Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1994 > January 1994 Decisions > G.R. No. 104866 January 31, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO G. CANCERAN:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 104866. January 31, 1994.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROMEO CANCERAN Y GUMMARO, Accused-Appellant.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


Accused-appellant was charged with murder on 14 February 1989 in an Information which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . That on or about December 1, 1988, at around 10:30 o’clock in the evening, in Brgy. Sta. Maria, Municipality of Camiling, Province of Tarlac, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, Romeo Canceran y Gummaro, armed with a short handgun (stainless) with intent to kill and with treachery suddenly shot Pribert Doroja y Primero with the said firearm inflicting (a) gunshot wound on his head which resulted (in) his death.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Contrary to law." 1

The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty upon arraignment and after trial the Regional Trial Court at Camiling, Tarlac, Branch 68, rendered a decision * dated 5 March 1992, the dispositive part of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the Court finds and so holds, that the accused Romeo Canceran is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify heirs of the victim the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos, moral damages in the amount of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos and to pay the costs." 2

The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On 30 November 1988, at around 10:00 o’clock in the evening, Accused-appellant Romeo Canceran met the group of the victim Pribert Doroja, Arnold Bautista and Edralin Melindez on a street in Barangay Sta. Maria, Camiling, Tarlac. The group invited the accused-appellant to join them for a few drinks. After buying two (2) bottles of "Red Horse" beer, the group proceeded to the boarding house of Pribert Doroja and Edralin Melindez where they started their drinking session. The group sat on two (2) wooden beds which were perpendicular to each other. Edralin Melindez sat alone on one of the beds while the three (3) others sat on the other bed with the accused-appellant seated at the end closer to Melindez, followed by Arnold Bautista who sat in the middle and finally by the victim, Pribert Doroja who sat on the other end.chanrobles law library : red

The group was conducting their drinking session in a manner locally termed "tagayan" where a single glass is used and each person takes his turn drinking a fixed amount of liquor from the glass. Arnold Bautista, who acted as the "tanggero," was the person who refilled the glass so the other persons present could take their turn in drinking. When the victim Pribert Doroja was about to take his second drink from the glass, a bullet struck him on the left side of the head, slightly above the left ear.

Arnold Bautista and Edralin Melindez, shortly thereafter, went to the headquarters of the 188th PC Company at Malacampa, Camiling, Tarlac to report the incident. Based on the statements given by Bautista and Melindez, the PC Investigating Team proceeded to the residence of a certain Atty. Juan Cerezo, the accused-appellant’s employer, to invite Romeo Canceran for questioning about the incident. Bautista and Melindez alleged that it was Romeo Canceran who shot the victim. On the other hand, Romeo Canceran alleged that Arnold Bautista accidentally shot the victim while playing with a revolver.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

At the instance of the PC investigators, Romeo Canceran and Arnold Bautista voluntarily submitted themselves to a paraffin test to determine who had fired a gun. Elvira Avena-del Rosario, a senior forensic chemist of the National Bureau of Investigation submitted Chemistry Report Nos. C-88-1402 and C-88-1403 3 which were the results of nitrate tests conducted on the paraffin casts taken from Romeo Canceran and Arnold Bautista. Elvira Avena-del Rosario testified that the nitrate tests made on the paraffin casts taken from Arnold Bautista gave negative results for both right and left hands while the same tests conducted on the paraffin casts taken from the accused-appellant Romeo Canceran indicated the presence of nitrates on the latter’s right hand. Elvira Avena-del Rosario further stated that the positive results indicated the possibility that the accused-appellant Romeo Canceran had recently fired a gun. 4

Arnold Bautista, testifying for the prosecution, stated that he actually saw the accused-appellant draw his gun and shoot the victim Pribert Doroja while they were all seated and having a drinking session. 5 Edralin Melindez testified that after the shooting, he saw the accused-appellant stand up, put the gun back in its holster and leave the locus criminis. 6 Francisca Doroja, the victim’s mother, testified that the accused-appellant Romeo Canceran had on one occasion apologized to her and said, "Parang aksidente lang, Ate, ang pagkabaril ko sa anak mo. Araw ng Viernes" (It was accidental, my shooting your son. It was a Friday) 7

Accused-appellant assigns several errors to the trial court as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

I


THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE ACCUSED’S DEFENSE IS ONE OF MERE DENIAL.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

II


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING UNDUE WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE IMPROBABLE, INCONSISTENT AND CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONIES OF THE TWO EYEWITNESS, ARNOLD BAUTISTA AND EDRALIN MELINDEZ.

