Hilbero vs. Morales, Jr.

A Rule 65 petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to challenge a DOJ resolution finding probable cause in a preliminary investigation for murder, an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua to death; the aggrieved party must first seek reconsideration by the DOJ and then appeal to the Office of the President under Memorandum Circular No. 58, and the DOJ's probable-cause determination may be disturbed only upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.

Petitioner Atty. Allan S. Hilbero is the son of Atty. Demetrio L. Hilbero, whose killing on June 16, 2007 gave rise to the preliminary investigation docketed as I.S. No. 1428-07. Respondent Florencio A. Morales, Jr. was among those implicated by eyewitness Reynaldo M. Leyva but was initially excluded by the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor-Laguna. The dispute concerns the DOJ's review of the preliminary investigation and the proper remedy for a party aggrieved by a DOJ resolution, with Memorandum Circular No. 58 limiting appeals to the Office of the President from DOJ preliminary-investigation resolutions to offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua to death involving new and material issues.

On June 16, 2007, Atty. Demetrio L. Hilbero and his wife, Estela S. Hilbero, attended the Saturday evening anticipated mass at the Calamba Catholic Church and then proceeded to Demetrio's law office along Gen. Lim St., Barangay 5, Calamba City, arriving around 7:45 p.m. Estela alighted first and went inside the office, while Demetrio went to a nearby store to buy cigarettes. As Demetrio was about to enter the gate of his office, two armed men on a motorcycle suddenly appeared and shot him several times; the gunmen escaped toward Mabini Street. Estela initially thought the gunshots were firecrackers, but upon checking she found Demetrio sprawled on the ground and cried for help. Demetrio was rushed to Calamba Medical Center and pronounced dead on arrival; initial medico-legal findings showed three gunshot wounds on the left side of his body. Three spent shells and one deformed slug of a .45 caliber pistol were recovered from the crime scene, and a cartographic sketch of one assailant was made from eyewitness descriptions. Relatives also informed investigators that Demetrio had been heard in a heated telephone argument with an unknown caller inside his office around 12:30 p.m. that day and appeared bothered and anxious afterward.

On December 26, 2007, P/Supt. Mariano Nachor Manaog, Jr. of the Laguna Criminal Investigation and Detection Team forwarded to the Calamba City Prosecution Office the investigation records, including a Sinumpaang Salaysay dated December 26, 2007 executed by Reynaldo M. Leyva. Reynaldo narrated that between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m. on June 16, 2007, while walking along Gen. Lim St. toward Mercury Drug, he passed the Morales-Alihan Tax Accounting Firm and saw a motorcycle parked beside two men talking, whom he recognized as Sandy Pamplona and Florencio Morales, Jr. After buying medicine and okoy, he saw a gray car park near a house; a woman entered the gate, and the man who remained outside was Atty. Demetrio Hilbero. Two men on a motorcycle then approached Demetrio; one alighted, drew a gun, and shot him, while the other, whom Reynaldo recognized as Lorie Pamplona, fired upward. The gunman was unknown to Reynaldo but he saw his face and believed he could identify him. The assailants fled, followed by another motorcycle that had earlier been parked at the Morales-Alihan Accounting Firm, ridden by Sandy Pamplona with Florencio Morales, Jr. as passenger, after the gunman signaled them. Reynaldo said he did not immediately report the incident because he feared for his life and his children, but his conscience bothered him; he went to the CIDG in Cabuyao on December 26, 2007, and from photographs identified Primo Lopez as the gunman, together with Lorie Pamplona, Sandy Pamplona, and Florencio Morales, Jr.

The preliminary investigation was docketed as I.S. No. 1428-07. Acting City Prosecutor Dominador A. Leyros, with Prosecutors Oscar T. Co and Elnora L. Nombrado of the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor of Region IV, San Pablo City, Laguna, conducted the investigation. In a Resolution dated May 6, 2008, the ORSP-Laguna found well-founded belief that Primo and Lorenzo were responsible for Demetrio's murder and ordered an Information for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, attended by nighttime, to be filed against them. It directed dismissal of the case against Sandy and respondent for lack of sufficient evidence, reasoning that Reynaldo positively identified Primo as the gunman and Lorenzo as the motorcycle driver, but that no evidence showed direct or indirect participation by Sandy or Morales; the alleged thumb's-up sign and the speeding off of the other motorcycle did not necessarily prove conspiracy and amounted at best to suspicion. An Information for murder against Primo and Lorenzo was filed before the RTC of Calamba City on May 15, 2008, docketed as Criminal Case No. 15782-2008-C.

