Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1991 > May 1991 Decisions > G.R. No. 94037 May 6, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARIEL G. HILARIO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 94037. May 6, 1991.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARIEL HILARIO Y GARCIA, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Public Attorney’s Office for Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND SEIZURES; LAWFUL IN CASE AT BAR. — Appellant’s arrest was legal. He was apprehended while selling marijuana, a prohibited drug, and was, therefore, validly arrested under Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Having caught Appellant in flagrante delicto as a result of the "buy-bust" operation, Appellant’s arrest, even without a warrant, was lawful. It follows that the search made incidental to the arrest was also valid (People v. Paco, G.R. No. 76893, 27 February 1989, 170 SCRA 681).

2. CRIMINAL LAW; ENTRAPMENT; NO BAR TO PROSECUTION AND CONVICTION. — Entrapment of Appellant by the arresting officers, it may have been. But this is no bar to prosecution and conviction. The legal effects thereof do not exculpate Appellant from criminal liability (People v. Marcos, G.R. No. 83325, 8 May 1990, 185 SCRA 154).

3. ID.; SALE OF PROHIBITED DRUGS; MAY BE COMMITTED AT ANY PLACE AND AT ANY TIME. — Small level drug-pushing may be committed at any place and at any time. It is completed clandestinely and swiftly after the offer to buy is accepted and the exchange made. The fact that the parties are in a public place and in the presence of other people does not necessarily discourage drug pushers from plying their trade as these may even serve to camouflage their illicit operations. Hence, the Court has sustained convictions of drugpushers caught selling illegal drugs at a basketball court (People v. Paco, supra), in billiard halls (People v. Rubio, G.R. No. 66875, 19 June 1986, 142 SCRA 329; and other cases).

4. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; AFFECTED BY THEIR CONFLICTING TESTIMONIES. — Indeed, Appellant had involved himself in inconsistencies. When asked whether he had been apprised of his constitutional rights, he answered affirmatively at the outset only to deny it later stating that he was threatened with electric shock if he did not admit the charge. Appellant also gave conflicting accounts regarding the simple matter of his address. At the hearing of 16 August 1988, he gave his address at 1339 Rizal Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila only to contradict himself later when he said that his real address was 536-Interior 10, West Avenue, Greenpark, Caloocan City (tsn., 16 August 1988, pp. 2-3), and that he seldom went to Sta. Cruz, Manila, except only when there is a work-order in the upholstery business managed by his brother-in-law. Again, testifying on 16 August 1988, Appellant stated that he was at his house (in Sta. Cruz) the whole day on 12 January 1988, sewing (tsn., 16 August 1988, p. 4). But, in his testimony on 5 October 1988, he narrated that on said date, he arrived in Sta. Cruz before noon, ate lunch, rested for an hour, then went to a customer’s house, and went back to his house at 3:30 in the afternoon. When asked to describe the manner of his arrest, Appellant recounted that the policemen suddenly burst through the door and that while they were searching his house he protested, only to say, after a few more questions, that he was not able to protest because he was then "in a state of shock" and was "afraid." Discrepancies may also be detected between defense witness Angelito Flores’ testimony and Appellant’s. Thus, Flores testified that on 12 January 1988, at about 9:00 A.M., he and Appellant started repairing a destroyed sala set. Appellant, on the other hand, stated that he arrived at Sta. Cruz before noon, ate lunch, rested for an hour and went to a customer’s house. Flores also declared that at about 4:00 P.M., of 12 January 1988, he and Appellant left to see a movie and went back to the house at around 6:30 P.M. Appellant, however, never mentioned watching a movie with Flores stating that he went back to the house at around 5:30 P.M., after coming from a customer’s house and helped his brother measure upholstery materials.

