Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > September 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-45436 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PON-AN

202 Phil. 653:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-45436. September 30, 1982.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE PON-AN, Defendant-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ignacio M. Aure, Jr., for Defendant-Appellant.

SYNOPSIS


After asking Josie Tayam, seven years old, to buy cigarettes from the store, appellant brought her to the nipa swamps where he kissed her, took off her panty and inserted his penis into her private parts. Josie cried in pain.Then appellant let Josie go to the river to wash. That same day Josie was taken by her mother for medical examination. Appellant was charged with rape. The doctor testified in court that the swelling of the vulva and ruptured hymen of Josie "could have been caused by sexual intercouse" with a man.Appellant denied the charge and interposed the defense of alibi. He, however, admitted asking the child to buy cigarettes for him and having embraced and kissed the child. The trial court convicted the appellant of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. On appeal, appellant assails the finding of guilt by the lower court on the ground that the doctor who testified did not positively affirm the commission of the rape as the rupture of the hymen could have been caused by other circumstances.

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the appealed decision holding that the lower court is entitled to considerable discretion in determining which of the conflicting versions is to be lent credence.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY THEREOF; FINDING OF TRIAL COURT ACCORDED RESPECT. — The lower court is entitled to considerable discretion in determining which of the conflicting versions is to be lent credence. The findings of the lower court which had the opportunity to see, hear and observe the witness testify and to weigh their testimonies will be accorded the highest degree of respect by this Tribunal (People v. Gumahin, 21 SCRA 729).

2. CRIMINAL LAW; RAPE; CAUSE FOR RUPTURE OF HYMEN NOT NECESSARY IN ESTABLISHING RAPE. — There need not be much fuss on how the rupture of the hymen occurred. The liability of appellant for the crime of rape, in the light of other evidence, is unavoidable.

3. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE; PRESENTATION OF PANTY OF RAPE VICTIM NOT NECESSARY. — The non-presentation of the panty worn by the offended party at the time she was sexually assaulted does not render inadequate the People’s evidence. At most, the evidence is merely corroborative.


D E C I S I O N


RELOVA, J.:


Jose Pon-an appeals from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Antique finding him guilty of the crime of rape, defined and penalized in paragraph 3, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentencing him to suffer RECLUSION PERPETUA, to indemnify the minor Josie Tayam and her family in the sum of Eight Thousand Pesos (P8,000.00), as actual and moral damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

Prosecution evidence may be quoted from the People’s brief, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"On April 6, 1975 at about 2 o’clock in the afternoon while the offended party Josie Tayam who was then only seven years of age was playing on the ground near her grandmother Julia Tatoy’s house located in Guija, Bugasong, Antique, Accused Jose Pon-an (hereinafter referred to as appellant) approached and requested her to buy Old Gold Cigarettes from the store of her aunt Letty. Appellant handed her 50 centavos with which to buy 25 centavos worth of cigarettes. Thereafter, offended party proceeded to her aunt Letty’s store but instead bought therefrom Champion cigarettes and gave them to appellant (pp. 4-7, 25-26, t.s.n., June 9, 1976).

"Immediately after offended party had handed the cigarettes to appellant, the held the former by the hand and brought her to the nipa swamps which was about 100 meters from Letty’s store. Upon reaching the nipa swamps, appellant kissed the offended party, took off her panty and also took off his pants. Thereafter, while both were in a squatting position appellant inserted his penis unto the vagina of the offended party who cried in pain. While offended party was crying, a white substance (most likely semen) dropped on her thigh and legs (pp. 7-11, t.s.n., June 9, 1976). Then she asked the appellant who permitted her to go the river where she washed the white substance which dropped on her thigh and legs, and thereafter she went home upon instructions of appellant who also went home (pp. 11-13, t.s.n., June 9, 1976).

