Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1991 > September 1991 Decisions > G.R. No. 92019 September 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIBRADO L. ARCEO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 92019. September 30, 1991.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LIBRADO L. ARCEO and PANCHO A. ZAPANTA, Accused-Appellants.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Public Attorney’s Office for Accused-Appellants.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES’ TESTIMONIES, NOT IMPAIRED BY MINOR INCONSISTENCIES. — The accused-appellants pointed to inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, such as in the testimonies Bob Reggio and Cpl. Pedro Hernandez. Bob inadvertently forgot to mention in his testimony that the civilian informer was with him, while Cpl. Hernandez said he could "not remember if the informer was inside the car, but there were about three men in the car." We do not, however, find these inconsistencies substantial enough to impair the veracity of their narration. Such imperfection in fact indicate human fallibility. We can not expect Cpl. Hernandez to remember in every minute detail of the buy-bust operation of August 7, 1987. Whether or not three persons were involved in the shady deal when the entrapment was concluded is not fatal to the prosecution’s case. The overwhelming exhibits and persuasive oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, as earlier adverted to, warrant a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

2. ID.; ID.; SALE OF PROHIBITED DRUGS; MAY BE COMMITTED AT ANY TIME AND AT ANY PLACE. — The defense claimed Librado could not make the transaction in broad daylight and in the car of a stranger — situations over which he had no control. But it was not improbable for Librado to conduct the illegal sale so openly. First, the poseur-buyer was an old customer. Second, as we have ruled, drug-pushing when done on a small level as in this case belongs to that class of crimes that may be committed at any time and at any place. After the offer to buy is accepted and the exchange is made, the illegal transaction is completed in a matter of minutes. The fact that the parties are in a public place and in the presence of other people may not always discourage them from pursuing their illegal trade as these factors may even serve to camouflage the same.

3. ID.; ID.; EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION; INADMISSIBLE WHEN OBTAINED IN GROSS VIOLATION OF THE ACCUSED’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL. — The accused-appellant Pancho Zapanta’s guilt was based haphazardly on the strength of Librado’s unwritten extra-judicial confession that he (Zapanta) was the supplier of marijuana. In addition, the trial court misconstrued the contents of the PT&T telegram taken from his possession by the police offices as referring to two kilos of marijuana. Librado subsequently denied having pointed to Pancho as his supplier. Librado’s confession was thus not only unfounded, but obtained in gross violation of his fundamental right to counsel. He was never provided with a counsel at the preliminary stage of the investigation in which incriminatory questions were asked him. Hence, the confession is inadmissible as evidence of Pancho’s guilt, or for any purpose.

4. ID.; ID.; ACCUSED’S RIGHT TO PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE; MAY NOT BE OVERTURNED BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL; SPLINTERED AND UNTHINKABLE EVIDENCE. — As aptly noted by the Solicitor General, there was no other evidence presented to show Pancho’s complicity in the crime charged. No illegal drugs were found in his person upon his arrest. The officers only discovered a PT and T telegram whose text. "Come tomorrow, bring two at Jun’s Apt.," did not clearly mean a marijuana operation. The word "two" is equivocal and could refer to anything. As a matter of fact, Pancho testified that the "two" referred to two fighting cocks which he was selling to a certain "Jun Tan." As the Solicitor General puts it," (A)t best, the evidence against accused-appellant Zapanta is circumstantial, splintered and unthinkable, and cannot therefore overturn the presumption of his innocence of the crime charged," he must perforce, be acquitted.


D E C I S I O N


SARMIENTO, J.:


In an information filed on August 31, 1987 with the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, the accused-appellants, Librado Arceo and Pancho Zapanta, were charged with violating Article II, Section 4 (Sale of Prohibited Drugs) of R.A. 6425 as amended, otherwise known as "The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972." 1

That on or about the 7th day of August, 1987, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together, and mutually aiding and abetting one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and or deliver dried marijuana fruiting tops to a poseur buyer, without any authority whatsoever.

ALL CONTRARY TO LAW.

