Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > September 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 91284 September 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEPITO T. PEÑERO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 91284. September 3, 1992.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PEPITO PEÑERO y TAGAWA, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Public Attorney’s Office for Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT OF PERSON UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION; RULE. — The prosecution has not shown that the accused was duly informed of his constitutional rights when he was placed under custodial investigation and later made to sign the said confession. The statement itself shows that he was merely warned that it might be used against him. He was also not apprised of his right to be silent and to the assistance of counsel which could be furnished to him for free if he could not afford to retain the services of a paid lawyer. It is not denied that the statement was taken from him without such assistance. There is also no refutation of his testimony that he was merely made to sign the statement without giving him a chance to study it or to consult a lawyer about it. These circumstances rendered the sworn statement completely inadmissible. It should not have been considered at all by the trial judge.

2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT; RULE; EXCEPTIONS; RATIONALE. — The findings of fact of the trial court deserve credence on appeal save where they come under the established exceptions. The reason is the superior opportunity of the trial judge to observe the witnesses as they testify and thereby assess their credibility by their demeanor on the stand. The tell-tale signs of prevarication are plain enough for the trial judge to see but are not available to the appellate judge. The higher court can go only by the silent record.

3. CRIMINAL LAW; DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT (R.A. 6425); DRUG-PUSHING; MAY BE COMMITTED AT ANYTIME AND AT ANY PLACE. — The defense makes the usual argument that Peñero could not have committed the crime so openly, in a busy street with all the people milling around. If he really intended to sell the prohibited article, he would have been more cautious and done it more covertly. True, he should have been more careful. But he was not. He probably felt that he did not have to be, in pure disdain of the law-enforcement authorities. Peñero’s conduct only proves the growing lack of respect of drug-pushers for the campaign against drug addiction and should lessen rather than increase the doubt about his guilt. At any rate, we have already held that — Drug-pushing when done on a small level as in this case belongs to that class of crimes that may be committed at anytime and at any place. After the offer to buy is accepted and the exchange is made, the illegal transaction is completed in a few 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. Hence, the Court has sustained the conviction of drug pushers caught selling illegal drugs in a billiard hall (People v. Rubio, G.R. No. 66875, June 19, 1986, 142 SCRA 329; People v. Sarmiento, G.R. No. 72141, January 12, 1987, 147 SCRA 252), in front of a store (People v. Khan, G.R. No. 71863, May 23, 1988, 161 SCRA 406) along a street at 1:45 p.m. (People v. Toledo, G.R. No. 67609, November 22, 1985, 140 SCRA 259), and in front of a house (People v. Policarpio, G.R. No. 69844, February 23, 1988).

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; IMPOSSABLE PENALTY. — The penalty prescribed by Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act as amended is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P20,000.00 to P30,000.00. The penalty of reclusion perpetua, which carries accessory penalties under the Revised Penal Code, is completely different from life imprisonment. Consequently, we shall have to correct the penalty of reclusion perpetua to life imprisonment, to which shall be added the fine of P20,000.00 and the costs of the suit.


D E C I S I O N


CRUZ, J.:


It appears that the accused-appellant, who was a pedicab driver, was also offering a different kind of trip. The lower court, after trial, found him guilty of selling marijuana in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. He now says it was he who was taken for a ride.

The evidence for the prosecution showed that he was caught in flagrante in a buy-bust operation conducted in the morning of May 12, 1989, at Sta. Rosario Street in Mandaluyong, Metro Manila.cralawnad

Cpl. Ernesto David of the Mandaluyong police had earlier that morning received a tip that there was a man selling marijuana on that street. The man’s description was given. On the basis of this information, Cpl. David ordered Pat. Ronald de Castro and Cpl. Reynaldo Cruz to conduct the operation. They were given a ten-peso bill for the sham purchase, with the former to act as the buyer.

Arriving at the said street at about ten o’clock that morning, De Castro waited on one side of the road for their quarry while Cruz posted himself on the other side inside a parked car with tinted windows. Soon enough they spotted Pepito Peñero, who fitted the description given them. De Castro approached Peñero and asked, "Pare, meron ba tayo diyan, pahinging isa lang." Peñero readily answered, "Meron, sir," and drew out of his pants pocket a packet wrapped in aluminum foil which he gave De Castro. De Castro then handed him the ten-peso bill.

