Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 117472. June 25, 1996]


PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEO ECHEGARAY y
PILO, accused-appellant.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
Amidst the endless debates on whether or not the reimposition of the death
penalty is indeed a deterrent as far as the commission of heinous crimes is
concerned and while the attendant details pertaining to the execution of a death
sentence remain as yet another burning issue, we are tasked with providing a
clear-cut resolution of whether or not the herein accused-appellant deserves to
forfeit his place in human society for the infliction of the primitive and bestial act
of incestuous lust on his own blood.
Before us for automatic review is the judgment of conviction, dated September 7,
1994, for the crime of Rape, rendered after marathon hearing by the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedfindingaccusedLEOECHEGARAYY
PILOguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofRAPEaschargedinthecomplaint,
aggravatedbythefactthatthesamewascommittedbytheaccusedwhoisthe
father/stepfatherofthecomplainant,heisherebysentencedtosufferthepenaltyof
DEATH,asprovidedforunderRA.No.7659;topaythecomplainantRodessa
EchegaraythesumofP50,000.00asdamages,plusalltheaccessorypenaltiesprovided
bylaw,withoutsubsidiaryimprisonmentincaseofinsolvency,andtopaythecosts."[if!
supportFootnotes][1][endif]

We note, however, that the charge had been formulated in this manner:
"COMPLAINT
TheundersignedaccusesLEOECHEGARAYYPILOofthecrimeofRAPE,committed
asfollows:
ThatonoraboutthemonthofApril1994,inQuezonCity,Philippines,theabovenamed
accused,bymeansofforceandintimidation,didthenandthere,wilfully,unlawfullyand
feloniouslyhavecarnalknowledgeoftheundersignedcomplainanthisdaughter,aminor,
10yearsofage,allagainstherwillandwithoutherconsent,toherdamageandprejudice.
CONTRARYTOLAW."[if!supportFootnotes][2][endif]
Upon being arraigned on August 1, 1994, the accused-appellant, assisted by his
counsel de oficio, entered the plea of "not guilty."
These are the pertinent facts of the case as summarized by the Solicitor-General
in his brief:
"Thisisacaseofrapebythefatherofhistenyearolddaughter.
ComplainantRODESSAECHEGARAYisatenyearoldgirlandafifthgrader,bornon
September11,1983.Rodessaistheeldestoffivesiblings.Shehasthreebrothersaged6,
5and2,respectively,anda3montholdbabysister.HerparentsareRosalieandLeo
Echegaray,thelatterbeingtheaccusedappellanthimself.Thevictimliveswithher
familyinasmallhouselocatedatNo.199FernandezSt.,BarangaySanAntonio,San
FranciscoDelMonte,QuezonCity(pp.59,Aug.9,1994,TSN).
SometimeintheafternoonofApril1994,whileRodessawaslookingafterherthree

brothersintheirhouseashermotherattendedagamblingsessioninanotherplace,she
heardherfather,theaccusedappellantinthiscase,orderherbrotherstogooutofthe
house(pp.1011,ibid.).Assoonasherbrothersleft,accusedappellantLeoEchegaray
approachedRodessaandsuddenlydraggedherinsidetheroom(p.12,ibid).Beforeshe
couldquestiontheappellant,thelatterimmediatelyremovedherpantyandmadeherlie
onthefloor(p.13,ibid.).Thereafter,appellantlikewiseremovedhisunderwearand
immediatelyplacedhimselfontopofRodessa.Subsequently,appellantforcefully
insertedhispenisintoRodessa'sorgancausinghertosufferintensepain(pp.1415,
ibid.).Whileappellantwaspumpingonher,heevenuttered:'Masarapba,masarapba?'
andtowhichRodessaanswered:'TamanaPapa,masakit'(p.16,ibid.).Rodessa'splea
provedfutileasappellantcontinuedwithhisact.Aftersatisfyinghisbestialinstinct,
appellantthreatenedtokillhermotherifshewoulddivulgewhathadhappened.Scared
thathermotherwouldbekilledbyappellant,Rodessakepttoherselftheordealshe
suffered.Shewasveryafraidofappellantbecausethelatter,mostofthetime,washigh
ondrugs(pp.1718,ibid.).Thesamesexualassaulthappeneduptothefifthtimeandthis
usuallytookplacewhenhermotherwasoutofthehouse(p.19,ibid.).However,afterthe
fifthtime,Rodessadecidedtoinformhergrandmother,AsuncionRivera,whointurntold
Rosalie,Rodessa'smother.RodessaandhermotherproceededtotheBarangayCaptain
whereRodessaconfidedthesexualassaultsshesuffered.Thereafter,Rodessawas
broughttotheprecinctwheresheexecutedanaffidavit(p.21,ibid.).Fromthere,shewas
accompaniedtothePhilippineNationalPoliceCrimeLaboratoryformedical
examination(p.22,ibid.).
Rodessatestifiedthatthesaidsexualassaultshappenedonlyduringthetimewhenher
motherwaspregnant.Rodessaaddedthatatfirst,hermotherwasonherside.However,
whenappellantwasdetained,hermotherkeptontellingher:'KawawanamanangTatay
mo,nakakulong'(pp.3940,ibid.).
WhenRodessawasexaminedbythemedicolegalofficerinthepersonofDra.Ma.
CristinaB.Preyna,[if!supportFootnotes][3][endif]thecomplainantwasdescribedasphysicallyona
nonvirginstate,asevidencedbythepresenceoflacerationofthehymenofsaid
complainant(TSN.,Aug.22,1995,pp.89)."[if!supportFootnotes][4][endif]
On the other hand, the accused-appellant's brief presents a different story:
"xxxthedefensepresenteditsfirstwitness,RosalieEchegaray.Sheassertedthatthe
RAPEchargeagainsttheaccusedwasonlythefigmentofhermother'sdirtymind.That
herdaughter'scomplaintwasforceduponherbyhergrandmaandtheanswersinthe
swornstatementofRodessawerecoached.ThattheaccusationofRAPEwasmotivated
byRodessa'sgrandmother'sgreedoverthelotsituatedattheMadrigalEstateNHA
Project,BarangaySanAntonio,SanFranciscodelMonte,QuezonCity,whichher
grandmother'sparamour,ConradoAlfonsogavetotheaccusedinordertopersuadethe
lattertoadmitthatRodessaexecutedanaffidavitofdesistanceafteritturnedoutthather
complaintofattemptedhomicidewassubstitutedwiththecrimeofRAPEattheinstance
ofhermother.Thatwhenhermothercametoknowabouttheaffidavitofdesistance,she
placedhergranddaughterunderthecustodyoftheBarangayCaptain.Thathermother
wasneverarealmothertoher.
Shestatedthathercomplaintagainstaccusedwasforattemptedhomicideasherhusband

pouredalcoholonherbodyandattemptedtoburnher.Sheidentifiedthecertification
issuedbytheNHAandTagNo.870393(Exh.2).ThattheCertificationbasedonthe
Masterlist(Exh.3)indicatesthatthepropertyiscoownedbyaccusedandConrado
Alfonso.ThatRodessaisherdaughtersiredbyConradoAlfonso,thelatterbeingthe
paramourofhermother.ThatConradoAlfonsowaivedhisrightandparticipationover
thelotinfavoroftheaccusedinconsiderationofthelatter'sacceptingthefactthatheis
thefatherofRodessatosimulatethelovetriangleandtoconcealthenauseatingsex
orgiesfromConradoAlfonso'srealWife.
Accusedtestifiedinhisbehalfandstatedthatthegrandmotherofthecomplainanthasa
verystrongmotiveinimplicatinghimtothecrimeofRAPEsinceshewasinterestedto
becomethesoleownerofapropertyawardedtoherliveinpartnerbytheMadrigal
EstateNHAProject.Thathecouldnothavecommittedtheimputedcrimebecausehe
considersRodessaashisowndaughter.Thatheisapaintercontractorandonthedateof
theallegedcommissionofthecrime,hewaspaintingthehouseofoneDivinaAngof
BarangayVitalis,Paraaque,MetroManila(Exh4).Thetraveltimebetweenhiswork
placetohisresidenceisthree(3)hoursconsideringtheconditionoftraffic.Thatthe
paintingcontractisevidencedbyadocumentdenominated'ContractofServices'duly
accomplished(seesubmarkingsofExh.4).Heassertedthathehasabigsexualorgan
whichwhenusedtoagirl11yearsoldlikeRodessa,thesaidfemaleorganwillbe
'mawawarak.'Thatitisabnormaltoreporttheimputedcommissionofthecrimetothe
grandmotherofthevictim.
Accusedfurtherstatedthather(sic)motherinlawtrumpedupachargeofdrugpushing
earlierandhepleadedguiltytoalesseroffenseofusingdrugs.Thedecretalportionofthe
judgmentofconvictionorderingtheaccusedtobeconfinedattheBicutanRehabilitation
CenterirkedthegrandmotherofRodessabecauseitwasherwishthataccusedshouldbe
metedthedeathpenalty.
AccusedremainsteadfastinhistestimonyperoratingthestrongmotiveofRodessa's
grandmotherinimplicatinghiminthisheinouscrimebecauseofhergreedtobecomethe
soleownerofthatpieceofpropertyattheNationalHousingAuthorityMadrigalProject,
situatedatSanFranciscodelMonte,QuezonCity,notwithstandingrigidcross
examination.Heassertedthattheimputedoffenseisfarfromhismindconsideringthat
hetreatedRodessaashisowndaughter.Hecategoricallytestifiedthathewasinhis
paintingjobsiteonthedateandtimeoftheallegedcommissionofthecrime.
Mrs.Punzalanwaspresentedasthirddefensewitness.Shesaidthatsheisthelaundry
womanandparttimebabysitterofthefamilyofaccused.Thatatonetime,shesaw
RodessareadingsexbooksandtheBulgarnewspaper.Thatwhilehangingwashed
clothesonthevacantlotshesawRodessamasturbatingbytinkeringherprivateparts.
Themasturbationtooksometime.
ThissexualflingofRodessawerecorroboratedbySilvestraEchegaray,thefourthand
lastwitnessforthedefense.Shestatedthatshetriedhardtocorrecttheflirtingtendency
ofRodessaandthatshescoldedherwhenshesawRodessaviewinganXratedtape.
Rodessaaccordingtoherwasfondofgoingwithfriendsofillrepute.That(sic)she
corroboratedthetestimonyofMrsPunzalanbystatingthatsheherselfsawRodessa
masturbatinginsidetheroomofherhouse."[if!supportFootnotes][5][endif]

In finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of


rape, the lower court dismissed the defense of alibi and lent credence to the
straightforward testimony of the ten-year old victim to whom no ill motive to testify
falsely against accused-appellant can be attributed. The lower court likewise
regarded as inconsequential the defense of the accused-appellant that the
extraordinary size of his penis could not have insinuated itself into the victim's
vagina and that the accused is not the real father of the said victim.
The accused-appellant now reiterates his position in his attempt to seek a
reversal of the lower court's verdict through the following assignment of errors:
1. THE LOWER COURT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE SINISTER MOTIVE OF
PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S GRANDMOTHER THAT PRECIPITATED THE
FILING OF THE CHARGE OF RAPE, HENCE IT ERRED IN HOLDING
ACCUSED GUILTY AS CHARGED.
2. THE COURT BELOW OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT THE HEALED
LACERATIONS AT 3 AND 7 O'CLOCK COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DUE TO THE
PUMPING OF THE PENIS OF ACCUSED TO THE VAGINA OF PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT, HENCE IT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ACCUSED
COMMITTED THE CRIME CHARGED, NOTWITHSTANDING VEHEMENT
DENIAL.
3. THE COURT A QUO WHIMSICALLY IGNORED THE DEFENSE OF
ALIBI THAT ACCUSED WAS IN PARAAQUE ON THE DATE AND
TIME OF THE IMPUTED CRIME HENCE, IT ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT ALIBI IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE CASE AT
BAR."[if !supportFootnotes][6][endif]
Considering that a rape charge, in the light of the reimposition of the death
penalty, requires a thorough and judicious examination of the circumstances
relating thereto, this Court remains guided by the following principles in
evaluating evidence in cases of this nature: (a) An accusation for rape can be
made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the accused though
innocent to disprove; (b) In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where
only two persons are involved, the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) The evidence for the prosecution must
stand and fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the
weakness of the evidence for the defense." [if !supportFootnotes][7][endif]
Anent the first assigned error, no amount of persuasion can convince this Court
to tilt the scales of justice in favor of the accused-appellant notwithstanding that
he cries foul insisting that the rape charge was merely concocted and strongly
motivated by greed over a certain lot situated at the NHA-Madrigal Estate
Housing Project, Barangay San Antonio, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City.
The accused-appellant theorizes that prosecution witness Asuncion Rivera, the
maternal grandmother of the victim Rodessa, concocted the charge of rape so
that, in the event that the accused-appellant shall be meted out a death
sentence, title to the lot will be consolidated in her favor. Indeed, the lot in
question is co-owned by the accused-appellant and Conrado Alfonso, the live-in

