Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > October 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-11892 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YAKAN LABAK, ET AL.

109 Phil 904:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-11892. October 31, 1960.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. YAKAN LABAK, ET AL., Defendants. YAKAN LABAK, YAKAN ABDULA, YAKAN AMANG, YAKAN BUSLOT and YAKAN IMAM MAALIM, Defendants-Appellants.

Segundo Jose Martinez for Appellants.

Asst. Solicitor General A. Torres and Solicitor F. V. Sian for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW: MURDER; CONSPIRACY; ACT OF ONE ATTRIBUTABLE TO ALL CONSPIRATORS. — Conspiracy having been clearly established, the act of one conspirator is attributable to all (People v. Romualdez 57 Phil., 148).

2. ID.; ID.; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF UNINHABITED PLACE AND BY A BAND CONSIDERED ONE. — The lower court acted correctly in considering as only one aggravating circumstance the act that the crime was committed in an uninhabited place and by a band (People v. Santos, Et Al., 91 Phil., 320).

3. ID.; ID.; ACCUSED POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED. — Even if the accused appellant never made an extrajudicial confession, as was done by his co-accused, nevertheless, his guilt is considered proven beyond reasonable doubt if he was positively identified by a reliable witness as one of the armed men present during the ambush.

4. ID.; ID.; POSSESSION OF MURDER WEAPONS RELIES ALLEGED INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION. — If the appellants were only tortured and forced to make their confession, then it is inconceivable how they could have been in possession of the murder weapons.


D E C I S I O N


GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:


In the Court of First Instance of Basilan City, Yakans Labak, Abdula, Amang, Abdul, Buslot and Iman Maalim were charged with the murder of Jose Atilano. After trial, the court acquitted Abdul for insufficiency of evidence, but convicted the other five accused of the charge, considered against them the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place and by a band, but offset by the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction, and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment, to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the victim in the sum of P3,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the proportionate costs.

The facts, as established by the prosecution, are: At 6:10 a.m. November 18, 1953, the single engine plane of the American Rubber Company, with Severo Viloria as pilot and Jose Atilano, general manager of the company, as lone passenger, took off from Zamboanga City Airfield and landed thirty minutes later at Buli-Buli Airstrip, Basilan City. Soon thereafter, a company jeep, driven by Estanislao Falcasantos, with Manuel San Luis and Jose Fermin, Jr. as passengers, arrived to pick up Atilano and Viloria. Atilano sat in front beside the driver. At the back, from left to right, were San Luis, Fermin and Viloria. As the jeep was going up an incline, on the way to the company logging camp, the passengers thereof saw, standing at the right side of the road, a man pointing his gun at the jeep. Atilano excitedly called his companion’s attention to the armed man. The road being upgrade, the jeep was running very slowly. As the armed man approached the jeep, the passengers on the back seat jumped out. Hardly had they leaped out, when they heard the sound of firing and Atilano’s cry of pain. Viloria scampered to a nearby coconut tree, but when he saw other natives coming towards him, he ran farther and hid among thick bushes.

Fermin, who was about 8 meters from the jeep when the armed man fired, recognized the latter as one whom he used to see loitering in the premises of the company garage and sawmill. Fermin hid for some time among the bushes on the left side of the road, and then headed for the company camp. After reporting the ambuscade to the company superintendent, Damaso Furagay, Fermin, together with nurse Custodio Mariano, and some security guards, went back to the place of the incident. They found Falcasantos trying to aid Atilano. Mariano administered first aid, but Atilano expired 15 minutes later. Fermin found missing Atilano’s wrist watch and the package of medicine worth P47.80, which Atilano brought with him from Zamboanga City. Viloria and Fermin flew to Zamboanga City and reported the incident to the authorities.

The autopsy, performed by Dr. Esperidion Alvarez of Zamboanga General Hospital, revealed that the victim suffered:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Shotgun wound, penetrating right anterior lumbar area, perforating small intestines, multiple; stomach, lesser curvature; liver; right and left ventricle; with one exist (bullet) at left epigastrium.

2. Wound incised (five inches long by 1 1/2 inches deep) posterior axillary line, level of the 7th rib, right; arm upper, outer aspect (3 inches long 1 inch deep).

