Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1997 > January 1997 Decisions > G.R. No. 113498 January 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO BRIONES:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 113498. January 16, 1997.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALFREDO BRIONES Y RUVERA, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Public Attorney’s Office for Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY; FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE TRIAL COURT, GENERALLY UPHELD ON APPEAL; CASE AT BAR AN EXCEPTION WHERE CONVICTION OF THE APPELLANT WAS PREDICATED PRINCIPALLY ON CONTRADICTORY AND INCONSISTENT TESTIMONIES OF TWO POLICE OFFICERS. � The conviction of the appellant was predicated principally on the testimonies of SPO1 Eulalio Alilio � the alleged poseur-buyer, � and P03 Amorsolo Maravilla � one of the two police officers who acted as "back up" during the alleged buy-bust operation. According to the trial court, "P03 Maravilla substantially corroborated [the testimony of SPO1 Alilio, particularly about the buy bust operation they conducted on March 4, 1994, . . . along Topacio Street, Sta. Ana Manila." Our careful review of their separate testimonies, however, reveals that far from corroborating each other, the same are replete with contradictions and tainted with inconsistencies. The foregoing circumstances militate against affirming appellant’s conviction.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; KNOWLEDGE BY ACCUSED THAT POSEUR-BUYER IS A POLICE OFFICER GENERALLY NOT SUFFICIENT TO DETER HIM FROM PURSUING HIS NEFARIOUS TRADE; EXCEPTION. � While we held in previous cases that knowledge by the accused that the poseur-buyer is a police officer is insufficient to deter him from pursuing his nefarious trade, nevertheless, these pronouncements cannot be applied to this case considering that herein appellant himself had witnessed how SPO1 Alilio previously arrested his friend, for allegedly selling shabu. It was highly inconceivable that appellant would fall prey to the same arresting officer.

3. ID.; ID.; PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY; WILL NOT PREVAIL OVER PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. � We can not stamp with approval the trial court’s undue reliance with the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty. While SPO1 Alilio is presumed to have regularly performed his official duty, this presumption alone cannot by itself support a judgment of conviction. Indeed, under our Constitution, an accused, no matter how despicable the crime for which he may have been charged, still enjoys the presumption of innocence. And this resumption prevails over the presumption of regularity of the performance of official duty. Nor can it be overcome by just an ordinary proof to the contrary for to convict an accused, no less and nothing more than proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary. In this case, the threshold issue is whether or not the guilt of the appellant has been established by this required quantum of proof? We rule in the negative. Accordingly, we reverse his conviction based on reasonable doubt.


D E C I S I O N


FRANCISCO, J.:


Appellant Alfredo Briones y Ruvera was charged before the trial court 1 with violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, 2 as amended. The accusatory pleading reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about March 4, 1993 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not having been authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug, did then and there wilfully and unlawfully sell or offer for sale 0.1458 grams of white crystalline substance known as "SHABU" containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a regulated drug." 3

Appellant pleaded not guilty when arraigned. Thereafter, a full dress trial ensued culminating in the trial court’s verdict of conviction sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment based on the following narration of facts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"[O]n March 4, 1993, at around 5:30 o’clock in the afternoon a police posse led by SPO1 Eulalio Alilio and composed of PO3 Amorsolo Maravilla, PO3 Roque Blanco, and a civilian police informer named Danny proceeded to Topacio Street to conduct buy-bust operation. SPO1 Eulalio Alilio acted as poseur buyer When they reached the target area and saw the accused, SPO1 Eulalio Alilio and the civilian informer discreetly approached him, while the other two police officers posted themselves strategically nearby. The informer asked the accused if he had ‘shabu’. When the latter replied in the affirmative, SPO1 Eulalio Alilio offered to buy some, worth P100.00. The police officer then handed a marked P100-bill (Exhibit A) to the accused who in turn gave a deck of white crystalline substance contained a small plastic packet (Exhibit E-2) to the former. The exchange having been completed, SPO1 Eulalio Alilio gave to his companions their pre-arranged signal by placing his hand on the shoulder of the accused. The other two officers then approached them. The policemen arrested the accused and frisked (sic) his pockets which yield (sic) two or more small plastic packets containing similar substance. The marked P100-bill (Exhibit A) was recovered from the accused who was still holding the money when the policemen apprehended him. They took him to their Police Station No. 6 for investigation.

