Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > August 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-37935 August 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE GANADO

201 Phil. 828:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-37935. August 31, 1982.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CLEMENTE GANADO, Defendant-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ernesto S. Salunat, for Defendant-Appellant.

SYNOPSIS


In the evening of December 10, 1969, while complainant’s husband was away, Accused entered the house of complainant who was then lying down on the floor with her three children and 12-year old sister-in-law, Lolita Estabillo. Pointing a scythe at her breast, he succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. After the accused had left, complainant shouted for help and went to a neighbor, Julita de la Cruz. The next day she was medically examined. On the basis of the testimony of complainant, corroborated by Lolita Estabillo and Julita de la Cruz, the accused was held guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the accused assailed the finding of the court that there was no violence and resistance and pointed to its failure to consider the inconsistencies and improbabilities in the testimonies of witnesses. Likewise be assailed the insufficiency of evidence with respect to the identity of the accused.

The Supreme Court held: (1) It was quite obvious that complainant was subjected to physical force from the medical certificate which showed the injuries complainant sustained such as the incised wound in the forefingers and punctured wound between the breasts; (2) that the inconsistencies in her testimonies refer only to minor details; (3) that no spermatozoa was found in her private parts contrary to her claim that he made discharge because complainant who was examined the following day possibly may have washed her private parts sometime after the incident; (4) that his identification was made possible by illumination of the kerosene lamp; and moreover, it is a natural reaction of victims of criminal violence to strive to know the identity of the assailant, who in this case is her neighbor.

Judgment affirmed.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; MEDICAL CERTIFICATE BOLSTERS CLAIM OF USE OF VIOLENCE IN PERPETRATING THE CRIME. — The medical certificate, Exhibit D, shows the injuries by the complainant, to wit: (1) incised wound in the right forefingers; and (2) punctured wound between the breast. Dr. Acosta testified that wounds could have been produced by a scythe. This unbiased evidence from the doctor corroborates the testimonies of the complainant and her twelve-year old sister-in-law as to how the accused, armed with a scythe, grabbed the complainant and abused her after a struggle. The brute force employed by the accused upon the hapless complainant before raping her and against her will could he no other than violence. In the case of People v. Eguac, 80 SCRA 665, this Court held that in order to consider the existence of the crime of rape it is not necessary that the force employed in accomplishing it to be so great or of such character as could not be resisted; it is only necessary that the force used by the guilty party be sufficient to consummate the purpose which he had in view.’’ In the case at bar, it is quite obvious that the complainant was subjected to physical force.

2. ID.; ID.; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; DISCREPANCIES IN THE TESTIMONIES OF TWO WITNESSES; EXPLAINED BY THE FACT THAT THEY SEE DIFFERENTLY DETAILS OF A STARTLING OCCURRENCE. — With respect to the alleged inconsistency in the testimonies of the complainant and her sister-in-law, suffice it to say that discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses, which refer to minor details and are not of sufficient magnitude as to denote a deliberate intent to utter falsehoods, show that there had been no coaching. It is natural that two or more persons witnessing the same occurrence are likely to disagree in the narration of events. Inconsistency in the testimonies of witnesses, is only in minor details, reinforces rather than weakens their credibility, for it is usual that witnesses to a stirring event would see differently some details of a startling occurrence (People v. Garcia, 18 SCRA 197).

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; CONTRADICTIONS IN THE TESTIMONIES OF COMPLAINANT AND THE DOCTOR, EXPLAINED. — Contrary to appellant’s contention, We find no contradiction in complainant’s testimony that he made a "discharge" inside her vagina and the doctor’s testimony that he found no spermatozoa in her vaginal canal. Complainant was medically examined the following day and it is possible that she washed her private parts sometime after the incident and before the examination if only to avoid pregnancy. At any rate, the absence of male spermatozoa is not incompatible with the consummation of the crime of rape. The absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the consummation of rape, the important consideration being not the emission of semen but penetration (People v. Jose, 37 SCRA 450). In the consummation of the crime of rape neither perfect penetration nor rupture of the hymen are essential (People v. Oscar, 48 Phil. 527).

4. ID.; ID.; POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED; SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED BY EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION; CASE AT BAR. — There was light coming from the kerosene lamp, and aside from the fact that they were neighbors, it is a natural reaction of victims of criminal violence to strive to know the identity of their assailants. The manner in which the crime was committed creates a lasting impression which cannot easily be erased in their memories (People v. Selfaison, 1 SCRA 235). On this point, the trial court found herein appellant to have been positively recognized by the complainant and her twelve-year old sister-in-law. Quoting from the decision of People v. Villamala, 78 SCRA 145, this Court held that "on the question of the credence to which the conflicting versions of the Prosecution and defense are entitled, the answer given by the trial court is generally viewed as correct and thus entitled to the highest respect.’’ Besides, it has not been shown that complainant, a barriomate of the accused, had evil motive to charge him of the grave crime of rape. It is hard to believe that a woman from the barrio, married and with children, would publicly admit that she had been criminally abused, unless that is the truth.

5. ID.; ID.; ALIBI; DEFENSE OF ALIBI CANNOT OVERCOME POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACCUSED. — The defense of alibi cannot be sustained in the face of positive identification of the accused. Assuming that as early as December 8, 1969 appellant and his family went to stay in the house of his mother-in-law in Barrio Aggub which is about seven kilometers from Barrio Wacal, he could have gone easily to Wacal in the evening of December 8 and then returned immediately to Aggub. It is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but he must demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed (People v. Cortez, Et Al., 57 SCRA 308).


D E C I S I O N


RELOVA, J.:


This is a case of rape. The Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya, Branch I, convicted the accused Clemente Ganado in Criminal Case No. 23 and sentenced him "to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, with the accessories of the law, to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P5,000.00 for moral damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

The testimony on which the finding of guilt was based did show that about 9:00 in the evening of December 10, 1969, Concordia Estabillo, 27 years old, was lying down on the floor of their house at Barrio Wacal, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, together with her three children, namely: Fernando, 7 years old; Antonio, 4 years old; and Paulino, Jr., 2 years old; and her 12-year old sister-in-law, Lolita Estabillo. Complainant’s husband was away, having gone to harvest palay in Isabela since November 12, 1969.

That evening, December 10, 1969, the accused Clemente Ganado entered the house of the complainant who was able to recognize him by the light of a kerosene lamp, about two yards away from her. This light, the accused put off and, immediately thereafter, he held and went on top of the complainant who was then lying flat on her back, very much frightened. The accused used his right hand in holding a scythe pointed at her breast while his left hand embraced and held her neck. The complainant resisted and took hold of the scythe pointed at her breast and this injured her finger. Her blouse and panties were torn as they were kicked downward by the accused who succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her.

After the accused had left, complainant began shouting for help from her neighbors and when no one came she went to Julita dela Cruz whose house was some seven meters away.

The testimony of Concordia Estabillo was corroborated by her sister-in-law, the twelve-year old Lolita Estabillo. She saw the accused grab, embrace and go on top of the complainant. She saw the face of the accused by the light of the kerosene lamp which was about three yards away. She knew the accused, he being a neighbor. She could not shout for help when the accused and complainant were struggling, because she was afraid. The children were awakened by the struggle and all were crying.

The next day, December 11, 1969, about 7:00 in the morning, the complainant went to report the matter to the Barrio Captain who, however, was not at home. She then went to her uncle Esperidion Duro who accompanied her to the police at Solano town proper.

She was investigated and after she had signed the complaint, she was medically examined at the Provincial Hospital at Bayombong by Dr. Gaudencio Acosta.

The prosecution also presented Julita dela Cruz who testified that about past nine o’clock in the evening of December 10, 1969 she heard the complainant’s shouts while one of the children screamed for help. Moments later, the complainant and her children arrived at her (Julita’s) house, afraid and scared. Concordia narrated to her that Clemente Ganado went up their house and abused her.

The medical certificate issued by Dr. Acosta enumerated his findings on the complainant, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Physical Injuries:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. INCISED WOUND, involving skin, right forefingers.

2. PUNCTURED WOUND, mid-sternum between the mammary region.

Vaginal smear — Negative for spermatozoa.

"Conclusion:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Physical injuries were noted on the person of Concordia Estabillo.

2. Under normal condition and without subsequent complication and or deeper involvement but not clinically apparent at the time of examination the described physical injuries will require medical attendance not more than 9 days."cralaw virtua1aw library

The defense is alibi. Accused-appellant Ganado alleged that at the time of the incident in question he was in Barrio Aggub, Solano, attending the wake of his mother-in-law, who died on December 10, 1969. He left his residence at Bo. Wacal in the morning of December 8, together with his wife and children. It was only on December 13, 1969 when he returned to Wacal to get some papayas to serve as food for the people who were attending the vigil of his mother-in-law. On the way he was arrested in connection with the case at bar.

Rodolfo Dumalanta and Remedios Parucha testified that the accused and his wife, Flocerfida Doles, were in the house of Anunciacion Antolin in Bo. Aggub, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya because the latter was very sick, as in fact she died on December 10, 1969; that they saw the accused in that house every evening from December 8 to December 12, 1969.

The defense also presented one Rosalina Valdez who declared that she was at the house of Julita dela Cruz that night of December 10, 1969 when Concordia Estabillo arrived. Concordia was complaining that a man she was not able to recognize because there was no light went up their house; that when the man went near her she shouted and this made him jump out of the window; that her companions in the house did not see the man because they were all asleep.

Ganado contends that the trial court erred: (1) in not finding absence of violence and resistance; (2) in refusing to take cognizance of the serious and vital contradictions of the prosecution witnesses, namely, the complainant and her sister-in-law, as well as the inherent improbability and physical impossibility of how the crime was committed; (3) in refusing to appreciate the insufficiency of evidence with respect to the identity of the accused; and, (5) in not acquitting the defendant-appellant.

The medical certificate, Exhibit D, shows the injuries sustained by the complainant, to wit: (1) incised wound in the right forefingers; and, (2) punctured wound between the breast. Dr. Acosta testified that both wounds could have been produced by a scythe. This unbiased evidence from the doctor corroborates the testimonies of the complainant and her twelve-year old sister-in-law as to how the accused, armed with a scythe, grabbed the complainant and abused her after a struggle. The brute force employed by the accused upon the hapless complainant before raping her and against her will could be no other than violence. In the case of People v. Eguac, 80 SCRA 665, this Court held that "in order to consider the existence of the crime of rape it is not necessary that the force employed in accomplishing it to be so great or of such character as could not be resisted; it is only necessary that the force used by the guilty party be sufficient to consummate the purpose which he had in view." In the case at bar, it is quite obvious that the complainant was subjected to physical force.

With respect to the alleged inconsistency in the testimonies of the complainant and her sister-in-law, suffice it to say that discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses, which refer to minor details and are not of sufficient magnitude as to denote a deliberate intent to utter falsehoods, show that there had been no coaching. It is natural that two or more persons witnessing the same occurrence are likely to disagree in the narration of events. Inconsistency in the testimonies of witnesses, if only in minor details, reinforces rather than weakens their credibility, for it is usual that witnesses to a stirring event would see differently some details of a startling occurrence. (People v. Garcia, 18 SCRA 197).

And, contrary to appellant’s contention, We find no contradiction in complainant’s testimony that he made a "discharge" inside her vagina and the doctor’s testimony that he found no spermatozoa in her vaginal canal. Complainant was medically examined the following day and it is possible that she washed her private parts sometime after the incident and before the examination if only to avoid pregnancy. At any rate, the absence of male spermatozoa is not incompatible with the consummation of the crime of rape. The absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the consummation of rape, the important consideration being not the emission of semen but penetration (People v. Jose, 37 SCRA 450). In the consummation of the crime of rape neither perfect penetration nor rupture of the hymen are essential (People v. Oscar, 48 Phil. 527).

Likewise, there is no merit in the contention that complainant was not able to identify the accused. There was light coming from the kerosene lamp and, aside from the fact that they were neighbors, it is a natural reaction of victims of criminal violence to strive to know the identity of their assailants. The manner in which the crime was committed creates a lasting impression which cannot easily be erased in their memories (People v. Selfaison, 1 SCRA 235). On this point, the trial court found herein appellant to have been positively recognized by the complainant and her twelve-year old sister-in-law. Quoting from the decision of People v. Villamala, 78 SCRA 145, this Court held that "on the question of the credence to which the conflicting versions of the prosecution and defense are entitled, the answer given by the trial court is generally viewed as correct and thus entitled to the highest respect." Besides, it has not been shown that complainant, a barriomate of the accused, had evil motive to charge him of the grave crime of rape. It is hard to believe that a woman from the barrio, married and with children, would publicly admit that she had been criminally abused, unless that is the truth.

On the other hand, the defense of alibi cannot be sustained in the face on positive identification of the accused. Assuming that as early as December 8, 1969 appellant and his family went to stay in the house of his mother-in-law in Barrio Aggub which is about seven kilometers from Barrio Wacal, he could have gone easily to Wacal in the evening of December 8 and then returned immediately to Aggub. It is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but he must demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed (People v. Cortez, Et Al., 57 SCRA 308).

The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court is in accordance with Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

WHEREFORE, the lower court’s judgment is affirmed with costs against the Appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., took no part.

Makasiar, J., is on official 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