Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > December 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 113445 December 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICANDRO ABRIA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 113445. December 29, 1998.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NICANDRO ABRIA, Accused-Appellant.


D E C I S I O N


ROMERO, J.:


On February 12, 1992, appellant Nicandro Abria and his co-accused, Fernando Abria, were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Manila with the murder of Lutgardo Fumar under an information stating the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned accuses NICANDRO ABRIA and FERNANDO ABRIA of the crime of Murder, committed as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about May 8, 1991, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other, with intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of one LUTGARDO V. FUMAR, by then and there stabbing him with a knife on the chest and hitting him with a steel several times, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal stab wound which were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.

CONTRARY TO LAW."cralaw virtua1aw library

As both accused were at large, the case was temporarily archived.

On June 15, 1992, Nicandro Abria was arrested in his home at Western Samar and was immediately transported to Manila and committed to the City Hall of Manila on July 22, 1992. Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded "not guilty." chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

During trial, the prosecution presented its version of the facts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On May 8, 1991, at around 9:30 p.m., lone prosecution witness Marilou Fumar went out of her Tondo residence to fetch water. 1 Her husband, the deceased Lutgardo Fumar, was then fast asleep inside their residence as he had been suffering from hernia for almost a week. 2 While waiting for her container to fill up, she overheard Fernando Abria taunt and jeer her sister-in-law, Ayleen. Slightly peeved, Marilou admonished Fernando to stop annoying Ayleen and to treat the latter like his own relative. 3

However, instead of stopping his taunting, Fernando scoffed at Marilou saying, "Bakit, sinong pinagmamalaki mo, ang asawa mo? Sige, palabasin mo." 4

Esteban Fumar, Lutgardo’s brother, was then purchasing an item from an adjacent "sari-sari" store 5 and when he heard Fernando’s rude reply, joined the conversation and told Fernando, "Kung kayo ni Marilou ay mag-aaway, kayo-kayo (na) lang. Huwag (ninyong) idamay ang kapatid ko dahil natulog na siya." 6

Overhearing this, appellant, who was in his house nearby, 7 angrily came out armed with a bladed instrument. He raced after Esteban, but failing to catch him, appellant returned to his house.

Aroused from his sleep due to the commotion, Lutgardo stepped out of his house to investigate what was going on. Upon seeing him, appellant wasted no time in venting his ire on him by stabbing him in the right chest. 8

Lutgardo dashed inside the house of his sister Alicia Elligue, got a bolo, 9 and was about to defend himself when he suddenly dropped prostrate on the ground. 10 Marilou rushed to her husband to try to repel the attack of appellant but was herself stabbed in the anterior portion of her waist. 11

At this moment, appellant’s brother-in-law Hugo Perante, arrived and tried to pacify appellant. 12

With blood gushing alarmingly from Lutgardo’s chest, Marilou rushed him to the Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center. Two days later, Lutgardo expired.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Post mortem findings revealed the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Pallor, lips and nailbeds.

Stab wound, chest, right side, anterior aspect, level of 5th intercostal Space, 3.5 cm. from anterior median line, oriented upward and laterally, fusiform, 2.0 cm. long, edged, clean-cut, upper extremity sharp, lower extremity contused, lateral border, bevelled, directed backward, upward and medially, penetrating middle mediastinum, perforating heart, right, ventricular wall, sutured, infarcted, with an approximate depth of 12.0 cm.

Lungs, bilateral, dark-purple, firm. Pillowly texture, lost. Cut-sections transude dark-red blood.

Brain and other viscera, pale.

Thoraco-abdominal incision, sutured, 34.0 cm.

Sternotomy.

Drainage incision, chest, right side.

Stomach contents, liquid, small amount."cralaw virtua1aw library

The cause of death of the deceased, "Pneumonia, lobar, secondary to stab wound of the chest" 13 proved to be fatal.

On July 16, 1991, Marilou Fumar filed her affidavit-complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila, stating therein that she spent the amount of P10,000.00 for the funeral services of her husband.

On the other hand, appellant’s version of the incident follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The Abria brothers and Marilou Fumar are relatives. The Abrias lived three houses away from Marilou. On May 8, 1991, appellant was on his way home from the Pinausukan Restaurant on West Avenue, Quezon City, where he worked as a security guard. Upon reaching his house, he saw the victim drinking in front of his house, together with Esteban Fumar and a certain Romy. Esteban Fumar invited appellant to join them and offered him a glass of wine which the latter declined saying that he was tired. Suddenly, Esteban swung a foot-long knife at him hitting him on the left forearm and below the elbow. Appellant managed to wrest the knife away. Lutgardo then stood up, brandishing a 2� foot long bolo at appellant and hacked him with it on the bridge of his nose. Appellant parried Lutgardo’s thrust with the knife he had grabbed from Esteban. In fighting Lutgardo, appellant lost three of his teeth and sustained injuries on his shoulder and armpit. Appellant then experienced a mental blackout and could no longer recall what happened.

