Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1991 > May 1991 Decisions > G.R. No. 96230 May 27, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO E. CUSTODIO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 96230. May 27, 1991.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARIO CUSTODIO y ESPIRITU, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Public Attorney’s Office for Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS; NOT AFFECTED BY MINOR INCONSISTENCIES. — The fact that the witness fails to mention a particular detail of an incident, especially when testifying on different occasions, does not per se undermine his credibility. The nature and difference of the proceedings involved and the questions propounded therein as would or would not succeed in eliciting the details desired are only some of the factors to be considered. What is controlling is the consistency of the witness in relating the significant and indispensable components of the principal occurrence. We have held that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the basic aspects of the whys and wherefores of the crime, do not impair their credibility.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT AFFECTED BUT RATHER STRENGTHENED BY HONEST LAPSES. — All the alleged conflicting testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were but a progressive narration of events as they slowly but certainly flashed across their memories, which could not be impressed of concoction and destroy their credibility. It is a truism that the most candid witness oftentimes makes mistakes but such honest lapses do not necessarily impair his intrinsic credibility. There is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking occurrence. Testimonial discrepancies could be caused by the natural fickleness of memory, which even tend to strengthen rather than weaken credibility as they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT ARE RESPECTED. — It is well settled that when the main thrust of the appeal is on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, and appellant fails to demonstrate why this Court should depart from the cardinal principle that the findings of the trial court on the matter of credibility should not be disturbed, the same should be respected on appeal due to its superior advantage in observing the conduct and demeanor of the witness while testifying unless some fact or circumstance which could affect the result of the case may have been overlooked.

4. ID.; ID.; DEFENSE OF ALIBI; UNAVAILING AGAINST POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACCUSED. — It is true that motive is important when the identity of the accused is in doubt. But when the perpetrator has been positively identified, as in the present case, there is enough evidence to convict appellant and render his defense of alibi unavailing. It is rudimental that the defense of alibi cannot stand against the positive identification of a credible witness. A general denial by the accused of the stabbing incident cannot prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; REQUISITE THEREOF TO BE AVAILING. — Alibi, as an inherently weak defense, will be accepted only upon the clearest proof that the defendant was not or could not have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed.


D E C I S I O N


REGALADO, J.:


Pursuant to Section 13, Rule 124 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, the instant case was elevated to us by the Court of Appeals which, on November 21, 1990, affirmed in CA-G.R. No. 07056 the decision of the court a quo convicting accused-appellant of murder but with the following modification of the latter’s judgment:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction is affirmed but the penalty of imprisonment is modified by sentencing the accused to reclusion perpetua. Further, in accordance with the Resolution En Banc of the Supreme Court dated August 30, 1990 the civil indemnity to be paid by the accused to the heirs of Danilo Camba is hereby increased to P50,000.00 (People v. Sazon, G.R. No. 89684, September 18, 1990.)" 1

The factual background of this case, based on the evidence and the findings of the trial court which were adopted by the Court of Appeals in its decision, is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"From the evidence presented in this case it appears that at about 11:00 P.M. on August 10, 1986 there was a wake going on at the Queborac Chapel, Naga City for the deceased Teresita Calisura Danilo Camba, 27 years of age, was seated on a window sill of the chapel facing the inside of the chapel talking to his aunt Corazon C. Nono. While he was thus seated a man went behind him and stabbed him two (2) times with a bladed weapon. He suffered stab wounds at the lower part of his back and in his armpit.

"Corazon C. Nono saw the incident. She was then only one foot away from Camba and was facing him. She saw that it was Mario Custodio who pulled Camba and then almost simultaneously thrust the knife with both his hands at the back and side of the victim and then pulled out the knife and wiped the weapon on his pants. Thereafter Custodio ran away from the scene. She saw Danilo Camba press his left hand against the left side of his back and heard him say ‘Deputa sinaksak ako ni Mario’. This witness was too stunned at what she saw and while she intended to go to the mother of Danilo Camba to tell her what happened, without knowing what she was doing she ran towards Custodio’s home where the latter went. She claimed that when she reached the house she heard Custodio’s wife asking her husband why he stabbed Danilo Camba. Thereafter Corazon Nono went to the house of Danilo Camba to report the incident.

"The witness stated when cross-examined that she knew Mario Custodio very well and she recognized him as the person who was outside the chapel and who stabbed Camba.

"Edwin Ejercito, a lad 19 years of age, was then also inside the chapel. He was only two (2) armslength (sic) away from Camba. He saw Camba fall from the window sill shouting that he was stabbed by Mario Custodio. This witness did not actually see the weapon used but he saw Mario Custodio making a downward thrust with both hands and then saw said Custodio running away from the chapel towards his house.

"Manuel Nono, a relative of Camba, was then also in the chapel watching a game of ‘pusoy’. He saw Camba jump inside the chapel from the window sill holding his back with his left hand and uttering "Deputang Mario yan, sinaksak ako’. it was he who helped Camba into a trimobile and brought him to the hospital. On their way to the hospital he asked Camba who really stabbed him and the latter answered that it was Mario Custodio. Camba requested him to take care of him and not to leave him.

"As a result of the stab wounds he suffered, Danilo Camba died at about midnight while at the hospital Dr. Jose Rejante, a resident physician of the Camarines Sur Provincial Hospital who conducted the autopsy on the body of Camba, testified that the victim died of irreversible shock secondary to massive blood loss secondary to multiple stab wounds." 2

Appellant was charged in the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 27, in Criminal Case No. 86-1358 with the crime of murder. 3 He was arrested on August 11, 1986 and has been detained in jail since then, his application for bail having been denied by the lower court on the ground that the evidence of his guilt is strong. Upon arraignment, appellant, duly assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty. Forthwith, trial on the merits ensued.

The defense of appellant is one of alibi. He testified that in the evening of August 10, 1986, he was at his house, which is about two hundred (200) meters away from the barangay chapel where the incident happened, sleeping together with his wife and children as early as 10:00 o’clock of that evening.

He also implicated a certain Perfecto del Rosario as the one who stabbed the victim. He declared that he saw Del Rosario pass by his house that might holding a bladed weapon and the latter told him that something happened at the chapel. Said Del Rosario even supposedly executed a written confession admitting his participation in the crime allegedly because of his own pique against the victim who had carried on an affair with the former’s wife. However, Del Rosario was neither presented in court nor was his supposed written confession offered as evidence by the defense, hence such aborted attempt to shift liability to him cannot affect the prosecution’s evidence.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

Finding for the prosecution, the trial court rendered its decision dated August 5, 1988, sentencing appellant to serve imprisonment for an indeterminate term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P30,000.00 for compensatory damages and the further sum of P30,000.00 as moral damages, and to pay the costs, but with full credit for his preventive imprisonment. 4

Not satisfied therewith, appellant brought his case to the Court of Appeals, faulting the court below for having allegedly erred in giving full credence to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Corazon Nono and Edwin Ejercito, in failing to consider material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, and in finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. 5

Appellant-argues that prosecution witness Corazon Nono gave three versions of the stabbing incident during the preliminary investigation and in the course of her direct and cross-examinations. The testimonies of Edwin Ejercito, another prosecution witness, given during the preliminary investigation and in court are similarly challenged. It is asserted by appellant that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, on which the prosecution’s case stands, should not be given weight and ought to be discarded for being inconsistent in material points aside from being incredible as to be outside the sphere of common and normal occurrences. 6

We are not persuaded by appellant’s arguments. The supposedly different versions given by Corazon Nono are clearly susceptible of coagmentation as to what actually transpired on that fateful evening. In her first statement before Assistant Fiscal Lourdes Gonzales right after the occurrence, she briefly but categorically established that it was appellant who stabbed Danilo Camba and that the former immediately thereafter fled to his house. It was during her direct examination when she explained in more detail that she was then conversing with Camba, who was seated on the window sill of the chapel, when appellant stabbed him; that upon being stabbed, Camba stood up and uttered that he was stabbed by Mario Custodio, and that, out of confusion, she ran toward the house of Custodio and overheard the latter’s wife say "Why did you stab Danilo?" During her cross-examination, she was able to further mention that, when she was telling Camba that she was going to sing at radio station DWRN, that was the time when the latter was stabbed. We cannot see how these details could be inconsistent with, instead of being complementary of, each other.chanrobles law library

On the other hand, Edwin Ejercito’s alleged inconsistencies in his declarations are too minor and insignificant as to cast doubt on his trustworthiness. During the preliminary investigation, he identified the weapon used in stabbing the victim as a kitchen knife, but he failed to mention this fact when he testified in court. Also during his testimony in court, he declared that he heard Danilo Camba shout that he was stabbed by Mario Custodio, while he failed to mention this during the preliminary investigation.

The fact that the witness fails to mention a particular detail of an incident, especially when testifying on different occasions, does not per se undermine his credibility. The nature and difference of the proceedings involved and the questions propounded therein as would or would not succeed in eliciting the details desired are only some of the factors to be considered. What is controlling is the consistency of the witness in relating the significant and indispensable components of the principal occurrence. We have held that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the basic aspects of the whys and wherefores of the crime, do not impair their credibility. 7

All the alleged conflicting testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were but a progressive narration of events as they slowly but certainly flashed across their memories, which could not be impressed of concoction and destroy their credibility. It is a truism that the most candid witness oftentimes makes mistakes but such honest lapses do not necessarily impair his intrinsic credibility. 8 There is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking occurrence. 9 Testimonial discrepancies could be caused by the natural fickleness of memory, which even tend to strengthen rather than weaken credibility as they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony. 10

As appositely observed by the Solicitor General:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Variances in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and their affidavits executed during the preliminary investigation are not altogether unusual. Said affidavits being taken ex parte usually are incomplete and often inaccurate caused sometimes from partial suggestions, sometimes for want of suggestions and inquiries, without and of which the witness may be unable to recall the connected collateral circumstances necessary for the correction of the first suggestion of his memory and for his accurate recollection of all that belongs to the subject (People v. Laredo, G.R. No. 81249-51, May 14, 1990 and cases cited therein). . . ." 11

It is well settled that when the main thrust of the appeal is on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, and appellant fails to demonstrate why this Court should depart from the cardinal principle that the findings of the trial court on the matter of credibility should not be disturbed, the same should be respected on appeal due to its superior advantage in observing the conduct and demeanor of the witness while testifying unless some fact or circumstance which could affect the result of the case may have been overlooked. 12

We have gone over the records of this case and we find no cause which would justify rejecting the trial court’s findings or prevent the Court of Appeals from relying thereon. In addition, the court a quo correctly took notice of what might have triggered appellant’s commission of the offense charged, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Accused Mario Custodio himself supplied the Court with his motive in stabbing Danilo Camba. On the witness stand, Accused Mario Custodio testified that prior to August 10, 1987, he was stabbed by the Cambas for which he underwent a major surgical operation on his stomach, the evidence of which is an elongated scar found on the left of his back, which scar was shown to the Court; that he was charged for homicide in Criminal Case No. 84-644 for having allegedly killed Pastor Camba, but he was acquitted (Exh. 1); and that he has filed a case against Danilo Camba, but the same is still pending before Branch 22 of this Court.

"All these cases between the accused and Danilo Camba and his relatives show that there has been bad blood between them, and, therefore, it was not against human nature and experience for the accused Mario Custodio to have planned to kill Danilo Camba, which plan he fulfilled on the evening of August 10, 1986." 13

It is true that motive is important when the identity of the accused is in doubt. 14 But when the perpetrator has been positively identified, as in the present case, there is enough evidence to convict appellant and render his defense of alibi unavailing. It is rudimental that the defense of alibi cannot stand against the positive identification of a credible witness. 15 A general denial by the accused of the stabbing incident cannot prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses. 16

Alibi, as an inherently weak defense, will be accepted only upon the clearest proof that the defendant was not or could not have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed. 17 In the case at bar, by appellant’s own admission, at the time of the incident he was in his house located only about two hundred (200) meters distant from the locus delicti. On this and the preceding considerations, therefore, his impuissant defense must yield to the weight of the People’s evidence.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

WHEREFORE, finding no error in the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the same is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

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

Endnotes:



1. Penned by Associate Justice Salome A. Montoya, with Associate Justices Reynato S. Puno and Bonifacio A. Cacdac, Jr., concurring; Rollo, 40.

2. Rollo, 37-38.

3. Original Record, 1.

4. Original Record, 133-139.

5. Rollo, 29.

6. Brief for Accused-Appellant, 5-6; Rollo, 28.

7. People v. Muñoz, 163 SCRA 730 (1988).

8. People v. Cabato, 160 SCRA 98 (1988).

9. People v. Salufrania, 159 SCRA 401 (988).

10. People v. Pasco, Et Al., 181 SCRA 233 (1990).

11. Brief for Appellee, 18-19; Rollo, 32.

12. See People v. Cantuba, Et Al., 183 SCRA 289 (1990).

13. Original Record, 138.

14. People v. Irenea, Et Al., 164 SCRA 121 (1988).

15. People v. Bustarde, Et Al., 182 SCRA 554 (1990).

16. People v. Lopez, Et Al., 157 SCRA 304 (1988).

17. People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 67702, January 18, 1991.




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.