Petitioner challenged the May 6, 2008 Resolution before the DOJ insofar as it cleared Sandy and Morales, while Primo and Lorenzo assailed the finding of probable cause against them. In a Resolution dated March 18, 2009, DOJ Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez granted the appeal of Primo and Lorenzo, denied petitioner's appeal, reversed and set aside the ORSP-Laguna Resolution, and directed withdrawal of the Information against Primo and Lorenzo. He doubted Reynaldo's statement because of allegations that Reynaldo worked for petitioner and was a relative, had a grudge against respondent's father, failed to aid the victim, and waited more than six months before coming forward. Petitioner filed a Motion for Declaration of Nullity or Reconsideration, alleging that he and his counsel were not furnished a copy of the March 18, 2009 Resolution and raising the positive identification of all four accused and the need to evaluate conspiracy. Respondent, in his Comment and Opposition, defended the Gonzalez Resolution and for the first time presented the Kusang Loob na Salaysay dated March 7, 2008 of Lydia M. Leyva-Alcaide, purportedly Reynaldo's sister, who claimed that Reynaldo was persuaded by money and had a grudge against respondent's family, and that Reynaldo's statements were insufficient to show conspiracy by Sandy and Morales.

In a Resolution dated September 30, 2009, Acting DOJ Secretary Agnes VST De Vanadera granted petitioner's motion for reconsideration and set aside the Gonzalez Resolution. She held that the credibility of Reynaldo's testimony was evidentiary and best addressed to the trial court, that positive identification prevails over alibi and denial, and that probable cause existed to indict Sandy and Morales for murder. According to Acting Secretary De Vanadera, Morales and Sandy were not mere bystanders but active participants who acted as lookouts, waited for the victim, stayed during the execution of the crime, and fled with the gunman and driver in a synchronized and coordinated manner, evidencing conspiracy. She directed the ORSP-Laguna to file or amend the Information to include Sandy and Morales. In compliance, an Amended Information was filed, and the RTC admitted it on December 2, 2009 and ordered warrants of arrest. Respondent then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals without first filing a motion for reconsideration with the DOJ, arguing that the De Vanadera Resolution was a patent nullity, that Lydia's salaysay refuted Reynaldo, and that urgency required relief. Petitioner countered that the Rule 65 petition was procedurally defective for failure to file a motion for reconsideration and that the DOJ did not gravely abuse its discretion.

• OSG Impleading: Petitioner argued that respondent's failure to implead the Office of the Solicitor General as counsel for the Department of Justice in CA-G.R. SP No. 111191 warranted outright dismissal of the petition.
• Failure to File Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioner maintained that respondent's failure to file a motion for reconsideration of Acting DOJ Secretary De Vanadera's Resolution dated September 30, 2009 before the DOJ was a condition precedent for a Rule 65 petition and rendered the CA petition dismissible.
• Availability of Appeal to the Office of the President: Petitioner argued that respondent had the plain and adequate remedy of appealing the DOJ resolution to the Office of the President, and that certiorari was therefore improper.
• No Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner insisted that Acting DOJ Secretary De Vanadera did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to charge respondent, along with Primo, Lorenzo, and Sandy, for Demetrio's murder.
• Lydia's Kusang Loob na Salaysay: Petitioner posited that Lydia's Kusang Loob na Salaysay deserved no probative value because it was never presented during the preliminary investigation and was executed only after the preliminary investigation had been submitted for resolution.
• RTC Probable Cause: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in dropping respondent from the Information even though the RTC had admitted the Amended Information and issued a warrant of arrest.
• Affirmative Relief to a Fugitive: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in granting affirmative relief to respondent, who was allegedly a fugitive from justice and had no personality or right to seek such relief.

• Dismissal for Want of Evidence: Respondent countered that the CA, DOJ Secretary Gonzalez, and the panel of prosecutors correctly ruled and did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering dismissal for want of evidence against him.
• No Conspiracy / Mere Presence: Respondent argued that petitioner and his discredited witness failed to establish any evidence that Morales was a co-conspirator, and that mere presence at the scene, assuming it true, does not make him a co-conspirator.
• Fabricated Eyewitness: Respondent argued that the attachments submitted by petitioner, especially before the DOJ, showed that eyewitness Reynaldo Leyva fabricated and lied when he claimed to identify the gunman.
• Elements of Murder Not Established: Respondent argued that the elements of murder were never established even at the preliminary investigation.
• Grave Abuse by Acting Secretary De Vanadera: Respondent argued that Acting Secretary De Vanadera committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or want of jurisdiction in charging the four accused, especially respondent, absent the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, treachery, and abuse of superior strength.
• Forum Shopping: Respondent argued that petitioner and his counsel were guilty of forum shopping, for which the petition and the CA petition should both be dismissed.
• OSG Not a Party: Respondent argued that the Solicitor General is not a party to be impleaded in the case.
• Not a Fugitive: Respondent argued that he complied with the procedural rules and is not a fugitive from justice.
• Erroneous RTC Probable Cause: Respondent argued that the RTC finding of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest was based on the erroneous findings of Acting Secretary De Vanadera and was set aside by the court.
• Gonzales vs. De Vanadera Precedent: Respondent argued that the CA decision in Luisito Q. Gonzales, et al. vs. Acting Secretary of Justice Agnes VST De Vanadera, et al. was in all fours with the factual settings and should be applied.

• OSG Impleading: Whether respondent's failure to implead the Office of the Solicitor General as counsel for the Department of Justice in his Rule 65 petition warranted dismissal of the petition.
• Wrong Remedy / Motion for Reconsideration: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to respondent's Rule 65 petition despite his failure to file a motion for reconsideration with the DOJ and the availability of an appeal to the Office of the President.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that Acting DOJ Secretary De Vanadera gravely abused her discretion in finding probable cause to charge respondent with murder.
• Dropping Respondent from the Information: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering respondent dropped from the Information despite the DOJ's probable-cause finding and the RTC's admission of the Amended Information and issuance of a warrant of arrest.
• Affirmative Relief to an Alleged Fugitive: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting affirmative relief to respondent, who petitioner alleged was a fugitive from justice.

• OSG Impleading: No. The OSG need not be impleaded as a public respondent because it is not the actual party in litigation and, under Section 5, Rule 65, the private respondent must appear and defend the public respondent.
• Wrong Remedy / Motion for Reconsideration: Yes. The CA should have dismissed the Rule 65 petition; the proper remedy was a motion for reconsideration before the DOJ and, if denied, an appeal to the Office of the President under Memorandum Circular No. 58, since murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death and a new and material issue was raised.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The DOJ's probable-cause finding was based on eyewitness Reynaldo Leyva's credible narration and positive identification and was not shown to be tainted by grave abuse of discretion; respondent's defenses were for trial.
• Dropping Respondent from the Information: Yes. The CA's order dropping respondent from the Information was reversed and set aside, and the DOJ Resolution dated September 30, 2009 directing his inclusion as an accused was reinstated.
• Affirmative Relief to an Alleged Fugitive: Not reached. The decision does not separately resolve this contention; the petition was granted on the wrong-remedy and no-grave-abuse grounds.

• OSG Impleading: The OSG represents the Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and its officials and agents, but it is not the actual party in any case it handles for the government. Under Section 5, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, when a petition relates to the acts or omissions of a public respondent, the petitioner must join as private respondent the person interested in sustaining the proceedings, and it is the private respondent's duty to appear and defend both in his own behalf and in behalf of the public respondent. Public respondents are nominal unless specifically directed otherwise. Thus, respondent need not implead the OSG as a public respondent, and the DOJ, as public respondent, did not have to actively participate unless directed by the CA. The CA merely noted the OSG's Manifestation that it was not filing a memorandum because it had no participation in CA-G.R. SP No. 111191.
• Wrong Remedy / Motion for Reconsideration: A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a special civil action available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It is used to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, but if appeal is available, appeal must be taken even if the ground relied upon is grave abuse of discretion. Memorandum Circular No. 58, issued by the Office of the President on June 30, 1993, limits appeals from or petitions for review of DOJ decisions, orders, or resolutions on preliminary investigations to offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua to death where new and material issues are raised that were not previously presented before the DOJ and were not ruled upon, filed within 30 days from notice. Murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Lydia's Kusang Loob na Salaysay was not presented during the preliminary investigation nor in the appeal proceedings before DOJ Secretary Gonzalez and was first mentioned and attached to respondent's Comment and Opposition to petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration; it was a new and material issue not previously ruled upon by the DOJ. Respondent should therefore have appealed to the Office of the President, and from there to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. Respondent also failed to file a motion for reconsideration of Acting DOJ Secretary De Vanadera's Resolution dated September 30, 2009, which was fatal. Section 13 of DOJ Department Circular No. 70 allows a motion for reconsideration within a non-extendible period of 10 days from receipt of the resolution on appeal, and the filing of such a motion is intended to afford the DOJ an opportunity to correct any actual or fancied error. The recognized exceptions to the motion-for-reconsideration requirement did not apply; respondent's claims of patent nullity and extreme urgency were unavailing.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: A public prosecutor's determination of probable cause for filing an information is essentially an executive function generally beyond judicial scrutiny; the exception is when the determination is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion refers to a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and the abuse must be patent and gross, amounting to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. Probable cause for filing a criminal information exists when the facts are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof; it does not require actual and positive cause or absolute certainty, and it need not rest on clear and convincing evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt. Acting DOJ Secretary De Vanadera found probable cause based on eyewitness Reynaldo's credible narration of the circumstances surrounding the shooting and his positive identification of the culprits. There was no basis to conclude that she issued her Resolution capriciously, whimsically, arbitrarily, or despotically, by reason of passion and hostility. Respondent's defenses to the murder charge, including his arguments on conspiracy and credibility, should be properly threshed out and ventilated in the trial of Criminal Case No. 15782-2008-C before the RTC. The CA therefore should not have disturbed the DOJ's findings absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.
• Dropping Respondent from the Information: Because the CA should have dismissed respondent's Rule 65 petition and because no grave abuse of discretion tainted Acting DOJ Secretary De Vanadera's Resolution dated September 30, 2009, the CA's order dropping respondent from the Information could not stand. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside that order and reinstated the September 30, 2009 DOJ Resolution directing respondent's inclusion as an accused in the Information for the murder of Atty. Demetrio L. Hilbero.
• Affirmative Relief to an Alleged Fugitive: The decision does not separately discuss or resolve petitioner's contention that respondent was a fugitive from justice. The petition was granted on the wrong-remedy and no-grave-abuse grounds, and the dispositive portion does not rest on the fugitive issue.

• Probable cause for filing a criminal information — Probable cause exists when facts are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. It does not require actual and positive cause or absolute certainty; it is enough that more likely than not a crime was committed by the suspect, and it need not rest on clear and convincing evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court applied this standard to uphold Acting DOJ Secretary De Vanadera's finding that Reynaldo's eyewitness account and positive identification sufficiently supported charging Morales with murder.
• Grave abuse of discretion as the exception to non-interference in prosecutorial probable-cause determinations — A public prosecutor's determination of probable cause for filing an information is essentially an executive function generally beyond judicial scrutiny; the exception is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse means a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, patent and gross, or an evasion of positive duty. The Court found no such abuse because De Vanadera relied on Reynaldo's credible narration and positive identification, and respondent's defenses were evidentiary matters for trial.
• Certiorari under Rule 65 and the motion-for-reconsideration requirement — Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A motion for reconsideration is generally a condition sine qua non before filing a Rule 65 petition, intended to give the public respondent an opportunity to correct errors; the recognized exceptions did not apply to respondent. The Court held that the CA should have dismissed the Rule 65 petition because respondent failed to file a motion for reconsideration before the DOJ.
• Appeal to the Office of the President under Memorandum Circular No. 58 — Under MC No. 58, appeals from or petitions for review of DOJ decisions, orders, or resolutions on preliminary investigations are not entertained by the Office of the President except those involving offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua to death where new and material issues are raised that were not previously presented before the DOJ and not ruled upon, filed within 30 days from notice. Murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, and Lydia's Kusang Loob na Salaysay was a new and material issue; respondent should have appealed to the OP, then to the CA under Rule 43.
• OSG as counsel for the government and nominal public respondent — The OSG represents the Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and its officials and agents, but it is not the actual party in cases it handles. Under Section 5, Rule 65, the private respondent must appear and defend the public respondent, and public respondents are nominal unless directed otherwise. Thus, respondent's failure to implead the OSG did not warrant dismissal.
• Probable cause does not adjudicate guilt or defenses — A preliminary investigation determines probable cause, not guilt; defenses such as denial, alibi, lack of conspiracy, or credibility of witnesses are matters for trial. The Court held that respondent's arguments against the charge, including his defenses, should be ventilated in the trial of Criminal Case No. 15782-2008-C rather than resolved in the certiorari petition.