"At a lower level just before reaching their house, the offended party removed her panty, folded the same and went up their house (pp. 13-14, t.s.n., June 9, 1976). Her mother, Angelina Tayam and grandmother, Julia Tatoy were in their house at the time of her arrival thereat. She immediately informed her grandmother that appellant sexually abused her at the nipa swamps which was located near their house (pp. 14-16, t.s.n., June 9, 1976).

"Her grandmother examined her and found her panty with bloodstains and her vagina swollen. Upon the suggestion of her grandmother that same day she (offended party) was taken by her mother to town where she was subjected to an internal and external examination by a lady physician (pp. 7-18, t.s.n., June 9, 1976).

"Dr. Evelyn C. Rivero, municipal health officer of Bugasong, Antique testified that on April 6, 1975 at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening at her residence located in the town proper of Bugasong, she examined the private part of offended party in the presence of the latter’s mother, Angelina Tayam. The results of said examination are reflected in the medical certificate which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘Physical findings, breast, no signs of finger marks, vulva, slight swelling, tenderness on touch, hymen, ruptured. vaginal opening is quite big for a seven year old child, no laceration, blood nor semen or any foreign body’ (pp. 7-8,11, t.s.n., Feb. 27 1976; Exhibit A).

Dr. Rivero further testified that the slight swelling in the vulva ‘could have been caused by a slight penetration of the sex organ of a male’ (p. 8, t.s.n., Feb. 27, 1976), while the rupture of the offended party’s hymen by n contract with a hard instrument or rough object or it could also be caused by sexual intercourse with a man (p. 9, t.s.n., Id). She also declared that there was no bleeding whether inside or outside offended party’s vagina (p. 9, t.s.n., Id.) Neither did she find any semen in offended party’s vagina (pp. 8-9, 11, t.s.n., February 27, 1976).

"Dr. Rivero categorically stated that her medical findings indicate that it was possible for the offended party to have had sexual conversation with a man (pp. 11-13, t.s.n., March 25, 1977)."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the other hand, defense evidence shows that appellant Jose Pon-an, then 46 years old, is a married man with several children including a daughter who is about the age of the victim, six-years old. He denied having sexually abused Josie Tayam and even presented his brother-in-law, Loreto Gerona, who testified that he was with the accused in the latter’s house that afternoon when the alleged crime took place. Appellant admitted having asked the child to buy cigarettes for him and, for the errand, gave her P0.25. Further, he admitted having embraced and kissed the victim because he was lonely and was reminded of his daughter who is living with his sister in Guimaras.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Appellant claims that the trial court’s findings is contrary to law and evidence; that it relied heavily on the testimony of the physician who examined the victim and found that there was no bleeding of her vagina; that Dr. Rivero did not positively affirm the commission of the crime of rape because while there was a rupture of the hymen the same could have been caused by a fall, bumping against a hard object or rough instrument, by a bicycle ride, horse riding or sexual contact.

Further, the defense contends that the physician did not find any semen on the child when she examined her; that the panty was not presented in court.

On the basis of the above, Judge Noli Ma. Cortes found the accused, now the appellant, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and sentenced him according to law. In arriving at this conclusion, Judge Cortes observed:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The prosecution’s evidence bears all the earmarks of truth that it is extremely difficult for a rational mind not to give credence to it. All the four prosecution witnesses, including the tender-aged and hapless victim of the sexual assault, testified in a clear, positive and straight-forward manner, and even the rigid cross-examination by an experienced defense counsel did not disturb the essence of their testimonies.

"Regarding the 7-year old Josie Tayam, in spite of her tender age and peasant background, she managed to tell her story with substantial clarity, and she also weathered the cross-examination by a competent counsel to her own credit.

It is difficult to believe that the harrowing experience that Josie Tayam had, and which she related with all its lurid details to her mother and grandmother shortly after it occurred, was the sole product of her own imagination. She related the same story to the lady physician who examined her barely five hours after it happened, and the examining physician, Dr. Evelyn Rivero, attested to its spontaneity when it was related to her in the nature of a case history investigation, and which she recorded with fidelity.

"Neither could it be said, without doing violence to reason, that the mother, Angelina Tayam or the grandmother, Julia Tatoy, conjured the story of the criminal assault to serve their ulterior purposes. In the first place, there is nothing in the records and none was attempted to be shown, that the offended party’s family had a score to settle with the accused, Jose Pon-an, a score of such nature as would reasonably lead them to foist upon him the devilish scheme of imputing the serious charge of rape, in order to get even with him.

"Angelina Tayam and her mother, Julia Tatoy, are but passing acquaintances of the accused in their neighboring barrios. There is not such social contact between them, nor a measure of familiarity that may possibly end in a rift or a feud, as the Tayams, having been virtually abandoned by their family provider, are persistently saddled with the problem of eking out a bare existence, and had little time and talent to embark on a false prosecution.

"In the second place, even if it were true that the Tayams had an axe to grind against the herein accused, it is equally difficult to believe that they would utilize accuse, it is equally difficult to believe that they would utilize the innocence and honor of a child — their very own — as a vehicle for the accomplishment of an act of vengeance. The crying need for revenge is a great catalyzer of the human imagination, and a thousand schemes may be contrived to satisfy it. In the case at bar, however, to believe that the mother and grandmother of the offended party conspire and chose to sacrifice the innocence and honor of their child to attain their ends is, in effect, a demolition of all our sense of rationality.

"It is also suggested by the defense that the motive in the institution of this charge for rape is extortion. Thus, the accused testified that the mother and grandmother of the offended child accused him because they want him to pay them P3,000.00. This was also argued in the memorandum for the defense.

"The irrationality of this contention is dramatized not by the testimony of prosecution witnesses, but by the testimony of the accused himself. It may be witnesses, but by the testimony of the accused himself. It may be recalled that the accused testified that the mother and grandmother of Josie Tayam knew that he has no money nor land of his own. If this is so, it is illogical for Angelina Tayam and Julia Tatoy to live launched on an extortionary expedition, with the accused as their intended victim, knowing before hand as they did that the accused, a fish-vendor, is as destitute as themselves."cralaw virtua1aw library

A careful scrutiny of the records confirms the correctness of the decision reached. Besides, as has been consistently ruled by this Court, the lower court is entitled to considerable discretion in determining which of the conflicting versions is to be lent a credence. As stated in People v. Gumahin, 21 SCRA 729, "the findings of the lower court which had the opportunity to see, hear and observe the witnesses testify and to weigh their testimonies will be accorded the highest degree of respect by this Tribunal."cralaw virtua1aw library

Further, the non-presentation of the panty worn by the offended party at the time she was sexually assaulted does not render inadequate the People’s evidence. At most, the evidence is merely corroborative.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

Moreover, particular attention is invited to the testimony of the minor, Josie Tayam, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q So, when you reached home what did you do?

A Upon reaching home, l took off my panty.

Q And after taking off that panty what did you do?

A Before reaching my house, just at the place at a lower level form my house, I took off my panty.

Q And what did you do with that panty after taking it off?

A I folded it and went up the house."cralaw virtua1aw library

(TSN, June 9, 1976, p. 13)

and to the reaction of her grandmother, Julia Tatoy. Her testimony reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q When your granddaughter related to you the incident, what did you do?

A I examined her body because she was crying.

Q And what was the result of your examination?

A Her panty had blood stains and her sexual organ was swollen."cralaw virtua1aw library

(TSN), March 25, 1976, p. 13)

Finally, there need not be much fuss on how the rupture of the hymen occurred. Whether the cause was due to a fall, contact with a hard object, by a bicycle, horse-riding or sexual contact, the liability of appellant for the crime of rape, in the light of other evidence, is unavoidable.chanrobles law library

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED, with costs against the Appellant.

SO ORDERED.

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

Teehankee (Chairman), J., took no part.




