Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > May 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12907 May 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MORO AMBAHANG

108 Phil 325:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-12907. May 30, 1960.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, v. MORO AMBAHANG, ET AL., Defendants. HANDAN AMID, INAMA MORSAN, NICOLAS CARPIO alias COLAS AMBAHANG MORO, defendants and appellants.

Luis R. Flor Cruz for appellant Ambahang.

Gregorio E. Fajardo for other appellants.

Acting Assistant Solicitor General Pacifico P. de Castro for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. EVIDENCE ALIBI; WHEN DEFENSE WILL NOT BE CREDITED. — Even in cases where proof of alibi is well-supported by the testimony of witnesses, it will not be credited when the identity of the accused as the persons who committed the crime is fully established by clear, explicit and positive testimony, U.S. v. Pascua, 1 Phil., 631; U.S. v. Hudieres, 27 Phil., 45.)

2. ID.; CREDIBILITY; IDENTIFICATION OF ASSAILANTS BY THEIR VICTIMS. — It is a matter of common experience that victims of violence strive to know the identity of their assailants. In the case at bar, the victims were the subject of extraordinary pressure of stress, and the occurrence is consequently impressed on their minds.

3. ID.; EVIDENCE NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH ROBBERY. — When a person is charged with robbery, the intent to rob must be proven. (U.S. v. Villorente, Et. Al.; 30 Phil., 59; People v. Barruga, 61 Phil., 318.) This necessarily includes evidence that the accused carried away the effects or personality of the offended party. In the absence of such evidence, the accused cannot be held liable for robbery.

4. CRIMINAL LAW; CONSPIRACY; DIRECT PROOF NOT NECESSARY. — Direct proof is not necessary to show conspiracy. (People v. Calucer, L-6460, May 7, 1954; People v. Alfiler, 104 Phil., 410; 56 Off. Gaz., [5] 936; People v. Gutierrez, L-7101, June 30, 1956; People v. Moises, L-10876, September 23, 1958.) If it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among them to concert is proved. (People v. Carbonel, 48 Phil., 868.)


D E C I S I O N


PER CURIAM:


Moro Ambahang, Handan Amid (alias Rodolfo Enriquez), Inama Morsan, Nicolas Carpio (alias Colas), and Sabturani Caponol, were charged in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur (in Crim. Case No. 723) with the crime of robbery in band with multiple murder and serious physical injuries. On arraignment, they pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court acquitted Sabturani Caponol, but convicted Moro Ambahang, Handan Amid, Inama Morsan, and Nicolas Carpio, of the crime charged, and sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of death, to pay indemnity in the amount of P3,000.00 to the heirs of Tulawa Subano, Dandolit Subano, Dodong Subana (a woman), and Nanibong Subana (a girl 9 years old), and P1,000.00 to Subanos Alobad and Inontong, and Subanas Tuwawa, Tokling, and Felisa Juliana, and 1/5 of the costs.

The case is now before us for review, pursuant to the provisions of Section 9, Rule 118, of the Rules of Court.

The evidence clearly establish that at around 9 o’clock on the night of May 18, 1956, a group of Subanos, more than 20 in number including women and children, were gathered at the house of Inontong Subano, at Gogawanbugas, Ipil, Zamboanga del Sur, to discuss work (pintacasi) on the following day. While they were discussing, the accused Handan Amid, Inama Morsan, and Nicolas Carpio, suddenly appeared at the scene and asked for Tulawa Subano. The accused Moro Ambahang remained under the house. In answer to the query, Tulawa said: "Here I am." Thereupon, Handan Amid, who was armed with a Japanese rifle (Similar to Exh. A), fired at the former, hitting him at the breast and felling him. Handan Amid then fired at the group, hitting Dandolit Subano, Dodong Subana, Nanibong Subana, and others.

The sudden and unexpected attack produced consternation and confusion among the group, who started to scamper and jump outside the house. The accused Inama Morsan and Nicolas Carpio, both armed with sharp bolos, called "barong" similar to (Exhs. B and C), slashed indiscriminately at the fleeing Subanos, wounding them severely. Moro Ambahang, who was under the house armed with a rifle (similar to Exh. D) fired at the fleeing Alobad Subano twice, hitting the latter on his lap. The accused Sabturani Caponol was some 50 meters away from the house. When Impos Subano, one of those who fled, passed by him (Sabturani) while running to the bushes to hide, the latter stood up and was about to chase the former.

