People vs Toledo

Facts:
This is a case of homicide against Toledo. Morales and Holgado agreed to a bolo duel over a
parcel of land.Toledo allegedly intervened in the duel that dealt a mortal blow to Morales.
Holgado executed a written testimony that during the duel there is no one present but him and
the victim.
Issue:
Whether or not the statement executed by Holgado a statement of fact against penal interest! be
admitted as evidence.
Held:
"ny man outside of a court and unhampered by the pressure of technical procedure# unreasoned
rules of evidence# and cumulative authority# would say that if a man deliberately ac$nowledged
himself to be the perpetrator of a crime and exonerated the person charged with the crime# and
there was other evidence indicative of the truthfulness of the statement# the accused man should
not be permitted to go to prison or to the electric chair to expiate a crime he never committed.
The purpose of all evidence is to get at the truth. The reason for the hearsay rule is that the
extra%udicial and unsworn statement of another is not the best method of serving this purpose. In
other words# the great possibility of the fabrication of falsehoods# and the inability to prove their
untruth# re&uires that the doors be closed to such evidence. 'o long therefore as a declarant is
available as a witness# his extra%udicial statement should not be heard. Where# however# the
declarant is dead or has disappeared# his previous statements# out of court# if not inadmissible on
other grounds# are the best evidence. (ut they are not rendered inadmissible by the mere fact that
the declarant is unavailable# ) something else is necessary. *ne fact which will satisfy this
necessity is that the declaration is or was against the declarant+s interest# and this is because no
sane person will be presumed to tell a falsehood to his own detriment.
,epublic of the -hilippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
'./*01 1I2I'I*0
G.R. No. 158057 September 24 2004
NOE TO!E"O # T$M%OONG petitioner#
vs.
PEOP!E O& T'E P'(!(PP(NES respondent.
1 . / I ' I * 0
C$!!E)O SR. J.:
This is a petition for review of the 1ecision
3
of the /ourt of "ppeals /"! in /"45.,. /, 0o.
67896 affirming on appeal# the 1ecision
6
of the ,egional Trial /ourt ,T/! of *diongan#
,omblon# (ranch :6# in /riminal /ase 0o. *14:;3# convicting the petitioner of homicide.
In an Information filed in the ,T/ of ,omblon# the petitioner was charged with homicide
allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about the 3;th day of 'eptember 3<<=# at around <:7> o?cloc$ in the evening#
in (arangay @ibertad# municipality of *diongan# province of ,omblon# -hilippines# and
within the %urisdiction of this Honorable /ourt# the said accused# with intent to $ill# did
then and there# willfully# unlawfully and feloniously attac$# assault and stab with a bolo#
one ,I/AB F. 5C",T.# which causes sic! his untimely death.
/ontrary to law.
7
In due course# the prosecution adduced evidence against the petitioner which was synthesiDed by
the appellate court as follows:
*n 'eptember 3;# 3<<=# appellant went to a blac$4smith who made the design of his
bolo. When he went home to Tuburan# *diongan# ,omblon late in the afternoon T'0#
'eptember 9# 3<<:# p. 6!# appellant saw the group of @ani Famero# Michael Fosana# ,ex
/orteD and ,ic$y 5uarte drin$ing gin at the house of the 'pouses Manuel and .liDa
5uarte# ,ic$y?s parents. "ppellant?s house is about five =! meters away from the house
of 'pouses 5uarte. "ppellant re&uested the group of ,ic$y to refrain from ma$ing any
noise. Thereupon# appellant proceeded inside his house and went to sleep ibid.# p. 7!.
"round <:>> p.m.# 5erardo Faminia# .liDa 5uarte?s brother arrived at the 5uarte house
and as$ed for any left4over food T'0# "ugust =# 3<<:# p. 7!. .liDa prepared dinner for
him and after 5erardo finished eating# he went home accompanied by ,ic$y T'0# "pril
6;# 3<<;# p. =!. 5erardo?s home is about twelve 36! meters away from the 5uarte home
T'0# February 38# 3<<8# p. 33!. Minutes later# ,ic$y came bac$ and together with @ani#
,ex and Michael# went to sleep at the 5uarte house. They had not laid down for long
when they heard stones being hurled at the roof of the house. The stoning was made three
7! times T'0# "ugust =# 3<<:# pp. 647!. ,ic$y rose from bed and peeped through a
window. He saw appellant stoning their house. ,ic$y went out of the house and
proceeded to appellant?s house. ,ic$y as$ed appellant# his uncle# why he was stoning
their house. "ppellant did not answer but met ,ic$y at the doorstep of his appellant?s!