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






September-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-31276 September 9, 1982 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 1

  • G.R. No. L-31854 September 9, 1982 - NICANOR T. SANTOS v. ROSA GANAYO

    202 Phil. 16

  • G.R. No. L-32260 September 9, 1982 - RAYMUNDA VDA. DE SAN JUAN, ET AL. v. SIXTO TAN

    202 Phil. 31

  • G.R. No. L-38579 September 9, 1982 - JULIET T. DIOQUINO v. NICANOR J. CRUZ, JR., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 35

  • G.R. No. L-39154 September 9, 1982 - LITEX EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40641 September 9, 1982 - FILOMENO ABROT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 53

  • G.R. No. L-42335 September 9, 1982 - PEDRO AMIGABLE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 64

  • G.R. No. L-52410 September 9, 1982 - FLORO ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 66

  • G.R. No. L-40791 September 11, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MALATE

    202 Phil. 74

  • G.R. No. L-41115 September 11, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48756 September 11, 1982 - K.O. GLASS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. MANUEL VALENZUELA

  • G.R. No. L-49524 September 11, 1982 - LEONARDO GONZALES, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 151

  • G.R. No. L-59825 September 11, 1982 - ERNESTO MEDINA, ET AL. v. FLORELIANA CASTRO-BARTOLOME

    202 Phil. 163

  • G.R. No. L-60368 September 11, 1982 - BEATRIZ DE ZUZUARREGUI VDA. DE REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 172

  • A.C. No. 2784-M September 21, 1982 - CECILIO P. IYOG v. LEONARDO L. SERRANO

    202 Phil. 175

  • G.R. No. L-23106 September 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO EMANENCE

    202 Phil. 179

  • G.R. No. L-28774 September 21, 1982 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 200

  • G.R. No. L-27886 September 21, 1982 - CELSO VALERA v. DOMINGO BAÑEZ

    202 Phil. 193

  • G.R. No. L-29255 September 21, 1982 - LEONARDO MIÑANO, ET AL. v. ALBERTO MIÑANO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 213

  • G.R. No. L-48547 September 21, 1982 - ALFONSO ANGLIONGTO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 215

  • G.R. No. L-55315 September 21, 1982 - WILLIAM COLE, ET AL. v. POTENCIANA CASUGA VDA. DE GREGORIO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 226

  • G.R. No. L-56014 September 21, 1982 - SANTIAGO SYJUCO, INC. v. JOSE TECSON

    202 Phil. 240

  • G.R. No. L-56902 September 21, 1982 - CONFEDERATION OF CITIZENS LABOR UNIONS, ET AL. v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 249

  • G.R. No. L-57892 September 21, 1982 - ANASTACIO AREVALO v. VALENTIN QUILATAN

    202 Phil. 256

  • G.R. No. L-59962 September 21, 1982 - RICARTE B. VILLEGAS v. RAMON MONTAÑO

    202 Phil. 265

  • G.R. No. L-22414 September 23, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BUENAVENTURA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 270

  • G.R. No. L-36850 September 23, 1982 - ROSARIO PEREZ, ET AL. v. PILAR ONG CHUA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 287

  • G.R. No. L-50905 September 23, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO JUMAWAN

    202 Phil. 294

  • G.R. No. L-52178 September 28, 1982 - DEMETRIO ERNESTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 310

  • A.C. No. 439 September 30, 1982 - IN RE: QUINCIANO D. VAILOCES

    202 Phil. 322

  • A.C. No. 681 September 30, 1982 - ELISEO GUEVARA v. MAXIMO CALALANG

    202 Phil. 328

  • A.M. No. 1879-MJ September 30, 1982 - ROSALITO FAJARDO v. GUALBERTO B. BACARRO, SR., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 332

  • A.M. No. 1888-CFI September 30, 1982 - FRANCISCO I. PULIDO v. MAGNO B. PABLO

    202 Phil. 336

  • A.M. No. 2415-CFI September 30, 1982 - TOMAS SHAN, JR. v. CANDIDO C. AGUINALDO

    202 Phil. 354

  • A.M. No. P-2710 September 30, 1982 - BARBARA PIOQUINTO v. LUCRECIA A. HERNANDEZ