As a consequence of the assault, 4 Subanos were killed, namely, Tulawa Subano, Dandolit Subano, Dodong Subana, and Nanibong Subana — all victims of the indiscriminate shooting by Handan Amid. The wounded victims, Tokling Subana, Felisa Subana, Tuwawa Subana, Inontong Subano, and Alobad Subano, suffered injuries as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) Tokling Subana:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Incised wound, back 7" long, 3 1/2" wide and 1 1/2" deep." (Exh. G.)

Treatment of the wound lasted more than 2 months.

(2) Felisa Subana:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Incised wound, left shoulder, 4" long, 2 1/2" wide, and 1 1/2" deep.

"2. Incised wound, neck back, 6" long, 3 1/2" wide, and 3" deep." (Exh. H.) .

Treatment of the wounds lasted more than 1 1/2 months.

(3) Tuwawa Subana:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘1. Gun Shot, right leg, thru and thru." (Exh. I.) Treatment of the wound lasted nearly 1 month. But she sustained broken bones on the injured part, for which reason, the duration of the treatment was longer. Handaon Amid inflicted the wound.

(4) Inontong Subano:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Incised wound, back, left, 6" long, 3 1/2 wide, and 4 1/2" deep.

"2. Punctured wound, back, 1/2" long, 1/4" wide, and 1/5" deep." (Exh. J.)

Treatment of the wounds lasted from 25 to 30 days.

Nicolas Carpio inflicted the wounds.

(5) Alobad Subano:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Incised wound, left elbow, 4" long, 1 1/2" wide, 2" deep.

"2. Incised wound, right arm, 6" long, 3" wide, and 2" deep.

"3. Incised wound, left back, 1" long, 1/2" wide, and 1" deep.

"4. Gun shot, left lap, thru and thru." (Exh. K.)

Treatment of the wounds lasted more than 2 months. He sustained broken bones in the elbows. Wounds were inflicted by Inama Morsan, Nicolas Carpio, and Moro Ambahang.

Impos Subano, an inmate of the house and one of those who fled that night by reason of the attack which took place, returned to the scene the following morning. He saw the dead and wounded victims. He discovered empty cartridge shells (Exhs. E, E-1, E-2, and E-3) and a live bullet (Exh. F) inside the house. He also found out that their clothes and things in the house were gone. Of his personal belongings, the following were missing; 1 piece of drill cloth for trousers, valued at P20.00; 1 white cloth (long piece) valued at P30.00; 1 turban worth P60.00; and 1 gong which was shot at, valued at P80.00 — all totalling P190.00. He lost no time in informing the local authorities at Ipil about the incident. Starting early in the morning of the following day and running all the way along, he reached the municipal building of Ipil at noon of the same day. He met the Chief of Police of Ipil and related to him the incident. He was taken to the Justice of the Peace, who interrogated him about the robbery. Thereafter, he went back to Gogawanbugas to guide the police force that accompanied him to investigate the crime and to seize the culprits. The latter had, however, fled. The wounded were taken to the Zamboanga General Hospital for treatment.

Several weeks later, some of the accused including Sabturani Caponel were arrested. Moro Ambahang and Nicolas Carpio hid in a cave at Kamanga, Ipil. Guided by Sabturani Caponol, a combined Philippine Constabulary and police force headed by the Chief of Police, raided the hideout of said 2 accused in the afternoon. After a brief exchange of fire, Nicolas Carpio was captured with his rifle (Exh. A). Moro Ambahang was able to escape, but because of the police authorities’ relentless pursuit, he finally surrendered to the PC, which confiscated from him a rifle (similar to Exh. D).

The appellants interposed alibi as their only defense as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Handan Amid testified that he was in his house at Dalangin on the night of the incident, with his wife and father-in-law; that he had never gone to Gogawanbugas; and that he does not know the victims.

Inama Morsan declared that on the night in question, he was in his house at Lawagan and, therefore, could not have participated in the commission of the crime.

Nicolas Carpio stated that he was in his house at Labason on the night of the killing; that he knows the prosecution witnesses; and that they are his friends.

Moro Ambahang averred that he did not participate in the execution of the offense; that he was at Bacalan on the night of the incident; and that he does not know the victims.

The above testimonies of the appellants were not corroborated by any witness.

