Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > May 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 93899 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE C. CADAG:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 93899. May 8, 1992.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDDIE CADAG Y CABOTAJE, alias "Simen", Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; WITNESSES; CREDIBILITY THEREOF, NOT DENIGRATED BY EXECUTION OF TWO WAYWARD SWORN STATEMENTS. — The fact that Lorna executed two wayward sworn statements does not denigrate upon her credibility. At the trial, she unabashedly admitted that the statements she made before the NBI were untrue because the appellant threatened to kill her if she stated what actually happened. Sometime in July, 1989, however, after she had separated from the appellant, she voluntarily executed another sworn statement before the police and narrated how Arnel was killed.

2. ID.; ID.; MOTIVE; NOT INDISPENSABLE TO CONVICTION. — Proof of motive is not indispensable to conviction. Motive is important only when the identity of the culprit is in doubt. (People v. Perante, Jr., 143 SCRA 60) In the instant case, Lorna definitely pinpointed to the appellant as the killer of Arnel, and her testimony, corroborated by the physical evidence found by the police at the crime scene, has not been satisfactorily refuted.

3. ID.; ID.; ALIBI CANNOT PROSPER ESPECIALLY WHEN ESTABLISHED BY ACCUSED HIMSELF OR HIS RELATIVE. — The trial court correctly rejected the appellant’s alibi, which in his case has become more dubious because it was sought to be established by the appellant himself, his mother and his neighbor, and not by uninterested, unbiased persons, who would, in the natural order of things, be best situated to support the tendered alibi. It has been repeatedly observed that alibi is a defense easily fabricated especially among parents, children and relatives, or even among those not so related, so that great caution must be exercised in accepting it.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; CANNOT PROSPER UNLESS ACCUSED DEMONSTRATES THAT HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PHYSICALLY PRESENT AT THE PLACE OF THE CRIME. — Well entrenched is the rule that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the appellant was somewhere else when the crime was committed but it must likewise be demonstrated that he was so far away that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. Sta. Maria is only a few kilometers from the poblacion where the crime was committed. Such distance does not preclude the possibility that the appellant could have committed the felony. (People v. Gapasin, 145 SCRA 191).

5. CRIMINAL LAW; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; TREACHERY; PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR. — The trial court found that the crime committed was murder, qualified by treachery. We agree. Evidence showed that the appellant, armed with a knife and under cover of darkness, suddenly and unexpectedly attacked in rapid succession Arnel, who was unarmed.

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ABSORBS NOCTURNITY. — Nocturnity, being inherent in treachery, cannot be considered separately. (People v. Pacada, Jr., 42 SCRA 427)


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


Accused-appellant Eddie Cadag alias "Simen" was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Rosales, Pangasinan, Branch 53 of the crime of Murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He now seeks a reversal of the said judgment.

The facts, as gathered from the evidence on records, are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Early in the morning of March 14, 1989, the cadaver of Arnel Claridad was discovered in the Far East High School compound, at Poblacion East, Sta. Maria, Pangasinan. Patrolman Conrado Balmores conducted an investigation at the crime scene, where he saw a trek of blood from the schoolgate to the place where the body of Arnel was found. Upon inquiry, he learned that the victim was last seen the night before with one Lorna Taguiped, the appellant’s common-law wife. Thus, he invited Lorna for interrogation but the appellant prevented her from going to the police station. (pp. 110-117, TSN, March 15, 1990).

On March 30, 1989, Lorna Taguiped executed a sworn statement before the NBI, declaring that she and the appellant had no knowledge about the incident because they were at home the whole evening of March 13, 1989. On July 10, 1989, however, after Lorna had broken her relationship with the appellant, she executed another sworn statement before the police pinpointing to the appellant as the assailant of Arnel.