    202 Phil. 360

  • G.R. No. L-25778 September 30, 1982 - JOESTEEL CONTAINER CORPORATION v. COMMONWEALTH FINANCING CORPORATION

    202 Phil. 364

  • G.R. No. L-26243 September 30, 1982 - CLARA REGALARIO v. NORTHWEST FINANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 366

  • G.R. No. L-26289 September 30, 1982 - IN RE: JUAN N. PECKSON v. GABRIEL F. ANADASE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 374

  • G.R. No. L-27695 September 30, 1982 - ANTONIO CALLANTA v. MANUEL LOPEZ ENAGE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 377

  • G.R. No. L-27819 September 30, 1982 - HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 381

  • G.R. No. L-28501 September 30, 1982 - PEDRO ARCE v. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant.

    202 Phil. 386

  • G.R. No. L-28996 September 30, 1982 - MAXIMO SANTOS, ET AL. v. GENERAL WOODCRAFT AND DESIGN CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 390

  • G.R. No. L-29086 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDILBERTO GOMEZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 395

  • G.R. No. L-29590 September 30, 1982 - PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 402

  • G.R. No. L-29636 September 30, 1982 - FILOIL MARKETING CORPORATION v. MARINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHIL.

    202 Phil. 410

  • G.R. No. L-30353 September 30, 1982 - PATRICIO BELLO v. EUGENIA UBO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 415

  • G.R. No. L-30452 September 30, 1982 - MERCURY DRUG CO., INC. v. NARDO DAYAO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 424

  • G.R. No. L-30455 September 30, 1982 - MARIA LANDAYAN, ET AL. v. ANGEL BACANI, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 440

  • G.R. No. L-30675 September 30, 1982 - HAWAIIAN-PHIL COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 445

  • G.R. No. L-30994 September 30, 1982 - OLIMPIA BASA, ET AL. v. ANDRES C. AGUILAR, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 452

  • G.R. No. L-31226 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BELLO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 456

  • G.R. No. L-32383 September 30, 1982 - BAZA MARKETING CORPORATION v. BOLINAO SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION SERVICE, INC.

    202 Phil. 478

  • G.R. No. L-32860 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO MARQUEZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 488

  • G.R. No. L-33995 September 30, 1982 - ELISEO C. DE GUZMAN v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 503

  • G.R. No. L-34200 September 30, 1982 - REGINA L. EDILLON, ET AL. v. MANILA BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 508

  • G.R. No. L-34947 September 30, 1982 - ESTEBAN MEDINA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO MA. CHANCO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 515

  • G.R. No. L-37431 September 30, 1982 - PEDRO ENTERA, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 521

  • G.R. No. L-37733 September 30, 1982 - ALMARIO T. SALTA v. JESUS DE VEYRA

    202 Phil. 527

  • G.R. No. L-38603 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIANO CHAVEZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 535

  • G.R. No. L-38728 September 30, 1982 - CONRADO V. MACATANGAY v. CHAIRMAN OF COMMISSION ON AUDIT

    202 Phil. 545

  • G.R. No. L-39026 September 30, 1982 - SOTERO RECTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 553

  • G.R. No. L-39401 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERTO SIMBRA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 558

  • G.R. No. L-39644 September 30, 1982 - EDUARDO BIEN, ET AL. v. DELFIN VIR. SUNGA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 565

  • G.R. No. L-39716 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO D. GABIANA

    202 Phil. 577

  • G.R. No. L-40842 September 30, 1982 - BENJAMIN A. G. VEGA, ET AL. v. DOMINGO D. PANIS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 587

  • G.R. No. L-41052 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY GASENDO

    202 Phil. 600

  • G.R. No. L-43783 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM BOKINGKITO TERANO

    202 Phil. 610

  • G.R. No. 44033 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO B. BESO, JR.