partner of Asuncion Rivera, according to the records of the National Housing


Authority (Exh. "3"). The accused-appellant would want us to believe that the
rape charge was fabricated by Asuncion Rivera in order to eliminate the accusedappellant from being a co-owner. So, the live-in partners would have the property
for their own.[if !supportFootnotes][8][endif]
We believe, as did the Solicitor-General, that no grandmother would be so
callous as to instigate her 10-year old granddaughter to file a rape case against
her own father simply on account of her alleged interest over the disputed lot. [if !
supportFootnotes][9][endif]

It is a well-entrenched jurisprudential rule that the testimony of a rape victim is


credible where she has no motive to testify against the accused. [if !supportFootnotes][10]
[endif]

We find no flaws material enough to discredit the testimony of the ten-year old
Rodessa which the trial court found convincing enough and unrebutted by the
defense. The trial court not surprisingly noted that Rodessa's narration in detail of
her father's monstrous acts had made her cry.[if !supportFootnotes][11][endif] Once again, we
rule that:
"xxxThetestimonyofthevictimwhowasonly12yearsoldatthetimeoftherapeasto
thecircumstancesoftherapemustbegivenweightfortestimonyofyoungandimmature
rapevictimsarecredible(Peoplev.Guibao,217SCRA64[1993]).Nowomanespecially
oneoftenderage,practicallyonlyagirl,wouldconcoctastoryofdefloration,allowan
examinationofherprivatepartsandthereafterexposeherselftoapublictrial,ifshewere
notmotivatedsolelybythedesiretohavetheculpritapprehendedandpunished(People
v.Guibao,supra)."[if!supportFootnotes][12][endif]
The accused-appellant points out certain inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses in his attempt to bolster his claim that the rape accusation
against him is malicious and baseless. Firstly, Rodessa's testimony that the
accused-appellant was already naked when he dragged her inside the room is
inconsistent with her subsequent testimony that the said accused-appellant was
still wearing short pants when she was dragged inside the room. Secondly,
Rodessa's sworn statement before the police investigator which indicated that,
while the accused was executing pumping acts, he uttered the words "Masarap
ba?", differ from her testimony in court wherein she related that when the
accused took out his penis from her vagina, the accused said "Masarap, tapos
na." Thirdly, the victim's grandmother, Asuncion Rivera, recounted in her sworn
statement that it was the accused who went to see her to apprise her of the rape
committed on her granddaughter. However, in her testimony in court, Asuncion
Rivera claimed that she was the one who invited the accused-appellant to see
her in her house so as to tell her a secret.[if !supportFootnotes][13][endif] These alleged
discrepancies merely pertain to minor details which in no way pose serious doubt
as to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Whether or not the accused
was naked when he dragged Rodessa inside the room where he sexually
assaulted her bears no significant effect on Rodessa's testimony that she was
actually raped by the accused-appellant. Moreover, a conflicting account of
whatever words were uttered by the accused-appellant after he forcefully
inserted his penis into Rodessa's private organ against her will cannot impair the