III


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT PUTTING PREMIUM ON MOTIVE CONSIDERING THAT THE POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACCUSED BY BAUTISTA AND MELINDEZ IS FLAWED.

IV


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED OUTRIGHT ON THE BASIS OF INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN BAUTISTA’S TESTIMONY AND THE NBI MEDICO-LEGAL FINDINGS.

V


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING UNDUE EMPHASIS ON THE INCULPATORY PORTIONS OF FRANCISCA DOROJA’S TESTIMONY CONSIDERING THE PRESENCE THEREIN OF CLEAR COUNTERBALANCING EXCULPATORY STATEMENTS.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

VI


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING UNDUE EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT TO THE RESULTS OF THE PARAFFIN TEST CONSIDERING THE CRUDE MANNER BY WHICH IT WAS ADMINISTERED AND THE EXTREME LIKELIHOOD THAT THE PARAFFIN CASTS OF ACCUSED CANCERAN AND PROSECUTION WITNESS BAUTISTA HAVE BEEN INTERCHANGED.

VII


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED RAN AWAY FROM THE SCENE OF THE CRIME.

VIII


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE FACT THAT ACCUSED WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL MOST ESPECIALLY DURING THE MOST DELICATE STAGES OF THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW.

IX


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED ON THE GROUND OF REASONABLE DOUBT." 8

A close and careful perusal of the records of this case fails to reveal any error committed by the trial court which warrants a reversal of the judgment of conviction.

Two (2) witnesses for the prosecution, Arnold Bautista and Edralin Melindez, were able to adequately establish that it was the accused-appellant Romeo Canceran who shot and killed Pribert Doroja. The trial court found their testimonies credible and convincing. This Court will not disturb these findings absent any exceptional instances where they are clearly shown to be arbitrary. 9

Accused-appellant Romeo Canceran also alleges that certain inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of Arnold Bautista and Edralin Melindez merit reversal of his conviction. The alleged inconsistencies however such as whether the "tagayan" was conducted in a clockwise direction as stated by Melindez or counter-clockwise as stated by Bautista or whether accused-appellant used his right or left hand in returning the gun to its holster, do not in any way refute the positive identification made by the two (2) eyewitnesses that it was Romeo Canceran who shot the victim.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

The alleged inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of Bautista and Melindez pertain to minor matters which instead of damaging their credibility should be considered badges of truth considering the natural fallibility of human perceptions.

The accused-appellant’s lack of motive is immaterial since he was positively identified as the one who shot the victim. 10 The rule is well settled that the prosecution need not prove motive on the part of the accused when the latter has been positively identified as the author of the crime.

The allegation of the accused that the results of the nitrate tests should be disregarded due to the possibility that the results of the tests conducted on the accused-appellant and Arnold Bautista may have been interchanged, deserves scant consideration. The defense failed to show even the slight possibility that the paraffin casts were interchanged. The Solicitor General correctly points out that "there is no possibility of interchange since the casts, when submitted to the NBI Manila for examination, were embedded or glued to the paper with proper identification." 11 The presumption under Rule 131, Section 5(m) of the Rules of Court that official duty has been regularly performed has thus not been successfully overcome by the defense.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The accused-appellant also contends that the trial court gave undue credence to the testimony of Francisca Doroja, the victim’s mother, who stated that the accused-appellant had talked to her inside the courtroom and admitted that he shot the victim accidentally. 12 This issue need not be discussed at length considering that Arnold Bautista had clearly and positively testified that it was the accused-appellant Romeo Canceran who shot the victim. Edralin Melindez corroborated his testimony by stating that right after the victim was shot, he saw the accused-appellant stand up and put a gun he was holding back into its holster. The defense failed to show any motive on the part of these two (2) witnesses to falsely testify against Accused-Appellant.

The issue of violation of the accused-appellant’s right to an attorney can be readily settled by reading the Original records of this case. During his arraignment on 21 March 1989, the accused-appellant was duly assisted by counsel de oficio, Atty. Hermogenes Manglicmot. The Order of the trial court dated 21 March 1989 directed the Citizens Legal Assistance Office to thereafter represent the accused Romeo Canceran. Clearly, no violation of the right to counsel was committed. The paraffin tests conducted without the presence of counsel did not violate the right against self-incrimination 13 nor the right to counsel.

The other assigned errors need not be discussed since the guilt of the accused-appellant has been proved with the moral certainty required by law.

The prosecution having clearly proved that the accused-appellant Romeo Canceran y Gummaro shot the victim Pribert Doroja y Primero suddenly and without warning while the two (2) of them along with Arnold Bautista and Edralin Melindez were having a drinking session, the trial court was correct in holding Romeo Canceran y Gummaro guilty of murder qualified by treachery.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Regalado and Puno, JJ., concur.

Nocon, J., is on leave.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, p. 9.

* Penned by Judge Prudencio V.L. Ruiz

2. Rollo, p. 34.

3. Exhibits "J" and "K" .

4. TSN, 20 July 1989, pp. 44-47.

5. TSN, 27 June 1989, p. 9.

6. TSN, 20 July 1989, p. 32.

7. TSN, 7 August 1989, p. 7.

8. Rollo, pp. 46-47.

9. People v. Liston, G.R. No. 63396, 15 November 1989, 179 SCRA 415.

10. People v. Kyamko, G.R. No. 95263, 18 December 1990, 192 SCRA 374.

11. Rollo, p. 104.

12. TSN, 7 August 1989, p. 7.

13. People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 91374, 25 February 1991, 194 SCRA 372.




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






January-1994 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 84656 January 4, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR LUCERO

  • G.R. No. 91385 January 4, 1994 - CRISANTA Y. GABRIEL-ALMORADIE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95262 January 4, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMMANUEL DESALISA

  • G.R. No. 102077 January 4, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO ERROJO

  • G.R. No. 103338 January 4, 1994 - FEDERICO SERRA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107888 January 4, 1994 - CIUDAD REAL & DEV’T. CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109026 January 4, 1994 - FRANCO L. LOYOLA v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70909 January 5, 1994 - CONCHITA T. VDA. DE CHUA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73521 January 5, 1994 - C. ALCANTARA & SONS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100150 January 5, 1994 - BRIGIDO R. SIMON, JR., ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106344 January 6, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO GOMEZ

  • A.M. No. P-93792 January 7, 1994 - TEODORO C. RIVERA, ET AL. v. ROMEO R. CAGUJAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93640 January 7, 1994 - TAY CHUN SUY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54344-45 January 10, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIE AMAGUIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79072 January 10, 1994 - RODOLFO ENRIQUE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95207-17 January 10, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE TAGUBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97178 January 10, 1994 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98262-63 January 10, 1994 - CLARO B. NARCISO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107721 January 10, 1994 - CHRISTOPHER MAÑEBO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108089 January 10, 1994 - ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109005 January 10, 1994 - JUAN D. VICTORIA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109068 January 10, 1994 - GAUDENCIO GUERRERO v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

  • G.R. No. 99839 January 14, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMONDO ABLAO

  • G.R. No. 104067 January 17, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARCISO G. FUERTES

  • A.M. No. P-93-817 January 18, 1994 - AGUSTIN G. LLOVERAS v. MILAGROS SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 85735 January 18, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO LUG-AW, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97977 January 18, 1994 - LUCKY TEXTILE MILLS, INCORPORATED v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104628 January 18, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO D. JACA

  • G.R. No. L-63009 January 19, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGELITO OCAÑA

  • G.R. No. 86227 January 19, 1994 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108119 January 19, 1994 - FORTUNE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108196 January 19, 1994 - MAURA INDUCTIVO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86890 January 21, 1994 - LEANDRO CARILLO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 96848 January 21, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO SALOMON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97284 January 21, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOTO CALOPE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105283 January 21, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO MACASA

  • G.R. No. 106390 January 21, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO ESCOTO

  • G.R. No. 106874 January 21, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO DE LOS REYES

  • G.R. No. 109993 January 21, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIAS BARASINA

  • G.R. No. 105625 January 24, 1994 - MARISSA BENITEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107329 January 24, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO MANALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108520 January 24, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO SIBUG

  • G.R. No. 108120 January 26, 1994 - COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88195-96 January 27, 1994 - "Y" TRANSIT CO, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98401 January 27, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE R. INOCENCIO

  • G.R. No. 100929 January 27, 1994 - EMILIA B. SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100957 January 27, 1994 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 101088 January 27, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO PALICTE

  • G.R. No. 102336 January 27, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIONITO OBEJAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104786 January 27, 1994 - ALFREDO PATALINGHUG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106956 January 27, 1994 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107345 January 27, 1994 - BA FINANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110193 January 27, 1994 - REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104866 January 31, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO G. CANCERAN

  • G.R. No. 84656 January 4, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR LUCERO

  • G.R. No. 91385 January 4, 1994 - CRISANTA Y. GABRIEL-ALMORADIE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95262 January 4, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMMANUEL DESALISA

  • G.R. No. 102077 January 4, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO ERROJO

  • G.R. No. 103338 January 4, 1994 - FEDERICO SERRA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107888 January 4, 1994 - CIUDAD REAL & DEV’T. CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109026 January 4, 1994 - FRANCO L. LOYOLA v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70909 January 5, 1994 - CONCHITA T. VDA. DE CHUA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73521 January 5, 1994 - C. ALCANTARA & SONS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100150 January 5, 1994 - BRIGIDO R. SIMON, JR., ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106344 January 6, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO GOMEZ

  • A.M. No. P-93792 January 7, 1994 - TEODORO C. RIVERA, ET AL. v. ROMEO R. CAGUJAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93640 January 7, 1994 - TAY CHUN SUY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54344-45 January 10, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIE AMAGUIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79072 January 10, 1994 - RODOLFO ENRIQUE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95207-17 January 10, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE TAGUBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97178 January 10, 1994 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98262-63 January 10, 1994 - CLARO B. NARCISO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107721 January 10, 1994 - CHRISTOPHER MAÑEBO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108089 January 10, 1994 - ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109005 January 10, 1994 - JUAN D. VICTORIA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109068 January 10, 1994 - GAUDENCIO GUERRERO v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

  • G.R. No. 99839 January 14, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMONDO ABLAO

  • G.R. No. 104067 January 17, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARCISO G. FUERTES

  • A.M. No. P-93-817 January 18, 1994 - AGUSTIN G. LLOVERAS v. MILAGROS SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 85735 January 18, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO LUG-AW, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97977 January 18, 1994 - LUCKY TEXTILE MILLS, INCORPORATED v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104628 January 18, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO D. JACA

  • G.R. No. L-63009 January 19, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGELITO OCAÑA

  • G.R. No. 86227 January 19, 1994 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108119 January 19, 1994 - FORTUNE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108196 January 19, 1994 - MAURA INDUCTIVO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86890 January 21, 1994 - LEANDRO CARILLO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 96848 January 21, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO SALOMON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97284 January 21, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOTO CALOPE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105283 January 21, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO MACASA

  • G.R. No. 106390 January 21, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO ESCOTO

  • G.R. No. 106874 January 21, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO DE LOS REYES

  • G.R. No. 109993 January 21, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIAS BARASINA

  • G.R. No. 105625 January 24, 1994 - MARISSA BENITEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107329 January 24, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO MANALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108520 January 24, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO SIBUG

  • G.R. No. 108120 January 26, 1994 - COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88195-96 January 27, 1994 - "Y" TRANSIT CO, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98401 January 27, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE R. INOCENCIO

  • G.R. No. 100929 January 27, 1994 - EMILIA B. SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100957 January 27, 1994 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 101088 January 27, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO PALICTE

  • G.R. No. 102336 January 27, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIONITO OBEJAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104786 January 27, 1994 - ALFREDO PATALINGHUG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106956 January 27, 1994 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107345 January 27, 1994 - BA FINANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110193 January 27, 1994 - REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104866 January 31, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO G. CANCERAN