Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > August 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-39007 August 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO RAMIREZ

201 Phil. 519:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-39007. August 21, 1982.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CAMILO RAMIREZ, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Quirico L. Pilotin for Accused-Appellant.

SYNOPSIS


Maria Cabatu Andres, a woman aged 50 years, Accused appellant, 22, of rape alleging that the latter persuaded her to go with him so that she could surprise her husband and her paramour at a certain place called Rock Garden; that once there, appellant forced her to lie down and there after pinned her hands and while in that position appellant was able to raise her skirt, spread her legs, unbutton his pants, and perform the sexual assault; that on her way home after the incident, she met her common-law-husband whom she informed of the rape only when they had gone home and were proceeding to the municipal building to report the matter; and that when examined by a doctor that same night she was found positive for spermatozoa although no abrasions or injuries were found on her body. Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed that he was invited by complainant to an isolated place where she seduced him. The trial court convicted appellant as charged and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

On review, the Supreme Court found the testimony of the complaining witness, which is the only evidence on which the alleged rape was perpetrated, incredible, and consequently acquitted appellant upon reasonable doubt.

Appealed judgment reversed and appellant is acquitted.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; RAPE; PROOF REQUIRED WHERE COMPLAINANT’S TESTIMONY IS THE SOLE EVIDENCE. — Where complainant’s testimony was the only evidence on which the alleged rape was perpetrated, appellant’s guilt must have to depend on the inherent credibility of such testimony to the extent of leaving no reasonable doubt that appellant had indeed committed the act imputed upon him.

2. ID.; ID.; INHERENT INCREDIBILITY OF COMPLAINANT’S TESTIMONY WARRANTS ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED- APPELLANT UPON REASONABLE DOUBT; CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWING SAME IN CASE AT BAR. — Complainant was 30 years old at the time of the alleged rape incident, whereas appellant was only 22. It is hard to believe that a man of his age and who is single would fail for a woman who could be his mother and already living with a common-law-husband. It is more likely that it was the complainant who fell in love with Appellant.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; FAILURE OF COMPLAINANT TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF HER HUSBAND’S ALLEGED PARAMOUR BEFORE GOING OUT WITH APPELLANT. — According to complainant she was fetched from her house by appellant so that they could surprise her husband and hit paramour at the Rock Garden. It is quite unnatural for a wife to just leave the house and follow appellant without even inquiring about the identity of the other woman. What is more likely is, when complainant met appellant at the Caltex station to buy kerosene, they agreed to meet at the Rock Garden.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NO ABRASION OR CONTUSION WAS FOUND ON COMPLAINANT’S BODY DESPITE HER ALLEGED STRUGGLE WITH ACCUSED-APPELLANT. — According to complainant, she struggled to resist the lustful advances of appellant who was able to lay her down on the rocky ground until she succeeded in getting away from him. She further struggled until appellant pulled her to a wall and succeeded in forcing the latter to lie down by pinning both her hands. A few hours thereafter, she was examined by Dr. Vidad who did not find any injury in her body which would indicate the use of force exerted upon her during the act of intercourse. There was no abrasion or contusion found at her back or buttocks.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; MANNER OF COMMISSION OF THE ALLEGED SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. — It is hard to imagine how the rape could have been perpetrated against the complainant who declared that she was forced to lie down by pinning both her hands and while in that position appellant was able to manage to raise her skirt, spread her legs, unbutton his pants, and perform the sexual act.

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; FAILURE OF COMPLAINANT TO IMMEDIATELY INFORM HER HUSBAND OF THE ALLEGED RAPE. — After the alleged sordid act, complainant alleged that she was on her way to the municipal building to report the matter. On her way, she met her common-law-husband Eugenio Andres to whom she immediately mentioned that she was deceived by someone. Why did she not tell him right there and then that appellant had raped her? It was only after they had gone home and were proceeding to the municipal building that she managed to tell her common-law-husband that the was raped by appellant. Would she have told him what happened to her had she not met her common-law-husband when she came from the rock garden? Otherwise stated, was she not forced to tell him a story considering the time of the night when she came from the rock garden?