According to eyewitness Lorna Taguiped, at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening of March 13, 1989, the appellant, who was jealous of her former boyfriend Boyet Claridad, brought her to the poblacion of Sta. Maria, Pangasinan to fetch Boyet so they could talk to him. Upon arriving at the house of Boyet, the latter’s brother, Arnel, informed her that Boyet was not around. Thinking she had no companion, Arnel followed Lorna on her way back. When they reached the front of the Far East High School, the appellant appeared from the darkness. Arnel greeted the appellant by saying: "So, you are here. Why are you here, Simen?" The appellant, without warning, stabbed Arnel on the left waist, on the right face, and then on the right waist, below the breast. Arnel managed to run a few meters away inside the school compound, where he leaned under a banana tree. The appellant pursued him. Catching up with him under the banana tree, the appellant stabbed Arnel repeatedly until he died. Thereafter, the appellant together with Lorna, left Arnel, but they went back momentarily with the appellant again stabbing Arnel at the neck and breast. (pp. 16-20, TSN, March 5, 1990).chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Dr. Susan Casaclang, the Municipal Health Officer, examined the cadaver of Arnel and she issued a medical certificate with the following findings:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

External findings:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Head/Face:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

— Abrasion — cm (R) fronto-temporal area

— Abrasion — 4 cm (R) lateral aspect of the orbit

— Lacerated wound, superficial, about 2 cm (L) cheek, zygomatic area

— Lacerated wound, about 3 cm upper 3rd (L) neck- Lacerated wound, about 1.5 cm middle 3rd (L) neck.

Chest/Lungs:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1) Punctured wound about 11 cm in depth, about 1.5 cm in diameter, sternal area, level bet. 2nd and 3rd ICS, traversing the 2nd rib (L)

2) Punctured wound about 2 cm in diameter, about 15 cm in depth, about 3.5 cm. in diameter, (L) lower subcostal area traversing the 8th rib (L).

— Lacerated wound, superficial about 1.5 cm just below wound No. 2.

— Punctured wound about 2 cm in diameter, about 11 cm in depth, (L) lower subcostal area traversing the 9th rib (L)

— Superficial lacerated wound about 1 cm, lateral aspect of the abdomen, along the (L) axillar line

— Punctured wound about 2 cm diameter, about 11 cm in depth (R) subcostal area traversing then (R) lobe of the liver and the 8th & 9th ribs (R)

— Abrasion about 6.5 cm. supraumbilical area

— Abrasion about 4.5 cm. in length, (L) shoulder

— Lacerated wound, superficial about .5 cm (L) forearm

— Lacerated wound, superficial about 1 cm (L) wrist

— Lacerated wound, superficial about 1 cm (L) thumb.

Internal findings:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

— Fracture of the 8th & 9th ribs (R)

— Fracture of the 8th & 9th ribs (L)

— Lung, (L) upper lobe was lacerated

— Liver (R) lobe was lacerated.

(pp. 21-22, Rollo).

Charged with murder, the appellant put up alibi as his defense, claiming that he was at home in San Mariano, Sta. Maria, Pangasinan, a few meters away from the poblacion the entire evening of March 13, 1989 with his common-law wife Lorna Taguiped and his mother, Teresita Cadag; that he never sent Lorna to the house of Boyet as he does not know Boyet nor Arnel Claridad personally; that it was their neighbor, Marcelo Pacion, with whom he was jealous of as the latter visited Lorna whenever he was away; that he never met Arnel on that fateful night; and that it was Lorna who had a motive to kill Arnel for the victim’s brother, Boyet, by whom she got pregnant in 1987, refused to marry her. (pp. 191-202, TSN, March 22, 1990).

Corroborating the appellant’s alibi, his mother, Teresita confirmed that her son was at home the whole evening of March 13, 1989. (pp. 168-169, TSN, March 21, 1990).

Likewise, Emilia Agbunag, a neighbor, declared that between 8:00 o’clock and 9:00 o’clock in the evening of March 13, 1989, she saw the appellant at his home sitting at the sala with Lorna and Teresita. (pp. 141-144, TSN, March 19, 1990).

After trial, the trial court convicted the appellant as charged. The dispositive portion of the decision reads thus —

"WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds Eddie Cadag, alias Simen, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder qualified by treachery, without any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; to indemnify the legal heirs of Arnel Claridad in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) plus P16,590.00 as actual damages; and to pay the costs.

"SO ORDERED." (pp. 51-52, Rollo).

In this appeal, the appellant assails the credibility of Lorna, who executed two glaringly contradictory sworn statements, and who had a motive to kill Arnel.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

The appeal is meritless.

The fact that Lorna executed two wayward sworn statements does not denigrate upon her credibility. At the trial, she unabashedly admitted that the statements she made before the NBI were untrue because the appellant threatened to kill her if she stated what actually happened. Sometime in July, 1989, however, after she had separated from the appellant, she voluntarily executed another sworn statement before the police and narrated how Arnel was killed. (pp. 37-38, March 5, 1990).