5. ID.; ID.; PRESUMPTIONS; REGULAR PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES BY POLICE OFFICERS. — In describing the arrest, Flores mentioned that a "small boy" who was about "twenty-two years old" first entered the house followed by five (5) policemen who immediately placed them under custody. He claimed that he was not able to observe the search as he and Appellant were "brought outside of the house and the policemen were the only ones left behind" (tsn., 5 July 1989, pp. 6, 11-12). Appellant, however, gave no account of the "twenty-two (22) years old small boy" and merely stated that he observed the policemen illegally searching the first and second floors of his house while he and Flores just stood by, shocked. The aforementioned inconsistencies and discrepancies do affect the credibility of defense witnesses, leaving us with no alternative but to give full faith and credit to the testimonies of the police officers herein who not only have not been shown to have been actuated by any improper motive in testifying as they did but who are also presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.


D E C I S I O N


MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:


Before us is an appeal from the Decision ** of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Region, Manila, Branch 28, convicting Appellant Ariel Hilario y Garcia of drug pushing in violation of Section 4, Article II, in relation to Section 21, Article IV of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended by Pres. Decrees Nos. 44 and 1675, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00.

The prosecution evidence narrates that about three (3) to four (4) days prior to 12 January 1988, undercover operative Patrolman Tomasito Corpuz and some other members of the Anti-Narcotics Unit of Police Station No. 3, Western Police District, together with a confidential informant, conducted a "test-buy" operation (tsn, 20 April 1988, pp. 3-4) to verify reports received of marijuana selling along Anacleto Street and Bambang Street in Sta. Cruz, Manila (tsn, 19 April 1988, pp. 10-11; tsn, 25 July 1989, p. 10). Patrolman Corpuz, as the poseur-buyer, was able to buy a tea bag of marijuana from Appellant Ariel Hilario. The "test-buy" operation was repeated and, this time, another tea bag of marijuana was sold by the Appellant. Each tea bag cost P10.00. The "test-buy" operations were purely surveillance in nature. No apprehension was made as the operatives were trying to gain the confidence of Appellant prior to the actual arrest (tsn, 20 April 1988, pp. 3-5).

On 12 January 1988, at about 7:35 in the evening, the "buy-bust" operation, leading to the apprehension of Appellant, was conducted by a police team composed of Pfc. Roberto Ruiz, Patrolmen Lahong, Saulog, Valdez and Tomasito Corpuz. All belong to the Anti-Narcotics Unit, Police Station No. 3 of the Western Police District (tsn, 19 April 1988, pp. 2-3). They were all in civilian clothes (ibid, p. 14).

Because Patrolman Corpuz was already able to gain the confidence of Appellant, he again acted as the poseur-buyer. The rest of the policemen, meanwhile, posted themselves in strategic places where they could witness the transaction which was to take place in front of Appellant’s house located at Anacleto Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila (ibid, p.3).

The team, as in the past two (2) "test-buy" operations, was with their confidential informant. As planned, two (2) marked ten-peso bills (P10.00) were handed over by Patrolman Corpuz to Appellant who, after putting the same in his right pants pocket, entered his house and got the marijuana from behind the statue of a "Sto. Nazareno" which was encased in glass. Appellant returned outside to where Patrolman Corpuz was waiting and handed to the latter two (2) tea bags of marijuana. It was at this point that Patrolman Corpuz introduced himself as a policeman to the Appellant (ibid, pp. 5-6; tsn, 5 May 1988, p. 4) and thereafter apprehended him, but not without some resistance from the latter. The marking consisted of "P.S. No. 3" just below the serial numbers of the bills Exhs. E-1 a & E-2-a).chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

The entire operation was witnessed by Pfc. Roberto Ruiz, who was about four (4) to five (5) meters away sitting on a small bench. Appellant’s sala was small and had its window open. Movements inside the house could be seen even if one were standing outside (tsn, 19 April 1988, p. 17). Thus, Pfc. Ruiz witnessed the Appellant receiving the marked money from Patrolman Corpuz and subsequently retrieving the marijuana from behind the altar (ibid, p. 4).