D E C I S I O N


RELOVA, J.:


Camilo Ramirez appeals from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt "of rape by direct participation, without the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstance," and sentencing him "to Reclusion Perpetua, to indemnify the complainant in the sum of P1,000.00 by way of moral damages, and to pay the costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

The version on the prosecution is given in the People’s brief as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The principal characters in this crime of passion are not unknown to each other being residents of the same town of Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya. In fact the house of the complainant, Maria Cabatu Andres, is just below the house of the appellant, Camilo Ramirez, and whenever the latter would go to the mountain to get firewood, he has to pass the house of the former (pp. 14-15, tsn., Vol. II; pp. 2-3, Vol. III).

"In the afternoon of January 28, 1974, Maria in the company of her common-law-husband, Eugenio Andres, who is an ice cream vendor, went to Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, in order to buy ice at the house of Pepe and apa at a store known as ‘Sampaguita’ (pp. 27-28, tsn., Vol. I; pp. 15-17, tsn., Vol. II). After they were through with their buying chores, Eugenio Andres told his wife Maria, to return to Bambang because he will go to the Center Theater to see a movie. They separated from each other and he alighted at the gasoline station of Mr. Ligot (pp. 27-28, Vol. II pp. 17-19, tsn., Vol. II). Following the instruction of her husband, Maria proceeded home and after arrival she covered the ice they bought with rice husk (pp. 19-20, tsn., Vol. II).

"Between the hours of 7:00 and 8:00 o’clock in the evening of the same day, Maria went out of her house to buy kerosene. Upon reaching the Caltex station owned by Saddul she met the appellant who inquired about the whereabouts of her husband. She replied that he had not yet arrived home because he went to a movie (pp. 21-22, tsn., Vol. II). Upon returning to her house and after putting kerosene in her lamp, Maria laid down and rested. Sometime later, she heard somebody calling ‘Apo.’ Recognizing the voice as that of the appellant, she got up and went to the batalan from where the voice came. There she met the appellant who at once informed her that she could surprise her husband and his paramour at the Rock Garden (p. 22-29, tsn., Vol. 11). Curious and jealous at the same time, Maria readily followed the appellant who led the way to the Rock Garden. They went by way of the National Road and then passed the Central School of Bambang Nueva Vizcaya (P. 29, tsn., Vol. II). Upon reaching the Rock Garden, the appellant led Maria to climb some rocks after which he suddenly told her that he is madly in love with her, simultaneously embracing and kissing her. Maria resisted his lustful advances, but the appellant nonetheless grappled the latter and tried to lay her down. In the ensuing struggle, Maria was able to stand up and tried to run away, but the appellant held both of her hands and carried her to the water tank. However, the victim continued to struggle and fight back and asked her tormentor why he was doing such a thing to her when she should respect her for her age. The appellant momentarily released his hold on Maria (pp. 29-35, tsn., Vol. II), but soon thereafter, he pulled Maria to a wall and forced the latter to lay down by pinning both of her hands. Helpless and no longer able to ward off the beastial overtures of the appellant, the latter was able to have sexual intercourse with Maria (pp. 35-40, tsn., Vol. II).

"After he had satisfied his sexual lust, the appellant left the place while Maria walked back to town with the thought of going to the municipal building. On the way, she met her husband Eugenio Andres, who had arrived in Bambang after a much delayed trip because the Pantranco bus on which he rode had engine trouble (pp. 40-42, tsn., Vol. II; pp. 29-35, tsn., Vol. 1). Upon meeting her husband, Maria told the latter that somebody had fooled her, but her husband counseled her that they go home first and eat. But in the house, Maria’s husband could not eat at all, so they went down and proceeded to the municipal building.

"On the way, Maria intimated to her husband the sordid incident that befell her (pp. 42-44, tsn., Vol. 11). When they reached the municipal building, Maria reported her sad experience to Policeman William Valmores who immediately entered her complaint in the police blotter, after which he proceeded to apprehend Camilo Ramirez (pp. 4-6, 6-7, pp. 44-47, tsn., Vol. II; Exhibit B).

"Also that same night, Maria in the company of her husband and Patrolman Valmores went to the Magsaysay General Hospital located at Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya where she was physically examined by Dr. Antonio Vidad, Jr. (pp. 9, 11-12, tsn., Vol. I; pp. 6, 48-51, tsn., Vol. II). Said doctor issued a medical certificate of his findings (Exhibit A) stating that the victim has a hymen with rounded non-cooptable edge and the vagina positive for spermatozoa motile (pp. 12-15, tsn., Vol. I; Exhibit A, p. 2, Rec.)."cralaw virtua1aw library

Appellant testified in his behalf, and his testimony is set forth in the decision appealed from as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The accused testified that on his way to a wedding dance between 7:00 and 8:00 o’clock P.M. on January 28, 1970, at the Saddul Gasoline Station in Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya, he met the complainant who, unasked, informed him that her husband was not at home as she instructed him to see a movie. And she invited him to go with her somewhere. She held a paper bag a foot long. The accused followed her to the Rock Garden of the Bambang Elementary School which is outside the Bambang town proper. On a flat rock they sat and the complainant brought out the contents of the paper bag, consisting of 3 eggs and 2 bottles of beer, handed them to the accused, and told the latter to eat and drink, which in fact the latter did. As the accused ate and drank, the complainant revealed to him that her husband abstained from sexual intercourse with her and she requested the accused to sexually satisfy her. To arouse the accused, the complainant embraced him, held his penis, sought to unbutton his trousers, and laid herself on the rock with bared thighs and private parts, her duster raised up to her navel. Despite one hour of seduction by words, caresses and erotic manipulations, the accused remained unresponsive. The complainant gave the accused P3.00 and told him before they parted to come back to her after the dance. The accused proceeded to the wedding party and remained there as long as the P3.00 given by the complainant lasted the imposed damage during the dance. Then he went to his brother-in-law’s house to sleep. At 1:00 o’clock A.M., he was awakened, apprehended, and locked in the municipal jail by Patrolman William Valmores based on the charge of rape of the complainant."cralaw virtua1aw library

Our review of the evidence in the record has made us disagree with the finding of guilt by the trial court. As stated by Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando in G.R. No. L-45245, entitled: People v. Marcelino T. Gabilan, "it is in cases of this character that the invocation of the constitutional presumption of innocence calls for an acquittal in the absence of proof of such character as would enable a judge to reach the point of moral certainty." And, considering that in criminal prosecution, the state must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense, We cannot bring ourselves to agree that appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of which he was convicted by the trial court. Complainant’s testimony was the only evidence on which the alleged rape was perpetrated. Thus, appellant’s guilt must have to depend on the inherent credibility of such testimony to the extent of leaving no reasonable doubt that appellant had indeed committed the act imputed upon him. Consider the following circumstances:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Complainant was 50 years old at the time of the incident, whereas appellant was only 22. It is hard to believe that a man of his age and who is single would fall for a woman who could be his mother and already living with a common-law husband. It is more likely that it was the complainant who fell in love with Appellant.

2. According to complainant she was fetched from her house by appellant so that they could surprise her husband and his paramour at the Rock Garden. It is quite unnatural for a wife to just leave the house and follow appellant without even inquiring about the identity of the other woman. What is more likely is, when complainant met appellant at the Caltex station to buy kerosene, they agreed to meet at the Rock Garden.

3. According to complainant, she struggled to resist the lustful advances of appellant who was able to lay her down on the rocky ground until he succeeded in getting away from him. They further struggled until appellant pulled her to a wall and succeeded in forcing the latter to lie down by pinning both her hands. Few hours thereafter, she was examined by Dr. Vidad who did not find any injury in her body which would indicate the use of force exerted upon her during the act of intercourse. There was no abrasion or contusion found at her back or buttocks.

4. It is hard to imagine how the rape could have been perpetrated against the complainant who declared that she was forced to lie down by pinning both her hands and while in that position appellant was able to manage to raise her skirt, spread her legs, unbutton his pants, and perform the sexual act.

5. After the alleged sordid act, complainant alleged that she was on her way to the municipal building to report the matter. On her way, she met her common-law-husband Eugenio Andres to whom she immediately mentioned that she was deceived by someone. Why did she not tell him right there and then that appellant had raped her? It was only after they had gone home and were proceeding to the municipal building that she managed to tell her common-law-husband that she was raped by appellant. Would she have told him what had happened to her had she not met her common-law-husband when she came from the rock garden? Otherwise stated, was she not forced to tell him a story considering the time of the night when she came from the rock garden?