Cruz, who was watching the transaction, saw De Castro give the pre-arranged signal. He forthwith approached the two and identified himself to Peñero as a police officer. Peñero was placed under arrest. De Castro and Cruz then body-searched him and confiscated four more aluminum-wrapped packages that they also found in the front right pocket of his short pants.

Peñero was taken to the police headquarters, where a sworn statement was taken from him after investigation by David. The five aluminum-wrapped packets were marked and sent to the National Bureau of Investigation for examination and were later found to contain marijuana. The corresponding complaint was thereafter filed with the fiscal’s office, resulting in the prosecution of Peñero for violation of Section 4, Article II of R.A. 6425.

The foregoing account was testified to by the three police officers 1 and Raquel Angeles. 2 Among the exhibits submitted by the prosecution were the confiscated marijuana, 3 the laboratory report thereon, 4 the ten-peso bill, 5 and the sworn statement of Peñero. 6

In his defense, Peñero claimed he was set up. He denied the charge against him, claiming that the marijuana and the ten-peso bill were both "planted." He had never seen the marijuana before his arrest, when it was shown to him for the first time at the police headquarters. The money, he said, was given to him by a boy who was paying his fare and it was while he was counting the change that the two policemen arrested him. Peñero also assailed his extrajudicial confession. He said it had been taken from him without the assistance of counsel and neither had he been informed of his constitutional rights.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

Judge Martin S. Villarama, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig found for the prosecution. Disbelieving the defense, he held that on the basis of the testimonial and documentary ,evidence of the People, including the extrajudicial confession, the guilt of the accused had been established beyond reasonable doubt.

In the decision dated November 21, 1989, Peñero was sentenced to "suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all its accessory penalties, to pay a fine of P20,000.00 and to pay the costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

The trial court is faulted in this appeal for giving credence to the prosecution, witnesses and for admitting the marijuana and the ten-peso bill as exhibits despite their inadequate identification. It is also contended that the extrajudicial confession should have been rejected outright because of its obvious flaws.

Peñero stresses that the police officers who testified against him had merely framed him. Their story of the sale and his arrest was concocted and implausible. He questions the identification allegedly made by the informer and insists that the policemen merely singled him out and arbitrarily arrested him. He underscores their inconsistency about the source of the ten-peso bill and suggests that the passenger he says had paid him the money was the person they were really after. There was no proof either that the ten-peso bill was the money used for the alleged sale as there was no marking made thereon by the policemen. The defense also argues that the marijuana foils supposedly taken from Peñero were not sufficiently identified, as shown by the uncertain testimony of De Castro.

Peñero’s most important challenge is against the extrajudicial confession, which he avers was clearly violative of the Bill of Rights.

This last challenge is formidable and must be sustained. The prosecution has not shown that the accused was duly informed of his constitutional rights when he was placed under custodial investigation and later made to sign the said confession. The statement itself shows that he was merely warned that it might be used against him. He was also not apprised of his right to be silent and to the assistance of counsel which could be furnished to him for free if he could not afford to retain the services of a paid lawyer. It is not denied that the statement was taken from him without such assistance. There is also no refutation of his testimony that he was merely made to sign the statement without giving him a chance to study it or to consult a lawyer about it.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

These circumstances rendered the sworn statement completely inadmissible. It should not have been considered at all by the trial judge. It is amazing that he did so, in light of the long line of decisions that should have guided him, beginning with the landmark case of Morales v. Enrile. 7 Moreover, there was the express mandate of Article III, Section 12, subsections (1) and (3) of the Constitution, which are clear enough:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Sec. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an 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. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

x       x       x


(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

x       x       x


All judges should be keenly aware of these provisions and ever alert against their violation. The trial judge in the case at bar actually abetted such violation instead of striking it down with the ire it should have provoked for affronting the Constitution. It should be observed, in fairness, that he did say the accused-appellant would have been convicted just the same even if the extrajudicial confession were not taken into account. The point, though, is that he did not disregard it at the very outset, as he should have, and instead considered it with the rest of the evidence in convicting Peñero.