"Meanwhile, SPO1 Eulalio Alilio submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation the crystalline substance confiscated from the accused for laboratory examination to determine its chemical composition. (Exhibit D.) The examinations made on the specimens taken from the said crystalline substance yield (sic) positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride. (Exhibits F and G.)" 4

In this appeal, appellant contends that "the trial court erred in convicting [him] of violation of Section 15 of Republic Act 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, despite the utter failure of the prosecution to prove all the elements of the aforesaid offense." 5

We find merit in this appeal.

The conviction of the appellant was predicated principally on the testimonies of SPO1 Eulalio Alilio - the alleged poseur-buyer, and PO3 Amorsolo Maravilla - one of the two police officers who acted as "back up" during the alleged buy-bust operation. According to the trial court, "PO3 Maravilla substantially corroborated [the testimony of] SPO1 Alilio, particularly about the buy bust operation they conducted on March 4, 1994, . . . along Topacio Street, Sta. Ana, Manila." 6

Our careful review of their separate testimonies, however, reveals that far from corroborating each other, the same are replete with contradictions and tainted with inconsistencies as herein illustrated.

In his direct examination, SPO1 Alilio testified that when the shabu was already in his possession and the marked money was already in the hands of the appellant, PO3 Maravilla and PO3 Roque appeared and arrested the appellant. 7 However, this was belied by PO3 Maravilla who categorically declared in his direct examination that SPO1 Alilio was the one who actually made the arrest. 8 He narrated his account of the buy-bust operation in this wise:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. How did you act as back-up to Alilio?

A. I posted myself at a distance where I can see him because I cannot penetrate the place, sir.

Q. Why, where did Alilio go?

A. It is a small interior or alley, sir.

Q. What else, where did he go?

A. He talked to somebody, sir.

Q. Did you see the person to whom Alilio talked with?

A. I saw him, sir.

x       x       x


Q. When SPO1 Alilio talked to the accused, what happened, if any?

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Q. Before that, did you hear what Alilio and the accused talked about?

A. No, Your Honor.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Answer the question.

WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

A. He placed his arm over his shoulder, sir.

PROSECUTOR:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Q. Who placed his arm to whose shoulder?

A. SPO1 Alilio placed his arm on the shoulder of the suspect, sir.

Q. What else did you see?

A. No more because they already approached us and we approached him. sir.

Q. Also, other than that, what happened next?

A. We brought him to the police station already, sir." 9 (Emphasis ours)

Just as the trial court concluded, PO3 Maravilla could have corroborated the testimony of SPO1 Alilio in its material points considering that the former had posted himself at a place where he can see the latter and the appellant. 10 After all, SPO1 Alilio asserted that they (SPO1 Alilio and appellant) "were in the acts of exchanging things with each other" when PO3 Maravilla and PO3 Blanco showed up. 11 However, notwithstanding this claim of SPO1 Alilio, all that PO3 Maravilla testified seeing was that SPO1 Alilio talked with and thereafter placed his arm over appellant’s shoulder. Nowhere in his testimony did he ever state that SPO1 Alilio and the appellant did exchange something prior to the latter’s arrest. It is inconceivable that such exchange, if there was any, could have escaped his attention considering that it was supposedly the event which immediately preceded their pre-arranged signal, viz., the placing of SPO1 Alilio’s arm over appellant’s shoulder. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

But what perplexed us more are the following declarations of PO3 Maravilla which further casts serious doubt on the veracity of SPO1 Alilio’s testimony. Thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. Do you know why you brought the accused to the station?

A. Allegedly, a shabu was confiscated from him, sir.

Q. Who confiscated the shabu from the accused?

A. I did not see that thing, sir.

Q. What about at the police station, did you see the shabu?

A. No, sir, because I left the place, sir."12 (Emphasis ours)

On cross-examination, PO3 Maravilla’s denial was as stunning, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. But you did not know what took place between them?

A. No, sir.

Q. And after their talk and after police officer Alilio placed his arm around the accused, that was the time that you approached them?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that was the time that you know that the accused was being arrested?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. At the time when the accused was arrested you did not see any shabu?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Nor even the marked money?

A. Yes, sir." 13 (Emphasis ours)

It appears to us that Danny, the alleged civilian companion of SPO1 Alilio, or at least PO3 Roque Blanco, could have shed light on the material details of the alleged buy bust operation. But despite the availability of the trial court’s coercive process, these two were not called to the witness stand. While the corroborative testimonies of Danny and PO3 Roque may ordinarily be dispensed with, they nevertheless assume significance in view of the material irreconcilable differences between the testimonies of SPO1 Alilio and PO3 Maravilla, the two supposed eyewitnesses for the prosecution.

