Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > September 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-46125 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON ALVIS, JR.

202 Phil. 682:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-46125. September 30, 1982.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEON ALVIS, JR., Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Cesar D. Cabral for Accused-Appellant.

SYNOPSIS


At around 11:30 in the evening, Anastacia Resurreccion was sleeping in her house together with her three-year-old daughter. Suddenly, Anastacia was awakened by a knock at their wall and the voice of her son-in-law, Leon Alvis, Jr., calling her to open the door. When she opened the door, Alvis suddenly grabbed her hands and dragged her downstairs. Anastacia struggled and tried to shout, but Alvis covered her mouth. He ripped her dress open near her breast, bumped her head against the ground, and boxed her several times, rendering her unconscious, When she regained her consciousness, Alvis had already left, She was naked and felt pain all over the body especially on her private part. Anastacia proceeded to the house of her neighbor, who upon seeing her condition, reported the matter to the barrio councilman. She was physically examined by Dr. Montecillo who issued a medical certificate finding 13 contusions and abrasions, and live sperm cells in her vagina. Charged and found guilty of rape, the accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Hence, this appeal.

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the decision of the trial court and held that the crime charged was proved with overwhelming evidence, and that the absence of motive on the part of the complainant to charge a close relative with such a serious offense strengthens the basis for concluding that the accused indeed committed the crime charged.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY; RES GESTAE. — Contrary to appellant’s unsupported claim, the crime charged was proved with overwhelming evidence. The testimony of complainant given with no motive for her to testify falsely against her own son-in-law, as none of any worth was shown by the defense, in itself deserves full faith and credence. It becomes more so with the corroboration found in the testimony of the examining physician and his medical findings, and that supplied by the testimony of Zacarias de Chaves who brought her to the hospital after being told by complainant that she was mauled and raped by appellant. This statement forms part of the res gestae because it was given after the startling incident complainant had just gone through, who may thus be assumed to be then still under the influence of such a shocking occurrence.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; TESTIMONY OF COMPLAINANT IN CASES OF RAPE. — As early as in U.S. v. Ramos,l Phil. 18, a 1901 decision, it was said that when a woman testifies that she has been raped, she says all that is needed to signify that the crime had been committed. This is so against any man committing the crime. It is more so when the accusing words are said against a close relative, as a son-in-law that appellant is to complainant.


D E C I S I O N


DE CASTRO, J.:


Charged with, and convicted of, rape in the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Leon Alvis, Jr. was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pay costs.

Appealing from the judgment, appellant assigns as errors the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The trial court erred in giving undue weight and credence to the uncorroborated and unnatural story of the complaining witness.

"2. The trial court erred in denying accused-appellant’s motion to acquit.

"3. The trial court erred in convicting the accused of the serious offense of rape when there is no evidence that the accused had carnal knowledge of the complainant." 1

Appellant’s contention, as above indicated, is without merit, judged from the facts as established by the evidence of the prosecution narrated in the People’s brief as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"On March 11, 1976, at around 11:30 o’clock in the evening, complainant Anastacia Resurreccion, a widow, 36 years old, was sleeping in her house at Barrio Pahinga, Candelaria, Quezon, together with Gemma, her three-year old daughter (pp. 2-3, tsn, May 31, 1976). Her four other children were then at the house of her father at Barrio Canda, Sariaya, Quezon (p. 3, tsn, May 31, 1976). Suddenly, Anastacia was awakened by a knock at their wall and heard the voice of her son-in-law, Leon Alviz, Jr., herein accused, calling her "Inay, Inay," and requesting her to open the door (p. 4, tsn, May 31, 1976).

"When she finally opened the door, Leon Alviz, Jr. suddenly grabbed her by her hands and dragged her downstairs at a distance of five meters (p. 6, tsn, May 31, 1976). While downstairs, Alviz clutched her dress and held her rape (p. 6, tsn, May 31, 1976) Anastacia struggled and tried to shout, but he covered her mouth and ripped her dress open near her breast (p. 6, tsn, May 31, 1976). Anastacia continued to struggle. Alviz therefore continued to box her on the breast and left eye and to bump her head on the ground (p. 7, tsn, May 31, 1976).

"Anastacia who then became very weak, felt that Alviz was removing her panties. After removing the same, he sat on her private organ (p. 7, tsn, May 31, 1976). She pleaded with the accused saying ‘Totoy, don’t, because you are already my son,’. but instead of heeding her, Alviz boxed her again on the breast which rendered Anastacia unconscious (p. 8, tsn, May 31, 1976).

"When she regained her consciousness, Alviz had already left. She was naked and felt pain all over her body especially on her private part (p. 8, tsn, May 31, 1976). She also discovered that she lost her earnings and false teeth (p. 39, tsn, July 9, 1976).