After the apprehension, Pfc. Ruiz took the two (2) marked ten-peso (P10.00) bills from Appellant’s right pants pocket (ibid, p. 18). The latter was then taken to the police station for investigation (ibid, p. 5), where he was asked to sign the ten-peso (P10.00) bills and apprised of his constitutional rights (ibid, p. 19; tsn. 5 May 1988, pp. 6-7). Appellant refused to give any written statement.

The arrest effected and the Booking Sheet, Arrest Report and Crime Report accomplished, Patrolman Corpuz delivered the plastic tea bags said to contain marijuana to the National Bureau of Investigation for examination (tsn, 20 April 1988, p. 7). Microscopic, chemical and chromotographic examination yielded positive results for marijuana (Exhibit C).

In his defense, Appellant, 21 years old, a second year high school student, denied having sold marijuana, his version of the circumstances leading to his arrest being as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

At around 7:00 P.M. in the evening of 12 January 1988, he and Angelito Flores were sewing upholstery materials at 1339 Rizal Avenue (in contrast to the prosecution’s given address which is 1339 Anacleto Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila). Suddenly, five (5) policemen barged through the door and proceeded to search the first and the second floors of the house without a search warrant. Startled, Appellant and Flores just stood by the sewing machine as the policemen conducted the search. Thereafter, they were instructed to go with the policemen to the police station. Thereafter, Pfc. Ruiz investigated Appellant without apprising him of his constitutional rights. Appellant was told that he was being charged with pushing marijuana and was even threatened with subjection to electric shock. He narrated that he was carrying three (3) ten-peso bills at that time; that the policemen asked for them and made him sign them allegedly to establish the fact that they belonged to him. He denied the "test-buy" operations prior to his arrest or having met Patrolman Corpuz before. He said that he was not the pusher whom the police was after, that individual’s real identity being one Roland Palencia. In fact, he was asked to indicate the location of Palencia’s house on a blackboard, which he did, but said individual had gone into hiding (Appellant’s Brief, pp. 3-4).chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

After evaluating the conflicting versions, the Trial Court accorded more credence to the prosecution evidence and sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment. Before us now is Appellant’s plea for acquittal, premised on the following submissions:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The Court a quo gravely erred in admitting the peso bills and tea bags of marijuana adduced in evidence by the prosecution.

"2. The Court a quo gravely erred in finding that the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime charged has been established beyond reasonable doubt."cralaw virtua1aw library

The defense questions the legality of Appellant’s arrest contending that he was neither pushing nor in possession of any prohibited drug at the time of his apprehension and that the two (2) tea bags, said to contain marijuana, surfaced for the first time only at the police precinct where Appellant was informed that they had been taken from his house. Appellant stoutly states that it was planted evidence. Regarding the allegedly marked ten-peso bills, Appellant avers that they actually belong to him but was tricked into signing them after having been told that it was merely to prove his ownership thereof. Ergo, it is claimed, the Trial Court erred in admitting the said peso bills and tea bags of marijuana as evidence against him.

The foregoing argumentation hardly deserves attention.

Appellant’s arrest was legal. He was apprehended while selling marijuana, a prohibited drug, and was, therefore, validly arrested under Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Section 5 — Arrest without warrant; when lawful — A peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(a) Where, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

x       x       x."cralaw virtua1aw library

Having caught Appellant in flagrante delicto as a result of the "buy-bust" operation, Appellant’s arrest, even without a warrant, was lawful. It follows that the search made incidental to the arrest was also valid (People v. Paco, G.R. No. 76893, 27 February 1989, 170 SCRA 681).

Entrapment of Appellant by the arresting officers, it may have been. But this is no bar to prosecution and conviction. The legal effects thereof do not exculpate Appellant from criminal liability (People v. Marcos, G.R. No. 83325, 8 May 1990, 185 SCRA 154).chanrobles.com : virtual law library

In attempting to discredit the prosecution evidence, Appellant further contends that it is most improbable that an illicit transaction, for which the law imposes a penalty of life imprisonment, could have been consummated in a busy sidewalk or alley, in full view of passersby and onlookers, for a measly amount of P20.00.

