VOL.

313, AUGUST 30, 1999

279
People vs. Garcia
G.R. No. 126252. August 30, 1999.*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JESUS GARCIA y MANABAT,
accused-appellant.
Courts; Judges; Criminal Procedure; Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, a
decision is valid and binding only if penned and promulgated by the judge during his
incumbency.A decision promulgated after the retirement of the judge who signed
it is null and void. Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, a decision is valid and
binding only if penned and promulgated by the judge during his incumbency. To be
precise, a judgment has legal effect only when it is rendered: (a) by a court legally
constituted and in the actual exercise of judicial powers, and (b) by a judge legally
appointed, duly qualified and actually acting eitherdejure or de facto.
Same; Same; Same; A judge de jure is one who exercises the office of a judge as a
matter of right, fully invested with all the powers and functions conceded to him
under the law.A judge de jure is one who exercises the office of a judge as a
matter of right, fully invested with all the powers and functions conceded to him
under the law. A judge de facto is one who exercises the office of judge under some
color of right. He has the reputation of the officer he assumes to be, yet he has
some defect in his right to exercise judicial functions at the particular time.
Same; Same; Same; Where the term of the judge has terminated and he has ceased
to act as judge, his subsequent acts in attempting to dispose of business he left
unfinished before the expiration of his term are void.In the case at bar, the
decision under review was validly promulgated. Although the effectivity of Judge de
Guzman, Jr.s disability retirement was made retroactive to February 16, 1996, it
cannot be denied that at the time his subject decision was promulgated on February
20, 1996, he was still the incumbent judge of the RTC, Branch LX of Baguio City, and
has in fact continued to hold said office and act as judge thereof until his application
for retirement was approved in June 1996. Thus, as of February 20, 1996 when the
decision convicting appellant was promulgated,
____________________

* EN BANC.
280

280
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Garcia
Judge de Guzman, Jr. was actually discharging his duties as a de facto judge. In
fact, as of that time, he has yet to file his application for disability retirement. To be
sure, as early as 1918, we laid down the principle that where the term of the judge
has terminated and he has ceased to act as judge, his subsequent acts in
attempting to dispose of business he left unfinished before the expiration of his
term are void. However, in the present case, as Judge de Guzman, Jr. was a de facto
judge in the actual exercise of his office at the time the decision under review was
promulgated on February 20, 1996, said decision is legal and has a valid and
binding effect on appellant.
Same; Same; Criminal Law; Arbitrary Detention and Expulsion; Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, penalizes a public officer who shall detain another
for some legal ground and fail to deliver him to the proper authorities for 36 hours
for crimes punishable by afflictive or capital penalties.Neither do we find anything
irregular with the turnover of appellant to the CIS Office. At the trial, it was
sufficiently clarified that this has been the practice of the arresting officers as their
office had previously arranged with the CIS for assistance with respect to
investigations of suspected criminals, the CIS Office being more specialized in the
area of investigation. Neither can the police officers be held liable for arbitrarily
detaining appellant at the CIS Office. Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, penalizes a public officer who shall detain another for some legal ground
and fail to deliver him to the proper authorities for 36 hours for crimes punishable
by afflictive or capital penalties. In the present case, the record bears that appellant
was arrested for possession of five (5) kilos of marijuana on November 28, 1994 at 2
p.m., a crime punishable with reclusion perpetua to death. He was detained for
further investigation and delivered by the arresting officers to the court in the
afternoon of the next day. Clearly, the detention of appellant for purposes of
investigation did not exceed the duration allowed by law, i.e., 36 hours from the
time of his arrest.
Evidence; Witness; Testimony; The testimony of a single witness, if positive and
credible, is enough to convict an accused.We find the testimony of Senior
Inspector Enmodias credible to sustain a judgment of conviction. We reiterate the
familiar rule that the testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, is
enough to convict an accused. For indeed, criminals are convicted not on the
281

VOL. 313, AUGUST 30, 1999

281
People vs. Garcia
number of witnesses presented against them, but on the credibility of the testimony
of even one witness. It bears stress that it is the quality, not the quantity, of
testimony that counts. To be sure, a corroborative testimony is not necessary where
the details of the crime have been testified to with sufficient clarity. As there was
nothing to indicate in this case that police officer Enmodias was inspired by illmotive to testify mendaciously against appellant, the trial court had every reason to
accord full faith and credit to his testimony.
Criminal Law; Modifying Circumstances; Penalties; The death sentence originally
imposed on appellant was correctly modified by the trial court and reduced to
reclusion perpetua as there was no aggravating circumstance present in the
commission of the crime.The death sentence originally imposed on appellant was
correctly modified by the trial court and reduced to reclusion perpetua as there was
no aggravating circumstance present in the commission of the crime. However,
both the Decision and Order of the trial court omitted to impose the penalty of fine.
APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Br. 60.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Juan Antonio Reyes Alberto III for accused-appellant.
PUNO, J.:

For review is the conviction of accused-appellant JESUS GARCIA y MANABAT for

illegal possession of five (5) kilos of marijuana for which he was initially sentenced
to death. The Information1 against him reads:
That on or about the 28th day of November, 1994, in the City of Baguio,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, did then and there willfully, un__________________

1 Rollo, p. 5.

282

282
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Garcia
lawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control five (5) kilos of
compressed marijuana dried leaves, without the authority of law to do so, in
violation of the abovecited provision of the law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pled not guilty.
The prosecutions case hinges on the testimony of Senior Inspector OLIVER
ENMODIAS. He recounted that on November 28, 1994, he and SPO3 JOSE
PANGANIBAN boarded a passenger jeepney from their office in Camp Dangwa, La
Trinidad, Benguet, en route to Baguio City. He took the seat behind the jeepney
driver while SPO3 Panganiban sat opposite him. They were in civilian attire. When
the jeepney reached Km. 4 or 5, accused JESUS GARCIA boarded the jeepney
carrying a plastic bag. He occupied the front seat, beside the driver and placed the
plastic bag on his lap. After a couple of minutes, the policemen smelled marijuana
which seemed to emanate from accuseds bag. To confirm their suspicion, they
decided to follow accused when he gets off the jeepney.2
The accused alighted at the Baguio City hall and the police officers trailed him. The
accused proceeded to Rizal Park and sat by the monument. Half a meter away, the
police officers saw the accused retrieve a green travelling bag from the back pocket
of his pants. He then transferred five (5) packages wrapped in newspaper from the
plastic bag to the green bag. As the newspaper wrapper of one of the packages was
partially torn, the police officers saw the content of the package. It appeared to be
marijuana.3 Forthwith, the policemen approached the accused and identified
themselves. The accused appeared to be nervous and did not immediately respond.
The policemen then asked the accused if they could inspect his travelling bag. The
accused surrendered his bag and the inspection revealed that it contained five (5)
bricks of what
__________________

2 March 1, 1995 TSN, pp. 4-6, 12-13.

3Ibid., pp. 6-7, 14-17, 19.

283

VOL. 313, AUGUST 30, 1999

283
People vs. Garcia
appeared to be dried marijuana leaves. The police officers then arrested the
accused and seized his bag. The accused was turned over to the CIS Office at the
Baguio Water District Compound for further investigation. He was appraised of his
custodial rights. At about 5 p.m., the arresting officers left for the crime laboratory
at Camp Dangwa, Benguet, for chemical analysis of the items seized from the
accused. The next day, the policemen executed their joint affidavit of arrest and
transferred the accused to the Baguio city jail. Verification by the arresting officers
of the records at the Narcotics Command revealed that the accuseds name was in
the list of drug dealers.4 The result of the chemical analysis of the five (5) items
seized from the accused confirmed that they were dried marijuana fruiting tops,
weighing a total of five (5) kilos.5
For his part, the accused admitted being at the locus criminis but denied possessing
marijuana or carrying any bag on November 28, 1994. He alleged that on said day,
at about 8:00 a.m., he left his residence in Angeles City to visit his brother, NICK
GARCIA, whom he had not seen for ten (10) years. He arrived in Baguio City at
12:30 p.m. Before proceeding to his brothers house, he took a stroll at the Rizal
Park. At about 2:00 p.m., two (2) men accosted him at the park. They did not
identify themselves as police officers. They held his hands and ordered him to go
with them. Despite his protestations, he was forcibly taken to a waiting car6 and
brought to a safe-house. There, he was asked about the source of his supply of illicit
drugs. When he denied knowledge of the crime imputed to him, he was brought to a
dark room where his hands were tied, his feet bound to a chair, his mouth covered
by tape and his eyes blindfolded. They started mauling him. Initially, he claimed he
was kicked and punched on the chest and thighs. When asked further whether he
suffered bruises and broken
___________________

4Ibid., pp. 6-8, 10-12, 20-23.

5 Testimony of forensic officer Police Senior Inspector Alma Margarita Villasenor,
February 2, 1995 TSN, pp. 3-10; Chemistry Report No. D-064-94, Original Records, p.
31.

6 April 25, 1995 TSN, pp. 2-6.

284

284
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Garcia
ribs, he answered in the negative. Thereafter, he explained that there were no
visible signs of physical abuse on his body as he was only punched, not kicked.
Notwithstanding the maltreatment he suffered, the accused claimed he stood firm
on his denial that he was dealing with illicit drugs.7
To corroborate accuseds testimony, the defense presented MANUEL DE GUZMAN, a
resident of Baguio City and a neighbor of accuseds brother Nick Garcia. He came to
know the accused in 1994 when accused visited his brother Nick, a few months
before accused was arrested in November that same year. He recounted that in the
afternoon of November 28, 1994, while he was walking along Rizal Park, he noticed
two (2) men holding the accuseds hands and forcing him to a car. He was then
about 8-10 meters away. He did not see the accused or any of the two men carrying
a bag.8
In a Decision, dated January 29, 1996, RTC Judge Pastor de Guzman, Jr.9 found the
accused guilty of illegal possession of prohibited drugs and sentenced him to suffer
the maximum penalty of death. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused Jesus Garcia y
Manabat guilty of the violation of Section 8, Art. II of R.A. 6425 as amended by R.A.
7659, involving possession of marijuana weighing 5 kilograms, beyond reasonable
doubt.
The penalty for the possession of marijuana weighing 5 kilograms as provided
under R.A. 6425 as amended by R.A. 7659 is Death. The Court has no recourse but
to sentence the accused Jesus Garcia y Manabat to suffer the death penalty. The law
is harsh but it must be followed and obeyed, dura lex sed lex.
SO ORDERED.
__________________

7Ibid., pp. 7-9.

8 June 20, 1995 TSN, pp. 2-11.

9 Presiding Judge, Branch LX, Baguio City; Rollo, pp. 17-22.

285

VOL. 313, AUGUST 30, 1999

285
People vs. Garcia
The decision was promulgated on February 20, 1996.
On February 26, 1996, the accused moved for reconsideration.10 He reiterated his
position that the uncorroborated testimony of prosecution witness Inspector
Enmodias was insufficient to establish his guilt. He further contended that he should
only be punished with reclusion perpetua.
On April 12, 1996, Judge de Guzman, Jr. filed an application for disability retirement.
This Court, in its en banc Resolution,11 dated June 18, 1996, approved his
application. The effectivity of his retirement was made retroactive to February 16,
1996.
On August 6, 1996, Acting Presiding Judge Eulogio Juan R. Bautista issued an
Order12 granting in part accuseds Motion for Reconsideration. For lack of
aggravating circumstance, the accuseds penalty for illegal possession of marijuana
was reduced from death to reclusion perpetua.
In the case at bar, appellant impugns his conviction on the following grounds: (a)
the decision convicting him of the crime charged was not validly promulgated as the
promulgation was
__________________

10 Original Records, pp. 178-182.

11 A.M. No. 8868-Ret.Re: Application for disability retirement of Judge Pastor V.
de Guzman, Jr.Acting on the application for disability retirement filed by Judge
Pastor V. De Guzman, Jr., Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Baguio City, under R.A. No.
910, as amended by R.A. No. 5095 and P.D. No. 1438, effective February 16, 1996
and it appearing that applicant is: (a) over 69 years of age with more than 41 years
of government service and (b) suffering from Parkinsons disease, Stage IV,
Hypertension, Stage II, Organic Brain Syndrome, Mild to Moderate, a condition which
falls within the classification of permanent total disability per memorandum of Dr.
Ramon S. Armedilla, Medical Officer IV, dated April 2, 1996, concurred in by Dr.

Cecilia C. Villegas, Director III and Dr. Rosa J. Mendoza, Director I, this Courts Clinic,
the Court resolved to APPROVE the aforesaid application for disability retirement of
Judge Pastor V. de Guzman, Jr., under the above-cited law, effective February 16,
1996, but payment of the benefits shall be subject to the availability of funds and
the usual clearance requirements.
12 Original Records, pp. 198-200.
286

286
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Garcia
made four (4) days after the retirement of the judge who penned the decision; (b)
the uncorroborated testimony of prosecution witness Senior Inspector Enmodias is
insufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. First, we shall thresh out
the procedural matter raised by appellant.
In his Motion for Clarification,13 appellant contends that since the decision under
review was promulgated on February 20, 1996, four (4) days after the approved
retirement of Judge de Guzman, Jr., his decision is void and has no binding effect.14
We reject this contention. Undisputably, a decision promulgated after the retirement
of the judge who signed it is null and void. Under the Rules on Criminal
Procedure,15 a decision is valid and binding only if penned and promulgated by the
judge during his incumbency. To be precise, a judgment has legal effect only when it
is rendered: (a) by a court legally constituted and in the actual exercise of judicial
powers, and (b) by a judge legally appointed, duly qualified and actually acting
either de jure or de facto.16 A judge de jure is one who exercises the office of a
judge as a matter of right, fully invested with all the powers and functions conceded
to him under the law. A judge de facto is one who exercises the office of judge under
some color of right. He has the reputation of the officer he assumes to be, yet he
has some defect in his right to exercise judicial functions at the particular time.17
_________________

13 Rollo, pp. 38-39.

14 In response to the Order of this Court for the filing of his Brief in this case,
appellant manifested that he adopts the contents of his Memorandum and Motion

for Reconsideration before the trial court as his Brief; SeeAdoption of Pleadings in
Lieu of Filing Appellants Brief; Rollo, pp. 42-43.
15 Rule 120, Section 6.
16 Lino Luna vs. Rodriguez and De los Angeles, 37 Phil. 186 (1917).
17Ibid.
287

VOL. 313, AUGUST 30, 1999

287
People vs. Garcia
In the case at bar, the decision under review was validly promulgated. Although the
effectivity of Judge de Guzman, Jr.s disability retirement was made retroactive to
February 16, 1996, it cannot be denied that at the time his subject decision was
promulgated on February 20, 1996, he was still the incumbent judge of the RTC,
Branch LX of Baguio City, and has in fact continued to hold said office and act as
judge thereof until his application for retirement was approved in June 1996. Thus,
as of February 20, 1996 when the decision convicting appellant was promulgated,
Judge de Guzman, Jr. was actually discharging his duties as a de facto judge. In fact,
as of that time, he has yet to file his application for disability retirement. To be sure,
as early as 1918, we laid down the principle that where the term of the judge has
terminated and he has ceased to act as judge, his subsequent acts in attempting to
dispose of business he left unfinished before the expiration of his term are void.18
However, in the present case, as Judge de Guzman, Jr. was a de facto judge in the
actual exercise of his office at the time the decision under review was promulgated
on February 20, 1996, said decision is legal and has a valid and binding effect on
appellant.19
On the merits, we likewise affirm appellants conviction.
In his Memorandum20 before the trial court, appellant insisted that the prosecution
was unable to discharge its onus of
__________________

