Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > September 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 102381 September 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO H. LOPEZ:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 102381. September 29, 1992.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDGARDO LOPEZ y HALILI, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Fajardo & Usita for Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTIONS; REGULAR PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTY; PREVAILS OVER ACCUSED’S SELF-SERVING AND UNCORROBORATED DENIAL OF HAVING COMMITTED THE CRIME; CASE AT BAR. — The defense that the accused was "framed" by the apprehending officer cannot be given any credence. In cases involving persons accused of being drug pushers or sellers almost always the defense is that the accused was framed up by the apprehending police officers. We realize the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well-being of society, if the courts, solely on the basis of the rotten reputation of some policemen, accept on every instance this form of defense which can be so easily concocted and fabricated. It is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption, that official duty has been regularly performed, exists. (People v. Agapito, 154 SCRA 694; People v. Marcos, 185 SCRA 154). We accept the findings of the trial court on the credibility of the police officers who testified for the prosecution. Thus, We give credence to their narration of the incident because they are law enforcers who are presumed to have regularly performed their duty in the absence of convincing proof to the contrary. But the more important consideration is the fact that the accused was positively identified by the prosecution witnesses. This should prevail over his self-serving and uncorroborated denial of having committed the crime for which he was charged.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESENTATION THEREOF; SUBJECT TO THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE PROSECUTION. — Appellant also underscores the fact that the civilian informer was not made to take the witness stand and he maintains that the non-presentation rendered a fatal blow to the case of the prosecution. This is not correct. The testimony of the informer is not indispensable in view of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who were members of the "buy-bust" team, particularly the poseur-buyer. At any rate, the matter of presenting witnesses for the People is the prerogative of the prosecution. (People v. Andiza, 164 SCRA 643 People v. Solomon, 166 SCRA 767). Apparently, the prosecution found it unnecessary to present the informer because, in its appreciation there was already sufficient evidence to establish its case.


D E C I S I O N


MELO, J.:


Edgardo Lopez y Halili was charged before Branch 148 of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region stationed in Makati, with violating Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, in an information which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 5th day of October 1989, in the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously deliver and sell Methamphetamine Hydrocloride (SHABU) wrapped in an aluminum foil, which is a regulated drug, in consideration of P100.00.

Contrary to law." (p. 6, Rollo).

After due trial, the Honorable Oscar B. Pimentel adjudged Edgardo Lopez y Halili, guilty of the crime charged. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:chanrobles law library

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, and finding accused EDGARDO LOPEZ Y HALILI of 2017 Volta Street, Barangay San Isidro, Makati Metro Manila, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act 6425, as amended, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00).

"With costs against the accused.

"SO ORDERED." (p. 31, Rollo).

Accused-appellant Lopez is now before this Court seeking a reversal of the aforementioned decision. In his Brief, he alleges that the trial court gravely erred —.

"1. . . . in believing the prosecution’s version that there was a buy-bust operation conducted by the police officers on October 5, 1989;

"2. . . . in not giving full faith and credence to the evidence adduced by the defense; and"

3. . . . in not acquitting accused appellant on the ground that his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. (p. 1, Brief for the accused-appellant; p. 50, Rollo)

As gathered from the evidence presented by the prosecution, at about 11:00 o’clock on the morning of October 5, 1989, Pat. Rogelio Tuazon, PFC Nestor de Dios, P/W Elizabeth Mendoza and Pat. Ramir Reciproco, all of the Dangerous Drugs Section of the Makati Police, were at Volta St., Barangay San Isidro, Makati, Metro Manila to conduct a "buy-bust" operation against appellant, upon instructions of their officer-in-charge, Captain Leonardo Labares, who had earlier received information that appellant was a drug pusher in the area. Pat. Tuazon, who was disguised as "jeprox" (hippie), waited in front of the compound at No. 2017 of said street, where appellant’s house is located, to pretend to buy "shabu" using a marked P100.00 bill supplied by Captain Labares, while his companions discreetly deployed themselves within the vicinity as back-up support ready to respond upon a pre-arranged signal. While standing near the gate, appellant approached Pat. Tuazon if he would like to "score" (a street or drug lingo, meaning to buy) and he told appellant that he will, for only one deck. This one deck is supposed to be a small portion of a gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride which is a regulated drug locally known as "shabu." Appellant gave Pat. Tuazon a small packet containing shabu (Exh.’B’) and, in turn, the latter handed to appellant the marked P100.00 bill. (Exh.’H’). Pat. Tuazon gave the pre-arranged signal to his companions by lighting his cigarette. When the back-up agents were closing in, appellant suddenly ran towards his house where he was chased and caught by the peace officers. Inside the house, the agents found on the floor parapharnalia for the use of prohibited drugs. Appellant was placed under arrest and after the marked money bill was recovered from his pants’ pocket, he was brought to the police station for further investigation. The suspected prohibited drug was turned over to the National Bureau of Investigation far examination. Forensic Chemist Edwin Purificando issued a certification (Exh.’E’) and a final report (Exh.’F’) stating that the drugs thus examined gave positive results for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "shabu" .