Again, the Supreme Court, speaking thru then Associate Justice Fernando (now Chief Justice), in People v. Dramayo, 42 SCRA 60, held that "accusation is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt; the prosecution must overthrow the presumption of innocence with proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. To meet this standard, there is need for the most careful scrutiny of the testimony of the state, both oral and documentary, independently of whatever defense is offered by the accused."cralaw virtua1aw library

In view of the foregoing, the judgment of conviction cannot stand. The presumption of innocence calls for a reversal of the judgment.

WHEREFORE, upon reasonable doubt, the trial court’s judgment is reversed and appellant Camilo Ramirez is acquitted of rape, with costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Melencio-Herrera, Plana and Vasquez, JJ., concur.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., on leave.




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-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. 921-MJ August 19, 1982 - ANTONIO C. LUCERO v. CARLOS B. SALAZAR

    201 Phil. 396

  • A.M. No. P-1518 August 19, 1982 - EROTIDO O. DOMINGO v. ROMEO R. QUIMSON

  • A.M. No. 2247-MJ August 19, 1982 - PEDRO G. VALENTIN v. MARIANO P. GONZALES

    201 Phil. 401

  • A.M. No. 2385-MJ August 19, 1982 - JONATHAN A. LUZURIAGA v. JESUS B. BROMO

    201 Phil. 408

  • G.R. No. L-34081 August 19, 1982 - PHIL. SUGAR INSTITUTE v. ASSOC. OF PHILSUGIN EMPLOYEES

    201 Phil. 416

  • G.R. No. L-35440 August 19, 1982 - RUFINO GERALDE v. ANDRES Y. SABIDO

    201 Phil. 418

  • G.R. No. L-38352 August 19, 1982 - ADELA J. CAÑOS v. E.L. PERALTA

    201 Phil. 422

  • G.R. No. L-46499 August 19, 1982 - TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHIL. AND ALLIED SERVICES v. AMADO G. INCIONG

    201 Phil. 427

  • G.R. No. L-48057 August 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIO VENEZUELA

    201 Phil. 433

  • G.R. No. L-50402 August 19, 1982 - PHIL. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK v. NAT’L. MINES & ALLIED WORKERS UNION

    201 Phil. 441

  • G.R. No. L-51194 August 19, 1982 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE LA CARLOTA, INC. v. AMADO G. INCIONG

    201 Phil. 451

  • G.R. No. L-51494 August 19, 1982 - JUDRIC CANNING CORPORATION v. AMADO G. INCIONG

    201 Phil. 456

  • G.R. No. L-52720 August 19, 1982 - UNITED CMC TEXTILE WORKERS UNION v. JACOBO C. CLAVE

    201 Phil. 463

  • G.R. No. L-58287 August 19, 1982 - EDUARDO VILLANUEVA v. LORENZO MOSQUEDA

    201 Phil. 474

  • G.R. No. L-60067 August 19, 1982 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

    201 Phil. 477

  • G.R. No. L-26940 August 21, 1982 - PAULINA SANTOS, ET AL. v. GREGORIA ARANZANSO, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 481

  • G.R. No. L-27130 August 21, 1982 - PAULINA SANTOS DE PARREÑO v. JULIO VILLAMOR, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 487

  • G.R. No. L-30697 August 2, 1982 - GILBERTO M. DUAVIT v. HERMINIO MARIANO

    201 Phil. 488

  • G.R. No. L-35705 August 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO M. UMALI

    201 Phil. 494

  • G.R. No. L-36222 August 21, 1982 - AUGUST O. BERNARTE, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 513

  • G.R. No. L-39007 August 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO RAMIREZ

    201 Phil. 519

  • G.R. No. L-40621 August 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AQUILINO PADUNAN

    201 Phil. 525

  • G.R. No. L-56962 August 21, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES B. PLAN

    201 Phil. 541

  • G.R. No. L-58805 August 21, 1982 - ROMULO BOLAÑOS, ET AL. v. RAFAEL DELA CRUZ, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 549

  • G.R. No. L-59493 August 21, 1982 - MANUEL SAN ANDRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 552

  • G.R. No. L-59823 August 21, 1982 - GETZ CORPORATION PHILS., INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 558

  • G.R. No. L-38753 August 25, 1982 - RAFAEL S. MERCADO v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH V, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 565

  • G.R. No. L-44031 August 26, 1982 - SONIA VILLONES v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 574

  • G.R. No. L-47099 August 26, 1982 - IGNACIO DELOS ANGELES v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 581

  • G.R. No. L-59582 August 26, 1982 - JESUS M. PAMAN v. RODRIGO DIAZ, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 597

  • A.M. No. 78-MJ August 30, 1982 - BUENAVENTURA B. MARTINEZ v. TEODORO O. PAHIMULIN

    201 Phil. 602

  • A.M. No. P-1722 August 30, 1982 - BENIGNO CABALLERO v. WALTER VILLANUEVA

    201 Phil. 606

  • G.R. No. L-25933 August 30, 1982 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 611

  • G.R. No. L-27657 August 30, 1982 - PAULINA SANTOS DE PARREÑ0 v. GREGORIA ARANZANSO

    201 Phil. 623

  • G.R. No. L-29268 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESARIO C. GOLEZ, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 632

  • G.R. No. L-33515 August 30, 1982 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. RAYMUND FAMILARA

    201 Phil. 635

  • G.R. No. L-37686 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN L. ARCENAL

    201 Phil. 640

  • G.R. No. L-39298 August 30, 1982 - SULPICIO G. PAREDES v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 644

  • G.R. No. L-41700 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARTE SIBAYAN

    201 Phil. 648

  • G.R. No. L-42447 August 30, 1982 - PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION v. SERAFIN E. CAMILON

    201 Phil. 658

  • G.R. No. L-42660 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO OLMEDILLO

    201 Phil. 661

  • G.R. No. L-43427 August 30, 1982 - FELIPE N. CRISOSTOMO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 666

  • G.R. No. L-45472 August 30, 1982 - HEIRS OF SATURNINA AKUT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 680

  • G.R. No. L-46762 August 30, 1982 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES SUPERVISORS’ ASSOCIATION v. AMADO GAT INCIONG, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 689

  • G.R. No. L-48975 August 30, 1982 - RAFAEL B. MAGPANTAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 702

  • G.R. No. L-54068 and 54142 August 30, 1982 - ST. LUKE’S HOSPITAL, INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 706

  • G.R. No. L-54094 August 30, 1982 - ALABANG DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. MANUEL E. VALENZUELA, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 727

  • G.R. No. L-54760 August 30, 1982 - MICAELA C. AGGABAO v. LETICIA U. GAMBOA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55801 August 30, 1982 - LEONARDO MAGAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56973 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SABENIANO LOBETANIA

    201 Phil. 762

  • G.R. No. L-56995 August 30, 1982 - RAYMUNDO R. LIBRODO v. JOSE L. COSCOLLUELA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-59548 August 30, 1982 - DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO., INC. v. PACITA CAÑIZARES-NYE

    201 Phil. 777

  • G.R. No. L-59821 August 30, 1982 - ROWENA F. CORONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 782

  • G.R. No. L-60342 August 30, 1982 - FRANCISCO S. BANAAD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 788

  • G.R. No. L-28237 August 31, 1982 - BAY VIEW HOTEL, INC. v. KER & CO., LTD., ET AL.

    201 Phil. 794

  • G.R. No. L-29971 August 31, 1982 - ESSO STANDARD EASTERN, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 803

  • G.R. No. L-32437 August 31, 1982 - SALANDANG PANGADIL, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF COTABATO, BRANCH I, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 813

  • G.R. No. L-36759 August 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NECESIO IMBO

    201 Phil. 821

  • G.R. No. L-37935 August 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE GANADO

    201 Phil. 828

  • G.R. No. L-38687 August 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO HISUGAN

    201 Phil. 836

  • G.R. No. L-39777 August 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX ATIENZA

    201 Phil. 844

  • G.R. No. L-44707 August 31, 1982 - HICKOK MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 853

  • G.R. No. L-59887 August 31, 1982 - CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 857

  • G.R. No. L-60687 August 31, 1982 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. MINERVA C. GENOVEA

    201 Phil. 862

  • G.R. No. L-60800 August 31, 1982 - JAIME PELEJO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 873

  • G.R. No. L-60987 August 31, 1982 - SAMUEL BAUTISTA v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 879