• "A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is a special civil action that may be resorted to only in the absence of appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." — States the threshold rule for certiorari and supports the holding that respondent's CA petition was the wrong remedy.
• "Based on MC No. 58, Acting DOJ Secretary De Vanadera's Resolution dated September 30, 2009 is appealable administratively to the Office of the President since the crime of murder, with which respondent is charged, is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. From the Office of the President, the aggrieved party may file an appeal with the Court of Appeals pursuant to Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court." — Identifies the proper remedy and the route from the DOJ to the Office of the President and then to the Court of Appeals.
• "Respondent failed to establish that Acting DOJ Secretary De Vanadera committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in finding probable cause to charge him for the murder of Demetrio." — States the core substantive holding on the absence of grave abuse of discretion.
• "Acting DOJ Secretary De Vanadera, in her Resolution dated September 30, 2009, found probable cause to charge respondent for the murder of Demetrio based on eyewitness Reynaldo's credible narration of the circumstances surrounding the shooting of Demetrio and his positive identification of the culprits." — Explains the evidentiary basis for the DOJ's probable-cause finding and why the CA should not have disturbed it.

• Aguilar vs. Department of Justice, 717 Phil. 789, 798-800 (2013) — Cited for the guiding principles on judicial review of a public prosecutor's probable-cause determination, including that grave abuse of discretion is the exception and that probable cause does not require absolute certainty.
• Reyes vs. Pearlbank Securities, Inc. (citation not stated in the text) — Cited for the standard that probable cause need only rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed by the suspects, not clear and convincing evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast Phils., Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 716 Phil. 500, 512 (2013) — Cited for the rule that certiorari under Rule 65 is available only in the absence of appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
• Philippine Electric Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 168612, December 10, 2014, 744 SCRA 361, 389 — Cited for the rule that if appeal is available, an appeal must be taken even if the ground relied upon is grave abuse of discretion.
• De Ocampo vs. Secretary of Justice, 515 Phil. 702, 710 (2006) — Cited for the remedy that from the Office of the President, the aggrieved party may file an appeal with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.
• Pure Foods Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 253 Phil. 411, 420-421 (1989) — Cited for the purpose of a motion for reconsideration: to afford the public respondent an opportunity to correct any actual or fancied error by reexamining the legal and factual aspects of the case.
• Republic of the Philippines vs. Bayao, 710 Phil. 279, 287-288 (2013) — Cited for the recognized exceptions to the motion-for-reconsideration requirement and the Court's conclusion that none applied to respondent.
• Siok Ping Tang vs. Subic Bay Distribution, Inc., 653 Phil. 124, 136-137 (2010) — Cited in Bayao for the same exceptions to the motion-for-reconsideration requirement.

• Section 5, Rule 65, Revised Rules of Court — Requires the petitioner to join as private respondent the person interested in sustaining the proceedings and makes it the duty of such private respondent to appear and defend the public respondent; public respondents are nominal unless directed. Applied to hold that respondent need not implead the OSG and that petitioner, as private respondent, had the duty to defend the DOJ resolution.
• Memorandum Circular No. 58, Office of the President (June 30, 1993) — Limits appeals to the Office of the President from DOJ decisions, orders, or resolutions on preliminary investigations to offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua to death involving new and material issues not previously presented before the DOJ and not ruled upon, filed within 30 days from notice. Applied because murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death and Lydia's Kusang Loob na Salaysay was a new and material issue.
• Section 13, DOJ Department Circular No. 70 (National Prosecution Service Rule on Appeal, July 3, 2000) — Allows the aggrieved party to file a motion for reconsideration within a non-extendible period of 10 days from receipt of the resolution on appeal and prohibits a second or further motion. Applied to hold that respondent's failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the DOJ was fatal to his Rule 65 petition.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes murder, punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Applied to classify the offense as within the limited category of DOJ preliminary-investigation resolutions appealable to the Office of the President under MC No. 58.
• Rule 43, Revised Rules of Court — Provides the appeal to the Court of Appeals from the Office of the President. Applied as the next remedy after an OP appeal from the DOJ resolution.
• Section 35, Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV, Administrative Code of 1987 — Provides that the OSG represents the Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and its officials and agents in litigation and constitutes the law office of the Government. Applied to hold that the OSG is not the actual party and need not be impleaded.
• Rule 45, Revised Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court. Applied as the procedural vehicle for petitioner's challenge to the CA decision.
• Section 18, Administrative Order No. 22, series of 2011 — States that appeals from decisions, resolutions, or orders of the DOJ shall continue to be limited to those involving offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua to death in accordance with MC No. 58. Cited in the decision's footnote to reinforce the appeal limitation.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chairperson); Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo; Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe; Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa.