Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1978 > August 1978 Decisions > G.R. Nos. L-39303-05 August 1, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO B. GALAPIA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. L-39303-05. August 1, 1978.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EUGENIO GALAPIA y BACUS, Accused-Appellant.

Felino C. Ampil (Counsel de Oficio) for Appellant.

Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor General Octavio A. Ramirez and Solicitor N. P. de Pano, Jr. for Appellee.

SYNOPSIS


Wanting to sleep with his estranged wife but denied entry to his mother-in-law’s house where he had left his wife and son almost a year ago, Accused, one night, gained entrance thereto by breaking the glass jalousies of a window. His wife repulsed his advances and threatened to kill him with a kitchen knife which he was able to wrest from her. Her mother-in-law came to the aid of her daughter with a bolo in hand. Accused likewise succeeded in wrenching the bolo from her, and with it, attacked and killed his mother-in-law, his wife, and a young nephew of his wife. He then left, taking his small son with him, and surrendered to a policeman at the town hall. On arraignment, he pleaded guilty to the charges which were described in three separate informations as having been convicted with evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, and accompanied by the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and dwelling in the case of his wife; nocturnity, dwelling, and disregard of age, sex and relationship in the case of the mother-in-law; and nocturnity in the case of his wife’s nephew. During the presentation of evidence, Accused invoked the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty. The trial court found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death in all three cases.

The Supreme Court held that a judicial confession of guilt admits all the material facts alleged in the information including the aggravating circumstances listed therein. However, where such circumstances are disproven by the evidence, it should be disallowed in the judgment.

Judgments affirmed with modification of penalty from death to reclusion perpetua in the three killing incidents.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; RULE IN JUDICIAL CONFESSION OF GUILT; EXCEPTION. — The rule is that a judicial confession of guilt admits all the material facts alleged in the information including the aggravating circumstances listed therein. But, where such circumstances are disproven by the evidence, it should be disallowed in the judgment.

2. CRIMINAL LAW; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE, EVIDENT PREMEDITATION. — Where it is established that the purpose of an accused in going to the house of the victims was to sleep with his wife, not to kill her and the other occupants of the house, the killings may not be said to have been committed with evident premeditation.

3. ID.; ID.; SUPERIOR STRENGTH. — The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength cannot be appreciated in the crime of parricide where the husband kills the wife as it is generally accepted that the husband is physically stronger than the wife.

4. ID.; ID.; NOCTURNITY. — Although a crime was committed at night, the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity cannot also be appreciated, although the crime was committed at night, because nighttime was not specially sought by the offender, or taken advantage of by him to facilitate the commission of the crime or to insure its consummation with a minimum of resistance from the inmates of the house.

5. ID.; ID.; DWELLING. — The aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present where the crime was committed in the house occupied by the estranged wife of the perpetrator of the crime, other than the conjugal home.

6. ID.; UNLAWFUL ENTRY. — Unlawful entry is present where the accused admittedly destroyed the glass blades or jalousies of a window in gaining entry to the house where the crime was committed.

7. ID.; ID.; AGE, SEX AND RELATIONSHIP OF THE OFFENDED PARTY. — The mere fact that the victim of the crime is a woman is not in itself sufficient to support the contention that there is present the aggravating circumstance of insult or disrespect to sex. It is necessary to prove the specific fact or circumstance, other than that the victim is a woman, showing insult or disregard of sex in order that it may be aggravating.

8. ID.; ID.; TREACHERY. — Treachery cannot be appreciated to aggravate an assailant’s killing of his wife and mother-in-law where there was no eyewitness to the killing and the accused had stated that his wife tried to stab him with a kitchen knife when he tried to sleep with her and that his mother-in-law who came to the aid of her daughter tried to attack him with a bolo. However, where the killing of a victim was witnessed by his brother who testified that the accused attacked the victim with a bolo while the latter was asleep, the aggravating circumstance of treachery must be appreciated.

9. ID.; MURDER AND HOMICIDE; PRESENCE OF AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES; PENALTY. — Where the attendance of two aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crimes of parricide and murder are offset by the presence of the two mitigating circumstances, the proper penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, JR., J.:


MANDATORY REVIEW of the decisions of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte imposing the death penalty upon Eugenio Galapia y Bacus in three criminal cases.

The record shows that the accused Eugenio Galapia y Bacus and Leonida Agudelo were married on August 8, 1971 before Mayor Leonardo A. Velasco of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte. 1 After their marriage, the spouses lived with Bonifacia Castro Agudelo, the mother of Leonida, in Barrio Libong, Bacarra, Ilocos Norte. Living with his mother-in-law became extremely difficult so that sometime in May, 1973, 2 the husband left the house to live with his own parents, about a kilometer away. His wife and son, however, were left behind.

In the early evening of February 11, 1974, the husband, feeling a need for sexual fulfillment, went to the house of his mother-in-law in order to sleep with his wife. But, he was denied entry to the house. Not one to be easily frustrated, the husband left and waited until all the occupants of the house were asleep and then entered the house by breaking the glass blades or jalousies of a window. Once inside, he went to the bed shared by his wife and son. His wife, however, repulsed his advances and threatened to stab him with a kitchen knife. After a brief scuffle, the husband was able to wrest the knife from his wife. The commotion, however, attracted the attention of the mother-in-law who came to the aid of her daughter with a bolo in hand. The husband also succeeded in wrenching the bolo from her, and with it, attacked his mother-in-law, his wife, and two young nephews of his wife, Francisco Bulong and Hermenigildo Bulong, who were then sleeping in the sala of the house. The husband then left the house, taking his small son along with him and brought the boy to the house of his parents. On the way, he threw the bolo into the sea, but kept the kitchen knife. He then proceeded to the house of the barrio captain in order to surrender. The barrio captain, however, was sick. So, he went to the poblacion of Bacarra and surrendered to a policeman on duty at the town hall. The following day, he signed an extrajudicial confession before the investigating officers, admitting the killing of his wife, his mother-in-law, and the wife’s nephew, Francisco Bulong. 3

Meanwhile, at about 6:00 o’clock in the morning of February 12, 1974, Dr. Irineo Bustamante, the Rural Health Physician of Bacarra, was summoned to attend to four (4) bleeding persons in Barrio Libong. Upon reaching the house of Bonifacia Agudelo, he found three (3) of the four persons already dead, and the fourth, barely alive. The wounded person, subsequently identified as Hermenigildo Bulong, was brought to the hospital and was saved.

Dr. Bustamante conducted an autopsy on the cadavers of the deceased persons and certified that: (1) Leonida Agudelo Galapia sustained a stab wound in the heart and five lacerated wounds in various parts of her body; 4 (2) Bonifacia Agudelo suffered a stab wound in the abdomen, perforating the intestines, and four lacerated wounds in body, two of which were in the head, fracturing the skull; 5 and (3) Francisco Bulong sustained two lacerated wounds, one in the face and the other on the right side of the head, both fracturing the skull. 6

As a result, Eugenio Galapia y Bacus was indicted for the killing of his wife (Criminal Case No. 228-III, for Parricide); his mother-in-law (Criminal Case No. 229-III, for Murder); and the nephew of his wife, Francisco Bulong (Criminal Case No. 230-III, also for Murder), as well as the attempt on the life of Hermenigildo Bulong (Criminal Case No. 231-III, for Frustrated Murder). These cases were tried jointly, and the accused, when arraigned, pleaded guilty to the charges, and insisted on his plea despite the admonition of the trial judge that the maximum penalty of death may be imposed upon him. The plea of guilty notwithstanding, the trial court required the presentation of evidence, during which, the accused invoked the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty. On August 9, 1974, judgment was promulgated sentencing the accused to suffer the penalty of death in Criminal Cases Nos. 228-III, 229-III, and 230-III, all of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte. In view of the penalty imposed upon the accused, these cases are now before the Court for review.

Counsel de oficio does not seek the reversal of the judgment in these cases and the consequent acquittal of the accused, Eugenio Galapia y Bacus, since the said accused had voluntarily entered a plea of guilty to the charges. Counsel, however, contends that the imposition of the death penalty in each of the three cases is incorrect and, therefore, prays for a reduction of the penalty to reclusion perpetua in each case. The Solicitor General observed that "there does appear some misappreciation of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances attendant to the commission of the crime," 7 and, accordingly, recommends the modification of the judgments under review and the diminution of the penalty to reclusion perpetua in each case.

The rule is that a judicial confession of guilt admits all the material facts alleged in the information including the aggravating circumstances listed therein. 8 But, where such circumstances are disproven by the evidence, it should be disallowed in the judgment. Thus, in People v. Gungab, 9 the Court ruled "that when an accused, who lacks instruction, pleads guilty to the crime of parricide described in the information as having been committed with the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, and his testimony given under oath before the trial court, upon his petition, fails to show the existence of such aggravating circumstances, his plea of guilty shall be understood as being limited to the admission of having committed the crime of parricide, not of having done so with treachery and evident premeditation."cralaw virtua1aw library

Criminal Case No. 228-III:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

A prosecution for parricide, the victim being the wife of the assailant. The information alleges that the offense was committed with evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength and accompanied by the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and dwelling.

The parties are agreed that the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation has not been established by the testimony of prosecution witness Hermenigildo Bulong, nor by the extra-judicial confession of the accused. We agree with this observation because the purpose of the accused in going to the house of his mother-in-law was to sleep with his wife, not to kill her.

We also agree with the parties that abuse of superior strength cannot be appreciated in this case for the reason that the said circumstance is inherent in the crime of parricide where the husband kills the wife. It is generally accepted that the husband is physically stronger than the wife.

Nocturnity cannot also be appreciated, although the crime was committed at night, because nighttime was not specially sought by the offender, or taken advantage of by him to facilitate the commission of the crime or to insure its consummation with a minimum of resistance from the inmates of the house.

But the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present since the crime was committed in the house occupied by his estranged wife, other than the conjugal home. Unlawful entry is also present since the accused admittedly destroyed the glass blades or jalousies of a window in gaining entry into the house. 10

The Solicitor General claims that treachery, although not alleged in the information, is also present since the victims were all asleep, totally unaware of the evil forces that would eventually snuff out their lives without warning. It does not appear in the record, however, how and in what position the victim was when she was killed so that it cannot be said that the accused had adopted a mode or means of attack tending directly to insure or facilitate the commission of the offense without risk to himself arising from the defense or retaliation which the victim might put up. Upon the other hand, the accused stated in his extrajudicial confession that his wife tried to stab him with a kitchen knife when he tried to sleep with her.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

It results that two aggravating circumstances — dwelling and unlawful entry — attended the commission of the crime. These circumstances, however, are offset by two mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty. The proper penalty to be imposed is, therefore, reclusion perpetua.

Criminal Case No. 229-III:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Prosecution for the murder of Bonifacia Agudelo. The information avers that the crime was committed with evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, and attended by nocturnity, dwelling, and disregard of the age, sex and relationship of the offended party, she being 60 years old and the mother-in-law of the offender.

The parties are also agreed that there is no sufficient proof to establish that the crime was committed with evident premeditation. Hence, abuse of superior strength is the qualifying circumstance.

Nocturnity cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in this case because, as previously stated, nighttime was not specially sought by the offender.

The offense cannot also be said to have been committed in disregard of the age, sex and relationship of the offended party because there is no proof that the accused deliberately intended to offend the sex or age of the offended party. As Mr. Justice Ramon C. Aquino says: "The mere fact that the victim of the crime is a woman is not in itself sufficient to support the contention that there is present the aggravating circumstance of insult or disrespect to sex. It is necessary to prove the specific fact or circumstance, other than that the victim is a woman, showing insult or disregard of sex in order that it may be aggravating." 11

However, as in Criminal Case No. 228-III, dwelling and unlawful entry are evident because the crime was committed in the house of the victim who did not give provocation, and that the accused admittedly destroyed the glass blades or jalousies of a window in order to gain entrance to the house.