As a rule, alibi is a weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive testimony of truthful witnesses. The reason is that it is easy of fabrication. (People v. Badilla, 48 Phil., 718; People v. De Asis, 61 Phil., 384 People v. Japitana, 77 Phil., 175.) Indeed, even in cases where proof of alibi is well-supported by the testimony of witnesses, it would not be credited, when the identity of the accused as the persons who committed the crime is fully established by clear, explicit, and positive testimony, as in the instant case. (U.S. v. Pascua, 1 Phil., 631; U.S. v. Hudieres, 27 Phil., 45.)

We find appellants’ alibi in this case to be weak and uncorroborated. We agree with the lower court that "living as they did within the municipality of Ipil, it is not hard to conceive that they (accused) could be present in their respective houses on the same day, or even on the same night and within two hours appear at Gogawanbugas and commit the dastardly act." Said alibi, therefore, deserves no serious consideration and must be disregarded.

The identities of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime were fully established by the clear, explicit and positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Nicolas Carpio was previously known to Alobad Subano because said accused used to go to Alobad’s house and ate there. As for Handan Amid and Inama Morsan although they presented new faces to the group, yet because of the light furnished by 3 kerosene lamps inside the house, they were distinctly and positively recognized and identified by their victims. Thus, Alobad Subano, Tokling Subano, Tuwawa Subano, Inontong Subano and Impos Subano identified the appellants, Inama Morsan, Handan Amid, and Nicolas Carpio, as the trio who went up the house and attacked them treacherously and mercilessly. Moro Ambahang was fully identified by prosecution witnesses Impos Subano and Mariano Tulawe. The first testified that, although he did not know the name of Moro Ambahang before, he had met him prior to the incident in a place called Bantayan. So, during the commission of the crime, he recognized him by the light of the moon, as it was then moonlight night. Mariano Tulawe also declared that when he went down from his house which is near Inontong’s house, to find out the cause of the commotion there, he saw Moro Ambahang at the stairs of said house, holding a rifle, and moments later, he again saw him (Moro Ambahang) in the act of shooting at Alobad. This testimony is also corroborated by Impos Subano’s statement.

It is a matter of common experience that victims of violence strive to know the identity of their assailants. As aptly observed by the trial court, said victims were the subject of extraordinary pressure or stress, and the occurrence is consequently impressed on their minds like red-hot iron. Indeed, such a harrowing experience as that which the prosecution witnesses went through during that fateful night of May 18, 1956, must have seared into their memories as to enable said witnesses to point without hesitation, to the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime with which they have been charged.

There is absolutely no showing as to any possible motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses that could have impelled them to testify falsely against the appellants. We agree with the Solicitor General that being aware of the gravity of the crime charged and the severe penalty which may be meted out to the appellants, should they be convicted of the offense charged, said prosecution witnesses would have recoiled from pointing to the former as the malefactors, unless they were certain of the truth.

Appellants, however, contend that there was no proof of robbery in this case and, therefore, the application of Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code, by the trial court, is erroneous.

There is merit in the contention. In arriving at the conclusion that the appellants committed the robbery imputed to them, the trial court considered the lone uncorroborated testimony of Impos Subano that when he returned to the scene of the killing the following morning, he found their clothes and things in the house, including his personal belongings already gone. On the basis of his testimony, the court stated that "although he (Impos Subano) did not see who stole said things, it is presumed that the accused carried them away at night when everybody scampered for safety."cralaw virtua1aw library

It will be observed that the conclusion of the trial court is predicated, not on substantial evidence, but purely on mere presumptions. This, in our opinion, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction of the crime charged. It has been held that when a person is charged with robbery, the intent to rob (which is intent of gain) must be proven. (U.S. v. Villorente, Et Al., 30 Phil., 59; People v. Barruga, 61 Phil., 318). This necessarily includes evidence to the effect that the accused carried away the effects or personality of the offended party. In the instant case, there is absence of proof that the appellants, on the night in question, did intend to rob the house of Inontong Subano. There is, likewise, total want of evidence that the appellants were the ones who carried away the things in said house. 1 In the absence of such evidence, we can not in conscience hold that the appellants had committed robbery on the night in question.

Appellants, also, argue that there was no evidence of conspiracy to justify the imposition of the penalty on all of them, irrespective of the extent or nature of their individual participation in the commission of the crime.

There is no merit in the contention. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy. 2 If it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among them to concert is proved. (People v. Carbonel, 48 Phil., 868.) We agree with the trial court that "the mere fact that the appellants were together all armed, and almost simultaneously attacked the victims upon the firing of a shot by one of them aimed directly at Tulawa Subano, clearly indicates that unity of purpose which is an unmistakable sign of conspiracy." Conspiracy having been established, appellants are equally guilty of, and liable for, the crimes committed.

Accordingly, we find appellants guilty of the crime of murder (for the killing of the 4 Subanos), qualified by treachery, as the attack was sudden and unexpected. 3 In the victims who were unarmed, thereby insuring the execution of the crime without risk to appellants from the defense which said victims might have made; and serious physical injuries (for the wounding of the 5 Subanos). The aggravating circumstances of band and dwelling, attended the commission of both crimes.

Although the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction may be considered in favor of the appellants who are unschooled, the same would not alter the result considering that 2 aggravating circumstances attended the commission of said crimes.

Pursuant to law 4 and the applicable jurisprudence, 5 we hereby impose upon each of the appellants four (4) penalties of death (for the murder of 4 victims) and five (5) penalties of prisión correccional (for the serious physical injuries caused to 5 victims).

Modified as above indicated, the decision of the trial court is in all respects affirmed, with costs against the appellants. It is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Barrera, and Gutiérrez David, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Testimony of Impos Subano, pl. 55, t.s.n. :jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. So you did not see the accused when he left the house?

A. I did not see.

"Q. And you did not therefore see whether the accused carried with them the things you mentioned to this Court — the drill cloth, white cloth, turban, etc?

"A. I did not see."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. People v. Calucer, L-6460, May 7, 1954; People v. Alfiler, 104 Phil., 410; 56 Off. Gaz. 936; People v. Gutierrez, L-7101, June 30, 1956; People v. Moises, L-10876, September 23, 1958.

3. People v. Noble, 77 Phil., 93; People v. Bandojo, 70 Phil 486; People v. Dosal, 92 Phil., 877; People v. Martinez, L-12268, November 28, 1959.

4. See Arts. 248 & 263(3), Rev. Penal Code.

5. U.S. v. Balaba, 37 Phil., 260; U.S. v. Lahoylahoy, Et Al., 38 Phil., 330; People v. Cho, Et Al., 45 Phil., 137.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12007 May 16, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SERREE INVESTMENT COMPANY

    108 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-13831 May 16, 1960 - DIOSDADO CHAVEZ v. BUENAVENTURA GANZON

    108 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. L-13092 May 18, 1960 - EMILIA MENDOZA v. CAMILO BULANADI

    108 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. L-13208 May 18, 1960 - OREN IGO v. NATIONAL ABACA CORP.

    108 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-13783 May 18, 1960 - FRANCISCO CAPALUNGAN v. FULGENCIO MEDRANO

    108 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. L-15300 May 18, 1960 - MANUEL REGALADO v. PROVINCIAL CONSTABULARY COMMANDER OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL

    108 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. L-10948 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO MORTERO

    108 Phil 31

  • G.R. Nos. L-11795-96 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RECARIDO JARDENIL

    108 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. L-12446 May 20, 1960 - ELISEO SILVA v. BELEN CABRERA

    108 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-12546 May 20, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS P. PAREDES

    108 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-12726 May 20, 1960 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. VISITACION CONSUNTO

    108 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-13046 May 20, 1960 - EGMIDIO T. PASCUA v. PEDRO TUASON

    108 Phil 69

  • G.R. No. L-13372 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO SABUERO

    108 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-13484 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR CAMERINO

    108 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-13836 May 20, 1960 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-13846 May 20, 1960 - PANGASINAN EMPLOYEES, LABORERS AND TENANTS ASSN. v. ARSENIO I. MARTINEZ

    108 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. L-14332 May 20, 1960 - KAPISANAN SA MRR CO. v. CREDIT UNION

    108 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-14355 May 20, 1960 - JOSE D. DACUDAO v. AGUSTIN D. DUEÑAS

    108 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-14388 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIANO DAYRIT

    108 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-14426 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FROILAN BAYONA

    108 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-9651 May 23, 1960 - POLICARPIO MENDEZ v. SENG KIAM

    108 Phil 109

  • G.R. Nos. L-10046-47 May 23, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON RODRIGUEZ

    108 Phil 118

  • G.R. Nos. L-13803 & L-13400 May 23, 1960 - JOSE DE LA PAZ v. MD TRANSIT AND TAXICAB CO., INC.

    108 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-13806 May 23, 1960 - PRICE STABILIZATION CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-13965 May 23, 1960 - CONSTANTINO LEDUNA, ET., AL. v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ

    108 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. L-14981 May 23, 1960 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. MARCELINO SARMIENTO

    108 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-15339 May 23, 1960 - LUZON SURETY CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. L-15485 May 23, 1960 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-16445 May 23, 1960 - VICENTE ACAIN v. BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CARMEN

    108 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. L-12624 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GANTANG KASIM

    108 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-12690 May 25, 1960 - ARCADIO M. QUIAMBAO v. ANICETO MORA

    108 Phil 174

  • G.R. No. L-12766 May 25, 1960 - PHILIPPINE SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. S. JACALA, ET., AL.

    108 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. L-12916 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELECIO AQUIDADO

    108 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-13296 May 25, 1960 - SOFRONIO T. UNTALAN v. VICENTE G. GELLA

    108 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-13391 May 25, 1960 - AUREA MATIAS v. PRIMITIVO L. GONZALES

    108 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-13464 May 25, 1960 - PHILIPPINE SUGAR INSTITUTE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-13651 May 25, 1960 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF JARO v. HIGINO MILITAR

    108 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. L-13711 May 25, 1960 - GREGORIO SALAZAR v. JUSTINIANA DE TORRES

    108 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-13819 May 25, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BLAS GUTIERREZ

    108 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. L-13933 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

    108 Phil 220

  • G.R. No. L-14115 May 25, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SUPERIOR GAS AND EQUIPMENT CO.

    108 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-14134 May 25, 1960 - BISHOP OF LEGASPI v. MANUEL CALLEJA

    108 Phil 229

  • G.R. No. L-14214 May 25, 1960 - RICHARD VELASCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. L-14500 May 25, 1960 - QUIRINA PACHOCO v. AGRIPINA TUMANGDAY

    108 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. L-14515 May 25, 1960 - ENRIQUE ZOBEL v. GUILLERMO MERCADO

    108 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-14590 May 25, 1960 - FERNANDO DATU v. DOMINGO M. CABAÑGON

    108 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-14619 May 25, 1960 - MIGUEL YUVIENGCO v. PRIMITIVO GONZALES

    108 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-14722 May 25, 1960 - IGNACIO MESINA v. EULALIA PINEDA VDA. DE SONZA

    108 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. L-15132 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFO B. CRUZ

    108 Phil 255

  • G.R. Nos. L-16341 & L-16470 May 25, 1960 - ADRIANO RABE v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    108 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-12150 May 26, 1960 - BENJAMIN CO., v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-12876 May 26, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BOHOL UNITED WORKERS, INC.

    108 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-13847 May 26, 1960 - DOMINADOR BORDA v. ENRIQUE TABALON

    108 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. L-14319 May 26, 1960 - EDUARDO G. BAUTISTA v. SUSANO R. NEGADO

    108 Phil 283

  • G.R. No. L-15073 May 26, 1960 - OPERATOR’S INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    108 Phil 290

  • G.R. No. L-15144 May 26, 1960 - ALFREDO A. AZUELO v. RAMON ARNALDO

    108 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. L-15777 May 26, 1960 - ANTONIO NIPAY v. JOSE M. MANGULAT

    108 Phil 297

  • G.R. Nos. L-14254 & L-14255 May 27, 1960 - STA. CECILLA SAWMILLS CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 300

  • G.R. Nos. L-10371 & L-10409 May 30, 1960 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. DANIEL RAYALA

    108 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. L-11551 May 30, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ALFONSO FAVIS

    108 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. L-12260 May 30, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. FARM IMPLEMENT

    108 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. L-12627 May 30, 1960 - ALFONSO TIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. L-12798 May 30, 1960 - VISAYAN CEBU TERMINAL CO., INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    108 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. L-12907 May 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MORO AMBAHANG

    108 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-12958 May 30, 1960 - FAUSTINO IGNACIO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    108 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. L-12963 May 30, 1960 - MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC. v. ALFONSO YUCHENGCO

    108 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-13034 May 30, 1960 - GREGORIO ARONG v. VICTOR WAJING

    108 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. L-13153 May 30, 1960 - GLICERIO ROMULO v. ESTEBAN DASALLA

    108 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. L-13223 May 30, 1960 - OSCAR MENDOZA ESPUELAS v. PROVINCIAL WARDEN OF BOHOL

    108 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. L-13412 May 30, 1960 - DESTILLERIA LIM TUACO & COMPANY, INC. v. GUSTAVO VICTORIANO

    108 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-13419 May 30, 1960 - CASIANO SALADAS v. FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY

    108 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. L-13662 May 30, 1960 - CEFERINO ESTEBAN v. CITY OF CABANATUAN

    108 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. L-13793 May 30, 1960 - PACIFIC LINE, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    108 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. L-13845 May 30, 1960 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. INTERNATIONAL OIL FACTORY

    108 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. L-13910 May 30, 1960 - MANILA YELLOW TAXI-CAB, INC. v. EDMUNDO L. CASTELO

    108 Phil 394

  • G.R. Nos. L-14069 & L-14149 May 30, 1960 - UY HA v. CITY MAYOR OF MANILA

    108 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. L-14280 May 30, 1960 - JUAN YSMAEL & COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. L-14342 May 30, 1960 - CIRIACO L. MERCADO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. L-14391 May 30, 1960 - GENARO SENEN v. MAXIMA A. DE PICHAY

    108 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. L-14392 May 30, 1960 - ALBERTO FERNANDEZ v. PABLO CUNETA

    108 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-14459 May 30, 1960 - AGRINELDA N. MICLAT v. ELVIRA GANADEN

    108 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-14681 May 30, 1960 - ROSARIO PO v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

    108 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. L-14691 May 30, 1960 - GUILLERMO N. TEVES v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. L-14700 May 30, 1960 - BENITO R. GUINTO v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    108 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. L-14800 May 30, 1960 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. CITY OF MANILA

    108 Phil 462

  • G.R. No. L-14949 May 30, 1960 - COMPAÑIA MARITIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 469

  • G.R. Nos. L-14991-94 May 30, 1960 - JAIME T. BUENAFLOR v. CAMARINES SUR INDUSTRY CORP.

    108 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-15044 May 30, 1960 - BELMAN COMPAÑIA INCORPORADA v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. L-15198 May 30, 1960 - EDUARDO J. JALANDONI v. NARRA

    108 Phil 486

  • G.R. No. L-15344 May 30, 1960 - JOSE R. VILLANUEVA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    108 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-15550 May 30, 1960 - AMADO TAGULAO v. FORTUNATA PADLAN- MUNDOK

    108 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-15614 May 30, 1960 - GSISEA v. CARMELINO ALVENDIA

    108 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-15696 May 30, 1960 - ELPIDIO LLARENA v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    108 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. L-15792 May 30, 1960 - ELENA PERALTA VDA. DE CAINA v. ANDRES REYES

    108 Phil 513

  • G.R. Nos. L-16837-40 May 30, 1960 - EUSTAQUIO R. CAWA v. VICENTE DEL ROSARIO

    108 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. L-10843 May 31, 1960 - EVANGELINE WENZEL v. SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, INC.

    108 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. L-11555 May 31, 1960 - DELFIN CUETO v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    108 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. L-11805 May 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PIO BARRETTO SONS, INC.

    108 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. L-12068 May 31, 1960 - EUFROCINA TAMISIN v. AMBROCIO ODEJAR

    108 Phil 560

  • G.R. Nos. L-13033 & L-13701 May 31, 1960 - LU DO & LU YM CORPORATION v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. L-13295 May 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO MARIO

    108 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-13523 May 31, 1960 - ANICETO MADRID v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    108 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-13578 May 31, 1960 - MARCIANO A. ROXAS v. FLORENCIO GALINDO

    108 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. L-13858 May 31, 1960 - CANUTO PAGDAÑGANAN v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

    108 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 13946 May 31, 1960 - MARSMAN AND COMPANY, INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-14015 May 31, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO

    108 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. L-14020 May 31, 1960 - MANILA LETTER CARRIER’S ASSN. v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    108 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. L-14201 May 31, 1960 - OLEGARIO BRITO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-14595 May 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. GREGORIO MONTEJO

    108 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. L-14749 May 31, 1960 - SILVESTRE PINGOL v. AMADO C. TIGNO

    108 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. L-14885 May 31, 1960 - MAPUA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. MARCELINO S. MANALO

    108 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-14907 May 31, 1960 - PURA M. DE LA TORRE v. VENANCIO TRINIDAD

    108 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. L-15074 May 31, 1960 - CARMEN FUENTES v. CECILIA MUÑOZ-PALMA

    108 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. L-15122 May 31, 1960 - PAQUITO SALABSALO v. FRANCISCO ANGCOY

    108 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. L-15130 May 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLIMACO DEMIAR

    108 Phil 651