The other points of the defense are, however, not well taken. We agree with the trial judge that even with the rejection of the extrajudicial confession, the other evidence of the prosecution would still be sufficient to warrant the conviction.

We have said often enough that the findings of fact of the trial court deserve credence on appeal save where they come under the established exceptions. The reason is the superior opportunity of the trial judge to observe the witnesses as they testify and thereby assess their credibility by their demeanor on the stand. The tell-tale signs of prevarication are plain enough for the trial judge to see but are not available to the appellate judge. The higher court can go only by the silent record.

Even if it be conceded that David did not testify to having given the ten-peso bill to De Castro and Cruz, that omission is not material, much less fatal. The other two policemen did say under oath, and categorically enough, that they got it from David. 8 The fact that it was not marked may have lessened its probative value but did not render it inadmissible as part of their testimony.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The same observations may be made of the marijuana foils, which in fact had been previously marked before they were sent to the NBI. David definitely pointed to them as the articles turned over to him by De Castro and Cruz and in turn sent by him to the NBI. 9 Notably, the marijuana was wrapped in aluminum foil with the brand name "Tortillo Chips" printed on it, 10 and this served as further identification. More importantly, Raquel Angeles, the forensic chemist of the NBI, positively identified the marijuana foils as the articles she received from David which she subsequently examined.

Peñero’s protest that he was arrested and searched without warrant is a futile afterthought. He was validly arrested under Rule 113, Section 5(a), of the Rules of Court while actually committing a crime. And he was validly searched incidental to that arrest in accordance with Rule 126, Section 12.

The defense, finally, makes the usual argument that Peñero could not have committed the crime so openly, in a busy street with all the people milling around. If he really intended to sell the prohibited article, he would have been more cautious and done it more covertly. True, he should have been more careful. But he was not. He probably felt that he did not have to be, in pure disdain of the law-enforcement authorities. Peñero’s conduct only proves the growing lack of respect of drug-pushers for the campaign against drug addiction and should lessen rather than increase the doubt about his guilt. At any rate, we have already held that —

Drug-pushing when done on a small level as in this case belongs to that class of crimes that may be committed at anytime and at any place. After the offer to buy is accepted and the exchange is made, the illegal transaction is completed in a few 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. Hence, the Court has sustained the conviction of drug pushers caught selling illegal drugs in a billiard hall (People v. Rubio, G.R. No. 66875, June 19, 1986, 142 SCRA 329; People v. Sarmiento, G.R. No. 72141, January 12, 1987, 147 SCRA 252), in front of a store (People v. Khan, G.R. No. 71863, May 23, 1988, 161 SCRA 406) along a street at 1:45 p.m. (People v. Toledo, G.R. No. 67609, November 22, 1985, 140 SCRA 259), and in front of a house (People v. Policarpio, G.R. No. 69844, February 23, 1988).

We are convinced, as was the trial judge, that the accused-appellant committed the crime imputed to him. The testimonial and documentary evidence of the prosecution has established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt as against his feeble defense that he was merely the victim of prosecution from the police. The police had no motive for prosecuting him. On the other hand, it is clear that he was actuated by greed when he plied his clandestine trade that morning in callous disregard of the misery he was sowing.cralawnad

The decision sentenced the accused-appellant to reclusion perpetua and all its necessary penalties, but that was a mistake. The penalty prescribed by Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act as amended is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P20,000.00 to P30,000.00. The penalty of reclusion perpetua, which carries accessory penalties under the Revised Penal Code, is completely different from life imprisonment. 11 Consequently, we shall have to correct the penalty of reclusion perpetua to life imprisonment, to which shall be added the fine of P20,000.00 and the costs of the suit.

The accused-appellant was only a small-time operator, but he still contributed his share to the proliferation of illegal narcotics and the spread of drug addiction among our people. It is dismaying that, according to the latest reports, the Philippines has become the second biggest producer of marijuana in the whole of Asia. This dubious distinction should all the more justify the imprisonment for life of persons like the accused-appellant whose depravity continues to weaken our society. They all deserve the full justice and rigor of the law for their execrable offense against the life and future of this nation.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is AFFIRMED as above modified. It is so ordered.

Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. TSN, September 29, 1989; October 2, 1989.

2. Ibid., September 6, 1989.

3. Exhibit "B."cralaw virtua1aw library

4. Exhibit "D."cralaw virtua1aw library

5. Exhibit "E."cralaw virtua1aw library

6. Exhibit "G."cralaw virtua1aw library

7. 121 SCRA 538; see also People v. Galit, 135 SCRA 465; People v. Pecardal, 145 SCRA 647, People v. Capilin, 165 SCRA 47.

8. TSN, September 29, 1989, p. 7; October 2, 1989, p. 2.

9. TSN, September 29, 1989, pp. 14, 16.

10. Exhibit "B;" TSN, September 6, 1989, p. 3.

11. People v. Ruedas, G.R. No. 83372, February 27, 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






September-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. RTJ-88-22 September 1, 1992 - JOEL GARGANERA v. ENRIQUE JOCSON

  • G.R. No. 32075 September 1, 1992 - SIAO TIAO HONG v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 32657 September 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 70746-47 September 1, 1992 - BIENVENIDO O. MARCOS v. FERNANDO S. RUIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86051 September 1, 1992 - JAIME LEDESMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86844 September 1, 1992 - SPOUSES CESAR DE RAMOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 92-8-027-SC September 2, 1992 - RE: JOSEFINA V. PALON

  • G.R. No. 43747 September 2, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46025 September 2, 1992 - FLORITA T. BAUTISTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50618 September 2, 1992 - LEOPOLDO FACINAL, ET AL. v. AGAPITO I. CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51289 September 2, 1992 - RODOLFO ENCARNACION v. DYNASTY AMUSEMENT CENTER CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56865 September 2, 1992 - IRENEO TOBIAS, ET AL. v. TEMISTOCLES B. DIEZ

  • G.R. No. 61043 September 2, 1992 - DELTA MOTOR SALES CORPORATION v. NIU KIM DUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 62554-55 September 2, 1992 - REPUBLIC BANK v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70120 September 2, 1992 - CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73198 September 2, 1992 - PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74618 September 2, 1992 - ANA LIM KALAW v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75242 September 2, 1992 - MANILA RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78777 September 2, 1992 - MERLIN P. CAIÑA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80812 September 2, 1992 - LUZ E. TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84256 September 2, 1992 - ALEJANDRA RIVERA OLAC, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87318 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME G. SERDAN

  • G.R. No. 91535 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO L. DE JESUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92461 September 2, 1992 - ESTATE DEVELOPERS AND INVESTORS CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92789 September 2, 1992 - SILLIMAN UNIVERSITY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92795-96 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE B. TANTIADO

  • G.R. No. 93141 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ESTANISLAO GENERALAO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 93634 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MASALIM CASIM

  • G.R. No. 94918 September 2, 1992 - DANILO I. SUAREZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95249 September 2, 1992 - REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95843 September 2, 1992 - EDILBERTO C. ABARQUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95921 September 2, 1992 - SPOUSES ROBERT DINO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96333 September 2, 1992 - EDUARDO C. DE VERA v. ERNESTO L. PINEDA

  • G.R. Nos. 96952-56 September 2, 1992 - SMI FISH INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 97408-09 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS MORENO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 97805 September 2, 1992 - NILO H. RAYMUNDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99050 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONWAY B. OMAWENG

  • G.R. No. 99359 September 2, 1992 - ORLANDO M. ESCAREAL v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100970 September 2, 1992 - FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103269 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO VALIENTE

  • A.M. No. P-90-418 September 3, 1992 - EDILBERTO NATIVIDAD v. ALFONSO B. MELGAR

  • G.R. No. 86695 September 3, 1992 - MARIA ELENA MALAGA, ET AL. v. MANUEL R. PENACHOS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90693 September 3, 1992 - SPARTAN SECURITY & DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91284 September 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEPITO T. PEÑERO

  • G.R. No. 92310 September 3, 1992 - AGRICULTURAL AND HOME EXTENSION DEVELOPMENT GROUP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77285 September 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADEO ABUYEN

  • G.R. No. 83995 September 4, 1992 - BENJAMIN EDAÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 88788 September 4, 1992 - RESTITUTO DE LEON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89278 September 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDITO S. SICAT

  • G.R. No. 94375 September 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO A. CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 94825 September 4, 1992 - PHIL. FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97111-13 September 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MONICA P. PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 101469 September 4, 1992 - MALAYAN INTEGRATED INDUSTRIES, CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101539 September 4, 1992 - CECILE DE OCAMPO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102397 September 4, 1992 - BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105120 September 4, 1992 - SIMPLICIO C. GRIÑO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105346 September 4, 1992 - RAUL H. SESBREÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93842 September 7, 1992 - ERNANDO C. LAYNO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92988 September 9, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO TIWAKEN

  • G.R. No. 55741 September 11, 1992 - LUZ LATAGAN v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73071 September 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO S. ALVAREZ

  • G.R. No. 82586 September 11, 1992 - SALVADOR M. MISON, ET AL. v. ELI G.C. NATIVIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91159 September 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LARRY A. FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 91915 September 11, 1992 - DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY OF TACLOBAN v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97441 September 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO CASINILLO

  • G.R. No. 98062 September 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REGOBERTO YBEAS

  • G.R. No. 103903 September 11, 1992 - MELANIO D. SAMPAYAN, ET AL. v. RAUL. A. DAZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57475 September 14, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RUFO NERI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74851 September 14, 1992 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • A.C. No. 3248 September 18, 1992 - DOMINGO R. MARCELO v. ADRIANO S. JAVIER, SR.

  • G.R. No. 70890 September 18, 1992 - CRESENCIO LIBI, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73919 September 18, 1992 - NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75915-16 September 18, 1992 - SPS. GO IT BUN, ET AL. v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84917 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUEROBEN A. POLIZON

  • G.R. No. 86218 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELSIE B. BAGISTA

  • G.R. No. 91001 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILFERIO F. SILLO

  • G.R. No. 94511-13 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO C. VALENCIA

  • G.R. No. 94828 September 18, 1992 - SPOUSES ROMULO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. ASIAN CONSUMER AND INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95456 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO A. BAÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 95540 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARCHIE Q. DISTRITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96255 September 18, 1992 - HERCULES INDUSTRIES, INC. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96329 September 18, 1992 - MABUHAY VINYL CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97918 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR E. JAPSAY

  • G.R. No. 102141 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO SABORNIDO

  • G.R. No. 105227 September 18, 1992 - LEANDRO I. VERCELES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61218 September 23, 1992 - LIBERTAD SANTOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81883 September 23, 1992 - KNITJOY MANUFACTURING, INC. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83580 September 23, 1992 - ENRICO SY v. ARTURO A. ROMERO

  • G.R. Nos. 85403-06 September 23, 1992 - ANTONIO T. TIONGSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101706 September 23, 1992 - CONSOLIDATED PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102693 September 23, 1992 - SPOUSES AGOSTO MUÑOZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85086 September 24, 1991

    ARSENIO P. BUENAVENTURA ENTERPRISES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90254 September 24, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS C. FLORIDA

  • G.R. No. 97765 September 24, 1992 - KHOSROW MINUCHER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44936 September 25, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91114 September 25, 1992 - NELLY LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91359 September 25, 1992 - VETERANS MANPOWER AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58027 September 28, 1992 - GOLDEN COUNTRY FARMS, INC. v. SANVAR DEVELOPMENT CORP.

  • G.R. No. 97431 September 28, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JONATHAN J. ALABAN

  • G.R. No. 99046 September 28, 1992 - AQUALYN CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100574 September 28, 1992 - SPS. MARINO SAPUGAY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102381 September 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO H. LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 53630 September 30, 1992 - ENRIQUE KHO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82531 September 30, 1992 - DOMINGO T. MENDOZA v. MARIA MENDOZA NAVARETTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82630 September 30, 1992 - MARIA GULANG v. GENOVEVA NADAYAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94461 September 30, 1992 - INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97356 September 30, 1992 - ARTURO C. CORONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105017 September 30, 1992 - PABLO NIDOY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.