Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > November 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-39503 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCRESIO CARDENAS

204 Phil. 88:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-39503. November 19, 1982.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LUCRESIO CARDENAS alias Lote, NIDO CARDENAS, and MANUEL CARDENAS, Accused-Appellants.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Hilario G. Davide, Jr. for Accused-Appellants.

SYNOPSIS


The three accused-appellants were charged before the Court of First Instance with the crime of murder for having conspired in the killing of one Nestor Aboabo. On trial, two prosecution witnesses testified that during a benefit dance, Accused Manuel and Nido Cardenas dragged the victim out of the dance hall and mauled him; then the other accused, Lucresio Cardenas, upon seeing his son Nido and brother Manuel engaged in a fist fight with Aboabo, followed them, pistol-whipped the victim and fatally shot him. Accused Lucresio Cardenas declared that while he was urinating outside the dance hall, Nestor Aboabo approached and threatened him with a pistol; that he was able to wrest the gun from Aboabo and warned the latter not to come near him; that he shot Aboabo when the latter did not heed his warning; and that due to his confusion, he fled and threw the gun into the river. Giving more credence to the version of the prosecution, the trial court found all three accused guilty as charged and sentenced each of them to reclusion perpetua. Hence, this appeal.

On review, the Supreme Court held that conspiracy does not exist because when Manuel and Nido Cardenas dragged the victim from the dance hall, they apparently did not plan to kill him but only to maul him, while the other accused Lucresio Cardenas joined the fight on the impulse of the moment out of strong paternal and fraternal instinct and not on account of a conspiracy, express or implied; consequently, Manuel and Nido Cardenas who merely boxed the victim, are guilty only of slight physical injuries, while Lucresio Cardenas who pistol-whipped and shot the deceased is guilty of murder characterized by alevosia.

Judgment modified.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; SELF- DEFENSE; BURDEN OF PROVING SAME LIES WITH THE ACCUSED. — It is now a rule well-settled that one who admits the infliction of the injuries which caused the death of another, has the burden of proving self-defense, which is an affirmative allegation. Where the evidence of self-defense is of doubtful veracity, the defense must fail.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; EVIDENCE THEREOF MUST BE CLEAR AND CONVINCING. — The quintessence of various decisions on this point is to the effect that evidence of self-defense must be clear and convincing and the accused claiming self-defense must plant his case on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution (People v. Cruz, 53 Phil. 635; People v. Gutierrez, 53 Phil. 609; People v. Alviar, 56 Phil. 98; People v. Berio, 59 Phil. 533; People v. Espenilla, 62 Phil. 264.)

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; BURDEN OF PROVING SAME NOT MET BY THE ACCUSED IN THE INSTANT CASE. — In this case, the accused has failed to meet the burden of proving his claim of self-defense. The version given by him, standing without corroboration, is not convincing. The throwing of the death weapon to the river upon the pretext that he was afraid that he might be caught by the PC soldiers in possession of that pistol, and his endeavor to elude arrest by roaming the mountains of Parodahan near Ginitilan, Cebu, for seven (7) months until his arrest on the third or fourth day of November, 1972, is absolutely irreconcilable with the reaction of an intelligent man with a clear conscience who killed another in defense of his person. His reaction, by all standards, was to notify the authorities and hand over the weapons to them. Besides, the testimonies of two prosecution witnesses have proved conclusively that the version of the prosecution is the true one.

4. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; CONTRADICTIONS ON MINOR DETAILS, INDICATIVE OF VERACITY; CASE AT BAR. — The defense impugns the testimony of the two prosecution witnesses on the ground that their versions of the incident are contradictory in that while "Lumagbas declared that the deceased was pulled and dragged from the dancing place to the outside by Manuel Cardenas and Nido Cardenas and outside he was mauled by the two; thereafter Lote Cardenas followed them and upon reaching the deceased Lote struck Nestor with a pistol first on the neck and then on the side, whereupon there was a gun report" ; Ronda "declared that it was Lote Cardenas who brought the deceased outside by placing his arms on the deceased’s shoulders and then outside Lote struck him with a pistol and there followed a gun report." This difference is on a minor detail, and, instead of being considered a badge of untruthfulness, is a sign of veracity. Witnesses react differently on what they see and hear depending upon their situation and state of mind. On the other hand, uniformity in details is a badge of untruthfulness. (People v. Pascual, 93 Phil, 1114.)

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; FINDINGS THEREON OF THE TRIAL COURT ACCORDED DUE RESPECT BY APPELLATE COURTS. — It is a rule well-settled that where the issue of credibility of witnesses is concerned, due respect is accorded to the findings of the trial court which had the opportunity of observing the witness while testifying.

6. CRIMINAL LAW; CONSPIRACY; DOES NOT EXIST IN CASE AT BAR. — In the instant case, there is no sufficient evidence to indicate conspiracy. The witnesses for the prosecution merely testified that the accused Manuel and Nido Cardenas pulled and dragged Nestor Aboabo out of the dance arena and brought him outside where they mauled him. Then, the other accused, Lucresio Cardenas alias Lote, followed them and pistol-whipped Nestor Aboabo and shot him. Conspiracy does not exist in the commission of the crime because when Manuel and Nido Cardenas dragged Nestor Aboabo from the dance arena, they had no plans of killing him, They merely gave him fist blows in the body. As a matter of fact, no motive was shown to indicate a desire on their part to kill the deceased. The other accused, Lucresio Cardenas alias Lote, joined the mix-up on the impulse of the moment upon seeing his son Nido and brother Manuel involved in a fist-fight. It was out of strong fraternal and paternal instincts and not on account of a conspiracy, express or implied, that led him to join the fray and take the life of the deceased.

7. ID.; SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES; PENALTY; CASE AT BAR. — There being no evidence of conspiracy in the case at bar, Accused- appellants Manuel and Nido Cardenas, who merely boxed the deceased, should be held guilty only of slight physical injuries. Considering that they have been confined in prison for more than eight (8) years since September 12, 1974, they should be immediately released from confinement unless there be any other reason for their continued detention.

8. ID.; MURDER; QUALIFIED BY ALEVOSIA IN CASE AT BAR. — Accused-appellant Lucresio Cardenas alias Lote, who joined the fight and pistol-whipped Nestor Aboabo and fatally shot him, is guilty of Murder characterized by alevosia.

AQUINO, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

CRIMINAL LAW; HOMICIDE; COMMITTED WHERE THE KILLING WAS DONE ON THE IMPULSE OF THE MOMENT; CASE AT BAR. — Accused Lucresio Cardenas is guilty of homicide only, since, as admitted by the ponente in the main decision (Page 8) Lucresio acted on the impulse of the moment, He should be sentenced to 10 years of prision mayor as minimum of 17 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, JR., J.:


The accused, Lucresio Cardenas alias "Lote", Manuel Cardenas, and Nido Cardenas, were charged before the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental with the crime of Murder, committed, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about March 25, 1972, in Labuyo, Tangub City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with intent to kill, acting together, conspiring, confederating and cooperating with one another, with treachery and taking advantage of superior force and strength, or employing means to weaken the defense, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, the accused Manuel Cardenas and Nido Cardenas did pull and drag one Nestor Aboabo, from inside the barrio market place where a benefit dance was in progress and once outside the said place, the accused Manuel Cardenas and Nido Cardenas hit the said Nestor Aboabo with their fist blows causing injuries on the body of the latter, while co-accused Lucresio Cardenas, alias Lote followed with a firearm in his hand and struck and shot the said Nestor Aboabo, with his (Lucresio Cardenas) unlicensed firearm, causing a gunshot wound on the body of said Nestor Aboabo, injuring his liver, stomach and right kidney, which caused his (Nestor Aboabo) death immediately thereafter." 1

After trial, Judge Geronimo R. Marave found said accused guilty of the crime charged and sentenced them "to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties of the law; to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Nestor Aboabo, the sum of P12,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs." 2 From that sentence, the accused appealed to this Court.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

The evidence for the prosecution shows that in the evening of March 25, 1972, Fernando Lumagbas, Alfredo Evidientes, Nicolas Ronda, and Nestor Aboabo, all young men from Barrio Basicong, in Tañgub City, went to the adjacent barrio of Labuyo, also of the same city, to attend a benefit dance, jointly sponsored by the Labuyo barrio council and the barrio’s Young Ones Association, held at the market place of Labuyo, about a kilometer away from barrio Basicong. At about 11:00 o’clock in the evening, Nestor Aboabo requested those in charge of the affair a "special dance" for their group. However, the accused Manuel and Nido Cardenas pulled and dragged Nestor Aboabo out of the dance hall and brought him outside where they mauled him. The other accused, Lucresio Cardenas, alias Lote, followed them and struck Nestor Aboabo with a pistol hitting him on the neck and on the side of the body and later shot him. Nestor Aboabo was able to walk five steps and then fell down. "Persing", the wife of the accused Lucresio Cardenas, reproached her husband and asked him why he did it. 3 Nestor Aboabo was taken to a hospital at Tañgub City but he died on the way. 4 Dr. Sinforiana del Castillo, Tañgub City Health Officer, examined the cadaver and issued a certificate reading, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Post-mortem Examination 3/28/72

9:35 A.M. — 10:00 A.M., Bosicong,

Tangub City

"Preliminary Examination

"In a house at Bosicong lie a dead body of Mr. Nestor Aboabo, 18 years of age, single allegedly a resident of Lala, Pagadian City. The dead body embalmed, had been dead on March 25, 1972 after being attended by a private physician.

"General Survey: Fairly nourished, fairly developed, male, approximate weight 60 kilos or more, approximate height more than 5 ft.

"Pertinent Findings:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Gunshot wound of entrance at right hypochondriac region mid-clavicular line 1.1 cm. in diameter, oval, contusion colar widest at the upper right side of the wound.

"2. Slit like open wound over left lumbar region midscapular line.

"3. Linear abrasion over lower eyelid right eye, stillate in form 2.5 cm. by 1 cm.

"4. Abrasion of mucous membrane of lips.

"5. Linear abrasion 13 cm., 7 cm. and 2.5 cm. obliquely at posterior aspect of right forearm.

"Caused of Death:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Gunshot wound injuring vital organs — liver, stomach, right kidney.

"This examination was done upon the request of the Chief of Police of Tañgub City in the presence of Patrolman F. Oling and Tia." 5

As a result, an information was filed by the City Fiscal of Tañgub City with the City Court of Tañgub charging the accused Lote Cardenas, Manuel Cardenas and Nido Cardenas with Murder for the slaying of Nestor Aboabo. 6 But, the warrants for their arrest were not served as they could not be found, prompting the City Court to issue an order on October 26, 1972, shelving the case temporarily. 7 It was only in the first week of November, 1972, when the three accused were arrested in Ginitilan, Cebu, by Pat. Eugenio Ledesma and Teodulfo Lanzado. 8

The accused Nido Cardenas admitted shooting the deceased Nestor Aboabo, but claims self-defense. 9 He declared that he was the assigned announcer at the benefit dance in question, being a member of the Labuyo Young Ones Association and was in-charge of requests for special dance. At about 11:00 o’clock that evening, he was approached by the deceased Nestor Aboabo who made a request for a special dance. Nestor Aboabo was drunk. Since he (Nido) was to call the next dance a special dance for the Labuyo barrio council and the Young Ones Association, he just told Nestor to wait for the next piece. He also told Nestor to pay for his requested special dance. Nestor Aboabo, however, did not go to the table to pay for the requested special dance. Instead, he went out. Thereafter, he (Nido) announced the special dance for the barrio council officials and the members of the Association, and when the music was played, he went out of the dance hall to urinate across the road. While urinating, he heard a person behind him saying: "You are a braggart, Nid." He looked back and saw Nestor Aboabo pointing a pistol at him. He stepped backward, faced Nestor, and then struck the hand of Nestor which held the pistol. The pistol fell and Nestor tried to pick it up. But, he held the hand of Nestor and wrested the pistol away from him. After getting the pistol, he warned Nestor not to come near. But, Nestor did not heed him and continued to advance towards him. So, he shot Nestor who staggered and fell. Not knowing what to do, he left for Ozamiz City and upon reaching the Malubog bridge, he threw the pistol to the river. 10

It is now a rule well-settled that one who admits the infliction of the injuries which caused the death of another, has the burden of proving self-defense, which is an affirmative allegation. Where the evidence of self-defense is of doubtful veracity, the defense must fail. The quintessence of various decisions on his point is to the effect that evidence of self-defense must be clear and convincing and the accused claiming self-defense must plant his case on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution. 11 We feel that in this case the burden has not been met. The version given by the accused Nido Cardenas, standing without corroboration, is not convincing. The throwing of the death weapon to the river upon the pretext that he was afraid that he might be caught by PC soldiers in possession of that pistol, 12 and his endeavor to elude arrest by roaming the mountains of Parodahan near Ginitilan, Cebu, for seven (7) months until his arrest on the third or fourth day of November, 1972, 13 is absolutely irreconcilable with the reaction of an intelligent man with a clear conscience who killed another in defense of his person. His reaction, by all standards, was to notify the authorities and hand over the weapon to them.

Besides, the testimony of Fernando Lumagbas and Nicolas Ronda, testifying for the prosecution, have proved conclusively that the version of the prosecution is the true one. The defense impugns the testimony of these witnesses on the ground that their versions of the incident are contradictory in that while "Lumagbas declared that the deceased was pulled and dragged from the dancing place to the outside by Manuel Cardenas and Nido Cardenas and outside he was mauled by the two; thereafter Lote Cardenas followed them and upon reaching the deceased Lote struck Nestor with a pistol first on the neck and then on the side, whereupon there was a gun report;" Ronda "declared that it was Lote Cardenas who brought the deceased outside by placing his arms on the deceased shoulders and then outside Lote struck him with a pistol and there followed a gun report." 14 This difference is on a minor detail, and, instead of being considered a badge of untruthfulness, is a sign of veracity. Witnesses react differently on what they see and hear depending upon their situation and state of mind. On the other hand, uniformity in details is a badge of untruthfulness. 15 At any rate, neither witness was wrong in asserting that all the three accused were present and had taken active participation in the commission of the crime, and there is no convincing proof that these witnesses had a reason to testify falsely against the accused. Besides, it is a rule well-settled that where the issue of credibility of witnesses is concerned, due respect is accorded to the findings of the trial court who had the opportunity of observing the witness while testifying.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

However, We find no sufficient evidence to indicate conspiracy. In the instant case, the witnesses for the prosecution merely testified that the accused Manuel and Nido Cardenas pulled and dragged Nestor Aboabo out of the dance arena and brought him outside where they mauled him. Then, the other accused, Lucresio Cardenas alias Lote, followed them and pistol-whipped Nestor Aboabo and shot him. Conspiracy does not exist in the commission of the crime because when Manuel and Nido Cardenas dragged Nestor Aboabo from the dance arena, they had no plans of killing him. They merely gave him fist blows in the body. As a matter of fact, no motive was shown to indicate a desire on their part to kill the deceased. The other accused, Lucresio Cardenas alias Lote, joined the mix-up on the impulse of the moment upon seeing his son Nido and brother Manuel involved in a fist-fight It was out of strong fraternal and paternal instincts and not on account of a conspiracy, express or implied, that led him to join the fray and take the life of the deceased.

Hence, Manuel and Nido Cardenas, who merely boxed the deceased, should he held guilty only of slight physical injuries. Considering that they have been confined in prison for more than eight (8) years since September 12, 1974, they should be immediately released from confinement unless there be any other reason for their continued detention.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

But, Lucresio Cardenas alias Lote is guilty of Murder characterized by alevosia. The penalty imposed upon him is correct and should be, as it is hereby, AFFIRMED. The said accused-appellant, alone, shall indemnify the heirs of the deceased Nestor Aboabo the sum of P12,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

WHEREFORE, with the modification above-indicated, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is hereby, AFFIRMED in all other respects. With costs against the appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


AQUINO, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I dissent. Lucresio Cardenas is guilty of homicide only. As admitted by the ponente on page 8, Lucresio acted on the impulse of the moment. He should be sentenced to ten years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years of reclusion temporal as maximum.

Makasiar, J., (Chairman), concurs.

Endnotes:



1. Original Record, p. 83.

2. Id., p. 237.

3. t.s.n. of March 8, 1973, pp. 6-10, 21-25.

4. Id., p. 25.

5. Exhibit "E."

6. Original Record, p. 3.

7. Id., p. 45.

8. t.s.n. of November 8, 1973, p. 20.

9. The other accused did not take the stand to counteract or explain the damaging evidence against them.

10. t.s.n., of October 23, 1973, pp. 26-41.

11. People: v. Cruz, 53 Phil. 635; People v. Gutierrez, 53 Phil. 609; People v. Alviar, 56 Phil. 98; People v. Berio, 59 Phil. 533; People v. Espenilla, 62 Phil. 264.

12. t.s.n. of November 8, 1973, p. 12.

13. Id, pp. 17-20.

14. Appellants’ Brief, pp. 10-11.

15. People v. Pascual, 93 Phil. 1114.




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






November-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-2221 November 2, 1982 - CIPRIANO ABENOJAR v. DOMINGO LOPEZ

    203 Phil. 385

  • A.M. No. 2739-CFI November 2, 1982 - TERESITA DE CASTRO v. IGNACIO CAPULONG

    203 Phil. 390

  • G.R. No. L-27152 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS E. TORIO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 398

  • G.R. No. L-34079 November 2, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 402

  • G.R. No. L-34517 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SlMEON GANUT

    203 Phil. 421

  • G.R. No. L-39518 November 2, 1982 - AGRICULTURAL & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 436

  • G.R. No. L-44039 November 2, 1982 - ROLANDO A. DATUIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 442

  • G.R. No. L-47460 November 2, 1982 - AMELIA DELEGENTE v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 447

  • G.R. No. L-48196 November 2, 1982 - ROLANDO BAUTISTA v. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 469

  • G.R. No. L-50298 November 2, 1982 - JOSEPH Y. PUNAY v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 475

  • G.R. No. L-50358 November 2, 1982 - SHIPSIDE, INCORPORATED v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 481

  • G.R. No. L-52823 November 2, 1982 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. MIDPANTAO ADIL, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 492

  • G.R. No. L-53465 November 2, 1982 - ANTONIO NITURA v. JOSE C. COLAYCO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 503

  • G.R. No. L-54439 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE Of THE PHIL. v. JESUS N. MONTEZ

    203 Phil. 508

  • G.R. No. L-55645 November 2, 1982 - RICARDO CENIZA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 521

  • G.R. No. L-56909 November 2, 1982 - FLORENCIA B. SAN VALENTIN v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 534

  • G.R. No. L-58578 November 2, 1982 - JOSE GEROMO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 539

  • G.R. No. L-59054 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MUSTAPA ALIBASA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 559

  • G.R. No. L-34597 November 5, 1982 - ROSITO Z. BACARRO, ET AL. v. GERUNDIO B. CASTAÑO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 563

  • G.R. No. L-36033 November 5, 1982 - IN RE: APOLONIO TABOADA v. AVELINO S. ROSAL, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 572

  • G.R. No. L-61870 November 5, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSTANTINO D. PERALTA

    203 Phil. 580

  • G.R. No. L-49004 November 10, 1982 - NG LIT v. FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 592

  • A.M. No. 702-CTJ November 15, 1982 - ELISA VDA. DE OCHOA, ET AL. v. GERINO M. TOLENTINO

    203 Phil. 600

  • G.R. No. L-26325 November 15, 1982 - PACWELD STEEL CORPORATION v. ASIA STEEL CORPORATION

    203 Phil. 606

  • G.R. No. L-31366 November 15, 1982 - ASIAN SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. ISLAND STEEL, INC., ET AL.

    203 Phil. 611

  • G.R. No. L-34834 November 15, 1982 - ARTURO H. TROCIO v. LUIS D. MANTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39258 November 15, 1982 - RAYMUNDO A. ARMOVIT, ET AL. v. AMANTE P. PURISIMA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 625

  • G.R. No. L-42540 November 15, 1982 - VICTOR NEPOMUCENO, ET AL. v. JUAN B. MONTECILLO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 632

  • G.R. No. L-52325 November 15, 1982 - CANLUBANG SUGAR ESTATE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 639

  • G.R. No. L-53060 November 15, 1982 - ROSARIO T. MAMERTO, ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 644

  • G.R. No. 55771 November 15, 1982 - TAHANAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 652

  • G.R. No. L-56479 November 15, 1982 - SOCORRO L. VDA. DE STA. ROMANA v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 708

  • G.R. Nos. L-56695-98 November 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIBSON A. ARAULA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 719

  • G.R. No. L-61663 November 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO L. REGLOS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 724

  • G.R. No. L-61997 November 15, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. ELFREN PARTISALA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 750

  • A.C. No. 641 November 19, 1982 - FRANCISCO RADOMES v. FERNANDO FABRIGARAS

    204 Phil. 1

  • A.C. No. 1675 November 19, 1982 - BELEN A. RIVERA v. ORLANDO LATONERO

    204 Phil. 4

  • A.M. No. P-1935 November 19, 1982 - BENJAMIN DAAG v. HONORIO SERRANO

    204 Phil. 9

  • G.R. No. L-30690 November 19, 1982 - BF HOMES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 15

  • G.R. No. L-30854 November 19, 1982 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 21

  • G.R. No. L-34362 November 19, 1982 - MODESTA CALIMLIM, ET AL. v. PEDRO A. RAMIREZ, ET AL.

    204 Phil.25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. L-35718 November 19, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 38

  • G.R. No. L-37712 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SYQUIOCO

    204 Phil. 42

  • G.R. No. L-38258 November 19, 1982 - LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWANG MAKABAYAN v. MARCELO ENTERPRISES, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 50

  • G.R. No. L-39503 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCRESIO CARDENAS

    204 Phil. 88

  • G.R. No. L-39528 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY MONAGA, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 98

  • G.R. No. L-44686 November 19, 1982 - MACARIO MANUEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 110

  • G.R. No. L-44817 November 19, 1982 - LEA PAZ TUAZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 117

  • G.R. No. L-46729 November 19, 1982 - LAUSAN AYOG, ET AL. v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49140 November 19, 1982 - QUASHA ASPERILLA ANCHETA VALMONTE PEÑA & MARCOS v. CELESTINO P. JUAN, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 141

  • G.R. No. L-54158 November 19, 1982 - PAGASA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 162

  • G.R. No. L-55079 November 19, 1982 - METROPOLITAN BANK and TRUST COMPANY v. FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 172

  • G.R. No. L-55539 November 19, 1982 - DIOSA DE LEON v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 180

  • G.R. No. L-55624 November 19, 1982 - BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 194

  • G.R. No. L-56761 November 19, 1982 - MARIANO TOLEDO, ET AL. v. BERNARDO P. PARDO, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 203

  • G.R. No. L-57170 November 19, 1982 - KO BU LIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 211

  • G.R. No. L-57440 November 19, 1982 - D. D. COMENDADOR CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. MARCELINO N. SAYO, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 227

  • G.R. Nos. L-57477-78 November 19, 1982 - HEIRS OF WILLIAM SEVILLA, ET AL. v. DIMALANES B. BUISSAN, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 237

  • G.R. No. L-57707 November 19, 1982 - PHILEX MINING CORPORATION v. DOMINGO CORONEL REYES, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 241

  • G.R. No. L-58506 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NILO DE JESUS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 247

  • G.R. No. L-59463 November 19, 1982 - PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA v. IMPERIAL MINING COMPANY, INC.

    204 Phil. 262

  • G.R. No. L-59596 November 19, 1982 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 268

  • G.R. No. L-60950 November 19, 1982 - J.D. MAGPAYO CUSTOMS BROKERAGE CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 276

  • A.M. No. P-292 November 25, 1982 - ISIDRO G. ARENAS v. MANUEL RESULTAN, SR.

    204 Phil. 279

  • A.C. No. 2662-CFI November 26, 1982 - FLAVIANO A. PELMOKA v. FELIX T. DIAZ, JR.

    204 Phil. 283

  • G.R. No. L-30391 November 25, 1982 - ASSOCIATED SUGAR, INC., ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 289

  • G.R. No. L-35630 November 25, 1982 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. v. GALAURAN & PILARES CONSTRUCTION CO., ET AL.

    204 Phil. 296

  • G.R. No. L-35757 November 25, 1982 - LUCIA LUSUNG v. SUSANA VDA. DE SANTOS

    204 Phil. 302

  • G.R. No. L-36364 November 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO DASCIL, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 309

  • G.R. No. L-38423 November 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMUEL PIMENTEL

    204 Phil. 327

  • G.R. No. L-38449 November 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR MANZANO

    204 Phil. 339

  • G.R. No. L-50548 November 25, 1982 - CONCHING ALVARO, ET AL. v. HOSPICIO ZAPATA, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 356

  • G.R. No. L-56025 November 25, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO M. GONONG, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 364

  • G.R. Nos. L-56224-26 November 25, 1982 - PURISIMA GESTOSO CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 372

  • G.R. Nos. L-61067-68 November 25, 1982 - MITSUI & CO., LTD. v. MANUEL G. ABELLO, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 384

  • G.R. No. L-33724 November 29, 1982 - ELIGIA BATBATAN. v. OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF PAGADIAN, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 379