"Thereafter, she went up her house, dressed up and proceeded to the house of her neighbor Patricio de Chavez to ask for help (p 9, tsn, May 31, 1976). Upon seeing her condition, Patricio de Chavez reported the matter to the barrio councilman Zacarias de Chavez (p. 9, tsn, May 31, 1976). She was then brought to the Community Clinic at Candelaria, Quezon, where she was physically examined by Dr. Godofredo Montecillo who issued a medical certificate (Exh. C) containing the following findings:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘1. Contusion and hematoma, 2 cm diameter right eyelids

‘2. Subconjunctival hemorrhage right eye

‘3. Contusion, vertex

‘4. Contusion and hematoma 2" x 2" occipitoparietal, left

‘5. Contusion and abrasion, forehead, left

‘6. Contusion, nose and upper lip

‘7. Hematoma, 1 cm x 1 cm, chin

‘8. Contusion, left cheek]

‘9. Three linear contusions about 1 inch long each left side of neck

‘10. Contusion, chest urea, right

‘11. Hematoma and contusion, left leg, anteria, proximal 3rd about 2.5 cm in diameter

‘12. Abrasion, left elbow and abdomen just above the umbilicus, 1 cm by 2 cm

‘13. Contusion, right thigh posteria.’

"Speculum examination of vagina:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘1. No fresh lacerations, no bleeding

‘2. Presence of sand particles in the introitue and mons veneris

‘3. Presence of moderate amount of whitish to yellowish mucoid substance in the posterior formix

‘4. Microscopic examination of vaginal fluid — positive for live sperm cells’ (pp. 9-10, tsn, May 31, 1976)

She stayed at the hospital for five days (p. 10, tsn, May 31, 1976). Upon her discharge from the hospital, she went to the Municipal Building of Candelaria where she executed an affidavit before Col. Manuel Legaspi of the Candelaria Police Force (p. 10, tsn, May 31, 1976). Thereafter, she filed a case for rape against herein accused, Leon Alviz, Jr. (p. 10, tsn, May 31, 1976)." 2

In assigning the first error of the trial court, appellant claims that the testimony of the complainant is unnatural to be believed, first because appellant would not have had to forcibly bring complainant downstairs and there raped her, instead of doing the act right in her room; second, because she did not tell Patricio de Chavez that she was mauled and raped; and third, complainant did not shout as she should have done if she was ravished against her will.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

If appellant brought complainant downstairs there to ravish her, it is because there was her three-year-old daughter sleeping upstairs with her. If awakened, as she was sure to be, by the noise occasioned by the struggle, the daughter would witness the sex act and testify against appellant, the child being already of such age as to be able to relate what she would see with sufficient coherence and clarity.

It is absolutely not true that complainant did not tell Patricio de Chavez what happened to her. The contusions and the black-eye visible on complainant were, in themselves, enough to tell what happened to her. Moreover, the records show that when Zacarias Chavez arrived at Patricio’s house, and asked what happened to complainant, the latter replied that she was raped by appellant, her son-in-law. The records do not show that complainant did not tell Patricio that she was mauled and raped. She did not testify to that effect, nor did Patricio.

As to complainant not shouting when appellant assaulted and ravished her, again appellant’s assertion is not supported by the records. The evidence is clear in showing that complainant wanted to shout and did try to, but appellant covered her mouth. 3 After having been repeatedly boxed and her head even bumped against the ground, she naturally got so weakened to be able to shout, or even just to try to in her state of weakness and shock.

Likewise, counsel’s contention that the examining physician did not corroborate complainant’s testimony that she was raped by her son-in-law is a brazen distortion of the evidence. The medical findings of physical injuries and presence of sperm cells in her private parts, together with the doctor’s own testimony that the presence of the male sperm cells indicates actual penetration or introduction of the substance into the complainant’s private parts 4 proves the falsehood committed by appellant’s counsel.

With all the evidence as above assessed and analyzed, how can appellant assert that there is no evidence that he had carnal knowledge of complainant? His claim that what was proven was only the infliction of physical injuries. This crime is, however, not included in the charged crime of rape which is of a different class of offense — crime against chastity as distinguished from crime against persons — and, therefore, will not legally permit conviction on the basis of what was proven, being at variance with what was alleged as the crime committed.

Contrary to appellant’s unsupported claim, the crime charged was proved with overwhelming evidence. The testimony of complainant, given with no motive for her to testify falsely against her own son-in-law, as none of any worth was shown by the defense, in itself deserves full faith and credence. It becomes more so with corroboration found in the testimony of the examining physician and his medical findings, and that supplied by the testimony of Zacarias de Chavez who brought her to the hospital after being told by complainant that she was mauled and raped by appellant. This statement forms part of the res gestae because it was given after the startling incident complainant had just gone through, who may thus be assumed to be then still under the influence of such a shocking occurrence.

As early as in U.S. v. Ramos, 5 a 1901 decision, it was said that when a woman testifies that she has been raped, she says all that is needed to signify that the crime has been committed. This is so against any man committing the crime. It is more so when the accusing words are said against a close relative, as a son-in-law that appellant is to complainant.chanrobles law library : red

WHEREFORE, with the modification that an indemnity of P12,000.00 be ordered paid to the complainant by appellant, the judgment appealed from is affirmed in all other respects, with costs.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. pp. 12, Brief for Appellant; p. 44, Rollo.

2. pp. 1-4, Brief for Appellee; p. 61, Rollo.

3. p. 6, t.s.n., May 31, 1976.

4. p. 22, t.s.n., May 31, 1976.

5. 1 Phil. 18.




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