Furthermore, it appears that prior to his arrest by SPO1 Alilio appellant already knew that he is a police officer. 14 In fact, as testified to by the appellant 15 and admitted by the prosecution, 16 SPO1 Alilio was one of the police officers who previously arrested appellant’s friend, Alquin Ormoc, allegedly for selling shabu. This was corroborated by Alquin Ormoc himself who confirmed that "it was only [the appellant] who witnessed said apprehension."17 Viewed from this light, we cannot, by any stretch of imagination, accept that appellant could have still sold shabu to SPO1 Alilio knowing the obvious risk involved. 18 While we held in previous cases that knowledge by the accused that the poseur-buyer is a police officer is insufficient to deter him from pursuing his nefarious trade, nevertheless, these pronouncements cannot be applied to this case considering that herein appellant himself had witnessed 19 how SPO1 Alilio previously arrested his friend, for allegedly selling shabu. 20 It was highly inconceivable that appellant would fall prey to the same arresting officer.

The foregoing circumstances militate against affirming appellant’s conviction. For the same reason, we can not stamp with approval the trial court’ s undue reliance with the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty. 21 While SPO1 Alilio is presumed to have regularly performed his official duty, this presumption alone cannot by itself support a judgment of conviction. Indeed, under our Constitution, an accused, no matter how despicable the crime for which he may have been charged, still enjoys the presumption of innocence. 22 And this presumption prevails over the presumption of regularity of the performance of official duty. 23 Nor can it be overcome by just an ordinary proof to the contrary for to convict an accused, no less and nothing more than proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary. In this case, the threshold issue is whether or not the guilt of the appellant has been established by this required quantum of proof? We rule in the negative. Accordingly, we reverse his conviction based on reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is REVERSED, and appellant ALFREDO BRIONES Y RUVERA is ACQUITTED. His immediate release from custody is hereby ordered unless he is being held on other legal grounds.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Davide, Jr., Melo and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 35, Presided by Judge Ramon P. Makasiar.

2. Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

3. Information dated March 9, 1993; Record, p. 1.

4. RTC Decision dated October 22, 1993, pp. 1-2; Rollo, pp. 10-11.

5. Brief for the Accused-Appellant dated October 28, 1994, p. 1; Rollo, p. 32.

6. RTC Decision, supra at p. 12.

7. TSN, SPO1 Eulalio Alilio, August 30, 1993, p. 4.

8. TSN, PO3 Amorsolo Maravilla, September 1, 1993, p. 14.

9. TSN, PO3 Amorsolo Maravilla, supra at pp. 15-16.

10. PO3 Maravilla was only 50 to 70 meters away from the location of SPO1 Alilio and the appellant. See TSN, Amorsolo Maravilla, supra at p. 21.

11. TSN, SPO1 Alilio, supra at p. 4.

12. TSN, PO3 Amorsolo Maravilla, supra at p. 17.

13. Id., pp. 21-22.

14. TSN, Alfredo Ruvera, September 8, 1993, p. 8; See Record, p. 37.

15. TSN, Alfredo Ruvera, supra at p. 10-11.

16. TSN, Clarita Santiago, September 10, 1993, p. 21.

17. TSN, Alquin Ormoc, September 10, 1993, p. 8.

18. See People v. Quintero, 238 SCRA 173 (1994).

19. TSN, Alfredo Ruvera, supra at p. 4.

20. Exhibit 2, Record, p. 34.

21. RTC Decision, supra at p. 13.

22. Article III, Section 14(2).

23. See People v. Tadepa, 244 SCRA 339 (1995); People v. Alvarado, 242 SCRA 464 (1995); People v. Taruc, 157 SCRA 178 (1988); People v. Ale, 145 SCRA 50 (1986).




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-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1053 January 2, 1997 - MAKADAYA SADIK, ET AL. v. ABDALLAH CASAR

  • G.R. No. 108278 January 2, 1997 - NIACONSULT INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110017 January 2, 1997 - RODOLFO FUENTES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110405 January 2, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO TAÑEDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113085 January 2, 1997 - ANTONIO B. MOLATO, ET AL., v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114733 January 2, 1997 - AURORA LAND PROJECTS CORP. ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116682 January 2, 1997 - ROBLETT INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117190 January 2, 1997 - JACINTO TANGUILIG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117574 January 2, 1997 - CONCRETE AGGREGATES CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118045 January 2, 1997 - JARCIA MACHINE SHOP AND AUTO SUPPLY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89894 January 3, 1997 - M. RAMIREZ INDUSTRIES v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116181 January 6, 1997 - PNB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117460 January 6, 1997 - REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117506-07 January 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR ALOLOD

  • G.R. No. 111107 January 10, 1997 - LEONARDO A. PAAT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101632 January 13, 1997 - GSIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-96-1104 January 14, 1997 - FRANCISCO BOLALIN v. SALVADOR M. OCCIANO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-96-1105 January 14, 1997 - DBP v. FEDERICO A. LLANES, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 114003-06 January 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO VIOLIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122196 January 15, 1997 - F. F. MAÑACOP CONSTRUCTION CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104828 January 16, 1997 - RAFAEL BENITEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113498 January 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO BRIONES

  • G.R. No. 114105 January 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMES ATAD

  • G.R. No. 114350 January 16, 1997 - JOSE T. OBOSA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114872 January 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOMEDES MAGALLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116773 January 16, 1997 - TERESITA SAGALA-ESLAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119190 January 16, 1997 - CHI MING TSOI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97920 January 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 106580 January 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 113657 January 20, 1997 - P. M. PASTERA BROKERAGE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118852 January 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO QUITORIANO

  • G.R. No. 122641 January 20, 1997 - BAYANI SUBIDO, JR., ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95608 January 21, 1997 - IGNACIO PALOMO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113220-21 January 21, 1997 - DAR ADJUDICATION BOARD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114928 January 21, 1997 - THE ANDRESONS GROUP, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119729 January 21, 1997 - ACE-AGRO DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120615 January 21, 1997 - HEIRS OF MANUEL T. SUICO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121143 January 21, 1997 - PURIFICACION G. TABANG v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124076 January 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERRY SARABIA

  • G.R. Nos. 100481, 103716-17 & 107720 January 22, 1997 - PHIL. INTERISLAND SHIPPING ASSN. OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106244 January 22, 1997 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113074 January 22, 1997 - ALFRED HAHN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121178 January 22, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO CAHINDO

  • G.R. No. 107372 January 23, 1997 - RAFAEL S. ORTAÑEZ v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112977 January 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEMARIE NAVALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119053 January 23, 1997 - FLORENTINO ATILLO III v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98060 January 27, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SATURNINA SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. 111547 January 27, 1997 - PAULINO ESTONINA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111713 January 27, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY ORTIZ

  • G.R. No. 111897 January 27, 1997 - GONPU SERVICES CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111924 January 27, 1997 - ADORACION LUSTAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119063 January 27, 1997 - JOSE G. GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120482 January 27, 1997 - REFORMIST UNION OF R. B. LINER, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124074 January 27, 1997 - RESEARCH and SERVICES REALTY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter RTJ- 93-1031 January 28, 1997 - RODRIGO B. SUPENA v. ROSALIO G. DE LA ROSA

  • G.R. No. 95352 January 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO PAGAURA

  • G.R. No. 101312 January 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT DINGLASAN

  • G.R. No. 102199 January 28, 1997 - AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSN. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104400 January 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO PADAO

  • G.R. No. 106194 January 28, 1997 - SANTIAGO LAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107624 January 28, 1997 - GAMALIEL C. VILLANUEVA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110564 January 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMY VALLES

  • G.R. No. 111193 January 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERDINAND SUAREZ, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1339 January 29, 1997 - MANUEL T. PEPINO v. TIBING A. ASAALI

  • G.R. No. 112719 January 29, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO OMOTOY

  • G.R. No. 118325 January 29, 1997 - VIRGILIO M. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1067 January 30, 1997 - CONCERNED CITIZENS OF LAOAG CITY v. BIENVENIDO ARZAGA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1235 January 30, 1997 - ERNIO PORTES vs.CESARIO G. TEPACE

  • G.R. No. 111385 January 30, 1997 - JULIE G. CHUA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112965 January 30, 1997 - PHILIPPINES TODAY, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114185 January 30, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO OBIAS

  • G.R. No. 117684 January 30, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLODUALDO CABILLAN

  • G.R. No. 117689 January 30, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELISEO ALVAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119160 January 30, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDITHA SEÑORON

  • G.R. No. 124766 January 30, 1997 - ORIENT EXPRESS PLACEMENT PHIL., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1021 January 31, 1997 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 111245 January 31, 1997 - SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA PACIFIC PLASTIC v. BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113703 January 31, 1997 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. A. SORIANO CORP., ET AL.