Their arrest took place on August 7, 1987, at around 2:30 in the afternoon, when a composite team of Filipino and American drug enforcement officers conducted a "buy-bust" operation with Bob Reggio, an American citizen, a Special Agent of the Clark Air Base, Office of Special Investigation (OSI), and a member of the United States Air Force, acting as the poseurbuyer. 2 The targeted pusher was the accused-appellant Librado Arceo who had sold Bob prohibited drugs on two previous occasions, the first being suspected dried marijuana leaves contained in a plastic bag on July 13, 1987, and the next, two kilograms of suspected marijuana fruiting tops wrapped in newspaper and placed inside a white big plastic bag with the markings "REGO" (sic) Men’s Wear and Jeans on July 18, 1987. 3

Driving a car with a protected unnamed civilian informer, Bob Reggio met Librado at a pre-arranged spot, which was in front of the Baptist Church at Clarkview Subdivision, Angeles City. Librado had with him a plastic bag containing two kilos of dried marijuana leaves for which he was charging Bob U.S. $200.00. Bob gave him two marked P100.00 bills instead. When the sale was completed, Bob blinked the car’s headlights signalling to OSI Agent Darrell Dye and NARCOM Operatives Pfc. Jose Vega, Cpl. Pedro Hernandez, and agent Edgar Arimbuyutan, who were earlier deployed about fifty meters away from the church building. Seeing the pre-arranged signal, the members of the back-up team swooped down on Bob’s car and arrested Librado Arceo. 4

Upon interrogation, Librado confessed that the marijuana leaves came from Pancho Zapanta, his marijuana supplier. Pancho, who was waiting for Librado at his (Librado’s) apartment on Hizon Street, Lourdes, Angeles City, was thereafter arrested. A body search on Pancho yielded a PT&T telegram with the following message: "Come tomorrow bring two at Jun’s Apt." 5 The prosecution interpreted "two" as the two kilos of marijuana leaves Librado had sold Bob, and "Jun’s Apt." as Librado’s apartment.cralawnad

The confiscated marijuana and the two plastic bags containing allegedly prohibited drugs sold to Bob on two previous "testbuys" were submitted for chemical analysis. The chemist, Marlene Salangad, positively identified the materials submitted as marijuana fruiting tops.

At the court hearing, Librado testified that at about past 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of August 7, 1987, a friend of his and an American guy, invited him for a ride inside Clark Air Base. Before they reached the base, the car they were riding in stopped in front of the Assembly of God Church. Suddenly, NARCOM agents arrested him; his two companions, however, were able to get away. He averred that the arresting officers did not body search him, but he was transferred to a white car and brought to a parking space near the Friendship Gate at the base, where he was punched more than a hundred times, then to the NARCOM Office in Angeles City where he was again mauled so he would admit that he was pushing marijuana. He vehemently denied ownership of the two hundred pesos in two P100-peso bills that had been taken from him; he also denied that he had sold marijuana to Bob Reggio on two occasions in the past. It was at the NARCOM office that he saw his co-accused, Pancho Zapanta.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

For his part, Pancho said that he was a dealer of fighting cocks in Laguna, and that on August 7, 1987, he was in Angeles City to deliver two fighting cocks to Federico "Jun" Tan, following his receipt of a telegram (Exhibit "G"). While he was waiting for the payment of the fighting cocks, he was arrested and taken to the NARCOM office where he was manhandled. He did not know if Librado was also mauled because they were in separate rooms. He denied knowledge of any complicity or involvement with drug trafficking.

The appellants assigned these two alleged errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. The trial court erred in convicting the two accused of the crime charged in the information despite the existence of reasonable doubt.

2. The trial court erred in convicting Pancho Zapanta based on flimsy and speculative evidence presented by the prosecution.

After a careful review of the oral and documentary evidence, we rule as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. The trial court correctly meted the accused-appellant Librado Arceo life imprisonment for violation of Article II, Section 4 of R.A. 6425. His denial of guilt, uncorroborated by any reliable evidence, can not overthrow the clear and convincing testimonies of the four prosecution witnesses as to his culpability.

Bob Reggio, the American poseur-buyer, testified on November 12, 1987, that Librado Arceo was the "drug-pusher," and he narrated in detail the two previous "test-buy" operations and the transaction of August 7, 1987 during which Librado demanded $200 for the marijuana seized from him, but for which he gave Librado two P100-bills with serial numbers NVO 3529 and GL905626, all marked with his initials "IAR." 6 Bob’s testimony was confirmed by the other prosecution witnesses. His blow-by-blow personal account of the entrapment remained undisturbed.

One of the witnesses, Cpl. Pedro Hernandez, claimed that on August 7, 1987, he was stationed at Don Juico Street, Clarkview, Angeles City, about fifty meters away from the parked car. He may not have been within hearing distance of the suspect and the poseur buyer, but he was certainly near enough to observe Librado holding a plastic bag as he got inside Bob’s car, where the "buy-bust" operation took place at around 2:30 in the afternoon. He and PFC. Jose Vega and agent Darrell Dye responded to the pre-arranged signal. They caught Librado in flagrante selling the prohibited drug. Hernandez then executed an affidavit on August 7, 1987, stating that he and PFC. Jose Vega arrested Librado Arceo for pushing marijuana. 7

Another witness, PFC. Jose Vega, a NARCOM agent, stated that he prepared and signed the confiscation receipt for the two hundred-peso bills taken from Librado which were marked as Exhibit "H." 8 He wrote his initials "JTV" Exhibit "I" on the yellow plastic bag containing marijuana which was sold to the poseur-buyer. Likewise, he affixed his initials to the yellow plastic bag marked Exhibit "I-1" containing marijuana which the accused Librado had sold Bob prior to August 7, 1987. These exhibits are real evidence to sustain the ruling of the trial court.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

During the trial, Marlene Salangad, a police officer and forensic chemist at the PC Crime Laboratory in Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga, identified the same items she had examined and declared them as positive for marijuana on August 7, 1987. 9 She said the orange plastic bag contained 12.5 grams of marijuana, the red plastic bag, 1.93 kilograms, and the yellow plastic bag, 2 kilograms of the same. Proper safeguards were taken to protect the integrity of the exhibits which she kept in her padlocked locker.

To top it all, the principal prosecution witnesses are all law enforcers and are, therefore, presumed to have regularly performed their duty in the absence of proof to the contrary. 10

On their part, the accused-appellants pointed to inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, such as in the testimonies of Bob Reggio and Cpl. Pedro Hernandez. Bob inadvertently forgot to mention in his testimony that the civilian informer was with him, while Cpl. Hernandez said he could "not remember if the informer was inside the car, but there were about three men in the car." 11

We do not, however, find these inconsistencies substantial enough to impair the veracity of their narration. Such imperfection in fact indicate human fallibility. We can not expect Cpl. Hernandez to remember in every minute detail of the buy-bust operation of August 7, 1987. Whether or not three persons were involved in the shady deal when the entrapment was concluded is not fatal to the prosecution’s case. The overwhelming exhibits and persuasive oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, as earlier adverted to, warrant a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

In addition, the defense claimed Librado could not make the transaction in broad daylight and in the car of a stranger — situations over which he had no control. But it was not improbable for Librado to conduct the illegal sale so openly. First, the poseur-buyer was an old customer. Second, as we have ruled, drug-pushing when done on a small level as in this case belongs to that class of crimes that may be committed at any time and at any place. 12 After the offer to buy is accepted and the exchange is made, the illegal transaction is completed in a matter of minutes. 13 The fact that the parties are in a public place and in the presence of other people may not always discourage them from pursuing their illegal trade as these factors may even serve to camouflage the same. 14 Hence, the Court has sustained the connection of drug pushers caught selling illegal drugs in the billiard hall, 15 along the road, 16 in the streets, 17 and in front of a house. 18

It is inconceivable that Librado had been pummelled on the face and stomach for more than a hundred times in ten minutes until he almost lost consciousness, just to coerce him to admit the charges lodged against him. It was odd that Librado, 36, a business administration degree holder from Holy Angel University, and a trader of kitchen wares and home decorations, would be as silent as a lamb while he was being beaten up. He should have filed the necessary case, but he did not, nor did counsel, Atty. Oliver T. Villanueva, advise him to. And that’s because, the Court believes, he was never mauled.

2. The court a quo gravely erred in convicting Pancho Zapanta under Article 17, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code, as a principal who cooperated in the commission of the offense through another act without which the first act would not have been accomplished, in relation to Section 4, Article II of R A. 6425, as amended. As against appellant Pancho Zapanta, the elements of the crime were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Pancho, who is under pain of imprisonment, should be released from detention immediately.

The accused-appellant Pancho Zapanta’s guilt was based haphazardly on the strength of Librado’s unwritten extra-judicial confession that he (Zapanta) was the supplier of marijuana. In addition, the trial court misconstrued the contents of the PT&T telegram taken from his possession by the police officers as referring to two kilos of marijuana.

Librado subsequently denied having pointed to Pancho as his supplier. Librado’s confession was thus not only unfounded, but obtained in gross violation of his fundamental right to counsel. 19 He was never provided with a counsel at the preliminary stage of the investigation in which incriminatory questions were asked him. Hence, the confession is inadmissible as evidence of Pancho’s guilt, or for any purpose.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

As aptly noted by the Solicitor General, there was no other evidence presented to show Pancho’s complicity in the crime charged. No illegal drugs were found in his person upon his arrest. The officers only discovered a PT and T telegram whose text, "Come tomorrow, bring two at Jun’s Apt." did not clearly mean a marijuana operation. The word "two" is equivocal and could refer to anything. As a matter of fact, Pancho testified that the "two" referred to two fighting cocks which he was selling to a certain "Jun Tan." As the Solicitor General puts it," (A)t best, the evidence against accused-appellant Zapanta is circumstantial, splintered and unthinkable, and cannot therefore overturn the presumption of his innocence of the crime charged," he must, perforce, be acquitted.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is MODIFIED, AFFIRMING Librado Arceo’s penalty of life imprisonment, and ACQUITTING the other accused-appellant, Pancho A. Zapanta, whose immediate release from confinement is hereby ORDERED.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

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

Endnotes:



1. Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial Region, Branch 58, Angeles City; Hon. Reynaldo B. Daway, Presiding Judge.

2. TSN, November 12, 1987, 2.

3. Exhibit "E."

4. Appellee’s Brief, 3-4.

5. Exhibit "G."

6. TSN, November 12, 1987, 4-8.

7. TSN, August, 15, 1989, 15. .

8. TSN, October 2, 1989, 8.

9. TSN, January 26, 1989, 3-6.

10. People v. Andiza, (G.R. Nos. 71986-87, August 19, 1988, 164 SCRA 642.

11. TSN, August 15, 1989, 9.

12. People v. Paco, G.R. No. 76893, February 27, 1989, 170 SCRA 681.

13. Id., 689.

14. Id., 689.

15. People v. Rubio, G.R. No. 66875, June 19, 1986, 142 SCRA 329.

16. People v. Sanchez, G.R No. 89407, Dec. 21, 1990.

17. People v. Anciano, G.R No. 88937, Sept. 13, 1990, 189 SCRA 519.

18. People v. Andiza, supra.

19. 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, section 12 (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of the offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. This right cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.




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-1991 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. 68843-44 September 2, 1991 - MARIQUITA O. SUMAYA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73123 September 2, 1991 - LAND BANK OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO N. CAPISTRANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78700 September 3, 1991 - ALL OCEANS MARITIME AGENCY, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100113 September 3, 1991 - RENATO L. CAYETANO v. CHRISTIAN MONSOD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100710 September 3, 1991 - BENJAMIN P. ABELLA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89217 September 4, 1991 - JUANITA NITURA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93661 September 4, 1991 - SHARP INTERNATIONAL MARKETING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95244 September 4, 1991 - ELLEN AMBAS, ET AL. v. BRIGIDA BUENASEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95320 September 4, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALTAZAR LACAO, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79869 September 5, 1991 - FORTUNATO MERCADO, SR., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81909 September 5, 1991 - LETICIA C. MENDOZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85393 September 5, 1991 - ALBA PATIO DE MAKATI, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88451 September 5, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALD C. ALVAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95070 September 5, 1991 - PAN MALAYAN INSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85659 September 6, 1991 - F.E. ZUELLIG (M), INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87333 September 6, 199

    COLEGIO SAN AGUSTIN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90423 September 6, 1991 - FRANCIS LEE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96131 September 6, 1991 - CORAZON C. GONZAGA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72807 September 9, 1991 - MARILAO WATER CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75810 September 9, 1991 - KAISAHAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85161 September 9, 1991 - COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89982 September 9, 1991 - BENJAMIN GUIMOC, ET AL. v. CLEMENTE C. ROSALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78350 September 11, 1991 - SAN FELIPE NERI SCHOOL OF MANDALUYONG, INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79182 September 11, 1991 - PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85685 September 11, 1991 - LAURO CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92389 September 11, 1991 - JEJOMAR C. BINAY, ET AL. v. EUFEMIO DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94247 September 11, 1991 - DIONISIO MOJICA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-87-79 September 13, 1991 - LEONILA A. VISTAN v. RUBEN T. NICOLAS

  • G.R. No. 60269 September 13, 1991 - ENGRACIA VINZONS-MAGANA v. CONRADO ESTRELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74073 September 13, 1991 - HONESTO ONG, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86727 September 13, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO VERAS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88014 September 13, 1991 - GONZALO N. ALVAREZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90035 September 13, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADEO HANGDAAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93454 September 13, 1991 - HECTOR S. RUIZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94045 September 13, 1991 - CENTRAL NEGROS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. SEC. DOLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 95237-38 September 13, 1991 - DAVAO CITY WATER DISTRICT, ET AL. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95664 September 13, 1991 - NINA M. QUISMUNDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99258 September 13, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ARROYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 38204 September 24, 1991 - MUNICIPALITY OF SOGOD v. AVELINO S. ROSAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46296 September 24, 1991 - EPITACIO DELIMA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71832 September 24, 1991 - LEON BERNARDEZ, ET AL. v. ARSENIO REYES

  • G.R. No. 85086 September 24, 1991 - ARSENIO P. BUENAVENTURA ENTERPRISES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86083 September 24, 1991 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86302 September 24, 1991 - CASIMIRO MENDOZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87698 September 24, 1991 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89621 September 24, 1991 - PEPSI COLA DISTRIBUTORS OF THE PHIL., INC., ET AL. v. LOLITA O. GAL-LANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90294 September 24, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO RIO

  • G.R. No. 94143 September 24, 1991 - EDGAR SADIO v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ANTIQUE, BRANCH 10, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94654 September 24, 1991 - HEIRS OF AMANDO DALISAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96169 September 24, 1991 - EMPLOYEES CONFEDERATION OF THE PHIL. v. NATIONAL WAGES AND PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99434 September 24, 1991 - JOHNSON & JOHNSON (PHILS.) INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 87012-13 September 25, 1991 - REYES & LIM COMPANY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94476 September 26, 1991 - MICAELA C. ANDRES, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 97710 September 26, 1991 - EMIGDIO A. BONDOC v. MARCIANO M. PINEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64807 September 27, 1991 - BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC., ET AL. v. VICENTE R. LEOGARDO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 90786 September 27, 1991 - ESPERO SANTOS SALAW v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90983 September 27, 1991 - RAYMUNDO A. ARMOVIT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91016 September 27, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO M. MISCALA, JR.

  • G.R. No. MTJ-88-189 September 30, 1991 - SIMEON G. MACUSE v. GERVACIO A. LOPENA

  • G.R. No. 71461 September 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO CARICUNGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73462 September 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURICIO PLAGA

  • G.R. No. 73905 September 30, 1991 - MICHAEL T. DAVA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74630 September 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAIDA TOMIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75579 September 30, 1991 - TOMAS TRINIDAD v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 76101-02 September 30, 1991 - TIO KHE CHIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76281 September 30, 1991 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. WYETH SUACO LABORATORIES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 83583-84 September 30, 1991 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. RIO TUBA NICKEL MINING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90364 September 30, 1991 - VIRGILIO C. ARRIOLA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91539 September 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON SAMPAGA

  • G.R. No. 91849 September 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIORICO BUGHO

  • G.R. No. 92019 September 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIBRADO L. ARCEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92631 September 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM O. PULOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93396 September 30, 1991 - PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94313 September 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO V. COMO

  • G.R. No. 95197 September 30, 1991 - FIRST PHILIPPINE HOLDINGS CORPORATION v. SANDIGANBAYAN