3. Abrasions, infrapatellar, bilateral; ankle, anterior aspect, right.

4. Foreign bodies (bullet pellets) subcutaneous, chest left, costal arch left.

5. Hemorrhage, severe, mediastinal and abdominal cavities." (Exhibit L)

The investigation conducted by Philippine Constabulary Lt. Alfredo Caoili revealed that from the time appellant Labak had been refused employment by the American Rubber Company, he had been hanging suspiciously around the company camp. When questioned by Lt. Caoili, Labak admitted that he took part in the ambush. He revealed that his companions were Buslot, Abdula and Amang. The last two were duly apprehended but Buslot could not be found. After Labak repeated his admission in their presence, Abdula confessed he was the triggerman, and Amang affirmed their complicity. Labak also disclosed to Lt. Caoili that it was Buslot who persuaded him to join the murderous band by offering him a share in the P200.00 reward which Iman Maalim was going to give Buslot for Atilano’s murder.

By means of Abdula’s confession, the PC soldiers recovered the fatal paltik shotgun from Abdul, one of the accused who had been acquitted. Two barongs (Exhibits S and S-1) used in the ambush were likewise taken from Amang and Abdul. Labak, Abdula, Amang and Abdul were taken to the PC headquarters, Zamboanga City, where Lt. Caoili, assisted by Lt. Marohombsar, and an interpreter, Muelles, took down their extrajudicial confessions (Exhibits O, P. Q and R, respectively), which were subsequently subscribed and sworn to before Judge Doroteo de Guzman of the Basilan Municipal Court.

Subsequently arrested, Iman Maalim was brought to City Fiscal Geronimo de la Peña of Basilan City, who took down his sworn statement (Exhibit V) with the help of Dulin Payao, official stenographer and interpreter.

Appellants argue that the prosecution failed to clearly prove their motive for the murder. Claim is made that if Iman Maalim really bore any grudge, it should have been directed at Damaso Puragay, the man allegedly responsible for his lay-off. In his sworn statement, Iman Maalim divulged that two Moros, Sandung and Mustaman, promised to give him P300.00 if he would kill Atilano but he refused; that by means of threats, Sandung and Mustaman persuaded him to propose the murder to the other appellants; and that Labak, Abdula, Amang and Buslot agreed to kill Atilano for P200.00. The balance of P100.00 was supposed to have been Maalim’s reward, and formed his main reason for plotting the victim’s death. In addition, there was his fear that if he refused he would be killed by Sandung and Mustaman. Whatever grudge he bore against the company, as represented by its manager, the victim, was but an additional motive for his undertaking the crime. The other appellants were also impelled by motives of gain in joining the plot.

Appellants characterize as unusual the fact that Lt. Caoili did not first investigate the eyewitnesses but instead asked one of the company employees, Hadji Taupan, Jr., if there were any employees who had been recently dismissed. Caoili’s mode of investigation was nowhere out of the ordinary. When Fermin reported the killing to the authorities he revealed that he recognized one of the natives who took part in the ambuscade. All those in the ambushed jeep were company officials on their way to the company camp. There was therefore ground for Lt. Caoili’s suspicion that any of the assailants may have been a disgruntled former employee of the company. And his investigation along this line was fruitful. He learned that sometime before the incident, Labak, whose application for employment had been refused, often lurked suspiciously around the company camp. When investigated, Labak confessed and named his co-conspirators. Abdula and Amang also admitted their complicity, as did Imam Maalim.

Argument is put forth that the extrajudicial confessions of Labak, Abdula, Amang and Imam Maalim are inadmissible in evidence having allegedly been obtained through force and intimidation. During the trial, Labak, Abdula, Amang and the acquitted Abdul testified that during the investigation on the night of November 18, 1953, the PC soldiers, in their efforts to make appellants confess, boxed and hit them with rifle butts in the presence of Lt. Gaoili; that the next morning, while aboard a boat to Zamboanga City, the PC men and some civilians tortured them by submerging their heads in the sea for long periods of time; that at the PC headquarters, Zamboanga City, they were abused before they were placed in cells; and that the morning thereafter they were again investigated and maltreated, after which the PC soldiers placed their thumbs on documents the contents of which they did not know.

