if it is straightforward and candid;[46] especially so when it is corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, as in this case.[47]
As for the proper penalty, the crime of Simple Rape is penalized under Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, with reclusion perpetua. Given that the guilt of accused-appellant had been proven beyond reasonable doubt, the Court upholds the ruling of the lower courts sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,[48] and affirms the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages at P75,000.00 each, in conformity with prevailing jurisprudence.[49]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated August 14, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR -HC No. 08235 convicting accused-appellant Randy Licaros y Flores of the crime of Rape under paragraph 1, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code is hereby AFFIRMED.
Accordingly, accused-appellant Randy Licaros y Flores is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is further ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
All damages awarded shall be subject to legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen, (Chairperson), Hernando, Delos Santos, and Rosario, JJ., concur.
[1] See Notice of Appeal dated September 13, 2017, rollo, pp. 13-14.
[2] Id. at 2-12; penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. with Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a member of the Court) and Jhosep Y. Lopez, concurring.
[3] CA rollo, pp. 38-52; penned by Presiding Judge Imelda L. Portes-Saulog.
[4] Records, p. 1-2.
[5] The identity of the victim or any information to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. (RA) 7610, "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes;" RA 9262, "An Act Defining Violence against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes;" Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the "Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children," effective November 15, 2004; People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006); and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017, Subject: Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances.
[6] Records, p. 1.
[7] See Certificate of Arraignment, id. at 56.
[8] As culled from the Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee, CA rollo, p. 74.
[9] Id. at 75-76.
[10] Id. at 76-77.
[11] Id. at 77-78.
[12] CA rollo, pp. 78-79.
[13] See the Initial Medico-Legal Report signed by PCI Jesille Cui Baluyot, M.D., Duty Medico-Legal Officer, records, p. 11.
[14] CA rollo, p. 30.
[15] Id. at 38-52.
[16] Id. at 51.
[17] Id. at 50.
[18] Id. at 48-49.
[19] Id. at 49.
[20] Id. at 51.
[21] Rollo, p. 2-12.
[22] Id. at 11.
[23] Id. at 7.
[24] Id. at 10-11.
[25] As culled from the Brief for the Accused-Appellant, CA rollo, pp. 31-32.
[26] Id. at 33-34.
[27] People v. Aquino, 396 Phil. 303, 306-307 (2000).
[28] 577 Phil. 546 (2008).
[29] Id. at 562.
[30] Id. at 563, citing People v. Cabugatan, 544 Phil. 468, 479 (2007). Emphasis ommitted.
[31] TSN, October 11, 2011, pp. 3-4. Italics supplied.
[32] Id. at 5-7. Italics supplied.
[33] Id. at 8-9. Italics supplied.
[34] Id. at 11-12. Italics supplied.
[35] See Brief for the Accused-appellant, CA rollo, p. 31.
[36] Id. at 33.
[37] People v. Descartin, Jr., 810 Phil. 881, 892 (2017).
[38] Id.
[39] Id., citing People v. Cabral, 623 Phil. 809, 815 (2009).
[40] See People v. Pareja, 724 Phil. 759, 778 (2014).
[41] See People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 210435, August 15, 2018, 877 SCRA 424, 440.
[42] People v. Barangan, 560 Phil. 811, 836 (2007), citing People v. Villaflores, 255 Phil. 776, 784 (1989).
[43] See People v. Ramos, supra.
[44] People v. Descartin, Jr., supra note 37 at 894, citing People v. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576 (2014).
[45] See People v. Deloso, 822 Phil. 1003, 1013-1014 (2017), citing People v. Francisco, 397 Phil. 973, 985 (2000).
[46] See People v. Baraoil, 690 Phil. 368 (2012).
[47] See People v. Agalot, 826 Phil. 541, 555 (2018), citing People v. Lumaho, 744 Phil. 233, 243 (2014).
[48] Item II(1) of A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, entitled "Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase 'Without Eligibility for Parole' in Indivisible Penalties," dated August 4, 2015 provides:
[49] See People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 849 (2016).II.
In these lights, the following guidelines shall be observed in the imposition of penalties and in the use of the phrase "without eligibility for parole":