The Solicitor General also contends that the crime was committed with treachery. The prosecution, however, failed to present an eyewitness who directly saw the killing of the victim so that it cannot be said for certain that the accused had employed means tending to insure the success of the crime without any danger to his person. On the other hand, the accused stated that the victim tried to attack him with a bolo. 12 Treachery cannot, therefore, be appreciated to aggravate the crime.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

The crime committed is murder, qualified by abuse of superior strength and attended by the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and unlawful entry which are, in turn, offset by the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and the plea of guilty. The penalty to be imposed upon the accused should, therefore, be reclusion perpetua.

Criminal Case No. 230-III:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Prosecution for the killing of Francisco Bulong, an 11-year old grandson of Bonifacia Agudelo, who was sleeping with his brother, Hermenigildo Bulong, in the sala of the house when he was attacked by the accused.

The indictment is that the offense was committed with evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength and attended by the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity.

As in Criminal Cases Nos. 228-III and 229-III, evident premeditation cannot be appreciated in the absence of proof thereof. Abuse of superior strength, therefore, qualifies the killing to murder.

Nocturnity is not also present as previously stated in Criminal Cases Nos. 228-III and 229-III. But, treachery is present because the victim was then asleep when he was attacked by the accused. Unlike in Criminal Cases Nos. 228-III and 229-III where there was no eyewitness to the killing of Leonida Agudelo Galapia and Bonifacia Agudelo and, consequently, no treachery, the killing of Francisco Bulong was witnessed by his brother, Hermenigildo Bulong, who testified that the accused attacked Francisco with a bolo while the latter was asleep. 13

But, as in Criminal Cases Nos. 228-III and 229-III, there was unlawful entry in this case because of the destruction of the glass blades or jalousies of a window in order to gain entrance to the house.

The crime is murder, qualified by abuse of superior strength and attended by the aggravating circumstances of treachery and unlawful entry which are offset by the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty. The penalty to be imposed upon the accused should therefore, be reclusion perpetua.

To recapitulate, the proper penalty that should be imposed upon the accused in Criminal Cases No. 228-III, 229-III, and 230-III of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte is reclusion perpetua.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

With the modification of the penalty as above stated the judgments under review should be, as it is hereby, affirmed in all other respects. Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Castro, C.J., Fernando, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Muñoz Palma, Aquino, Santos, Fernandez and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. See Exh. D, p. 32, Original Record of Criminal Case No. 228-III.

2. p. 35, t.s.n., Tambua, Session of June 17, 1974.

3. Exhibit "B", p. 17, Original Record of Criminal Case No. 229-III.

4. p. 28, Original Record of Criminal Case No. 228-III.

5. p. 16, Original Record of Criminal Case No. 229-III.

6. p. 15, Original Record of Criminal Case No. 230-III.

7. p. 15, Appellee’s Brief.

8. People v. Boyles, L-15308, May 29, 1964, 11 SCRA 88; People v. Tilos, L-27151, Nov. 29, 1969, 30 SCRA 734; People v. Arpa, L-26789, April 25, 1969, 27 SCRA 1037.

9. 64 Phil. 779.

10. Answer to Question No. 18, Confession, p. 17, Original Record of Criminal Case No. 229-III.

11. Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, 1976 ed., Vol. I. p. 289.

12. Answer to Question No. 9 in the Extrajudicial Confession of Eugenio Galapia, p. 18, Original Record of Criminal Case No. 229-III.

13. See testimony of Hermenigildo Bulong, pp. 31-32, t.s.n, Tambua, Session of June 17, 1974.




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






August-1978 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-1158 August 1, 1978 - ALEJANDRO C. ABEJARON v. JOSE V. PANES

  • G.R. No. L-20476 August 1, 1978 - IN RE: CORNELIA L. CO v. MARGARITA TERESITA BALMACEDA

  • A.M. No. L-34089 August 1, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs GAUDENCIO CANDADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-39303-05 August 1, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO B. GALAPIA

  • G.R. No. L-30281 August 2, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELESTINO O. GARILLO

  • A.C. No. 1928 August 3, 1978 - IN RE: ATTY. MARCIAL A. EDILLON

  • G.R. No. L-32128 August 3, 1978 - SOCORRO M. ORLINO, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-47629 August 3, 1978 - MANUEL L. GARCIA v. ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47770 August 10, 1978 - DIOSDADO "JOHNNY" LEWIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1233 August 14, 1978 - JOSE BATOY v. VICENTE M. BLANCO

  • G.R. No. L-48176 August 14, 1978 - AMADO E. DE VERA v. PEDRO SAMSON C. ANIMAS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 728 August 16, 1978 - ARMANDO A. ALA v. JUAN G. ATENCIA

  • G.R. No. L-40392 August 18, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENEROSO ALEGRIA

  • A.C. No. 1825 August 22, 1978 - ROMULO SANTOS v. ALBERTO M. DICHOSO

  • G.R. No. L-38315 August 22, 1978 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. v. DOMINGO MANIEGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40884 August 22, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42471 August 22, 1978 - FRANCO C. ESPIRITU v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42738 August 22, 1978 - MARIANO A. LIMOS v. FERNANDEZ HERMANOS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47044 August 22, 1978 - LUZVIMINDA Z. JAMER v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 1587-CTJ August 23, 1978 - FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ v. SILVINO LU. BARRO

  • G.R. No. L-23493 August 23, 1978 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOVENCIO A. ZARAGOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36937 August 23, 1978 - BENEDICTO S. PRUDON, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-38046-47 August 23, 1978 - ADRIANO AFRO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38197 August 23, 1978 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES B. PLAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41742 August 23, 1978 - MERCEDES OLLERO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41767 August 23, 1978 - ROMEO FERRER, ET AL. v. VICENTE G. ERICTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42433 August 23, 1978 - FELISA PARIAN v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43224 August 23, 1978 - ALFREDO SORIANO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS

  • G.R. No. L-47848 August 23, 1978 - TABLANTE-TUNGOL ENTERPRISES v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34390 August 25, 1978 - SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA FIRESTONE-NATU, ET AL. v. FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43249 August 25, 1978 - ABUNDIO ALBURAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-44063 August 25, 1978 - VICTORIANO F. CORALES v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46290 August 25, 1978 - LOIDA SEPULVEDA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46697 August 25, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEVERINO CUETO

  • A.M. No. 244-MJ August 31, 1978 - HILARION MANGARON v. JUAN L. BAGANO

  • A.M. No. 884-CFI August 31, 1978 - BAYANI VASQUEZ v. SEVERO MALVAR

  • A.M. No. 1228-MJ August 31, 1978 - ROSALINDA INDANGAN v. DOMINADOR TUMULAK

  • A.M. No. 2128-JC August 31, 1978 - IN RE : REQUEST OF CONSTANTE PIMENTEL

  • G.R. No. L-30072 August 31, 1978 - ALATCO TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. JOSE NAYVE

  • G.R. No. L-31963 August 31, 1978 - ANGEL CUNANAN v. ANDRES C. AGUILAR

  • G.R. No. L-33725 August 31, 1978 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-35213 August 31, 1978 - BALDOMERA GARCIA v. SERAFIN OROZCO

  • G.R. No. L-39575 August 31, 1978 - GOV’T. SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. GOV’T. SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM SUPERVISOR’S UNION

  • G.R. No. L-40175 August 31, 1978 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-42340 August 31, 1978 - VICTORIA O. NATIVIDAD v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-42776 August 31, 1978 - MACAPASIR ALONTO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-42794 August 31, 1978 - NENITA ALMAIZ v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43030 August 31, 1978 - ZACARIAS PONCE v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43044 August 31, 1978 - MARIA C. OLINO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43096 August 31, 1978 - JOSE Y. LIM v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43536 August 31, 1978 - SOLEDAD R. RUIVIVAR v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43539 August 31, 1978 - ODON CRUZ CUETO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-44221 August 31, 1978 - FEDERICO SEVILLA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-45109 August 31, 1978 - ST. MICHAEL SECURITY SERVICE v. AMADO G. INCIONG

  • G.R. No. L-45494 August 31, 1978 - BENITO BOLISAY v. LEONARDO S. ALCID

  • G.R. No. L-46504 August 31, 1978 - TALENTO GRAGASIN v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-47772 August 31, 1978 - INOCENCIO TUGADE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-48168 August 31, 1978 - RODULFO N. PELAEZ v. LUIS B. REYES