    202 Phil. 618

  • G.R. No. L-44408 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SAMBILI

    202 Phil. 629

  • G.R. No. L-45430 September 30, 1982 - DESA ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 639

  • G.R. No. L-45436 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PON-AN

    202 Phil. 653

  • G.R. No. L-45679 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO MENDOZA

    202 Phil. 660

  • G.R. Nos. L-46068-69 September 30, 1982 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46125 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON ALVIS, JR.

    202 Phil. 682

  • G.R. No. L-48478 September 30, 1982 - AGUSMIN PROMOTIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48727 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH D. LEONES

    202 Phil. 703

  • G.R. No. L-48747 September 30, 1982 - ANGEL JEREOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 715

  • G.R. No. L-49307 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR MALATE

    202 Phil. 721

  • G.R. No. L-49990 September 30, 1982 - UNITED STATES LINES, INC. v. AMADO INCIONG, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 729

  • G.R. No. L-50378 September 30, 1982 - FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN RELOVA

    202 Phil. 741

  • G.R. No. L-51042 September 30, 1982 - DIONISIO MALACORA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 756

  • G.R. No. L-52059 September 30, 1982 - BONIFACIA CALVERO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 774

  • G.R. No. L-52061 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALUSTIANO LOOD

    202 Phil. 792

  • G.R. No. L-53627 September 30, 1982 - CAPITAL GARMENT CORPORATION v. BLAS OPLE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 797

  • G.R. No. L-53983 September 30, 1982 - LUCIANA DALIDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54204 September 30, 1982 - NORSE MANAGEMENT CO., ET AL. v. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-54272-73 September 30, 1982 - JUAN C. CALUBAQUIB v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 817

  • G.R. No. L-54280 September 30, 1982 - ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 850

  • G.R. No. L-55225 September 30, 1982 - HEIRS OF CATALINO JARDIN, ET AL v. HEIRS OF SIXTO HALLASGO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 858

  • G.R. No. L-56624 September 30, 1982 - DARNOC REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. AYALA CORPORATION

    202 Phil. 865

  • G.R. Nos. L-56950-51 September 30, 1982 - M. F. VIOLAGO OILER TANK TRUCKS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 872

  • G.R. No. L-57387 September 30, 1982 - UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST v. UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST FACULTY ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 881

  • G.R. No. L-58187 September 30, 1982 - REMEDIOS VELASCO VDA. DE CALDITO v. ROSALIO C. SEGUNDO, ETC., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 900

  • G.R. No. L-58452 September 30, 1982 - RAZA APPLIANCE CENTER v. ROLANDO R. VILLARAZA

    202 Phil. 903

  • G.R. No. L-58610 September 30, 1982 - BABELO BERIÑA, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE MARITIME INSTITUTE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 908

  • G.R. No. L-58623 September 30, 1982 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION v. DOMINGO CORONEL REYES

    202 Phil. 912

  • G.R. No. L-58820 September 30, 1982 - BENITO E. DOMINGUEZ, JR. v. FILIPINAS INTEGRATED SERVICES CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 916

  • G.R. No. L-59234 September 30, 1982 - TAXICAB OPERATORS OF METRO MANILA, INC., ET AL. v. BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 925

  • G.R. No. L-59935 September 30, 1982 - FLORA DE GRACIA REGNER VDA. DE DAYRIT v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE

    202 Phil. 937

  • G.R. No. L-60367 September 30, 1982 - VENUSTIANO T. TAVORA v. ROSARIO R. VELOSO

    202 Phil. 943

  • G.R. No. L-60602 September 30, 1982 - IN RE: MA. DEL SOCORRO SOBREMONTE, ET AL. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 949

  • G.R. No. L-60637 September 30, 1982 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 959

  • G.R. No. L-60842 September 30, 1982 - ROLANDO DIMACUHA v. ALFREDO B. CONCEPCION

    202 Phil. 961