Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > January 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 120921 January 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE BALLESTEROS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 120921. January 29, 1998.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FELIPE BALLESTEROS, CESAR GALO and ALVIN BULUSAN, Accused-Appellants.


D E C I S I O N


ROMERO, J.:


This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bangui, Ilocos Norte, Branch 19, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, qualified by treachery, as charged under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, to wit:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"WHEREFORE, the Court finds the three accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, qualified by treachery, as charged, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and applying Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code hereby sentences them to reclusion perpetua, with all the accessory penalties provided by law, and further sentencing them to pay jointly and solidarily —

1. The heirs of Jerry Agliam compensatory damages in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00), moral damages in the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00), and actual damages in the amount of THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY-FIVE PESOS (P35,755.00), with interest;

2. The heirs of the late Eduardo Tolentino, Sr., compensatory damages in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00), moral damages in the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00), and actual damages in the total amount of SIXTY-ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY-FIVE PESOS (P61,785.00), with interest;

3. Carmelo Agliam, actual damages in the amount of TWO THOUSAND AND THREE PESOS AND FORTY CENTAVOS (P2,003.40), and moral damages in the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00), with interest;

4. Vidal Agliam Jr., Robert Cacal and Ronnel Tolentino, moral damages in the amount of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) each, with interest.

5. The costs.

The accused shall be credited in the service of their sentence the full time during which they had undergone preventive imprisonment, if they agreed voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, otherwise, they shall be credited in the service thereof with only four-fifths of the time during which they had undergone preventive imprisonment." 1

In the warm summer evening of May 28, 1991, Carmelo Agliam, his half-brother Eduardo Tolentino, Ronnel Tolentino, Vidal Agliam, his brother Jerry Agliam, Robert Cacal, Raymundo Bangi and Marcial Barid converged at a carinderia owned by Ronnel Tolentino at Ganayao, Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte. They proceeded to the barangay hall at Carusipan to attend a dance. The group did not tarry for long at the dance because they sensed some hostility from Cesar Galo and his companions who were giving them dagger looks. In order to avoid trouble, especially during the festivity, they decided to head for home instead of reacting to the perceived provocation of Galo and his companions.

The group had barely left when, within fifty meters from the dance hall, their owner jeep was fired upon from the rear. Vidal Agliam was able to jump out from the eastern side of the "topdown" jeep and landed just beside it. He scurried to the side of the road and hid in the ricefield. His younger brother Jerry also managed to jump out, but was shot in the stomach and died. 2 Carmelo Agliam, Robert Cacal and Ronnel Tolentino sustained injuries in the right foot, back of the right thigh, and legs and thighs, respectively. 3 The stunned Eduardo Tolentino was not even able to move from his seat and was hit with a bullet which punctured his right kidney. 4 He did not survive. The precipitate attack upon the jeep left two people dead and four others injured.

Based upon the affidavits of Carmelo and Vidal Agliam, warrants for the arrest of Ballesteros, Galo and Bulusan were issued. Charged with the crime of double murder with multiple frustrated murder, an information was filed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about (sic) May 28, 1991, in the Municipality of Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, nighttime purposely sought, with evident premeditation and treachery, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there, with intent to kill, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack and shot Eduardo Tolentino Sr., Jerry Agliam, Vidal Agliam, Carmelo Agliam, Robert Cacal and Ronnel Tolentino, with the use of firearms which caused the death of Eduardo Tolentino Sr. and Jerry Agliam and thereby inflicting gunshot wounds to Vidal Agliam, Carmelo Agliam, Robert Cacal and Ronnel Tolentino having performed all the acts which would have produced the crime of Murder, but which did not by reason of causes independent of the will of the defendant, namely the able and timely medical assistance given to said Vidal Agliam, Carmelo Agliam, Robert Cacal and Ronnel Tolentino which prevented their death."cralaw virtua1aw library

All pleaded not guilty. Paraffin tests conducted on Galo and Ballesteros produced positive results. Bulusan was not tested for nitrates.

