Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1991 > July 1991 Decisions > G.R. No. 87202 July 23, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL VELAGA, JR.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 87202. July 23, 1991.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAFAEL VELAGA, JR., Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Public Attorney’s Office for Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS; FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT; NOT DISTURBED BY APPELLANT COURT. — This court has always adhered to the rule that where the issue is one of credibility of witnesses the appellate court will not disturb findings of the trial court, as the latter is in a better position to decide said question having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial (People v. Olalia, G.R. No. 50669, March 12, 1984).

2. ID.; ID.; PLEA OF SELF-DEFENSE; MAYBE NEGATED IF ACCUSED ELUDED ARREST. — Appellant’s contention with regards to his plea of self-defense cannot be given credit by this court by the mere fact that he eluded arrest for almost four and a half years (4 1/2). If flight is evidence of guilt, then accused-appellant’s act of eluding arrest for such a long period is indicative of his guilt and will consequently negate his plea of self-defense.

3. ID.; ID.; TREACHERY; NOT APPRECIATED IN CASE AT BAR. — We cannot appreciate the lower court’s finding that the accused is guilty of murder qualified by treachery. How can treachery be imputed to a single man when his victim had four (4) companions nearby who could respond instinctively upon seeing their injured companion. Certainly, it could not have been accused appellant’s intention to kill the victim in the presence of his four companions if his own safety was his primary concern. Noteworthy is the fact that before the stabbing incident happened, Accused-appellant already had an altercation with the driver of the Toyota Land Cruiser and such heated argument must have placed the deceased and his companions on their guard. All these negate the existence of treachery in killing the victim (People v. Gonzales, 76 Phil. 473). Another reason why treachery cannot be considered is that the meeting of the victim and the accused was only accidental, that is, the stabbing followed the heated dispute between the accused-appellant Velaga and Pancrasio Rodriguez, the driver of the Land Cruiser and one of the companions of Virgilio de la Cruz (the victim) who tried to pacify the protagonists. The records clearly show that the attack was done on a sudden impulse.

4. CRIMINAL LAW; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; TREACHERY; CONSTRUED. — There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make (par. 16, Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code).

5. ID.; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; NOCTURNITY; NOT APPLICABLE IN CASE AT BAR. — We cannot appreciate the lower court’s ruling of nighttime as an aggravating circumstance. The facts and evidence show that the incident was completely unplanned. There was no showing of prior preparation of the acused to take advantage of the darkness of the night to prevent his being recognized and to ensure the consummation of the offense. Nocturnity will not be considered to aggravate the crime where the prosecution failed to show that the accused purposely sought to commit the crime at nighttime in order to facilitate the achievement of his objectives, prevent discovery or evade capture (People v. Salcedo, G.R. No. 78774, 12 April 1989). In this case the darkness of the night was merely incidental to the collision between the two vehicles which caused the heated argument and the eventual stabbing of the victim. We, therefore, cannot appreciate nighttime as an aggravating circumstance.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


Rafael Velaga, Jr., was accused of the crime of murder before the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 16th day of December 1980 in the City of Dagupan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed Rafael Velaga, Jr., being then armed with deadly weapon, with treachery and with intent to kill did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, attack, assault and use personal violence upon the latter by stabbing and hitting him on vital parts of his body which caused his death Virgilio dela Cruz as per Certificate of Death issued by Dr. Eugenio N. Deleon and Cipriano M. Macaraeg, both of Dagupan City, to the damage and prejudice of the legal heirs of said deceased Virgilio dela Cruz to the tune of not less than Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00) Philippine Currency and other consequential damages.

"CONTRARY TO LAW." (p. 54, Rollo)

Upon arraignment on October 4, 1985, appellant pleaded "not guilty." (p. 30, Records).

Trial proceeded with the prosecution presenting evidence on the following facts as attending the commission of the crime:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"At about 11:00 o’clock in the evening of December 16, 1980, Virgilio dela Cruz (victim) together with his companions namely: Bob Sison, Josefino Siapno, Roberto Dadacay were on board a Toyota Land Cruiser driven by Pancrasio Rodriguez on their way to Mercedes Dawel. Upon reaching the corner of Perez Blvd., Herrero and M.H. del Pilar Streets in the City of Dagupan, a fast running motorcycle driven by accused-appellant Jun Velaga, hit the side of the Toyota Land Cruiser. After the bumping incident, the driver of the Toyota Land Cruiser, Pancrasio Rodriguez together with Bob Sison and Josefino Siapno, alighted from the vehicle to inspect the damage. The three then helped accused-appellant in pushing the motorcycle to the sidewalk. Thereafter, a heated argument ensued between Pancrasio Rodriguez and the accused-appellant blaming each other for the cause of the accident and in the course of the incident one from the group, Virgilio dela Cruz approached to pacify them. Standing between the two, the victim tried in vain to settle the matter at that moment, Accused-appellant suddenly drew-out a knife from his pocket and stabbed the victim. Accused-appellant ran to the direction of Herrero St. Some of the companions of the victim gave chase but were not able to run after him. The victim was rushed to the hospital where he died three (3) days thereafter." (pp 2-9, tsn, May 29, 1986).