18 Garchitorena vs. Crescini, 37 Phil. 675 (1918).

19 It is noteworthy that a different outcome would have resulted had Judge de
Guzman, Jr. applied for optional retirement instead of disability retirement. In cases

of optional retirement, SC Circular No. 16, dated December 2, 1986, specifically

provides that the application for optional retirement should be filed at least two (2)
months prior to its specified effective date (guideline #2) and when the specified
date of retirement is reached without the applicant receiving any notice of approval
or denial of his application, he shall automatically cease working and discharging his
functions unless directed otherwise (guideline #4); See also People vs. Labao, 220
SCRA 100 (1993).
20 Original Records, pp. 161-168; This was adopted by appellant as part of his Brief.
288

288
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Garcia
establishing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He maintained that the
uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutions main witness, Senior Inspector
Enmodias, is incredible and unreliable. Firstly, appellant pointed out that if the
police officers indeed smell the marijuana he was allegedly carrying while they were
all on board the jeepney, they should have immediately arrested him instead of
waiting for him to alight and stroll at the Rizal Park. Secondly, appellant faulted the
procedure adopted by the arresting officers who, after the arrest, took him to the
CIS Office at the Baguio Water District Compound for investigation instead of
bringing him to the nearest police station, as mandated under Section 5, Rule 113 of
the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Finally, appellant theorized that the prosecutions
omission or failure to present the other arresting officer, SPO3 Panganiban, to
corroborate the testimony of its witness Senior Inspector Enmodias was fatal to the
prosecutions case as the lone testimony of Enmodias failed to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
These contentions of appellant fail to persuade. The prosecution was able to prove
appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There is nothing irregular in the manner
appellant was apprehended by the police authorities. On the contrary, we find that,
without compromising their sworn duty to enforce the law, the police officers
exercised reasonable prudence and caution in desisting to apprehend appellant
inside the jeepney when they initially suspected he was in possession of marijuana.
They sought to verify further their suspicion and decided to trail appellant when the
latter alighted from the jeepney. It was only after they saw that one of the packages
with the torn wrapper contained what looked like marijuana fruiting tops did they
accost appellant and make the arrest. At that precise time, they had obtained
personal knowledge of circumstances indicating that appellant had illicit drugs in his

possession. They had reasonable ground upon which to base a lawful arrest without
a warrant.
Neither do we find anything irregular with the turnover of appellant to the CIS
Office. At the trial, it was sufficiently clarified that this has been the practice of the
arresting offi289

VOL. 313, AUGUST 30, 1999

289
People vs. Garcia
cers as their office had previously arranged with the CIS for assistance with respect
to investigations of suspected criminals, the CIS Office being more specialized in the
area of investigation.21 Neither can the police officers be held liable for arbitrarily
detaining appellant at the CIS Office. Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, penalizes a public officer who shall detain another for some legal ground
and fail to deliver him to the proper authorities for 36 hours for crimes punishable
by afflictive or capital penalties. In the present case, the record bears that appellant
was arrested for possession of five (5) kilos of marijuana on November 28, 1994 at 2
p.m., a crime punishable with reclusion perpetua to death. He was detained for
further investigation and delivered by the arresting officers to the court in the
afternoon of the next day. Clearly, the detention of appellant for purposes of
investigation did not exceed the duration allowed by law, i.e., 36 hours from the
time of his arrest.
Coming now to appellants defense, we find that his simplistic version of what
transpired that fateful day utterly failed to rebut the overwhelming evidence
presented by the prosecution. His testimony is not worthy of credence. Firstly,
appellant insists he did not bring any travelling bag or personal items with him.22
However, we find it baffling that one would visit a relative in a distant province and
fail to bring clothes and other personal belongings for the duration of his stay.
Secondly, while appellant repeatedly emphasized that he went to Baguio City to
visit his brother whom he had not seen for ten years,23 his corroborating witness,
de Guzman, adamantly insisted that the first time he met appellant was only
months before the arrest.24 Thirdly, we find it altogether disturbing that appellant,
without compunction, acknowledged in open court that he lied when he initially
claimed he was kicked by the police officers while under their custody. After
__________________

21 March 1, 1995 TSN, pp. 20 & 25.

22 April 20, 1995 TSN, p. 12.
23Ibid., p. 11.
24 June 20, 1995 TSN, pp. 5-6.
290

290
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Garcia
testifying that he was kicked and punched on the chest and thighs, appellant
unwittingly declared that he suffered no broken ribs or internal injury as a result of
the alleged mauling. Realizing the improbability of his claim of maltreatment, he
promptly altered his previous testimony. He sought to explain the lack of visible
signs of physical abuse on his body by clarifying that he was only punched, not
kicked, by the police authorities.25 Lastly, it runs counter to common experience
that an innocent person, wrongly accused of a crime and subjected to alleged
physical abuse by the authorities would keep mum about his plight. Yet, appellant,
through all the sufferings he supposedly underwent, would have us believe that he
has not confided to anyone, not even to his brother, his version of the incident, not
to mention the maltreatment he supposedly endured in the hands of the police
authorities.26 In sum, appellants defense lacks the ring of truth.
Neither did the testimony of appellants corroborating witness aid the defense as it
is equally flawed. De Guzman testified that he saw appellant being held by two men
and being forced into a car, yet he never revealed what he saw to appel-lants
brother Nick. No explanation was offered for this omission. Although de Guzman
thought that the two men harbored ill intentions in abducting appellant, he never
reported the incident to the police nor told Nick, appellants brother, about what he
witnessed. In fact, it was when Nick told him that appellant was in jail that de
Guzman allegedly mentioned to Nick what he saw days earlier.27
Treated separately, the incongruent details in the defense theory may appear
innocuous at first blush. However, the inconsistencies eventually add up, striking at
the very core of appellants defensethe real purpose of his presence at the crime
scene. The contradictions become disturbing as they remain unsatisfactorily
explained by the defense and unrebutted on record.
__________________

25 May 3, 1995 TSN, pp. 5-7.

26 April 20, 1995 TSN, p. 11.
27 June 20, 1995 TSN, pp. 6-11.
291

VOL. 313, AUGUST 30, 1999

291
People vs. Garcia
In sum, we find the testimony of Senior Inspector Enmo-dias credible to sustain a
judgment of conviction. We reiterate the familiar rule that the testimony of a single
witness, if positive and credible, is enough to convict an accused. For indeed,
criminals are convicted not on the number of witnesses presented against them, but
on the credibility of the testimony of even one witness.28 It bears stress that it is
the quality, not the quantity, of testimony that counts.29 To be sure, a corroborative
testimony is not necessary where the details of the crime have been testified to
with sufficient clarity.30 As there was nothing to indicate in this case that police
officer Enmodias was inspired by ill-motive to testify mendaciously against
appellant, the trial court had every reason to accord full faith and credit to his
testimony.31
On a final note: The death sentence originally imposed on appellant was correctly
modified by the trial court and reduced to reclusion perpetua as there was no
aggravating circumstance present in the commission of the crime. However, both
the Decision and Order of the trial court omitted to impose the penalty of fine.32
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Order, dated August 6, 1996, affirming the conviction of
appellant JESUS GARCIA y MANABAT for violation of Section 8, Article II of R.A. 6425,
as amended by R.A. 7659, but reducing his penalty to reclusion perpetua is
AFFIRMED, subject to the modification that additional penalty of fine in the amount
of ten million (P10,000,000.00) pesos is likewise imposed on him. Costs against
appellant.
___________________

28 People vs. Matubis, 288 SCRA 210 (1998); People vs. Correa, 285 SCRA 679
(1998).

29 Bautista vs. Court of Appeals, 288 SCRA 171 (1998).

30 People vs. Correa, supra.
31 People vs. Arellano, 282 SCRA 500 (1997).
32 Section 8 of R.A. 6425, as amended by R.A. 7659, provides the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to
ten million pesos for illegal possession of prohibited drugs.
292

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

292
People vs. Naguita
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Bellosillo, Melo, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes and Ynares-Santiago, JJ.,
concur.
Appealed decision affirmed with modification.
Notes.A judge who has retired could no longer continue working on a pending
case. (Re: Judge Luis B. Bello, Jr., 247 SCRA 519 [1995])
When the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, the consistent rule is that appellate
courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court. (People vs. Sotto, 275
SCRA 191 [1997]) People vs. Garcia, 313 SCRA 279, G.R. No. 126252 August 30,
1999