prosecution's evidence as a whole. A determination of which version earmarks


the truth as to how the victim's grandmother learned about the rape is
inconsequential to the judgment of conviction.
As we have pronounced in the case of People v. Jaymalin:[if !supportFootnotes][14][endif]
"ThisCourthasstatedtimeandagainthatminorinconsistenciesinthenarrationofa
witnessdonotdetractfromitsessentialcredibilityaslongasitisonthewholecoherent
andintrinsicallybelievable.Inaccuraciesmayinfactsuggestthatthewitnessistelling
thetruthandhasnotbeenrehearsedasitisnottobeexpectedthathewillbeableto
remembereverysingledetailofanincidentwithperfectortotalrecall."
After due deliberation, this Court finds that the trial judge's assessment of the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses deserves our utmost respect in the
absence of arbitrariness.
With respect to the second assigned error, the records of the instant case are
bereft of clear and concrete proof of the accused-appellant's claim as to the size
of his penis and that if that be the fact, it could not have merely caused shallow
healed lacerations at 3:00 and 7:00 o'clock.[if !supportFootnotes][15][endif] In his testimony,
the accused- appellant stated that he could not have raped Rodessa because of
the size of his penis which could have ruptured her vagina had he actually done
so.[if !supportFootnotes][16][endif] This Court gives no probative value on the accusedappellant's self-serving statement in the light of our ruling in the case of People v.
Melivo, supra,[if !supportFootnotes][17][endif] that:
"Thevaginalwallandthehymenalmembraneareelasticorganscapableofvarying
degreesofdistensibility.Thedegreeofdistensibilityofthefemalereproductiveorganis
normallylimitedonlybythecharacterandsizeofthepelvicinlet,otherfactorsbeing
minor.Thefemalereproductivecanalbeingcapableofallowingpassageofaregular
fetus,thereoughttobenodifficultyallowingtheentryofobjectsofmuchlessersize,
includingthemalereproductiveorgan,whicheveninitslargestdimensions,wouldstill
beconsiderablysmallerthanthefulltermfetus.
xxx xxx xxx
Inthecaseatbench,thepresenceofhealedlacerationsinvariouspartsofthevaginal
wall,thoughnotasextensiveasappellantmighthaveexpectedthemtobe,indicate
traumaticinjurytotheareawithintheperiodwhentheincidentsweresupposedtohave
occurred."(Atpp.1314,Italicssupplied)
In rape cases, a broken hymen is not an essential element thereof. [if !supportFootnotes][18]
[endif]
A mere knocking at the doors of the pudenda, so to speak, by the accused's
penis suffices to constitute the crime of rape as full entry into the victim's vagina
is not required to sustain a conviction.[if !supportFootnotes][19][endif] In the case, Dr. Freyra,
the medico-legal examiner, categorically testified that the healed lacerations of
Rodessa on her vagina were consistent with the date of the commission of the
rape as narrated by the victim to have taken place in April, 1994. [if !supportFootnotes][20]
[endif]

Lastly, the third assigned error deserves scant consideration. The accusedappellant erroneously argues that the Contract of Services (Exhibit 4) offered as
evidence in support of the accused-appellant's defense of alibi need not be
corroborated because there is no law expressly requiring so. [if !supportFootnotes][21][endif] In
view of our finding that the prosecution witnesses have no motive to falsely testify

against the accused-appellant, the defense of alibi, in this case, uncorroborated


by other witnesses, should be completely disregarded. [if !supportFootnotes][22][endif] More
importantly, the defense of alibi which is inherently weak becomes even weaker
in the face of positive identification of the accused-appellant as perpetrator of the
crime of rape by his victim, Rodessa.[if !supportFootnotes][23][endif]
The Contract of Services whereby the accused-appellant obligated himself to do
some painting Job at the house of one Divina Ang in Paranaque, Metro Manila,
within 25 days from April 4, 1994, is not proof of the whereabouts of the accusedappellant at the time of the commission of the offense.
The accused-appellant in this case is charged with Statutory Rape on the basis
of the complaint, dated July 14, 1994. The gravamen of the said offense, as
stated in paragraph 3, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, is the carnal
knowledge of a woman below twelve years old. [if !supportFootnotes][24][endif] Rodessa
positively identified his father accused-appellant, succeeded in consummating his
grievous and odious sexual assault on her is free from any substantial selfcontradiction. It is highly inconceivable that it is rehearsed and fabricated upon
instructions from Rodessa's maternal grandmother Asuncion Rivera as asserted
by the accused-appellant. The words of Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando,
speaking for the Court, more than two decades ago, are relevant and worth
reiterating, thus:
"xxxitismanifestinthedecisionsofthisCourtthatwheretheoffendedpartiesare
youngandimmaturegirlslikethevictiminthiscase,(Citedcasesomitted)thereis
markedreceptivityonitsparttolendcredencetotheirversionofwhattranspired.Itisnot
tobewonderedat.Thestate,asparenspatria,isundertheobligationtominimizethe
riskofharmtothose,who,becauseoftheirminority,areasyetunabletotakecareof
themselvesfully.Thoseoftenderyearsdeserveitsutmostprotection.Moreover,the
injuryincasesofrapeisnotinflictedontheunfortunatevictimalone.Theconsternation
itcausesherfamilymustalsobetakenintoaccount.Itmayreflectafailuretoabideby
theannouncedconcerninthefundamentallawforsuchinstitution.Thereisallthemore
reasonthenfortherigorousapplicationofthepenallawwithitsseverepenaltyforthis
offense,wheneverwarranted.Ithasbeenaptlyremarkedthatwiththeadvancein
civilization,thedisruptioninpublicpeaceandorderitrepresentsdefiesexplanation,
muchmoresoinviewofwhatcurrentlyappearstobeatendencyforsexual
permissiveness.Wheretheprospectsofrelationshipbasedonconsentarehardlyminimal,
selfrestraintshouldevenbemoremarked."[if!supportFootnotes][25][endif]
Under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 often referred to as the Death Penalty
Law, Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code was amended, to wit:
"Thedeathpenaltyshallalsobeimposedifthecrimeofrapeiscommittedwithanyof
thefollowingattendantcircumstances:
1.Whenthevictimisundereighteen(18)yearsofageandtheoffenderisaparent,
ascendant,stepparent,guardian,relativebyconsanguinityoraffinitywithinthethird
civildegree,orthecommonlawspouseoftheparentofthevictim.
xxx xxx xxx
(Italicssupplied)
Apparently, as a last glimpse of hope, the accused-appellant questions the

penalty imposed by the trial court by declaring that he is neither a father,


stepfather or grandfather of Rodessa although he was a confirmed lover of
Rodessa's mother.[if !supportFootnotes][26][endif] On direct examination, he admitted that
before the charge of rape was filed against him, he had treated Rodessa as his
real daughter and had provided for her food, clothing, shelter and education. [if !
supportFootnotes][27][endif]
The Court notes that Rodessa uses the surname of the
accused-appellant, not Rivera (her mother's maiden name) nor Alfonso (her
grandmother's live-in partner). Moreover, Rodessa's mother stated during the
cross-examination that she, the accused-appellant and her five children,
including Rodessa, had been residing in one house only.[if !supportFootnotes][28][endif] At
any rate, even if he were not the father, stepfather or grandfather of Rodessa,
this disclaimer cannot save him from the abyss where perpetrators of heinous
crimes ought to be, as mandated by law. Considering that the accused-appellant
is a confirmed lover of Rodessa's mother,[if !supportFootnotes][29][endif] he falls squarely
within the aforequoted portion of the Death Penalty Law under the term
"common-law spouse of the parent of the victim."
The fact that the ten-year old Rodessa referred to the accused-appellant as
"Papa" is reason enough to conclude that accused-appellant is either the father
or stepfather of Rodessa. Thus, the act of sexual assault perpetrated by the
accused on his young victim has become all the more repulsive and perverse.
The victim's tender age and the accused-appellant's moral ascendancy and
influence over her are factors which forced Rodessa to succumb to the accused's
selfish and bestial craving. The law has made it inevitable under the
circumstances of this case that the accused-appellant face the supreme penalty
of death.
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 104.
SO ORDERED.

Вам также может понравиться