In his testimony, Galo claimed that he did not even talk to Bulusan or any of his companions at the basketball court, as alleged by the complainants. Having been found with gunpowder residue in his hands, Galo attempted to exculpate himself from the results by confessing that he had been a cigarette smoker for the past ten years and had, in fact, just consumed eight cigarette sticks prior to the test. He further asserted that paraffin tests are not infallible, and that his hand may have been contaminated by a nitrogenous compound, the source of which is urine. Lastly, he said that he was not even present at the crime scene when the firing incident took place; hence, he could not have been one of those who strafed the jeep. 5

For his part, Ballesteros interposed the defense of alibi, narrating to the court that, on May 28, 1991, at around 7:00 o’clock in the evening, he went to a nearby store to purchase some cigarettes. He returned home within thirty minutes and cleaned his garlic bulbs before retiring at 9:00 o’clock. The next morning, he busied himself with some chores, which included fertilizing his pepper plants with sulfate. He handled the fertilizers without gloves. To counter the finding of traces of nitrates on his left hand, Ballesteros maintained that he uses his left hand in lighting cigarettes, as it was very painful for him to use his right hand. He likewise informed the trial court that he had no motive to kill the victims. 6

Bulusan echoed the defense of alibi of Galo and Ballesteros, stating that he saw only Galo on the evening of the dance but did not talk to him. He denied joining the two later that night because after the dance, he went straight to the house of Michael Viloria, where he spent the night until he went to work at 7:00 o’clock in the morning of the following day. 7

The trial court found the three accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, qualified by treachery, as charged, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

The accused now come to the High Court on appeal, praying that the decision of the trial court be reversed and that a new one be entered acquitting them of the charges.

The principal question to be resolved has to do with the merits of the decision of the lower court. Was it correct in finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt? We answer in the affirmative.

Accused-appellants insist that the trial court erred in finding that Carmelo and Vidal Agliam recognized them as the assailants. This claim is unmeritorious. In their testimonies, Carmelo and Vidal Agliam both described the area to be well illumined by the moon. The shooting took place on a small road in the mountainous terrains of Ilocos Norte, where the air is free from darkening elements and turbidity. It being a summer evening, there could not have been any fog to becloud the atmosphere and hamper the vision of the victims, which would have prevented them from clearly seeing their assailants. They pinpointed the location of the malefactors to be approximately three meters from where they stood. 8 Considering the luminescence of the moon and the proximity between them, the victims could distinctly identify their assailants. It must be noted that Carmelo was acquainted with Galo and his brother, a butcher, since he used to deal with them in his business of buying and selling cattle. 9 Bulusan was a classmate of Vidal at Cadaratan School. Generally, people in rural communities know each other both by face and name. 10 Bulusan and Agliam were, not only townmates, but former classmates as well. The constant interaction between them through the years would necessarily lead to familiarity with each other such that, at the very least, one would have been able to recognize the other easily.

That accused-appellants had no motive in perpetrating the offense is irrelevant. A distinction is herein timely made between motive and intent. Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result. Intent, on the other hand, is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result. 11 Motive alone is not proof of crime. 12 In order to tip the scales in its favor, intent and not motive must be established by the prosecution. Motive is hardly ever an essential element of a crime. A man driven by extreme moral perversion may be led to commit a crime, without a real motive but just for the sake of committing it. 13 Along the same line, a man who commits a crime with an apparent motive may produce different results, for which he is punished. As held in a line of cases, 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. 14 Lack or absence of motive for committing the crime does not preclude conviction thereof where there were reliable witnesses who fully and satisfactorily identified the accused as the perpetrator of the felony. 15

Accused-appellants’ attempt to offer wild excuses regarding the source of the gunpowder traces found on their hands is futile. Experts confirm the possibility that cigarettes, fertilizers and urine may leave traces of nitrates, but these are minimal and, unlike those found in gunpowder, may be washed off with tap water.

The hackneyed defense of alibi interposed by accused-appellants must likewise fail. As consistently enunciated by this Court, the established doctrine is that, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove, not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity. 16 This accused-appellants failed to satisfactorily prove. On the night of May 28, 1991, Galo and Bulusan attended the dance at the barangay hall. After the dance, they went their separate ways but remained within the barangay. Galo lingered in the premises. Bulusan slept over at the house of Michael Viloria, which was within walking distance from the dance hall.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The defense of alibi must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory evidence, the reason being that it is easily manufactured and usually so unreliable that it can rarely be given credence. 17 This is especially true in case of positive identification of the culprit by reliable witnesses, 18 which renders their alibis worthless. 19 Positive identification prevails over denials and alibis. 20

Accused-appellants are under the common misconception that proof beyond reasonable doubt requires total freedom from any quantum of doubt. This is not so. Under Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court,

"(p)roof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind."cralaw virtua1aw library

Absolute certainty of guilt is not demanded by law to convict a person of a criminal charge. The doubt to the benefit of which an accused is entitled in a criminal trial is a reasonable doubt, not a whimsical or fanciful doubt based on imagined but wholly improbable possibilities and unsupported by evidence. 21 Reasonable doubt is that engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and inability, after such investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt. 22 A precise example would be the uncorroborated alibi of accused in the case at bar where accused-appellants individually interposed the wavering defense of alibi. Galo failed to elucidate on his whereabouts after the dance, whereas Bulusan claimed to have slept in the house of one Michael Viloria. Ballesteros attested that he was not at the dance hall at all. None of them, however, attempted to corroborate their alibi through the testimony of witnesses. In fact, they never attempted to present as witnesses those who could have testified to having seen them elsewhere on the night in question. Had they done so, the presentation of corroborative testimony would have reinforced their defense of alibi. As held in People v. Ligotan, 23 an alibi must be supported by credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses, and where such defense is not corroborated, it is fatal to the accused.

The Court correctly ruled in finding that the offense was qualified by treachery. Under Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code," (t)here is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make." The requisites of treachery are twofold: (1) (t)hat at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him. 24 As regards the second requisite, the accused must make some preparation to kill his victim in such a manner as to insure the execution of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the person attacked to defend himself or retaliate. 25 There must be evidence that such form of attack was purposely adopted by the accused. 26 Here, it is obvious that the accused-appellants had sufficient opportunity to reflect on their heinous plan. The facts show that the attack was well-planned and not merely a result of the impulsiveness of the offenders. Manifestations of their evil designs were already apparent as early as the time of the dance. They were well-armed and approached the homebound victims, totally unaware of their presence, from behind. There was no opportunity for the latter to defend themselves, the attack being so sudden that Eduardo Tolentino was shot right where he sat.

The trial court was also correct in the award of damages to the heirs of the victims. Damages may be defined as the pecuniary compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an injury sustained, or as otherwise expressed, the pecuniary consequences which the law imposes for the breach of some duty or the violation of some right. 27 Actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury sustained, 28 whereas moral damages may be invoked when the complainant has experienced mental anguish, serious anxiety, physical suffering, moral shock and so forth, and had furthermore shown that these were the proximate result of the offender’s wrongful act or omission. 29 In granting actual or compensatory damages, the party making a claim for such must present the best evidence available, viz., receipts, vouchers, and the like, 30 as corroborated by his testimony. 31 Here, the claim for actual damages by the heirs of the victims is not controverted, the same having been fully substantiated by receipts accumulated by them and presented to the court. 32 Therefore, the award of actual damages is proper. However, the order granting compensatory damages to the heirs of Jerry Agliam and Eduardo Tolentino Sr. must be amended. Consistent with the policy of this Court, the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) is given to the heirs of the victims by way of indemnity, and not as compensatory damages. 33 As regards moral damages, the amount of psychological pain, damage and injury caused to the heirs of the victims, although inestimable, 34 may be determined by the trial court in its discretion. Hence, we see no reason to disturb its findings as to this matter.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

Narvasa, C.J., Melo, Francisco and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 273-274.

2. Ibid., pp. 255-256.

3. Ibid., p. 253.

4. TSN, March 10, 1992. p. 2.

5. TSN, March 8, 1994, p. 236.

6. TSN, July 12, 1993, pp. 179-181.

7. TSN, November 9, 1993. pp. 195-197.

8. TSN, July 13, 1992, p. 65.

9. TSN, March 10, 1992, p. 11.

10. People v. Rosario, 246 SCRA 658 (1995).

11. Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Twelfth Edition (1981), p. 60.

12. People v. Maongco, 230 SCRA 562 (1994).

13. Reyes, supra., p. 60.

14. People v. Canceran, 229 SCRA 581(1994).

15. People v. Gamiao, 240 SCRA 254 (1995).

16. People v. De Roxas, 241 SCRA 695 (1995); People v. Castaneda, 252 SCRA 247 (1996).

17. Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court (1980). p. 158.

18. People v. Alonzo, L-32163, October 19, 1976: People v. Roxas, L-32912, October 29, 1976; People v. Daquipil 240 SCRA 314.

19. People v. Mendoza, 254 SCRA 61 (1996).

20. People v. Abrenica, 252 SCRA 54 (1996).

21. Moran, supra., p. 136, citing US v. Brobst. 14 Phil. 10. People v. Mahlom, Moro Saan and Moro. Muntasal, L-5198. April 7, 1953.

22. Ibid., citing US v. Lazada, 18 Phil 90.

23. 262 SCRA 602 (1996).

24. Reyes. The Revised Penal Code, p. 409-410.

25. Ibid., p. 405. citing People v. Tumaob, 83 Phil 742, People v. Saez, 1 SCRA 937.

26. Ibid.

27. Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines (1992), Volume V, p. 632.

28. Ibid., p. 633.

29. Ibid., citing Ventanilla v. Impil and Lina, 53 O.G. 8170.

30. TSN, July 8, 1992, pp. 55-56; July 14, 1992, pp. 94-96; September 8, 1992, pp. 2-5; November 10, 1992. p. 143.

31. Baliwag Transit Inc. v. CA, 256 SCRA 746(1996).

32. Ibid.

33. People v. Dones, 254 SCRA 696 (1996).

34. Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 303 (1996).




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





January-1998 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. 95-1-01-MTCC January 5, 1998 - REPORT OF COA ON THE SHORTAGE OF THE ACCOUNTABILITIES OF LILIA S. BUENA

  • G.R. Nos. 118342 & 118367 January 5, 1998 - DBP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122704 January 5, 1998 - PEDRO CHICO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108369 January 7, 1998 - CINDY AND LYNSY GARMENT, ET AL v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111710 January 7, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO ABUAN

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1385 January 8, 1998 - RAMON T. ARDOSA v. LOLITA O. GAL-LANG, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-98-1260 January 14, 1998 - PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. CESAR TORIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108772 January 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLY OBELLO

  • G.R. Nos. 113250-52 January 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOTIMO MAGPANTAY

  • G.R. No. 117043 January 14, 1998 - FELIX VILLA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120616 January 14, 1998 - LONGINO BUHISAN v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113592 January 15, 1998 - INDUSTRIAL AND TRANSPORT EQUIPMENT, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128399 January 15, 1998 - CAGAYAN SUGAR MILLING CO. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84857 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO DELA ROSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110315 January 16, 1998 - RENATO CUDIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 111313-14 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIE VILLAMOR

  • G.R. No. 112035 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PANFILO CABILES

  • G.R. No. 113296 January 16, 1998 - ABC DAVAO AUTO SUPPLY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113804 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO BATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116629 January 16, 1998 - NFD INTERNATIONAL MANNING AGENTS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117683 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO TANEO

  • G.R. No. 118883 January 16, 1998 - SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF SAN ANDRES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120366 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BACCAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122046 January 16, 1998 - METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122770 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO AGBAYANI

  • G.R. No. 123455 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNOLD HILARIO

  • G.R. No. 124290 January 16, 1998 - ALLIED BANKING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125906 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO AQUINO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1065 January 20, 1998 - JOSEPHINE R. TULIAO v. JOSE O. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 120107 January 20, 1998 - DANILO P. AGUAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120180 January 20, 1998 - LINELL VILLARUEL, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 120334 & 120337 January 20, 1998 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 122098 January 20, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE TENORIO

  • G.R. No. 122100 January 20, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO TUMALA, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 124185-87 January 20, 1998 - RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124705 January 20, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERRY SUMALPONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107725 January 22, 1998 - ESPERO SALAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115555-59 January 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116775 January 22, 1998 - HEIRS OF PASCASIO URIARTE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 119074-75 January 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO PACISTOL

  • G.R. No. 120969 January 22, 1998 - ALEJANDRO MARAGUINOT, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121193 January 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBITONIO PALMA GIL

  • G.R. No. 124326 January 22, 1998 - BOYET SEMPIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124736 January 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO GALLO

  • G.R. No. 127296 January 22, 1998 - EDUBIGIS GORDULA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128379 January 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRANDO RAVANES

  • G.R. No. 105188 January 23, 1998 - MYRON C. PAPA v. A.U. VALENCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113911 January 23, 1998 - VINTA MARITIME, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115625 January 23, 1998 - ESMUNDO B. RIVERA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115809 January 23, 1998 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELVIN MENDOZA

  • G.R. Nos. 125218 & 128077 January 23, 1998 - FILSTREAM INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-98-1397 January 26, 1998 - DEOGRACIAS VILLALUZ JR., ET AL. v. WENIFREDO A. ARMENTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120556 January 26, 1998 - HDA. DAPDAP I, ET AL v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121908 January 26, 1998 - ESTER SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123989 January 26, 1998 - DAVID B. CORPUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127850 January 26, 1998 - MARIA ARCAL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128421 January 26, 1998 - TRANS INTERNATIONAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Bar Matter No. 810 January 27, 1998 - PETITION TO TAKE THE LAWYER’S OATH BY ARTHUR M. CUEVAS

  • G.R. No. 118939 January 27, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBINSON TIMBLOR

  • G.R. No. 121468 January 27, 1998 - ARSENIO DELOS REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • Adm. Case CBD No. 190 January 28, 1998 - CORAZON T. REONTOY v. LIBERATO R. IBADLIT

  • Adm. Case No. 2884 January 28, 1998 - IRENE RAYOS-OMBAC v. ORLANDO A. RAYOS

  • Adm. Case No. 3919 January 28, 1998 - SOCORRO T. CO v. GODOFREDO N. BERNARDINO

  • Adm. Matter Nos. MTJ-94-986, MTJ-95-1052, MTJ-95-1069 January 28, 1998 - MIGUEL ABARQUEZ v. BIENVENIDO M. REBOSURA

  • G.R. No. 91262 January 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO LLAGUNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105892 January 28, 1998 - LEIDEN FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110921 January 28, 1998 - BALTAZAR L. VILLANUEVA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116765 January 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACOB QUITORIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119835 January 28, 1998 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH BARRIENTOS

  • G.R. No. 121004 January 28, 1998 - ROMEO LAGATIC v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121534 January 28, 1998 - JUAN M. CASIL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121901 January 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLARITA BAHATAN

  • G.R. No. 122075 January 28, 1998 - HAGONOY RURAL BANK v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125334 January 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENCIO TABUGOCA

  • G.R. No. 126196 January 28, 1998 - GREGORIO C. MORALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127549 January 28, 1998 - CESAR STA. MARIA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1135 January 29, 1998 - SALAM NAGA PANGADAPUN v. AMER R. IBRAHIM

  • G.R. No. 106233 January 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBINSON ESTRERA

  • G.R. No. 110495 January 29, 1998 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114385 January 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN JEREZ

  • G.R. No. 116382 January 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MA. LOURDES BAUTISTA DE GUIANG

  • G.R. No. 117572 January 29, 1998 - GSIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120921 January 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE BALLESTEROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121824 January 29, 1998 - BRITISH AIRWAYS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121898 January 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE H. ARANJUEZ

  • G.R. No. 123151 January 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SABINO GEMENTIZA

  • G.R. No. 124521 January 29, 1998 - MICHAEL O. MASTURA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 127073 & 126995 January 29, 1998 - JOSE P. DANS, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL

  • G.R. No. 127823 January 29, 1998 - "J" MARKETING CORP., ET AL. v. FELICIDAD SIA, JR., ET AL.

  • CBD Adm. Case No. 313 January 30, 1998 - AUGUSTO G. NAVARRO, ET AL. v. ROSENDO MENESES III

  • G.R. Nos. 106210-11 January 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO LISING, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115253-74 January 30, 1998 - ANTONIO P. CALLANTA, ET AL. v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118744 January 30, 1998 - IRENEO V. GUERRERO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119246 January 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO CORREA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123872 January 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN MONTILLA