The trial court discounted appellant’s version of the incident and rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which states:chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the Accused Nicandro Abria guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of "Murder" qualified by treachery, defined in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and, there being no other modifying circumstances in the commission of the crime, hereby metes on said Accused the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with the accessory penalties of the law and hereby condemns him to pay to the heirs of Lutgardo Fumar the amount of P10,000.00 as actual damages and indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00. The period during which the Accused was detained shall be credited to him in full provided that he agreed in writing to abide by and comply strictly with the rules and regulations of the City Jail of Manila.

The Accused Fernando Abria, on the other hand, is hereby acquitted of the charge, the Prosecution having failed to prove his guilt therefor beyond reasonable doubt. The Court cannot likewise render judgment on the civil aspect of the case in view of the aforementioned disquisitions of the Court. With costs against the Accused Nicandro Abria.

SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

Appellant assigns the following errors in the decision of the trial court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT TREACHERY ATTENDED THE STABBING OF THE DECEASED BY THE ACCUSED NICANDRO ABRIA

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING UNMITIGATED EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT TO THE TESTIMONY OF MARILOU FUMAR

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED’S CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE ‘PREPOSTEROUS AND SHEER INFANTILISM

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA"

We find no merit in the petition.

The trial court was correct when, in its decision, it said that although appellant and Lutgardo were facing each other when the stabbing occurred, the attack was so sudden and unexpected that the latter (who was unarmed) was unable to ward off and thwart the assault and put up any semblance of defense.

This is in accord with the doctrine we laid down in the case of People v. Basadre, 14 wherein we said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The sudden and unexpected attack on the victim Alfonso Rayray which ensured the commission of the killing without any risk to the assailant constitutes treachery. It may be true that the attack was made by assailant face to face with the victim, but We should consider the fact that the latter was unarmed, was totally unaware of the coming attack from someone he did not even know and was not in a position to defend himself against him. Treachery may be appreciated in a sudden frontal attack (People v. Reyno, 77 Phil. 93)."cralaw virtua1aw library

Although the attack on Lutgardo was frontal, it caught him off-guard and defenseless as he had just been roused from sleep and was not aware of what was happening outside his house. Thus, even if the attack was frontal, it is treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed. 15

As for appellant’s claim that Marilou Fumar’s account of the incident is "nonsensical," the same is equally unmeritorious. Well-settled to the point of being elementary is the doctrine that on the issue of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will not disturb the findings arrived at by the trial court, which is in a better position to rate the credibility of the witnesses after hearing them and observing their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. 16

This doctrine does not change even if the witness is the victim’s own wife. In fact, we have said that the fact that the principal witness is the victim’s wife even lends more credence to her testimony as her natural interest in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter her from indicating persons other than the culprits for otherwise the latter would thereby gain immunity. 17

We also discount appellant’s claim that he merely acted in self defense as defying belief. As the trial court held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Accused wanted the Court to believe that while he and Esteban Fumar were struggling for possession of the knife of the latter, Lutgardo Fumar who was armed with a 2� feet long bolo and Romy, merely stood by, without moving a finger so to speak, to give succor to the beleaguered Esteban Fumar. For sure, Lutgardo Fumar and Romy would have assaulted the Accused and mortally stabbed him to enable Esteban Fumar to extricate himself from the grip of the Accused and, at the same time, easily disable the Accused considering that the latter was unarmed. The Court cannot believe that Lutgardo Fumar and Romy would tarry a minute longer before helping Esteban Fumar and disabling the Accused."cralaw virtua1aw library

The trial court also found it unbelievable that, after the victim allegedly assaulted him, appellant claimed to have had a blackout and yet could recall wresting the knife away from Lutgardo and throwing it into the estero. As the trial court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . if, as claimed by the Accused, he had a complete mental blackout, for sure, Romy and Lutgardo Fumar could have, with facility, overpowered the Accused and stabbed him with impunity. And yet, the Accused remained practically unscathed because he merely sustained an avulsion on the tip of his nose, a lacerated wound, and a couple of incised wounds on the deltoid anterolateral aspect, 2nd and 3rd intercarpal space and on the antero-lateral aspect D/3rd arm left (Exhibit ‘1’) which are, by all accounts, superficial wounds. The Accused has not enlightened the Court who inflicted the stab would on the right chest of Lutgardo Fumar and how the said wound was inflicted on the deceased. As it was, aside from the Accused, there were only three (3) people at the scene, namely, Esteban Fumar and his brother, Lutgardo Fumar and the latter’s ‘bilas’, Romy."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is crystal clear that appellant’s claim of suffering a mental blackout after having hacked Lutgardo was merely an afterthought to escape responsibility for his criminal act.

Lastly, the fact that appellant fled to his home in Western Samar a day after he was brought to the hospital and in the process, abandoning his job, is a clear indication of guilt. We find implausible appellant’s claim that he left Manila to escape the wrath of Lutgardo’s relatives. If this were true, appellant should have immediately reported the incident to the police and complained about the assault. The fact that he did not do so is proof that appellant fled to escape arrest and prosecution for his crime.chanrobles law library : red

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court finding accused Nicandro Abria guilty beyond reasonable doubt is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Kapunan, Purisima and Pardo, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. TSN, October 2, 1992, pp. 16-17.

2 TSN, November 16, 1992, p. 14.

3. TSN, October 2, 1992, p. 18.

4. Ibid., p. 19.

5. Ibid., p. 20.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid., p. 21.

8. Ibid., p. 22.

9. Ibid., p. 23; TSN, November 16, 1992, p. 10.

10. Ibid., p. 10; Ibid., p. 7.

11. Ibid., p. 24; Ibid., p. 12.

12. Ibid., p. 35.

13. Autopsy Report No. 91-1198.

14. 128 SCRA 641 (1984), citing People v. Reyno, 77 Phil. 93.

15. People v. Javar, 226 SCRA 103, 111 (1993).

16. People v. Lacatan, G.R. No. 121532, September 7, 1998.

17. People v. Villalobos, 209 SCRA 304 (1992).




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






December-1998 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 126518 : December 02, 1998] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RODELIO BUGAYONG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 122629 : December 02, 1998] PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS PHILS., INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SIXTO MARELLA, JR., SPS. EDGARDO DE VERA AND SALVACION LOCSIN DE VERA AND ANNA A. LOCSIN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 80849 : December 02, 1998] STA. INES MELALE FOREST PRODUCTS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; HON. SAMILO N. BARLONGAY, ACTING DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; HON. SECRETARY OF NATURAL RESOURCES; HON. DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT; AGUSAN WOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. AND� KALILID WOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 81114 : DECEMBER 2, 1998] STA. INES MELALE FOREST PRODUCTS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. VICENTE A. HIDALGO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF AGUSAN DEL NORTE BUTUAN CITY, BRANCH V, THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF AGUSAN DEL NORTE BUTUAN CITY AND KALILID WOOD INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 129079 : December 02, 1998] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, PETITIONER, VS. HON. LUCENITO N. TAGLE, PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC, IMUS, CAVITE, BRANCH 20; AND HELENA Z. BENITEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 129584 : December 03, 1998] TRIPLE EIGHT INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. LABOR ARBITER POTENCIANO S. CANIZARES, JR. AND ERLINDA R. OSDANA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 127276 : December 03, 1998] DASMARI�AS VILLAGE ASSOCIATION,INC., BERNARDO LICHAYTOO, ANTONIO P. TAMBUNTING, EMIL A. ANDRES AND CAPT. JERRY CODILLA, PETITIONERS VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI (FORMERLY BRANCH 66 NOW BRANCH 147) AND COLEGIO SAN AGUSTIN, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 123979 : December 03, 1998] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS., ALIPIO SANTIANO, JOSE SANDIGAN, ARMENIA PILLUETA AND JOSE VICENTE (JOVY) CHANCO ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 117166-67 : December 03, 1998] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RANDY MANTES, JEROME GARCIA, JOVY VELASCO, AND DOMINGO FRANCISCO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [A.M. MTJ-98-1166 : December 04, 1998] ANDRES GUILLEN, EULALIO GUILLEN, VICENTE CID, AND JIMMY BAYAG, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE APRONIANO B. NICOLAS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT OF PIDDIG-SOLSONA-CARASI, ILOCOS NORTE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 130401 : December 04, 1998] LEONARDO ARCENAS REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT CARMELITA ARCENAS VILLANUEVA, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ARMIE E. ELMA, PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 153, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG CITY, AND JOSE DELA RIVA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 127393 : December 04, 1998] SPOUSES VALENTINO ORTIZ AND CAMILLA MILAN ORTIZ, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND SPOUSES FRANCISCO AND BERNARDINA RODRIGUEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 129567 : December 04, 1998] JOCELYN LABARO, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, EVELYN LABARO, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE VINCENT EDEN C. PANAY AND ALFREDO AVIADOR, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 126444 : December 04, 1998] ALFONSO QUIJADA, CRESENTE QUIJADA, REYNELDA QUIJADA, DEMETRIO QUIJADA, ELIUTERIA QUIJADA, EULALIO QUIJADA, AND WARLITO QUIJADA, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, REGALADO MONDEJAR, RODULFO GOLORAN, ALBERTO ASIS, SEGUNDINO RAS, ERNESTO GOLORAN, CELSO ABISO, FERNANDO BAUTISTA, ANTONIO MACASERO, AND NESTOR MAGUINSAY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 124500 : December 04, 1998] PHILIPPINE SCOUT VETERANS SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY, INC., RICARDO BONA AND SEVERO SANTIAGO, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSI0N AND FLORENTINO LAMSEN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 118438 : December 04, 1998] ALLIED AGRI-BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND CHERRY VALLEY FARMS LIMITED, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 111257 : December 04, 1998] MERCEDES DEIPARINE, RUFINA DEIPARINE, POLICARPIO DEIPARINE, NICHOLAS DEIPARINE, FRANCISCO DEIPARINE, JR., ARESENIO DEIPARINE, DINA CANADA, THERESA DEIPARINE, SOLITA DEIPARINE, JULIO DEIPARINE, TEOFILO DEIPARINE, ELEUTERIO DEIPARINE, DANTE DEIPARINE, ESTRELLA DEIPARINE AND NICHOLAS DEIPARINE PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (FIRSTDIVISION), VICENTA DEIPARINE, FORTUNATO DEIPARINE, FELICISIMA DEIPARINE, SALVADOR DEIPARINE, JR., RESTITUTA DEIPARINE, CHILDREN AND HEIRS OF DECEASED SALVADOR DEIPARINE, JR., IRENEO LAROA, DOMINGO LAROA, AND CONCEPCION LAROA, CHILDREN AND HEIRS OF DECEASED FILOMENA DEIPARINE; FROILAN SEGUERRA, ONLY SON AND HEIRS OF LATE SUPRIANA DEIPARINE; IGNACIA DEIPARINE, ANA DEIPARINE, AND PEDRO DEIPARINE, CHILDREN AND HEIRS OF DECEASED SEGUNDO DEIPARINE, RUFO ABALO, AURELIA ABALAO AND MAGDALENA ABALAO, CHILDREN AND HEIRS OF DECEASED MACARIA DEIPARINE, LEO D. BACUS, PEDRO D. BACUS, DORICA D. BACUS, DIONISIO� D. BACUS, AND PRUDY D. BACUS, HEIRS OF DECEASED JUSTINIANI DEIPARINE. RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 77865 : December 04, 1998] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. RAFAEL OLIVAREZ, JR., AND DANILO ARELLANO, APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 109148 : December 04, 1998] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ERNESTO BELO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 130716 : December 09, 1998] FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, PETITIONER, VS. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG) AND MAGTANGGOL GUNIGUNDO, (IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE PCGG), RESPONDENTS. GLORIA A. JOPSON, CELNAN A. JOPSON, SCARLET A. JOPSON, AND TERESA A. JOPSON, PETITIONERS-IN-INTERVENTION.

  • [G.R. No. 127529 : December 10, 1998] PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY PEPSI COLA BOTTLING CO.), PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND RENE ESTILO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 119092 : December 10, 1998] SANITARY STEAM LAUNDRY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, NICANOR BERNABE III, JOSEFINA BERNABE, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES AND AS HEIRS OF JASON BERNABE, JOHN JOSEPH BERNABE, VICTOR IGNACIO, JULIETA ENRIQUEZ AND RAMON ENRIQUEZ, RENE TABLANTE, LEOMAR MACASPAC, JR., CHARITO ESTOLANO, NENITA SALUNOY, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES AND AS HEIRS OF DALMACIO SALUNOY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. NO. 90301 : December 10, 1998] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JUANCHO GATCHALIAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 126518 December 2, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODELIO BUGAYONG

  • G.R. Nos. 80849 & 81114 December 2, 1998 - STA. INES MELALE FOREST PRODUCTS, CORP. v. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129079 December 2, 1998 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122629 December 2, 1998 - PCPPI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117166-67 December 3, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. RANDY MANTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129584 December 3, 1998 - TRIPLE EIGHT INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127276 December 3, 1998 - DASMARIÑAS VILL. ASSN., INC. ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123979 December 3, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALIPIO SANTIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111257 December 4, 1998 - MERCEDES DEIPARINE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. MTJ No. 98-1166 December 4, 1998 - ANDRES GUILLEN, ET AL. v. APRONIANO B. NICOLAS

  • G.R. No. 109148 December 4, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ERNESTO BELO

  • G.R. No. 129567 December 4, 1998 - JOCELYN LABARO v. VINCENT EDEN C. PANAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118438 December 4, 1998 - ALLIED AGRI-BUSINESS DEV. CO., INC., v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124500 December 4, 1998 - PSVSIA, ET AL. v. NLRC and FLORENTINO LAMSEN

  • G.R. No. 126444 December 4, 1998 - ALFONSO QUIJADA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130401 December 4, 1998 - LEONARDO ARCENAS v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77865 December 4, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL OLIVAREZ, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127393 December 4, 1998 - VALENTIN ORTIZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130716 December 9, 1998 - FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, v. PCGG. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90301 December 10, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANCHO GATCHALIAN

  • G.R. No. 119092 December 10, 1998 - SANITARY STEAM LAUNDRY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127395 December 10, 1998 - PHIL. TOBACCO FLUE-CURING & REDRYING CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127529 December 10, 1998 - PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS PHIL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121071 December 11, 1998 - PHIL. FEDERATION OF CREDIT COOPERATIVES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125894 December 11, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARITO ARANETA

  • G.R. No. 126575 December 11, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OMAR MEDINA

  • G.R. No. 131248 December 11, 1998 - DUNLOP SLAZENGER (PHILS.) v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124329 December 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR MASALIHIT

  • G.R. No. 88202 December 14, 1998 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • ADM. CASE No. 1037 December 14, 1998 - VICTORIANO P. RESURRECCION v. CIRIACO C. SAYSON

  • A.M. No. MTJ-98-1173 December 15, 1998 - CARLITOS D. LAZO v. ANTONIO V. TIONG

  • G.R. No. 103533 December 15, 1998 - MJCI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120575 December 16, 1998 - OLIVIA S. PASCUAL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. SDC-98-3 December 16, 1998 - ERLINDA ALONTO-FRAYNA v. ABDULMAJID J. ASTIH

  • G.R. No. 101240 December 16, 1998 - QUEZON DEV. BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127906 December 16, 1998 - VIOLETA BATARA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128619-21 December 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ELEUTERIO DIMAPILIS

  • G.R. Nos. 123191 & 123442 December 17, 1998 - OSCAR L. GOZOS, ET AL. v. PATERNO C. TAC-AN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116155 December 17, 1998 - FRANCISCO GULANG, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-95-1167 December 21, 1998 - CARMELITA L. LLEDO v. CESAR V. LLEDO

  • G.R. No. 115452 December 21, 1998 - INTL. CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134307 December 21, 1998 - EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118464 December 21, 1998 - HEIRS OF IGNACIO CONTI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120677 December 21, 1998 - FOOD TRADERS HOUSE, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83106 December 21, 1998 - ADELAIDA KALUBIRAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124862 December 22, 1998 - FE D. QUITA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128907 December 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO TIRONA

  • G.R. No. 130057 December 22, 1998 - HERMOGINA U. BULILAN v. COA

  • G.R. No. 130339 December 22, 1998 - OMANFIL INT’L. MANPOWER DEV. CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111455 December 23, 1998 - MARISSA A. MOSSESGELD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121791 December 23, 1998 - ENRIQUE SALAFRANCA v. PHILAMLIFE VILL. HOMEOWNERS ASSN., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123421 December 28, 1998 - DANILO J. MAGOS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134495 December 28, 1998 - PERFECTO R. YASAY, JR. v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113445 December 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICANDRO ABRIA

  • G.R. No. 124957 December 29, 1998 - MASTER SHIRT CO. INC. ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121171 December 29, 1998 - ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126442 December 29, 1998 - FELICITO BAGUIO, ET AL. v. ROSENDO B. BANDAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125715 December 29, 1998 - RICARDO F. MARQUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128395 December 29, 1998 - STOLT-NIELSEN MARINE SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129774 December 29, 1998 - NARCISO A. TADEO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 129998 December 29, 1998 - NAPOCOR v. LOURDES HENSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129760 December 29, 1998 - RICARDO CHENG v. RAMON B. GENATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108580 December 29, 1998 - CLARITA P. HERMOSO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125948 December 29, 1998 - FIRST PHIL. INDUSTRIAL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117609 December 29, 1998 - HEIRS OF SEVERA P. GREGORIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126703 December 29, 1998 - GANDARA MILL SUPPLY, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 110029-30 December 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO GARGAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132524 December 29, 1998 - FEDERICO C. SUNTAY v. ISABEL COJUANGCO-SUNTAY, ET AL.