The contention does not persuade.

Small level drug-pushing may be committed at any place and at any time. It is completed clandestinely and swiftly after the offer to buy is accepted and the exchange made. The fact that the parties are in a public place and in the presence of other people does not necessarily discourage drug pushers from plying their trade as these may even serve to camouflage their illicit operations. Hence, the Court has sustained convictions of drugpushers caught selling illegal drugs at a basketball court (People v. Paco, supra), in billiard halls (People v. Rubio, G.R. No. 66875, 19 June 1986, 142 SCRA 329; People v. Sarmiento, G.R. No. 72141, 12 January 1987, 147 SCRA 252), in front of a store (People v. Khan, G.R. No. 71863, 23 May 1988, 161 SCRA 406), along a street at 1:45 P.M. (People v. Toledo, G.R. No. 67609, 22 November 1985, 140 SCRA 259), and in front of a house (People v. Policarpio, G.R. No. 29844, 23 February 1988, 158 SCRA 85; all cited in People v. Paco, supra).

In the final analysis, it is the credibility of witnesses that is put to the test. In this regard, the Trial Court had pointedly remarked that the police officers testified "in an honest and straight-forward manner. On the other hand, the demeanor of the accused on the witness stand left much to be desired: he was evasive in his manner of answering the question asked of him. The defense witness, Angelito Flores, on the other hand, admitted on cross-examination that he really had no intention to testify in favor of the accused and that he would not have done so until the mother of the accused requested him to testify."cralaw virtua1aw library

Indeed, Appellant had involved himself in inconsistencies. When asked whether he had been apprised of his constitutional rights, he answered affirmatively at the outset only to deny it later stating that he was threatened with electric shock if he did not admit the charge (tsn., 16 August 1988, p. 7).

Appellant also gave conflicting accounts regarding the simple matter of his address. At the hearing of 16 August 1988, he gave his address at 1339 Rizal Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila only to contradict himself later when he said that his real address was 536-Interior 10, West Avenue, Greenpark, Caloocan City (tsn., 16 August 1988, pp. 2-3), and that he seldom went to Sta. Cruz, Manila, except only when there is a work-order in the upholstery business managed by his brother-in-law (tsn., 5 October 1988, pp. 12-13).

Again, testifying on 16 August 1988, Appellant stated that he was at his house (in Sta. Cruz) the whole day on 12 January 1988, sewing (tsn., 16 August 1988, p. 4). But, in his testimony on 5 October 1988, he narrated that on said date, he arrived in Sta. Cruz before noon, ate lunch, rested for an hour, then went to a customer’s house, and went back to his house at 3:30 in the afternoon (tsn., 5 October 1988, pp. 24-25).cralawnad

When asked to describe the manner of his arrest, Appellant recounted that the policemen suddenly burst through the door and that while they were searching his house he protested, only to say, after a few more questions, that he was not able to protest because he was then "in a state of shock" and was "afraid" (ibid., pp. 28-29).

Discrepancies may also be detected between defense witness Angelito Flores’ testimony and Appellant’s. Thus, Flores testified that on 12 January 1988, at about 9:00 A.M., he and Appellant started repairing a destroyed sala set (tsn., 5 July 1989, p. 5). Appellant, on the other hand, stated that he arrived at Sta. Cruz before noon, ate lunch, rested for an hour and went to a customer’s house (tsn., 5 October 1988, pp. 24-25).

Flores also declared that at about 4:00 P.M., of 12 January 1988, he and Appellant left to see a movie and went back to the house at around 6:30 P.M. (tsn., 5 July 1989, p. 4). Appellant, however, never mentioned watching a movie with Flores stating that he went back to the house at around 5:30 P.M., after coming from a customer’s house and helped his brother measure upholstery materials (tsn., 5 October 1988, p. 25).

In describing the arrest, Flores mentioned that a "small boy" who was about "twenty-two years old" first entered the house followed by five (5) policemen who immediately placed them under custody. He claimed that he was not able to observe the search as he and Appellant were "brought outside of the house and the policemen were the only ones left behind" (tsn., 5 July 1989, pp. 6, 11-12). Appellant, however, gave no account of the "twenty-two (22) years old small boy" and merely stated that he observed the policemen illegally searching the first and second floors of his house while he and Flores just stood by, shocked (tsn., 5 October 1988, pp. 6, 15, 27-29).

The aforementioned inconsistencies and discrepancies do affect the credibility of defense witnesses, leaving us with no alternative but to give full faith and credit to the testimonies of the police officers herein who not only have not been shown to have been actuated by any improper motive in testifying as they did but who are also presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.

In fine, we perceive no substantial reason to heed Appellant’s plea for acquittal.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against accused-appellant Ariel Hilario y Garcia.

SO ORDERED.

Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



** Penned by Judge Sabino R. de Leon, Jr.




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






May-1991 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 53768 May 6, 1991 - PATRICIA CASILDO CACHERO v. BERNARDINO MARZAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65833 May 6, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO G. LAGARTO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 75724 May 6, 1991 - WESTERN AGUSAN WORKERS UNION v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO

  • G.R. No. 83383 May 6, 1991 - SOLID STATE MULTI-PRODUCTS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 84079 May 6, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR KALUBIRAN

  • G.R. No. 85423 May 6, 1991 - JOSE TABUENA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 86364 May 6, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOPE ANDAYA

  • G.R. No. 87913 May 6, 1991 - LEONOR A. OLALIA v. LOLITA O. HIZON

  • G.R. No. 90742 May 6, 1991 - LEONARDO A. AURELIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 91490 May 6, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN L. CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 92124 May 6, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR BASE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92742 May 6, 1991 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. NILDA S. JACINTO

  • G.R. No. 93561 May 6, 1991 - CANDIDO A. DALUPE v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 93687 May 6, 1991 - ROMEO P. CO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94037 May 6, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARIEL G. HILARIO

  • G.R. No. 95146 May 6, 1991 - ROBERTO E. FERMIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85494 & 85496 May 7, 1991 - CHOITHRAM JETHMAL RAMNANI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93410 May 7, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO GODINES

  • G.R. No. 68743 May 8, 1991 - ROSA SILAGAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 71719-20 May 8, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME C. BACDAD

  • G.R. No. 83271 May 8, 1991 - VICTOR D. YOUNG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 84330 May 8, 1991 - RAMON Y. ASCUE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 90021 May 8, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO D. LIM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93021 May 8, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO UMBRERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 94540-41 May 8, 1991 - NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS (NAFLU) v. ERNESTO G. LADRIDO III

  • G.R. No. 95667 May 8, 1991 - JOSE C. BORJA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96516 May 8, 1991 - JESUS C. ESTANISLAO v. AMADO COSTALES

  • G.R. No. 46658 May 13, 1991 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GREGORIO G. PINEDA

  • G.R. No. 64818 May 13, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MARIA P. LEE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68138 May 13, 1991 - AGUSTIN Y. GO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 67738 May 13, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN QUIRITAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89168 May 14, 1991 - ROSA LENTEJAS v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 91649 May 14, 1991 - HUMBERTO BASCO, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENTS AND GAMING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 91988 May 14, 1991 - ALLIED LEASING & FINANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92415 May 14, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OMAR MAPALAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93885 May 14, 1991 - FELIX H. CABELLO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96298 May 14, 1991 - RENATO M. LAPINID v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-88-246 May 15, 1991 - IN RE: MARCELO G. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 62673 May 15, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEXANDER E. CORRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84401 May 15, 1991 - SAN SEBASTIAN COLLEGE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 89370-72 May 15, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO G. MAGDADARO

  • G.R. No. 93708 May 15, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELVIN B. ODICTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 94878-94881 May 15, 1991 - NORBERTO A. ROMUALDEZ III v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96025 May 15, 1991 - OSCAR P. PARUNGAO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96630 May 15, 1991 - NOTRE DAME DE LOURDES HOSPITAL, ET AL. v. HEILLA S. MALLARE-PHILLIPS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56294 May 20, 1991 - SMITH BELL AND COMPANY (PHILIPPINES), INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60848 May 20, 1991 - GAN HOCK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 79597-98 May 20, 1991 - DEMETRIA LACSA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83432 May 20, 1991 - RADIOWEALTH FINANCE COMPANY v. MANUELITO S. PALILEO

  • G.R. No. 90762 May 20, 1991 - AURELIO D. MENZON v. LEOPOLDO E. PETILLA

  • G.R. No. 91886 May 20, 1991 - ROLANDO ANG v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91902 May 20, 1991 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96578 May 20, 1991 - CELSO LUSTRE v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96608-09 May 20, 1991 - TUCOR INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2614 May 21, 1991 - MAXIMO DUMADAG v. ERNESTO L. LUMAYA

  • G.R. No. 26785 May 23, 1991 - DEOGRACIAS A. REGIS, JR. v. SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73573 May 23, 1991 - TRINIDAD NATINO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77087 May 23, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO F. NARIT

  • G.R. Nos. 78772-73 May 23, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO PATILAN

  • G.R. No. 84647 May 23, 1991 - MARIA ALICIA LEUTERIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90625 May 23, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENEDICTO M. DAPITAN

  • G.R. No. 91003 May 23, 1991 - JESUS MORALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92422 May 23, 1991 - AMERICAN INTER-FASHION CORP. v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 2736 May 27, 1991 - LORENZANA FOOD CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO L. DARIA

  • G.R. No. 42189 May 27, 1991 - ERNESTO PANTI v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54177 May 27, 1991 - JOSE DARWIN, ET AL. v. FRANCISCA A. TOKONAGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76219 May 27, 1991 - GTE DIRECTORIES CORPORATION v. AUGUSTO S. SANCHEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77205 May 27, 1991 - VALENTINO TORILLO v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83463 May 27, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENARO GINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85446 May 27, 1991 - OCEAN TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91106 May 27, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO MACEDA

  • G.R. No. 91934 May 27, 1991 - RAMON T. TORRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 92626-29 May 27, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 96230 May 27, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO E. CUSTODIO

  • A.C. No. 577 May 28, 1991 - REMEDIOS DY v. RAMON M. MIRANDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46132 May 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. 81020 May 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LILIA F. GUTIERREZ

  • G.R. No. 83214 May 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUN AQUINO

  • G.R. No. 89870 May 28, 1991 - DAVID S. TILLSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95256 May 28, 1991 - MARIANO DISTRITO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96301 May 28, 1991 - COLEGIO DEL STO. NIÑO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72763 May 29, 1991 - ALTO SALES CORP. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76931 & 76933 May 29, 1991 - ORIENT AIR SERVICES & HOTEL REPRESENTATIVES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 84588 & 84659 May 29, 1991 - CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87437 May 29, 1991 - JOAQUIN M. TEOTICO v. DEMOCRITO O. AGDA, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96357 May 29, 1991 - PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-89-345 May 31, 1991 - COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. LORENZO SAN ANDRES

  • G.R. No. 63975 May 31, 1991 - GUILLERMO RIZO, ET AL. v. ANTONIO P. SOLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 64323-24 May 31, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE D. LUCERO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 79723 & 80191 May 31, 1991 - KALILID WOOD INDUSTRIES CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83694 May 31, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO PONCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84361 May 31, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELANITO QUIJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88291 May 31, 1991 - ERNESTO M. MACEDA v. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 91383-84 May 31, 1991 - SOCORRO COSTA CRISOSTOMO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94262 May 31, 1991 - FEEDER INTERNATIONAL LINE, PTE., LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 95122-23 & 95612-13 May 31, 1991 - BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (CID), ET AL. v. JOSELITO DELA ROSA, ET AL.