The defense presented an entirely different version of the incident. The accused-appellant tried to prove, thru his testimony and that of his witnesses that he (accused) acted in legitimate self-defense. According to the defense, after the bumping incident at the corner of Perez Blvd. and M.H. del Pilar Street, Accused stood and tried to lift the motorcycle but two men riding in the land cruiser alighted and went near him. The two men (Bobby Rodriguez and Leo de la Cruz) went near him and asked him if he had a complaint. He told them he has none if only they would be willing to replace the signal light. All of a sudden, Bobby Rodriguez hit him at the back of his head. He asked them why but Leo de la Cruz drew out a weapon and said "you have so many complaints" (p. 32, Rollo). De la Cruz closed toward him and thrust the weapon. He parried the blow and held de la Cruz’ hand while he and de la Cruz were struggling for the knife, the companions of de la Cruz alighted and started kicking him at the back causing him to fall on top of de la Cruz, as a result of which the knife struck the latter’s stomach leading to his death.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

After the information was filed on March 31, 1981 the case was archived by reason of the fact that the accused was then at large. It was only in September 1985 when he was arrested and charged with the crime of murder (p. 23, Records).

The trial court found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder as charged and correspondingly sentenced him to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The decretal portion of the Decision reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Rafael Velaga, Jr. y Cabrera alias Jun Velaga guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, and in view of the presence of the generic aggravating circumstance of nighttime which is not offset by any mitigating circumstance, the court hereby sentences the accused to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua (life Imprisonment) end to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P30,000.00 plus costs.

"The accused is ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased the amount of P20,300.00 as actual damages.

"SO ORDERED." (P. 79, Rollo)

From this judgment, the accused Rafael Velaga, Jr. appealed.

He assigns on appeal the following alleged errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REJECTING ACCUSED’S PLEAS OF SELF-DEFENSE.

II


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPRECIATING TREACHERY WHICH QUALIFIED THE OFFENSE TO MURDER.

III


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPRECIATING NIGHTTIME AS CIRCUMSTANCE.(Appellant’s Brief, p. 1; Rollo, p. 80)

After evaluating the records of this case, We find the defendant’s version to be bereft of merit.

This court has always adhered to the rule that where the issue is one of credibility of witnesses the appellate court will not disturb findings of the trial court, as the latter is in a better position to decide said question having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial (People v. Olalia, G.R. No. 50669, March 12, 1984).

We therefore cannot disturb the trial court’s ruling in giving more credence to the prosecution witnesses because the record reveals that there is nothing that the trial court had overlooked in its evaluation of any fact of substance and value which would affect the result of the case.

Moreover, appellant’s contention with regard to his plea of self-defense cannot be given credit by this court by the mere fact that he eluded arrest for almost four and a half years (41/2). If flight is evidence of guilt, then accused-appellant’s act of eluding arrest for such a long period is indicative of his guilt and will consequently negate his plea of self-defense.

With regard to the second and third assignment of errors enunciated by the accused-appellant, We cannot appreciate the lower court’s finding that the accused is guilty of murder qualified by treachery. How can treachery be imputed to a single man when his victim had four (4) companions nearby who could respond instinctively upon seeing their injured companion. Certainly, it could not have been accused appellant’s intention to kill the victim in the presence of his four companions if his own safety was his primary concern.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

Noteworthy is the fact that before the stabbing incident happened, Accused-appellant already had an altercation with the driver of the Toyota Land Cruiser and such heated argument must have placed the deceased and his companions on their guard. All these negate the existence of treachery in killing the victim (People v. Gonzales, 76 Phil. 473).

Another reason why treachery cannot be considered is that the meeting of the victim and the accused was only accidental, that is, the stabbing followed the heated dispute between the accused-appellant Velaga and Pancrasio Rodriguez, the driver of the Land Cruiser and one of the companions of Virgilio de la Cruz (the victim) who tried to pacify the protagonists. The records clearly show that the attack was done on a sudden impulse.

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make (par. 16, Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code).