Several reasons persuade us to reject appellants, claim of maltreatment. Not one of them presented a medical certificate evidencing treatment for the injuries supposed to have been inflicted by the PC men. We do not believe Labak’s allegation that the small scars on his left ear and left leg were vestiges of such injuries. Had appellants received as brutal a maltreatment as that claimed, such manhandling certainly would have left traces much bigger and more pronounced than Labak’s tiny scars. Furthermore, the other appellants do not have the slightest indication of abuse on their bodies. If as appellant Amang claims, the PC men hammered nails into his knees and legs, then there should have been marks of the injuries. But there was none.

It is unbelievable, that as alleged by Abdula and Amang, they were first maltreated before they were questioned. Far credible would it have been had they stated that they were first questioned and then maltreated upon their refusal to own the killing. There appearing no motive for Lt. Caoili and the PC soldiers to abuse appellants, the presumption is that they performed their duties regularly and lawfully in the investigation of this case.

Labak, Amang and Abdula never revealed the alleged maltreatment to Doroteo de Guzman, before whom they subscribed and swore to their confessions. They had all the chance to do so since Judge De Guzman ordered all the PC men to leave his chamber before Dulin Payao, official interpreter in the fiscal’s office, read and translated to Labak, Abdula and Amang the contents of their affidavits. At the trial, Amang and Abdula vehemently claimed that in spite of the PC threat of further maltreatment, they never confessed to anybody that they asserted that all three voluntarily subscribed to their affidavits.

The acquitted Abdul also told of maltreatment similar to that supposedly received by Labak, Amang and Abdula. It is noteworthy, however, that in his very short statement, Abdul merely stated that he handed the paltik shotgun to the PC men. This is persuasive proof that appellants’ tale of maltreatment and torture was pure connection, otherwise Abdul’s torturers would have seen to it that he also made a highly incriminating statement like that made by appellants.

We find incredible Imam Maalim’s testimony that he confessed because he was maltreated by the PC men; and that he signed his confession because Fiscal De la Peña told him that if he refused the PC soldiers would kill him. Maalim could not have been maltreated by the PC soldiers for they did not investigate him. He was brought directly to Fiscal De la Peña who, on rebuttal, denied that he threatened Maalim.

From the extrajudicial confessions of Labak, Abdula, Amang and Imam Maalim, it appears clearly that the four of them, together with Buslot, had plotted to kill Atilano and that Labak, Abdula, Amang and Buslot carried out the criminal plan into execution, with Abdula as the one who fired the fatal shot.

Aside from the confessions, three eyewitnesses, Jose Fermin, Jr., Manuel San Luis and Estanislao Falcasantos, saw Abdula shoot Atilano with the paltik shotgun. Contrary to appellants’ claim, the fact that Fermin is a brother-in-law of the victim did not detract from his credibility, inasmuch as he was corroborated by San Luis and Falcasantos, eyewitness whose bias was not shown. These three persons unerringly picked out the triggerman, Abdula, from a group of persons in the courtroom. San Luis stayed in the jeep long enough and took particular pains to remember Abdula’s face as the latter approached the jeep. Abdula was barely three meters away when San Luis jumped from the jeep. Aside from Abdula, Falcasantos also recognized his three companions. Buslot and Amang, armed with barongs, were with Abdula as the latter stood at the right side of the road. Abdula approached the jeep and then fired at the victim. Falcasantos jumped from the jeep in order to escape. He redoubled his speed when Labak chased him with a barong.

The presence at the ambush and the participation of Labak, Abdula, Amang and Buslot have been established. Only Labak attempted to prove that he was at home sleeping at the time of the commission of the crime, but his alibi was not convincing. The three others did not even try to disprove their presence at the scene of the crime.

Besides, the murder weapon, the paltik shotgun, and the two barongs were recovered from Abdul, brother-in-law of Abdula, Amang and Buslot. Through the confession of Abdula, these weapons were traced to Abdul who had hidden them. If appellants were only tortured and forced to make their confessions, then it is inconceivable how they could have been in possession of these weapons.

Although Buslot never made an extrajudicial confession, his guilt has likewise been proven beyond reasonable doubt. He was positively identified by Falcasantos as one of the armed men with Abdula. Both Amang and Labak, in their confessions, declared that Buslot hacked Atilano after Abdula shot him. This finds support in the incised wound suffered by the victim. Furthermore, Abdula and Imam Maalim named Buslot as one of the conspirators.

Conspiracy having been clearly established, the act of one is attributable to all (People v. Romualdez, 57 Phil., 148). The lower court acted correctly in considering as only one aggravating circumstance the fact that the crime was committed in an uninhabited place and by a band (People v. Santos, Et Al., 91 Phil., 320). However, the indemnity to the heirs should be, and is hereby raised to P6,000.00.

Thus modified, the appealed decision is affirmed, with costs against appellants.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador; Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, and Paredes, JJ., concur.




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






October-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-15709 October 19, 1960 - IN RE: DAMASO CAJEFE, ET AL. v. HON. FIDEL FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 743

  • G.R. Nos. L-12483 & L-12896-96 October 22, 1960 - NICOLAS JAVIER, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE DE LEON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-15477 October 22, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO MEDRANO, SR.

    109 Phil 762

  • G.R. No. L-14111 October 24, 1960 - NARRA v. TERESA R. DE FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-14524 October 24, 1960 - FELIX MOLINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. L-14625 October 24, 1960 - IN RE: EULOGIO ON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. L-15192 October 24, 1960 - PNB v. TEOFILO RAMIREZ:, ET AL.

    109 Phil 775

  • G.R. No. L-15275 October 24, 1960 - MARIANO A. ALBERT v. UNIVERSITY PUBLISHING CO., INC.

    109 Phil 780

  • G.R. No. L-16006 October 24, 1960 - PERFECTO R. FRANCHE, ET AL. v. HON. PEDRO C. HERNAEZ, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 782

  • G.R. No. L-11766 October 25, 1960 - SOCORRO MATUBIS v. ZOILO PRAXEDES

    109 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-14189 October 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIO YAMSON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-15233 October 25, 1960 - JUAN L. CLEMENTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-15326 October 25, 1960 - SEVERINO SAMSON v. DIONISIO DINGLASA

    109 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. L-15502 October 25, 1960 - AH NAM v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. L-16038 October 25, 1960 - AJAX INT’L. CORP. v. ORENCIO A. SEGURITAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 810

  • G.R. No. L-16404 October 25, 1960 - SAMPAGUITA PICTURES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-16429 October 25, 1960 - ALEJANDRO ABAO v. HON. MARIANO R. VlRTUCIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-14079 October 26, 1960 - METROPOLITAN WATER DIST. v. EDUVIGES OLEDAN NIRZA

    109 Phil 824

  • G.R. No. L-14157 October 26, 1960 - NEGROS OCCIDENTAL MUNICIPALITIES v. IGNATIUS HENRY BEZORE, ET AL.

    109 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-14724 October 26, 1960 - VICTORINO MARIBOJOC v. HON. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 833

  • G.R. Nos. L-14973-74 October 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN CASUMPANG

    109 Phil 837

  • G.R. Nos. L-15214-15 October 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE C. CRUZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 842

  • G.R. No. L-11302 October 28, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN P. AGUILAR, ET AL.

    109 Phil 847

  • G.R. No. L-12659 October 28, 1960 - ABELARDO LANDINGIN v. PAULO GACAD

    109 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. L-14866 October 28, 1960 - IN RE: ANDRES ONG KHAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. L-15573 October 28, 1960 - RELIANCE SURETY & INS. CO. INC. v. LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 861

  • G.R. No. L-17144 October 28, 1960 - SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR. v. SALIPADA K. PENDATUN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. L-8178 October 31, 1960 - JUANITA KAPUNAN, ET AL. v. ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 889

  • G.R. No. L-11536 October 31, 1960 - TOMAS B. VILLAMIN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 896

  • G.R. No. L-11745 October 31, 1960 - ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRlAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-11892 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YAKAN LABAK, ET AL.

    109 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-11991 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PORFIRIO TAÑO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 912

  • G.R. No. L-12226 October 31, 1960 - DAMASO DISCANSO, ET AL. v. FELICISIMO GATMAYTAN

    109 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-12401 October 31, 1960 - MARCELO STEEL CORP. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    109 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-12565 October 31, 1960 - ANTONIO HERAS v. CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON CITY

    109 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-13260 October 31, 1960 - LINO P. BERNARDO v. EUFEMIA PASCUAL, ET AL.

    109 Phil 936

  • G.R. No. L-13370 October 31, 1960 - IN RE: CHAN CHEN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS.

    109 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-13666 October 31, 1960 - FORTUNATO LAYAGUE, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION PEREZ DE ULGASAN

    109 Phil 945

  • G.R. No. L-13677 October 31, 1960 - HUGH M. HAM v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 949

  • G.R. No. L-13875 October 31, 1960 - DANIEL EVANGELISTA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 957

  • G.R. No. L-13891 October 31, 1960 - JOAQUIN ULPIENDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 964

  • G.R. No. L-13900 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLAS ABLAO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 976

  • G.R. No. L-14174 October 31, 1960 - PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL.

    109 Phil 981

  • G.R. No. L-14362 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANI ACANTO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 993

  • G.R. No. L-14393 October 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CANTILAN LUMBER COMPANY

    109 Phil 999

  • G.R. No. L-14474 October 31, 1960 - ONESIMA D. BELEN v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1008

  • G.R. No. L-14598 October 31, 1960 - MARIANO ACOSTA, ET AL. v. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1017

  • G.R. No. L-14827 October 31, 1960 - CHUA YENG v. MICHAELA ROMA

    109 Phil 1022

  • G.R. No. L-14902 October 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    109 Phil 1027

  • G.R. No. 15086 October 31, 1960 - NARRA v. FELIX M. MAKASIAR, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 1030

  • G.R. No. L-15178 October 31, 1960 - ROSENDA FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. CATALINO V. FERNANDEZ

    109 Phil 1033

  • G.R. No. L-15234 October 31, 1960 - ANTONIO PIMENTEL v. JOSEFINA GOMEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1036

  • G.R. No. L-15253 October 31, 1960 - IN RE: ODORE LEWIN v. EMILIO GALANG

    109 Phil 1041

  • G.R. Nos. L-15328-29 October 31, 1960 - RUBEN L. VALERO v. TERESITA L. PARPANA

    109 Phil 1054

  • G.R. No. L-15391 October 31, 1960 - BOARD OF DIRECTORS v. DR. LUIS N. ALANDY

    109 Phil 1058

  • G.R. No. L-15397 October 31, 1960 - FELIPE B. OLLADA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

    109 Phil 1072

  • G.R. No. L-15434 October 31, 1960 - DIONISIO NAGRAMPA v. JULIA MARGATE NAGRAMPA

    109 Phil 1077

  • G.R. No. L-15459 October 31, 1960 - UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    109 Phil 1081

  • G.R. No. L-15594 October 31, 1960 - RODOLFO CANO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    109 Phil 1086

  • G.R. No. L-15643 October 31, 1960 - LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CORP. v. ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

    109 Phil 1093

  • G.R. No. L-15695 October 31, 1960 - MATILDE GAERLAN v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO

    109 Phil 1100

  • G.R. No. L-15697 October 31, 1960 - MARIA SALUD ANGELES v. PEDRO GUEVARA

    109 Phil 1105

  • G.R. No. L-15707 October 31, 1960 - JESUS GUARIÑA v. AGUEDA GUARIÑA-CASAS

    109 Phil 1111

  • G.R. No. L-15745 October 31, 1960 - MIGUEL TOLENTINO v. CEFERINO INCIONG

    109 Phil 1116

  • G.R. No. L-15842 October 31, 1960 - DOÑA NENA MARQUEZ v. TOMAS P. PANGANIBAN

    109 Phil 1121

  • G.R. No. L-15926 October 31, 1960 - BERNABE RELLIN v. AMBROSIO CABlGAS

    109 Phil 1128

  • G.R. No. L-16029 October 31, 1960 - STANDARD VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. LORETO PAZ

    109 Phil 1132

  • G.R. No. L-16098 October 31, 1960 - ANDREA OLARTE v. DIOSDADO ENRIQUEZ

    109 Phil 1137

  • G.R. No. L-16160 October 31, 1960 - MAGDALENA SANGALANG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 1140

  • G.R. Nos. L-16292-94, L-16309 & L-16317-18 October 31, 1960 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MRR., CO. v. YARD CREW UNION

    109 Phil 1143

  • G.R. No. L-16672 October 31, 1960 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

    109 Phil 1152