Proof of motive is not indispensable to conviction. Motive is important only when the identity of the culprit is in doubt. (People v. Perante, Jr., 143 SCRA 60) In the instant case, Lorna definitely pinpointed to the appellant as the killer of Arnel, and her testimony, corroborated by the physical evidence found by the police at the crime scene, has not been satisfactorily refuted.

We find it hard to believe that it was Lorna who committed the killing. Based on the autopsy report, the victim Arnel sustained multiple stab wounds and lacerations, not to mention broken ribs. No proof was presented to show that Lorna possesses extraordinary strength as would enable her to overpower Arnel and render him in such a helpless state.

The trial court correctly rejected the appellant’s alibi, which in his case has become more dubious because it was sought to be established by the appellant himself, his mother and his neighbor, and not by uninterested, unbiased persons, who would, in the natural order of things, be best situated to support the tendered alibi. It has been repeatedly observed that alibi is a defense easily fabricated especially among parents, children and relatives, or even among those not so related, so that great caution must be exercised in accepting it. Well entrenched is the rule that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the appellant was somewhere else when the crime was committed but it must likewise be demonstrated that he was so far away that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. Sta. Maria is only a few kilometers from the poblacion where the crime was committed. Such distance does not preclude the possibility that the appellant could have committed the felony. (People v. Gapasin, 145 SCRA 191).

The trial court found that the crime committed was murder, qualified by treachery. We agree.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Evidence showed that the appellant, armed with a knife and under cover of darkness, suddenly and unexpectedly attacked in rapid succession Arnel, who was unarmed. Nocturnity, being inherent in treachery, cannot be considered separately. (People v. Pacada, Jr., 142 SCRA 427).

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. In view, however, of the pronouncement in People v. Sison (G.R. No. 86455 promulgated September 14, 1990), the indemnity to be paid should be increased to P50,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, Regalado and Nocon, 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






May-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 83811 May 5, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 89020 May 5, 1992 - STRONGHOLD INSURANCE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 94149 May 5, 1992 - AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94255 May 5, 1992 - RICARDO L. MEDALLA, JR. v. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95393 May 5, 1992 - RAUL H. SESBRENO v. OSCAR E. ALA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95914 May 5, 1992 - BLUE BAR COCONUT PHILS. INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79184 May 6, 1992 - ERLINDA L. PONCE v. VALENTINO L. LEGASPI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88282 May 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN F. PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. 93654 May 6, 1992 - FRANCISCO U. DACANAY v. MACARIO ASISTIO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96058 May 6, 1992 - VICTOR C. MACALINCAG, ET AL. v. ROBERTO E. CHANG

  • G.R. No. 104712 May 6, 1992 - MANUEL T. DE GUIA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 38810 May 7, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49463 May 7, 1992 - JAIME T. MALANYAON v. DELFIN VIR. SUÑGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 49863-71 May 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO ESCAMILLAS

  • G.R. No. 73864 May 7, 1992 - TEODORO PALMES HERNAEZ, JR. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79167 May 7, 1992 - HEIRS OF PROCESO BAUTISTA v. SPS. SEVERO BARZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89802 May 7, 1992 - ASSOCIATED BANK, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95554 May 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO M. DANICO

  • G.R. No. 96452 May 7, 1992 - PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97822 May 7, 1992 - MAURICIO N. CACHOLA, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-91-528 May 8, 1992 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JOSE B. GATICALES, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2427 May 8, 1992 - ONOFRE P. TEJADA v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO

  • G.R. No. 40457 May 8, 1992 - MOBIL OIL PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH VI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48772 May 8, 1992 - PASTOR T. BRAVO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 60225-26 May 8, 1992 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. ZAIN B. ANGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 61864-69 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. BENIGNO M. PUNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62773 May 8, 1992 - OLIMPIO REYES, ET AL. v. OSCAR R. ZUBIRI, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 66873-74 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRUCTUOSO MANCAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71662 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO I. DACOYCOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72244 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE AGRIPA

  • G.R. No. 84623 May 8, 1992 - FELIPE TORIBIO, ET AL. v. TEMISTOCLES B. DIEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84974 May 8, 1992 - BENGUET CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86186 May 8, 1992 - RAFAEL GELOS v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and ERNESTO ALZONA

  • G.R. No. 86787 May 8, 1992 - MILAGROS TUMULAK BISHOP, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88331 May 8, 1992 - SPS. RICARDO B. VILLAMIL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88353 May 8, 1992 - CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89307 May 8, 1992 - MA. WENDELYN V. YAP, ET AL. v. VERGEL G. CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91158 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE V. SANGIL

  • G.R. No. 91544 May 8, 1992 - LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92087 May 8, 1992 - SOFIA FERNANDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92585 May 8, 1992 - CALTEX PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93409 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMONITO GELOTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93709 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH RABANES

  • G.R. No. 93899 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE C. CADAG

  • G.R. Nos. 93929-31 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO C. CABODAC

  • G.R. No. 94133 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 94529 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO REYES

  • G.R. No. 94784 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGELITO CALING

  • G.R. No. 96605 May 8, 1992 - FELICIANO MORCOSO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96787 May 8, 1992 - PEDRO TRIA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97086 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO A. CANELA

  • G.R. No. 97146 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELSON C. COLLANTES

  • G.R. No. 97180 May 8, 1992 - BENJAMIN D. SISON v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 97477 May 8, 1992 - CAMILO E. TAMIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98258 May 8, 1992 - TIRSO OPORTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98334 May 8, 1992 - MANUEL D. MEDIDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101767 May 8, 1992 - TERTULIANO ABEJARON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86495 May 13, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL S. FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 57227 May 14, 1992 - AMELITA CONSTANTINO v. IVAN MENDEZ

  • G.R. No. 49855 May 15, 1992 - NICOLAS V. ICASIANO v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

  • G.R. No. 55488 May 15, 1992 - MARCIANA DAPIN v. ALBINO DIONALDO

  • G.R. No. 66207 May 18, 1992 - MAXIMINO SOLIMAN, JR. v. HON. JUDGE RAMON TUAZON

  • G.R. No. 89070 May 18, 1992 - BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 60673 May 19, 1992 - PAN AMERICAN AIRWAYS v. JOSE K. RAPADAS

  • G.R. No. 61024 May 19, 1992 - JUAN D. CELESTE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 69138 May 19, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 83113 & 83256 May 19, 1992 - RAFAEL S. BELTRAN v. PAIC FINANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 67664 May 20, 1992 - ANANIAS PANDAY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 55691 May 21, 1992 - ESPERANZA BORILLO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 56925 May 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO I. SIMON

  • G.R. No. 69581 May 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 92706 May 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS MIRANTES

  • G.R. No. 97906 May 21, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 47362 May 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCIO GUTIERREZ

  • G.R. No. 68946 May 22, 1992 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 76743 May 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME C. CARANZO

  • G.R. No. 81158 May 22, 1992 - OSCAR A. JACINTO v. ROGELIO KAPARAZ

  • G.R. No. 87135 May 22, 1992 - ALMA MAGALAD v. PREMIERE FINANCING CORP.

  • G.R. Nos. 89404-05 May 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN DEGOMA

  • G.R. No. 90197 May 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH FAGYAN

  • G.R. Nos. 98423-24 May 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL ACURAM

  • G.R. No. 63201 May 27, 1992 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. CFI OF RIZAL, BRANCH XXI

  • G.R. No. 71526 May 27, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSELITO VILLALOBOS

  • G.R. No. 77114 May 27, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO P. LITERADO

  • G.R. No. 80268 May 27, 1992 - BOGO-MEDELLIN CO. v. HON. JUDGE PEDRO SON

  • G.R. No. 97930 May 27, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. STANLEY BLAS

  • G.R. No. 98448 May 27, 1992 - AIDA ONG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 74135 May 28, 1992 - M. H. WYLIE v. AURORA I. RARANG

  • G.R. No. 92595 May 28, 1992 - HON. MITA PARDO DE TAVERA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 95642 May 28, 1992 - AURELIO G. ICASIANO, JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 96548 May 28, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL DAG-UMAN

  • G.R. No. 90462 May 29, 1992 - RICARDO LIRIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100111 May 29, 1992 - TESCO SERVICES, INC. v. HON. ABRAHAM P. VERA

  • G.R. No. 104037 & 104069 May 29, 1992 - REYNALDO V. UMALI v. JESUS P. ESTANISLAO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-89-295 May 29, 1992 - ADORACION G. ANGELES v. EMMANUEL BANTUG

  • G.R. No. 94429 May 29, 1992 - BLTB COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 96494 May 28, 1992 - CASA FILIPINA DEV’T CORP. v. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY