Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1993 > August 1993 Decisions > G.R. No. 98468 August 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO VILLANUEVA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 98468. August 17, 1993.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARMANDO VILLANUEVA and ROGINO VILLANUEVA, alias "DIGOY," accused. ROGINO VILLANUEVA, alias "DIGOY," Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Geocadin, Vinco, Guance, Laudenorio and Carlo Law Office for Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT; RULE AND EXCEPTION. — We have consistently held that the findings of the trial court as to credibility of the witnesses are to be given weight and a high degree of respect by the appellate court. Unless there is a showing that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case, the appellate court will not disturb the factual findings of the lower court.

2. ID.; ID.; ALIBI; CANNOT PROSPER UNLESS ACCUSED PROVED THAT IT WAS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO BE AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME AT THE TIME OF ITS COMMISSION. — Appellant invokes the discredited defense of alibi. It is his claim that at the time the crime was committed, he was gathering tuba in another place two kilometers away from Sitio Mabua, Cauayan, the place where Joselito Itona was killed. To establish alibi as a defense, however, it must be shown that it was impossible for the accused to have been at the place where the crime was committed. Likewise, the defense of alibi may not be successfully invoked where the identity of the assailant has been established by the witness. Against the foregoing doctrinal criteria, appellant’s alibi cannot possibly be given any weight. No clear, positive and convincing evidence was presented to show that appellant was not at the place where the shooting incident happened. The defense merely relied on the denials of appellant without presenting any other evidence to corroborate or substantiate his disclaimer. Yet, the rule is that no less than the clearest proof is required to establish the defense of alibi.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; CANNOT PREVAIL OVER THE POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACCUSED BY WITNESSES. — The identities of appellant and his co-accused were established beyond question by the prosecution witnesses. As correctly held by the court below," (a)gainst these denials of the accused were the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses Venancio Tabobo and Ismael Banson who identified them with certainty. In fact, prosecution witness Venancio Tabobo chased the accused after one of them fired a shot at Joselito Itona in order to be certain who they really were. Said witness could not have been wrong in identifying both accused since he had known them for a long time. Besides, the victim was shot at close range and the witness was sitting near the victim at the time of the shooting.

4. CRIMINAL LAW; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; TREACHERY; CONSTRUED IN CASE AT BAR. — It is true that for treachery to be appreciated, there must be proof that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself and that the offender consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, method or form of attack which he employed to ensure the accomplishment of his purpose with impunity. In the case at bar, the killing was clearly committed in a treacherous manner. The victim, Joselito Itona, was completely taken by surprise. Appellant, armed with a homemade shotgun, came from behind the house of Joselito and, at close range, suddenly shot the victim at the back causing his instantaneous death. There is treachery when a victim is attack by an accused without warning and with his back turned to his assailant, or when the attacked is sudden and unexpected and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim, or is sudden and unexpected that the victim was unable to defend himself, thus insuring the execution of the criminal act without risk to the assailant.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ABSORBS ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH. — The lower court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. As held in a long line of cases up to the present, the circumstance of abuse of superior strength is properly deemed absorbed by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. This error of the trial court, however, will not affect the penalty imposed by it on appellant since, in the absence of any modifying circumstance, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua.


D E C I S I O N


REGALADO, J.:


In Criminal Case No. 492 of the Regional Trial Court of Kabankalan, Negros Occidental, Branch 61, Armando Villanueva and Rogino Villanueva, alias "Digoy," were charged with murder allegedly committed in this wise —

"That on or about the 15th day of November, 1986, in the Municipality of Cauayan, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other, armed with a homemade shotgun (pugakhang), with intent to kill, with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one JOSELITO ITONA y NONATO, thereby inflicting gunshot wounds upon the body of the latter which caused the death of the said victim." 1

to which indictment the accused pleaded not guilty when arraigned. 2

After weighing the evidence respectively adduced by the prosecution and the defense, the trial court acquitted accused Armando Villanueva, declaring that "no evidence of conspiracy was sufficiently shown." The court a quo likewise found that no sufficient evidence had been adduced to link accused Armando Villanueva to the treacherous act of his brother, Rogino, considering that the former did nothing except to run away after the latter’s commission of the crime. However, Accused Rogino Villanueva was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, and the fate of both accused was accordingly adjudged as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Rogino Villanueva GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder as defined in Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code with the qualifying circumstances of treachery and use of superior strength, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Joselito Itona in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.

The accused Armando Villanueva is ACQUITTED." 3

From the People’s brief, we quote the pertinent operative facts of this case which were established by the prosecution’s evidence, cited therein by way of documentation, and which we have verified from the transcripts of the notes of the proceedings:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"At around six thirty (6:30) in the evening of November 15, 1986, Venancio Tabobo and Joselito Itona were talking in front of the latter’s house at Sitio Mabua, Cauayan, Negros Oriental (tsn, November 5, 1987, pp. 5-6).

"At around the same time, the brothers Rogino and Armando Villanueva, who had been drinking tuba at Armando’s house since 9:00 A.M. of the same day, were seen by Ismael Banson walking toward the house of Joselito Itona (tsn, December 17, 1987, pp. 3-5, 5-6). At a certain distance from Joselito’s house, Armando Villanueva stayed behind while Rogino Villanueva continued walking towards the spot where Joselito Itona and Venancio Tabobo were talking (tsn, December 17, 1987, p. 6). Ismael Banson noticed that Rogino was carrying a `pugakhang’ or home-made gun in his armpit (Ibid, p. 7).chanrobles law library

"Rogino Villanueva suddenly appeared from behind Joselito’s house and he shot Joselito once with a homemade shotgun hitting him in the back (tsn, November 6, 1987, pp. 6-8; December 17, 1987, p. 7; April 20, 1988, pp. 8-9). Upon firing the shot, Rogino ran away together with Armando (tsn, November 6, 1987, p. 8). Venancio Tabobo chased Rogino but was not able to catch up with him (Ibid, pp. 18-19). Meanwhile, Ismael Banson approached Joselito, and upon seeing the latter sprawled on the ground with his back covered with blood, Ismael lifted him with the help of Joselito’s father (tsn, December 17, 1987, pp. 17-18).

"The following day, Dr. Raymundo Guerrero, medical office(r) of Cauayan, Negros Oriental, conducted an examination of the body of Joselito and concluded that the bod(ily) injuries caused by the shotgun bullets were so serious that they caused the immediate death of Joselito (tsn, April 20, 1988, pp. 9-10).

"Also the following day, members of the CHDF arrested Armando Villanueva while Rogino was arrested on November 19, 1986." 4

The autopsy conducted on the victim showed that the following injuries were sustained by him, viz.:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SHOTGUN WOUNDS ALL POSTERIOR LEFT THORACIC NON PENETRATING.

1. POE base neck left 5 cm. level 7th spinal column at the middle part non-penetrating.

2. POE left 5 cm. medico-lateral part neck at the vertebral line level 8th cervical spinal column non-penetrating.

3. Scattered 7 bullet wounds penetrating the posterior thoracic wall with POE from the medial part of the scapular area to the lateral area of the scapular bone left 5 cm. level of the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th thoracic ribs." 5

Appellant Rogino Villanueva interposed the defense of alibi. He claimed that he used to climb coconut trees almost everyday, being a tuba gatherer by occupation. He testified that he was gathering tuba at Cambugsoc, Cauayan, Negros Occidental, two kilometers away from the place of the incident. He further contended that the nature of his work required him to climb the coconut trees from 7:00 A.M. up to around 12:00 noon and, in the afternoon, he again started climbing the coconut trees at 2:00 P.M. up to 6:30 P.M. He had to do this almost everyday, including Sundays, otherwise, his absence of one or more days would cause his tuba to turn sour and it would not be good for drinking. 6

The lower court rejected appellant’s defense and opined that" (i)n the present case, no clear, positive and convincing evidence was presented by the defense to show that the accused were not at the scene of the incident when the said incident happened. They relied on their mere assertions that they were somewhere else." It then sustained "the unimpeached testimonies of the two (2) prosecution witnesses that the accused Rogino Villanueva and Armando Villanueva were present at Sitio Mabua, Barangay Poblacion, Cauayan, Negros Occidental, at around 6:30 o’clock in the evening and that while there, the accused Rogino Villanueva treacherously shot Joselito Itona y Nonato at the back with a home-made shotgun (pugakhang) causing his death." 7 It accordingly concluded that, from the evidence on record, alevosia and abuse of superior strength were employed in the commission of the crime.

Before us, appellant raises a lone and general assignment of error faulting the lower court’s finding that his guilt for the crime of murder had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 8

Appellant merely reiterated the defense of alibi in his brief, arguing that "it would be impossible for the accused-appellant to be present at Sitio Bonbon at around 6:30 in the evening when the shooting incident happened, when at this point of time, he was about to finish or had just finished gathering his tuba to be delivered to his employer at Cambugsoc, Cauayan, Negros Occidental." 9

After a careful assessment of all the evidence on record, we hold that the foregoing pretensions of appellant do not deserve serious consideration and do not warrant a reversal of the judgment of conviction.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The disposition of his appeal basically hinges on the findings of fact of the court a quo. Corollarily, we have consistently held that the findings of the trial court as to credibility of the witnesses are to be given weight and a high degree of respect by the appellate court. 10 Unless there is a showing that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case, the appellate court will not disturb the factual findings of the lower court. 11

Appellant invokes the discredited defense of alibi. It is his claim that at the time the crime was committed, he was gathering tuba in another place two kilometers away from Sitio Mabua, Cauayan, the place where Joselito Itona was killed. To establish alibi as a defense, however, it must be shown that it was impossible for the accused to have been at the place where the crime was committed. 12 Likewise, the defense of alibi may not be successfully invoked where the identity of the assailant has been established by the witness. 13

Against the foregoing doctrinal criteria, appellant’s alibi cannot possibly be given any weight. No clear, positive and convincing evidence was presented to show that appellant was not at the place where the shooting incident happened. The defense merely relied on the denials of appellant without presenting any other evidence to corroborate or substantiate his disclaimer. Yet, the rule is that no less than the clearest proof is required to establish the defense of alibi. 14

Furthermore, the identities of appellant and his co-accused were established beyond question by the prosecution witnesses. As correctly held by the court below," (a)gainst these denials of the accused were the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses Venancio Tabobo and Ismael Banson who identified them with certainty. In fact, prosecution witness Venancio Tabobo chased the accused after one of them fired a shot at Joselito Itona in order to be certain who they really were. (TSN, Page 19, Nov. 6, 1987). Said witness could not have been wrong in identifying both accused since he had known them for a long time. (TSN, pp. 4-5, Nov. 6, 1987). Besides, the victim was shot at close range (TSN, p. 7. Nov. 7. 1989) and the witness was sitting near the victim at the time of the shooting. (TSN, p. 7, Nov. 7, 1987)." 15

Appellant claims that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of murder. On the basis of the facts and evidence of record, this Court, like the court below, rules that the killing was attended by treachery, hence the crime committed was definitely murder.

It is true that for treachery to be appreciated, there must be proof that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself and that the offender consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, method or form of attack which he employed to ensure the accomplishment of his purpose with impunity. 16

In the case at bar, the killing was clearly committed in a treacherous manner. The victim, Joselito Itona, was completely taken by surprise. Appellant, armed with a home-made shotgun, came from behind the house of Joselito and, at close range, suddenly shot the victim at the back causing his instantaneous death.

There is treachery when a victim is attacked by an accused without warning and with his back turned to his assailant, or when the attack is sudden and unexpected and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim, or is sudden and unexpected that the victim was unable to defend himself, thus insuring the execution of the criminal act without risk to the assailant. 17

However, the lower court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. As held in a long line of cases up to the present, 18 the circumstance of abuse of superior strength is properly deemed absorbed by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. This error of the trial court, however, will not affect the penalty imposed by it on appellant since, in the absence of any modifying circumstance, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Finally, appellant argues that the reported act of prosecution witness Venancio Tabobo after the shooting incident contradicts normal human behavior. According to appellant, "common sense will dictate that the first tendency of a man who heard a shooting near to him is to cover himself or to run away from the scene of shooting but not chase the shooter." 19

The said contention is utterly devoid of merit. We have ruled in a number of cases 20 that there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience. Verily, it is even preposterous to say that anyone can determine exactly how a person will or should react to a given situation. The testimony of said prosecution eyewitness is evidently neither improbable nor incredible.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED, with the modification that the indemnity to the heirs of the victim, Joselito Itona y Nonato, is hereby increased to P50,000.00 in line with the present case law thereon.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Nocon and Puno, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Original Record, 1.

2. Ibid., 85.

3. Ibid., 170; penned by Judge Rodolfo S. Layumas.

4. Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee, 2-3; Rollo, 63-64.

5. TSN, April 20, 1988, 8; Exh. "A" .

6. Brief for Accused-Appellant, 3-4; Rollo, 35-36.

7. Original Record, 167-168.

8. Brief for Accused-Appellant, 1; Rollo, 33.

9. Ibid., 4; id., 36.

10. People v. Toribio, 198 SCRA 529 (1991).

11. People v. De la Torre, 198 SCRA 663 (1991).

12. People v. Perante, Jr., 143 SCRA 56 (1986); People v. Abigan, Et Al., 144 SCRA 130 (1986); People v. Coronado, Et Al., 145 SCRA 250 (1986).

13. People v. Monteverde, 142 SCRA 668 (1986); People v. Adones, Et Al., 144 SCRA 364 (1986).

14. People v. Peralta, 193 SCRA 9 (1991)

15. Original Record, 167-168

16. People v. Espera, 175 SCRA 728 (1989).

17. People v. Cuyo, Et Al., 196 SCRA 447 (1991); People v. Lubreo, Et Al., 200 SCRA 11 (1991).

18. People v. Bueza, 188 SCRA 683 (1990); People v. Espiritu, Et Al., 191 SCRA 503 (1990); People v. Tasarra, Et Al., 192 SCRA 266 (1990); People v. Dominguez, Et Al., G.R. No. 100199, January 18, 1993.

19. Brief for Accused-Appellant, 6; Rollo, 38.

20. People v. Lagota, Et Al., 194 SCRA 92 (1991); People v. Flores, Et Al., supra; People v. Raptus, 198 SCRA 425 (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






August-1993 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 86939 August 2, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTOS DUCAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96988 August 2, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO BALAJADIA

  • G.R. No. 80645 August 3, 1993 - MARCELINO GALANG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89112 August 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES M. LIWAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102725 August 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISMAEL N. RELORCASA

  • G.R. No. 103233 August 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMO PELIGRO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-89-383 August 4, 1993 - ANTONIO G. MIRANO v. MARILYN O. SAAVEDRA

  • G.R. Nos. 74294-96 August 4, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER LLABRES

  • G.R. No. 104513 August 4, 1993 - SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106837 August 4, 1993 - HENRY MACION, ET AL. v. JAPAL M. GUIANI, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-92-898 August 5, 1993 - EVANGELINE L. DINAPOL v. ISMAEL O. BALDADO

  • G.R. No. 85041 August 5, 1993 - GRACIANO BERNAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 88475-96 August 5, 1993 - CRESENCIA L. TAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95145 August 5, 1993 - GUALBERTO R. ESTIVA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 98007-08 August 5, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NECEMIO JOAQUIN

  • G.R. No. 103303 August 5, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO E. GASPER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105138 August 5, 1993 - BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-90-414 August 9, 1993 - BELEN P. FERRIOLS v. NORMA HIAM

  • A.M. No. MTJ-91-530 August 9, 1993 - TRINIDAD SUNGLAO VDA. DE CORONEL v. CONRADO T. DANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94549 August 9, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY SUETA

  • G.R. No. 102657 August 9, 1993 - FELICIANO NITO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93029 August 10, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VILLAMOR ACZON

  • G.R. No. 94093 August 10, 1993 - FAR EAST MARBLE (PHILS.), INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102411 August 10, 1993 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97873 August 12, 1993 - PILIPINAS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103302 August 12, 1993 - NATALIA REALTY, INC., ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104226 August 12, 1993 - CONCHITA ROMUALDEZ-YAP v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85985 August 13, 1993 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL) v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 90795-96 & 91125-26 August 13, 1993 - SHOEMART, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101583 August 13, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLITO TIDONG

  • G.R. No. 55343 August 16, 1993 - A & A CONTINENTAL COMM. PHIL., INC. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94644 August 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL M. ALEJANDRO

  • G.R. No. 98468 August 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103299 August 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOPE VIENTE

  • G.R. No. 106164 August 17, 1993 - EDWIN V. SARDEA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90626 August 18, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO ALCORIZA LASCUNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94955 August 18, 1993 - JUAN CORONADO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109293 August 18, 1993 - HOME INSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98472 August 19, 1993 - PHIL. ASS. OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC., ET AL. v. RUBEN D. TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103059 August 19, 1993 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106953 August 19, 1993 - CESAR SAN JOSE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74449 August 20, 1993 - IMELDA A. NAKPIL v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96306 August 20, 1993 - LORENZO BERICO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103072 August 20, 1993 - MOBIL OIL PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103295 August 20, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO SALAMAT

  • G.R. No. 104216 August 20, 1993 - TEODORO B. PANGILINAN v. GUILLERMO T. MAGLAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105083 August 20, 1993 - VIRGILIO CALLANTA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75038 August 23, 1993 - ELIAS VILLUGA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85817 August 23, 1993 - PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108232 August 23, 1993 - ZONSAYDA L. ALINSUG v. RTC, Br. 58, San Carlos City, Negros Occ., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85073 August 24, 1993 - DAVAO FRUITS CORP. v. ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96541 August 24, 1993 - DEAN JOSE JOYA, ET AL. v. PRESIDENTIAL COMM. ON GOOD GOVT., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102973 August 24, 1993 - ROGELIO CARAMOL v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103393 August 24, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO MANZANO

  • G.R. No. 103403 August 24, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO ULILI

  • G.R. No. 104615 August 24, 1993 - EMILIANA MEDINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108229 August 24, 1993 - DASMARIÑAS GARMENTS, INC. v. RUBEN T. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99299 August 26, 1993 - ROBERTO ULANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100592 August 26, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR ARMADA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 104995 August 26, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALTAZAR DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107324 August 26, 1993 - APOLINARIO ESBER, ET AL. v. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91889 August 27, 1993 - MANUEL R. DULAY ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-91-565 August 30, 1993 - PATRICIO T. JUNIO v. PEDRO C. RIVERA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 97226 August 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BETHOVEN LIZADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98443 August 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO NAPARAN, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 103446-47 August 30, 1993 - MARIANO F. OCAMPO, IV v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105214 August 30, 1993 - FRANCISCO JAVIER O. CARAM, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105141 August 31, 1993 - SIGNETICS CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106915 August 31, 1993 - JARDINE DAVIES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.