house T'0# "pril 6;# 3<<;# p. ;E "ugust =# 3<<:# pp. 94=! and# without any warning#
stabbed ,ic$y on the abdomen with a bolo T'0# "ugust =# 3<<:# p. :!. .liDa had
followed his son ,ic$y and upon seeing that ,ic$y was stabbed# shouted for help T'0#
February 38# 3<<8# p. 37!. @ani heard .liDa?s cry for help and immediately rushed outside
the house. @ani saw ,ic$y leaning on the ground and supporting his body with his hands.
@ani helped ,ic$y stand up and brought him to the main road. @ani as$ed ,ic$y who
stabbed him and ,ic$y replied that it was appellant who stabbed him. Then 1ocloy
/orteD arrived at the scene on board his tricycle. "ccordingly# ,ic$y was put on the
tricycle and ta$en to the ,omblon -rovincial Hospital T'0# Fanuary 3<# 3<<:# pp. 94;!.
"t the ,omblon -rovincial Hospital# 1r. 0oralie Fetalvero operated on ,ic$y that very night.
,ic$y had sustained one 3! stab wound but due to massive blood loss# he died while being
operated on T'0# 0ovember 69# 3<<8# pp. 6# ;48!. 1r. Fetalvero issued a Medico4@egal
/ertificate showing the in%uries sustained by ,ic$y# thus:
'tab wound# left chest with gastric G transverse colon evisceration measuring ; cms.
long# irregular4edged at :th I/'# left penetrating operative findings!:
3! abdominal cavity perforating the stomach thru G thru! and the left lobe of the
liver
6! thoracic cavity thru the left dome of the diaphragm perforating the lower lobe
of the left lung.
H
.xhibit /!
The /ertificate of 1eath issued by 1r. Fetalvero stated the cause of ,ic$y?s death as:
/"C'.' *F 1."TH:
Immediate cause : a. /ardiorespiratory "rrest
"ntecedent cause : b. Hypovolemic shoc$
Cnderlying cause : c. Multiple thoraco4abdominal
in%ury 6I to stab wound
.xhibit (!
9
T*e Ev+de,-e o. t*e Pet+t+o,er
The petitioner adduced evidence that at around =:>> p.m. on 'eptember 3;# 3<<=# he was on his
way home at Tuburan# *diongan# ,omblon. He saw his nephew# ,ic$y 5uarte# and the latter?s
friends# Michael Fosana# ,ex /orteD# and @ani Famero# about five meters away from his house#
having a drin$ing spree. He ordered them not to ma$e loud noises# and they obliged. He then
went to his house# loc$ed the door with a nail# and went to sleep. However# he was awa$ened at
around <:7> p.m. by loud noises coming from ,ic$y and his three companions. He peeped
through the window grills of his house and admonished them not to ma$e any loud noises. ,ic$y#
who was then already inebriated# was incensedE he pulled out a balisong# pushed the door# and
threatened to stab the petitioner. The petitioner pushed their sala set against the door to bloc$ the
entry of ,ic$y# but the latter continued to push the door open with his hands and body. The
petitioner ran to the upper portion of their house and got his bolo.
=
He returned to the door and
pushed it with all his might using his left hand. He then pointed his bolo# which was in his right
hand# towards ,ic$y. The bolo accidentally hit ,ic$y on the stomach# and the latter lost his
balance and fell to the floor. The petitioner# thereafter# surrendered to the barangay captain at
33:>> a.m. on 'eptember 38# 3<<=.
"fter trial# the court rendered %udgment finding the petitioner guilty as charged. The fallo of the
decision reads:
WH.,.F*,.# premises considered# 0*. T*@.1* is hereby found 5CI@TB beyond
reasonable doubt of homicide with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender
and is meted the indeterminate penalty of from six ;! years and one 3! day of prision
mayor minimum# as minimum# to twelve 36! years and one 3! day of reclusion temporal
minimum# as maximum.
"ccused is condemned to pay the amount of -=>#>>>.>> as civil liability to the heirs of
the victim.
;
The trial court did not give credence and probative weight to the testimony of the petitioner that
his bolo accidentally hit the victim on the stomach.
*n appeal in the /"# the petitioner raised the following issue in his brief as appellant:
WH.TH., *, 0*T "//C'.14"--.@@"0T /"0 (. /,IMI0"@@B H.@1
@I"(@. F*, TH. "//I1.0T"@ 1."TH *F ,I/AB 5C",T.
8
Invo$ing "rticle 36# paragraph 9 of the ,evised -enal /ode# the petitioner claimed that he
stabbed the victim by accidentE hence# he is exempt from criminal liability for the death of the
victim.
The /" rendered %udgment affirming the assailed decision with modifications. The /" also
denied the petitioner?s motion for reconsideration thereof. The appellate court ruled that the
petitioner failed to prove that he acted in self4defense.
"ggrieved# the petitioner filed the instant petition for review# contending that the /" erred in not
finding that he acted in self4defense when he stabbed the victim by accident and prays that he be
ac&uitted of the crime charged.
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
homicide based on the evidence on record.
The petitioner contends that the /" committed a reversible error when it affirmed the decision of
the ,T/ convicting him of homicide# on its finding that he failed to prove that he acted in
complete self4defense when the victim was hit by his bolo. The petitioner insists that he acted in
complete self4defense when his bolo accidentally hit the victim on the stomach.
For its part# the *ffice of the 'olicitor 5eneral asserts that the petitioner failed to prove self4
defense with clear and convincing evidence. Hence# the decision of the /" affirming# on appeal#
the decision of the ,T/ is correct.
The contention of the petitioner has no merit.
The petitioner testified that his bolo hit the victim accidentally. He asserted in the ,T/ and in the
/" that he is exempt from criminal liability for the death of the victim under "rticle 36#
paragraph 9 of the ,evised -enal /ode which reads:
9. "ny person who# while performing a lawful act with due care# causes an in%ury by
mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.
In his brief in the /"# the petitioner argued that:
In the case at bar# with all due respect# contrary to the findings of the lower court#
it is our humble submission that the death of ,ic$y 5uarte was merely a sad and
unwanted result of an accident without fault or intention of causing it on the part
of accused4appellant. We submit# there were clear and indubitable factual
indicators overloo$ed by the lower court# bolstering the theory of the defense on
accidental death.
:
However# the petitioner changed gear# so to spea$# and now alleges that he acted in self4defense
when he stabbed the victim. "s such# he contends# he is not criminally liable under "rticle 33#
paragraph 3 of the ,evised -enal /ode which reads:
"rt. 33. Justifying circumstances. J The following do not incur any criminal liability:
3. "nyone who acts in defense of his person or rights# provided that the following
circumstances concur:
First. Cnlawful aggressionE
'econd. ,easonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel
it:
Third. @ac$ of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.
The petitioner avers that he was able to prove the essential elements of complete self4
defense# thus:
" close scrutiny of the records of the case would show that the petitioner acted in
self4defense.
The essential re&uisites of self4defense are: 3! unlawful aggression on the part of the
victimE 6! reasonable scrutiny of the means employed to prevent or repel itE and 7! lac$
of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself -eople vs. 'ilvano#
7=> '/," ;=>!
<
However# the petitioner also claims that his bolo accidentally hit the stomach of the victim.
It is a matter of law that when a party adopts a particular theory and the case is tried and decided
upon that theory in the court below# he will not be permitted to change his theory on appeal. The
case will be reviewed and decided on that theory and not approached and resolved from a
different point of view. To permit a party to change his theory on appeal will be unfair to the
adverse party.
3>
The petitioner is proscribed from changing in this /ourt# his theory of defense which he adopted
in the trial court and foisted in the /" J by claiming that he stabbed and $illed the victim in
complete self4defense. The petitioner relied on "rticle 36# paragraph 9 of the ,evised -enal /ode
in the trial and appellate courts# but adopted in this /ourt two divergent theories J 3! that he
$illed the victim to defend himself against his unlawful aggressionE hence# is %ustified under
"rticle 33# paragraph 3 of the ,evised -enal /odeE 6! that his bolo accidentally hit the victim
and is# thus# exempt from criminal liability under "rticle 36# paragraph 9 of the ,evised -enal
/ode.
It is an aberration for the petitioner to invo$e the two defenses at the same time because the said
defenses are intrinsically antithetical.
33
There is no such defense as accidental self4defense in the
realm of criminal law.
'elf4defense under "rticle 33# paragraph 3 of the ,evised -enal /ode necessarily implies a
deliberate and positive overt act of the accused to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression of
another with the use of reasonable means. The accused has freedom of action. He is aware of the
conse&uences of his deliberate acts. The defense is based on necessity which is the supreme and
irresistible master of men of all human affairs# and of the law. From necessity# and limited by it#
proceeds the right of self4defense. The right begins when necessity does# and ends where it
ends.
36
"lthough the accused# in fact# in%ures or $ills the victim# however# his act is in accordance
with law so much so that the accused is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from
both criminal and civil liabilities.
37
*n the other hand# the basis of exempting circumstances
under "rticle 36 of the ,evised -enal /ode is the complete absence of intelligence# freedom of
action# or intent# or the absence of negligence on the part of the accused.
39
The basis of the
exemption in "rticle 36# paragraph 9 of the ,evised -enal /ode is lac$ of negligence and intent.
The accused does not commit either an intentional or culpable felony. The accused commits a
crime but there is no criminal liability because of the complete absence of any of the conditions
which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act.
3=
"n accident is a fortuitous circumstance#
event or happeningE an event happening wholly or partly through human agency# an event which
under the circumstances is unusual or unexpected by the person to whom it happens.
3;
'elf4defense# under "rticle 33# paragraph 3# and accident# under "rticle 36# paragraph 9 of the
,evised -enal /ode# are affirmative defenses which the accused is burdened to prove# with clear
and convincing evidence. 'uch affirmative defenses involve &uestions of facts adduced to the
trial and appellate courts for resolution. (y admitting $illing the victim in self4defense or by
accident without fault or without intention of causing it# the burden is shifted to the accused to
prove such affirmative defenses. He should rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on
the wea$ness of that of the prosecution. If the accused fails to prove his affirmative defense# he
can no longer be ac&uitted.
The petitioner failed to prove that the victim was $illed by accident# without fault or intention on
his part to cause it. The petitioner was burdened to prove with clear and convincing evidence# the
essential re&uisites for the exempting circumstance under "rticle 36# paragraph 9# viD:
3. " person is performing a lawful actE
6. With due careE
7. He causes an in%ury to another by mere accidentE
9. Without fault or intention of causing it.
To prove his affirmative defense# the petitioner relied solely on his testimony# thus:
K What happened next when ,ic$y 5uarte was able to push through the door and you ran
awayL
" When ,ic$y 5uarte was able to push the door# that is the time I go sic! downstairs and
got my bolo and at that time the body of ,ic$y 5uarte was at the entrance of the door and
accidentally the bolo reached him.
K Where did you get the boloL
" I got the bolo in the post or wall of our house.
K Was ,ic$y 5uarte hit the first time you boloed himL
" 0ot hac$ing but accidentally.
K What do you mean by accidentallyL
" (ecause when ,ic$y 5uarte pushed the door and unbalance himself sic! the bolo
which I was carrying hit him accidentally.
K Where was he hit by the bolo you were carryingL
" In the stomach.
38
H
K "nd since you were at the left side of the door# your right hand was at the center part of
the door# correctL
" 0o# 'ir.
K Where was your right handL
" Holding a bolo.
K Where# in what part of the doorL
" ,ight side.
K When ,ic$y 5uarte was pushing the door# the door was not openedL
" It was opened.
K It was opened because you opened the door# correctL
" 0o# 'ir.
K 0ow# why was it openedL
" (ecause he was pushing it.
K With his left handL
" With his both hands and body.
K 0ow# when he fell down because# according to you# he losses sic! his balance# the left
side of the body was the first to fell sic! down# correctL
" Bes# 'ir.
K Bou are sure of your answer now Mr. ToledoL
" Bes# 'ir.
K 0ow# and while holding that bolo# you are doing that in ManN upward position# correctL
" 0o# 'ir# pointing the door.
K Bes# you are pointing the tip of your bolo to the door upward# correctL
" 0o# 'ir# steady pointing to the door.
K 0ow# when the door was opened# your bolo did not hit any part of that door# correctL
" OGinaiwas ko ang sunrang#O meaning I was able to get away from hitting any part of
the door.
K The &uestion Mr. Toledo is simple# while the door was opened and while you were
pointing directly your bolo at the door# not any part of the door hit the bolo sic!# correctL
"TTB. F*,MI@@.P":
It was a valid answer# it did not hit any part of the door.
/*C,T:
"nswer.
" 0o# 'ir.
-,*'. F,"1.F"' continuing:
K Bou were only about five inches away from your door while pushing it# correctL
" Bes# 'ir.
K 0ow# when the door was pushed already by ,ic$y 5uarte# not any part of your body
hit the door# correctL
" 0o# 'ir.
3:
The petitioner also testified that the victim was armed with a balisong and threatened to $ill him
as the said victim pushed# with his body and hands# the fragile door of his house:
K Where were you when you saw ,ic$y went outL
" I was at the door.
K 1id ,ic$y proceed to the door where you wereL
" Bes# 'ir.
K What did he do# if anyL
" He drew his fan $nife or balisong and as$ed me what do you li$e# I will stab youL
K What did you doL
" I told him I have not done you anything wrong# I am only scolding you or telling you
not to ma$e noise.
K What# if any# did ,ic$y 5uarte do to youL
" He pushed the door.
K Whose door did he pushL
" My own door.
K Where were you when he pushed the doorL
" Inside our house.
3<
We find the testimony of the petitioner incredible and barren of probative weight.
First. If the testimony of the petitioner is to be believed# the force of the struggle between him
and the victim would have caused the door to fall on the petitioner. However# the petitioner failed
to adduce real evidence that the door of his house was destroyed and that he sustained any
physical in%uries#
6>
considering that he was only five inches away from the door.
'econd. If the door fell to the sala of the house of the petitioner# the victim must have fallen on
top of the door. It is incredible that the bolo of the petitioner could have hit the stomach of the
victim. The claim of the petitioner that he managed to step aside and avoid being crushed by the
door belies his claim that the bolo accidentally hit the victim on the stomach.
Third. When he surrendered to the barangay captain and to the policemen# he failed to relate to
them that his bolo accidentally hit the stomach of the victim:
K 0ow# that very night when you said ,ic$y 5uarte was accidentally hit by your bolo#
you did not surrender to the police# correctL
" I surrendered to the barangay captain at one o?cloc$ in -ani&ue# in the afternoon.
K 0ow# you only surrendered to the police when a certain person advised you to
surrender# correctL
" *n my own volition# I surrendered to the barangay captain.
K Bou did not narrate the incident to the barangay captain whom you have surrendered#
correctL
" 0o# 'ir.
K When you were brought to the municipal %ail# you did not also narrate to the police
what happened# correctL
" 0o# 'ir.
K Bou %ust remained silent thin$ing of an excuse that happened that evening of
'eptember 3;# 3<<=# correctL
" 0o# 'ir.
63
Fourth. There is no evidence that the petitioner surrendered either the bolo that accidentally hit
the victim or the balisong held by the deceased to the barangay captain or the police authorities.
'uch failure of the petitioner negates his claim that his bolo accidentally hit the stomach of the
victim and that he acted in self4defense.
66
Fifth. To prove self4defense# the petitioner was burdened to prove the essential elements thereof#
namely: 3! unlawful aggression on the part of the victimE 6! lac$ of sufficient provocation on
the part of the petitionerE 7! employment by him of reasonable means to prevent or repel the
aggression. Cnlawful aggression is a condition sine &ua non for the %ustifying circumstances of
self4defense# whether complete or incomplete.
67
Cnlawful aggression presupposes an actual#
sudden# and unexpected attac$# or imminent danger thereof# and not merely a threatening or
intimidating attitude.
69
We agree with the ruling of the /" that the petitioner failed to prove self4
defense# whether complete or incomplete:
The evidence on record revealed that there is no unlawful aggression on the part of ,ic$y.
While it was established that ,ic$y was stabbed at the doorstep of appellant?s house
which would give a semblance of verity to appellant?s version of the incident# such view#
however# is belied by the fact that ,ic$y arrived at appellant?s house unarmed and had
only one purpose in mind# that is# to as$ appellant why he threw stones at his ,ic$y?s!
house. With no weapon to attac$ appellant# or defend himself# no sign of hostility may be
deduced from ,ic$y?s arrival at appellant?s doorstep. ,ic$y was not threatening to attac$
nor in any manner did he manifest any aggressive act that may have imperiled appellant?s
well4being. ,ic$y?s want of any weapon when he arrived at appellant?s doorstep is
supported by the fact that only one weapon was presented in court# and that weapon was
the bolo belonging to appellant which he used in stabbing ,ic$y. Thus# appellant?s
version of the events does not support a finding of unlawful aggression. In -eople vs.
-letado# the 'upreme /ourt held:
Oxxx F! or aggression to be appreciated# there must be an actual# sudden#
MunNexpected attac$ or imminent danger thereof# and not merely a threatening or
intimidating attitude -eople vs. -asco# Fr.# supra# -eople vs. ,ey# 386 '/," 39<
M3<:<N! and the accused must present proof of positively strong act of real
aggression -acificar vs. /ourt of "ppeals# 36= '/," 83; M3<:7N!. Cnlawful
aggression must be such as to put in real peril the life or personal safety of the
person defending himself or of a relative sought to be defended and not an
imagined threat.O
"ppellant was not %ustified in stabbing ,ic$y. There was no imminent threat to appellant?s life
necessitating his assault on ,ic$y. Cnlawful aggression is a condition sine &ua non for the
%ustifying circumstance of self4defense. For unlawful aggression to be appreciated# there must be
an actual# sudden# unexpected attac$ or imminent danger thereof# not merely a threatening or
intimidating attitude. In the absence of such element# appellant?s claim of self4defense must fail.
Further# appellant?s plea of self4defense is not corroborated by competent evidence. The plea of
self4defense cannot be %ustifiably entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by any separate
competent evidence but is in itself extremely doubtful.
6=
'ixth. With the failure of the petitioner to prove self4defense# the inescapable conclusion is that
he is guilty of homicide as found by the trial court and the /". He cannot even invo$e "rticle
36# paragraph 9 of the ,evised -enal /ode.
6;
(N !(G'T O& $!! T'E &OREGO(NG the petition is "EN(E". The assailed decision of the
/ourt of "ppeals is $&&(RME". /osts against the petitioner.
SO OR"ERE".
Puno, Austria-Martinez, Tinga, and Chico-Nazario
*
, JJ., concur.
&oot,otes
Q
*n leave.
3
-enned by "ssociate Fustice (ernardo -. "besamis retired!# with "ssociate Fustices
Fuan K. .nri&ueD# Fr. and .dgardo F. 'undiam# concurring.
6
-enned by Fudge Francisco F. Fanlo# Fr.
7
/" ,ollo# p. 7<.
9
!. at <74<;.
=
.xhibit O".O
;
/" ,ollo# p. 98.
8
!. at 73.
:
,ollo# p. 7<.
<
!. at 3=.
3>
'ee Chua ". Court of A##ea$s# 9>3 '/," =9 6>>7!E %o&as ". Court of A##ea$s# 7<3
'/," 7=3 6>>6!E 'aca$ing ". Muya# 7:> '/," 839 6>>6!.
33
Peo#$e ". Ja"ier# 788 '/," 7>> 6>>6!.
36
(ishop# " Treatise on /riminal @aw# 2ol. 3# <th ed.# pp. ==<4=;>.
37
,eyes# The ,evised -enal /ode# 2ol. 3# 3<8> ed.# p. 39<.
39
Id. at 637.
3=
Id. at 639.
3;
Jarco Marketing Cor#oration ". Court of A##ea$s# 763 '/," 78= 3<<<!.
38
T'0# 9 'eptember 3<<:# p. ;.
3:
T'0# 63 *ctober 3<<:# pp. <43>.
3<
T'0# 9 'eptember 3<<:# p. =.
6>
T'0# 63 *ctober 3<<:# p. 3=.
63
Id. at 37439.
66
Peo#$e ". Camacho# 7=< '/," 6>> 6>>3!.
67
Ibid.
69
Peo#$e ". Cario# 6:: '/," 9>9 3<<:!.
6=
,ollo# pp. ;64;7.
6;
Peo#$e ". Cario, su#ra.