For his part, appellant claimed that he was a victim of frame-up and the accusation against him was fabricated. He testified that on the evening of October 5, 1989, he was at home with his family and relatives. They allegedly slept early, but at around 11 p.m., he was awakened by his wife telling him that somebody was inside their house. Seeing the policemen inside the house, he inquired from them if they have a search warrant, but the policemen merely told him that he was a drug pusher, after which he was brought near the kitchen. He was frisked and told to strip. Finding nothing in him except a badge and love letters in his wallet, they invited him for questioning. Appellant denied he was a pusher. He, however, admitted his wife is a drug user.

Appellant further claimed that Captain Labares has an axe to grind against him because he tipped off to the authorities a certain Gregorio Noval, a known pusher, who, upon being picked up by the Pasay City Police, turned out to be a "bata" or henchman of Capt. Labares.

In other words, appellant denied having sold the prohibited drug in question or having received the marked P100.00 bill. He insisted there was no "buy-bust" operation conducted and that he was not apprehended by the policemen during this "buy-bust" operation.

The trial court rejected appellant’s version and found that there was actually a buy-bust operation conducted by Pat. Rogel Tuazon, Policewoman Elizabeth Mendoza, Pfc. Nestor de Dios and Pat. Ramir Reciproco at the vicinity of the residence of the accused at 2017 Volta St., Makati, Metro Manila and that during this "buy-bust" operation which was successful, the accused was apprehended. (pp. 26-28, Rollo).

We affirm the findings of the trial court.

The testimony of Pat. Tuazon, the poseur-buyer, was clear and convincing and demonstrated that appellant needed no instigation or prodding to commit a crime he would not otherwise have committed. Noteworthy is the fact that appellant, as gathered from the records, had a ready supply of "shabu" for a fast sale and disposition to anyone willing to pay the price.

The defense that the accused was "framed" by the apprehending officer cannot be given any credence. In cases involving persons accused of being drug pushers or sellers almost always the defense is that the accused was framed up by the apprehending police officers. We realize the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well-being of society, if the courts, solely on the basis of the rotten reputation of some policemen, accept on every instance this form of defense which can be so easily concocted and fabricated. It is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption, that official duty has been regularly performed, exists. (People v. Agapito, 154 SCRA 694; People v. Marcos, 185 SCRA 154).chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

We accept the findings of the trial court on the credibility of the police officers who testified for the prosecution. Thus, We give credence to their narration of the incident because they are law enforcers who are presumed to have regularly performed their duty in the absence of convincing proof to the contrary. But the more important consideration is the fact that the accused was positively identified by the prosecution witnesses. This should prevail over his self-serving and uncorroborated denial of having committed the crime for which he was charged. The failure of the prosecution to present all the members of the "buy-bust" team will not affect the prosecution’s case, their testimony would have been merely corroborative and cumulative. The testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive and if it satisfies the court as to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, is sufficient to convict. Here, the testimony of Pat. Rogelio Tuazon satisfies these standards and induces moral certainty of the guilt of Appellant.

Appellant claims that Pat. Labares had an axe to grind against him because he, appellant, tipped off the authorities to a certain Gregorio Noval, a known drug pusher. It turned out, however, that Noval was the henchman of Captain Labares. This reason is too superficial and self-serving to be accorded any consideration for except for the say so of appellant, nothing was presented to prove the charge.

The argument that appellant would not have sold "shabu" to a total stranger is at best conjectural and in any case not convincing. Drug pushers have become increasingly casual about their activities and less cautious about isolated transactions like the one at bar. (People v. Bernardino, 193 SCRA 448).

Appellant also underscores the fact that the civilian informer was not made to take the witness stand and he maintains that the non-presentation rendered a fatal blow to the case of the prosecution. This is not correct. The testimony of the informer is not indispensable in view of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who were members of the "buy-bust" team, particularly the poseur-buyer.

At any rate, the matter of presenting witnesses for the People is the prerogative of the prosecution. (People v. Andiza, 164 SCRA 643 People v. Solomon, 166 SCRA 767). Apparently, the prosecution found it unnecessary to present the informer because, in its appreciation there was already sufficient evidence to establish its case.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

Thus, on the whole, the testimonial and physical evidence for the prosecution is overwhelmingly against the pretended innocence of the accused.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Bidin, Davide, Jr. and Romero, JJ., concur.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., is on leave.




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.