We also cannot appreciate the lower court’s ruling of nighttime as an aggravating circumstance. The facts and evidence show that the incident was completely unplanned. There was no showing of prior preparation of the accused to take advantage of the darkness of the night to prevent his being recognized and to ensure the consummation of the offense.

Nocturnity will not be considered to aggravate the crime where the prosecution failed to show that the accused purposely sought to commit the crime at nighttime in order to facilitate the achievement of his objectives, prevent discovery or evade capture (People v. Salcedo, G.R. No. 78774, 12 April 1989).

In this case the darkness of the night was merely incidental to the collision between the two vehicles which caused the heated argument and the eventual stabbing of the victim. We, therefore, cannot appreciate nighttime as an aggravating circumstance.

In the absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the crime committed by accused-appellant is plain homicide. The penalty for homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal. There is no mitigating and no aggravating circumstance. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused-appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.

In line with the new policy of this court to grant an increased indemnity to the heirs of the deceased, the total award is hereby fixed at P50,000.00 (People v. Daniel Sison, G.R. No. 86455, September 14, 1990).

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is MODIFIED accordingly.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.




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






July-1991 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 82708 July 1, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO S. CLAMOR

  • G.R. No. 85250 July 1, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO A. ALERTA, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 90804-05 July 1, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIANO DE LA TORRE

  • G.R. No. 94127 July 1, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMAN RECEPTION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60054 July 2, 1991 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89125 July 2, 1991 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. FAR EAST MOLASSES CORPORATION

  • A.M. No. P-87-72 July 3, 1991 - ANTONIO C. SY v. MARLEO J. ACADEMIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70722 July 3, 1991 - CANUTA PAGKATIPUNAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 85991-94 July 3, 1991 - REPUBLIC CEMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87353 July 3, 1991 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-90-486 July 4, 1991 - VICTOR DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. ALICIA F. RICAFORTE

  • G.R. No. 33174 July 4, 1991 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81015 July 4, 1991 - CRESENCIO VIRAY, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83232 July 4, 1991 - TRINIDAD M. VILLAS v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84378 July 4, 1991 - NENITA L. LEANO v. EUFEMIO C. DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92862 July 4, 1991 - NICANOR T. SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85757 July 8, 1991 - ALFREDO MONTELIBANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92503 July 8, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO MANUEL

  • G.R. No. 92989 July 8, 1991 - PERFECTO DY, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95595 July 8, 1991 - JOSE DE GUIA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53851 July 9, 1991 - CHUA HUAT v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 67823 July 9, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO S. MESIAS

  • G.R. No. 92534 July 9, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESMENIO B. DE LA PEÑA

  • G.R. No. 93628 July 9, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDITHA DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 88809 July 10, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-89-286 July 11, 1991 - ROAN I. LIBARIOS v. ROSARITO F. DABALOS

  • G.R. No. 82808 July 11, 1991 - DENNIS L. LAO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-90-447 July 12, 1991 - EMMA J. CASTILLO v. MANUEL M. CALANOG, JR.

  • G.R. No. 52439 July 12, 1991 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SIMPLICIO M. APALISOK

  • G.R. No. 83759 July 12, 1991 - CIPRIANO VASQUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 85240 July 12, 1991 - HEIRS OF CECILIO CLAUDEL v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 92284 July 12, 1991 - TEODORO J. SANTIAGO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 93359 July 12, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO C. CAPULONG

  • G.R. Nos. 93437-45 July 12, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIPRIANO CABALLES

  • G.R. No. 93507 July 12, 1991 - HEIRS OF MARIA REVILLEZA VDA. DE VEGA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 95336 July 12, 1991 - JUAN GARCIA RIVERA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 59640 July 15, 1991 - DAMIAN ROBLES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 77356 July 15, 1991 - TRAVEL WIDE ASSOCIATED SALES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 97238 July 15, 1991 - JULIA L. TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 58340 July 16, 1991 - KAWASAKI PORT SERVICE CORP. v. AUGUSTO M. AMORES

  • G.R. No. 60502 July 16, 1991 - PEDRO LOPEZ DEE v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 74814 July 16, 1991 - JOSE LUSTERIO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 91787 July 16, 1991 - TERMINAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 92605 July 16, 1991 - APEX MINING CO. v. CANCIO C. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 94452 July 16, 1991 - ALLURE MANUFACTURING, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 94750 July 16, 1991 - FELIX P. GONZALES v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 68109 July 17, 1991 - SEVERINO GAYAPANAO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • A.M. No. RTJ-89-406 July 18, 1991 - ENRIQUETA GARGAR DE JULIO v. BENJAMIN A.G. VEGA

  • A.C. No. 1311 July 18, 1991 - RAMONA L. VDA. DE ALISBO v. BENITO JALANDOON, SR.

  • G.R. No. 39460 July 18, 1991 - BAGUIO GOLD MINING CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 49327 July 18, 1991 - AMELIA C. ELAYDA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 64965 July 18, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVEN BAUSING

  • G.R. No. 74633 July 18, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO ECAL

  • G.R. No. 75222 July 18, 1991 - RADIOLA-TOSHIBA PHIL., INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 79516 July 18, 1991 - ROMEO R. ECHAUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 83568 July 18, 1991 - PORSPERO NAVAL v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 83804 July 18, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO M. ALON

  • G.R. No. 84295 July 18, 1991 - PHILIPPINE VETERANS INVESTMENT DEV’T CORP. v. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ

  • G.R. No. 86384 July 18, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAVINO PLACIDO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 88750 July 18, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO SANCHEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 90672-73 July 18, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO H. MARANION

  • G.R. No. 94385 July 18, 1991 - LYDIA ARRIOLA v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

  • G.R. No. 94681 July 18, 1991 - JEREMIAS F. DAYO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 96266 July 18, 1991 - ERNESTO M. MACEDA v. ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD

  • G.R. Nos. 97475-76 July 18, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSCORO O. VILLAMAYOR

  • G.R. No. 76645 July 23, 1991 - PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORP. v. ALICIA LAPLANA

  • G.R. No. 78646 July 23, 1991 - PABLO RALLA v. PEDRO RALLA

  • G.R. No. 84929 July 23, 1991 - JULIO F. LAGMAY v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 86679 July 23, 1991 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK

  • G.R. No. 87202 July 23, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL VELAGA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 88643 July 23, 1991 - ARIEL C. SANTOS v. WILLIAM BAYHON

  • G.R. No. 92418 July 23, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RITA LABRIAGA

  • G.R. No. 93076 July 23, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 94913 July 23, 1991 - D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. Nos. 95275-76 July 23, 1991 - SIXTO DE LA VICTORIA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 88538 July 25, 1991 - ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORP. v. DIONISIO C. DELA SERNA

  • G.R. No. 88872 July 25, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO M. OSIAS

  • G.R. No. 91260 July 25, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN BELIBET

  • G.R. No. 95279 July 26, 1991 - ESTATE OF GREGORIA FRANCISCO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 95469 July 25, 1991 - AGAPITO MANUEL v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 39274 July 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARCISO A. AQUINO

  • G.R. No. 78090 July 26, 1991 - PACIFIC MILLS, INC. v. ZENAIDA ALONZO

  • G.R. No. 81476 July 26, 1991 - COMMISSION ON AUDIT v. TANODBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 82976 July 26, 1991 - EMPLOYEES ASSOC. OF THE PHILAM LIFE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 89664 July 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PERMISON

  • G.R. No. 92436 July 26, 1991 - MARIA VDA. DE REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 92606 July 26, 1991 - ZOSIMO R. MAGNO v. RENATO DE VILLA

  • G.R. No. 94348 July 26, 1991 - TADEO M. CANGCO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 76221 July 29, 1991 - RUBEN GALANG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 92191-92 July 30, 1991 - ANTONIO Y. CO v. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

  • G.R. No. 100318 July 30, 1991 - EMILIO M.R. OSMEÑA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • A.C. No. R-94-RTJ July 31, 1991 - NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE & SECURITY AUTHORITY v. VALENTINO G. TABLANG

  • G.R. No. 44664 July 31, 1991 - BERNARDO MENDOZA I v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 45338 July 31, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. POLICARPIO GONZALES

  • G.R. No. 51221 July 31, 1991 - FIRST INTEGRATED BONDING & INSURANCE CO. v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO

  • G.R. No. 68033 July 31, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO HAVANA

  • G.R. No. 78576 July 31, 1991 - FILCON MANUFACTURING CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 78953 July 31, 1991 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MELCHOR J. JAVIER, JR.

  • G.R. No. 85670 July 31, 1991 - ROGELIO A. TRIA v. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS

  • G.R. No. 86645 July 31, 1991 - HIPOLITO O. TATLONGHARI v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 89420 July 31, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALINO DUNGO

  • G.R. No. 91721 July 31, 1991 - CONSTANCIO ORDONIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 92813 July 31, 1991 - PEROXIDE PHILIPPINES CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 93142 July 31, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE C. FONTANILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96032 July 31, 1991 - JESUS N. BORROMEO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION