Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > September 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 96428 September 2, 1998 - WILMA T. BARRAMEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 96428. September 2, 1999.]

WILMA T. BARRAMEDA, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS and LOLITA WATANABE, Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


GONZAGA-REYES, J.:


This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals 1 in CA-G.R. No. 07512 affirming the decision of Branch III of the Regional Trial Court 2 of Pasay City in Criminal Case No. 85-86-94-P convicting Wilma Barrameda of the crime of estafa under article 315, par. 1(B) of the Revised Penal Code.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

The information 3 , filed on September 5, 1985, reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 27th day of November 1984 in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Wilma Barrameda, having received in trust from Lolita Paguinto Watanabe the amount of US$1,400.00 and 400,000.00 yen, equivalent to P50,000.00 Philippine currency, more or less, with the express obligation on her part to deliver the same to Papiniana Paguinto at the Manila International Airport, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with abuse of confidence reposed upon her, fail to deliver the money to Papiniana Paguinto and when demands were made upon her to account for the amount, said accused deny (sic) ever having received the same, to the damage and prejudice of Lolita Paguinto in the amount of P50,000.00 more or less."cralaw virtua1aw library

Accused-appellant, duly assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge on April 21, 1986 4 and thereafter trial on the merits ensued.

The facts of the case as set out in the People’s Brief and quoted in toto by the Court of appeals are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Lolita Watanabe first set foot in Japan as a cultural dancer, but landed later as a caretaker of a Japanese company (TSN, September 8, 1986, p. 35). At around 6:00 p.m. of November 26, 1984, she, together with her brother and some Japanese friends, visited her aunt (being the wife of her mother’s brother), appellant herein, at the residence of Mr. And Mrs. Edmund Guiking at Atsuigi Base. As appellant was leaving for the Philippines the following day, Lolita Watanabe decided to send money to her mother in the Philippines through appellant, consisting of $1,400.00 and 400,000.00 yen which, if converted to Philippine money would amount to more or less P50,000.00. Watanabe counted the money in appellant’s presence, placed it inside an envelope and handed it to appellant. The latter likewise counted the money before putting it inside her bag (TSN, ibid, pp. 21-22). Watanabe then bid appellant goodbye and wished her a happy trip.

When she received a long distance call that day (November 26) from her mother, Lolita Watanabe informed the latter that she was sending money through appellant (TSN, ibid, p. 48). The call is evidenced by a receipt dated November 26, 1984 (Exhibit B-1).

On November 27, 1984, Lolita Watanabe’s mother, Papiniana Barrameda Paguinto, went to the Manila International Airport to fetch appellant (her sister-in-law). They embraced upon seeing each other. Then appellant said "Ate, it is unfortunate. There is money sent to you by your daughter from Japan but unfortunately I misplaced it. It could have been in the baggages" (TSN, June 25, 1986, p. 9). Appellant was trembling and feeling cold when she told her sister-in-law (Papiniana Paguinto) "Ate, let us look for it in the baggage" (TSN, ibid, p. 10). Per appellant’s suggestion, they proceeded to the house of Papiniana Paguinto’s brother at Cabrera, Pasay City (ibid, p. 10) where they would open the baggage and look for the money. But since there were many people there, it being a beer-house, appellant suggested that her baggage be opened at her own home in Pacita Complex, San Pedro, Laguna. Papiniana Paguinto placed a long distance call to Japan to inform her daughter that she had not yet received the money from appellant because the same cannot be found. Lolita Watanabe also talked with appellant and she was informed by the latter that she (appellant) was still looking for the money among her baggage (TSN, September 8, 1986, pp. 32-24).

Appellant proceeded to her house at Pacita Complex, San Pedro, Laguna. But Papiniana Paguinto did not go anymore with appellant since the latter assured her that she would deliver the money the following morning (Ibid, p. 13). Besides, San Pedro is quite far and she was afraid that on her way home, something might happen, considering that she would then be carrying a substantial sum of money.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

When appellant failed to deliver the money the following day, Papiniana Paguinto, together with her husband, went to appellant’s home at Pacita Complex. There she was informed by appellant that the money has not yet been found. Appellant assured Paguinto that she would continue looking for it. However, despite repeated demands, appellant never gave the money to Papiniana Paguinto (Ibid, p. 15)" .

For her part, Accused-petitioner denied ever having received the amount of US$1,400.00 and 400,000.00 yen from private complainant Lolita Watanabe intended for her mother. Instead, she alleged in substance that before she left for Japan for the Philippines on November 27, 1984, private complainant visited her and requested her to bring two boxes of assorted goods for her parent. Accused-petitioner brought the two boxes to the airport but she was not able to bring them to the Philippines as these were excess baggage and private complainant did not give her money for their freight charges. Instead, she called the Guiking couple, where private complainant was staying, and requested them to inform the latter that the two boxes were left at the airport. As to the motive behind the filing of the case against her, Accused-petitioner opined that her husband, from whom she has separated, must have connived with his sister Papiniana Paguinto and Lolita Watanabe in filing the case against her to prevent her from leaving the Philippines for Japan.

On 25 May 1989, the trial court rendered the questioned decision, the dispositive portion of which states as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused WILMA BARRAMEDA, guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of estafa as charged in the information. Extending in her favor the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the court hereby sentences the accused to imprisonment for an indeterminate period ranging from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional, as minimum, to TEN (10) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum, to indemnify the offended party LOLITA PAGUINTO WATANABE, in the sum of P50,000.00 representing the amount embezzled, and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

This decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals on July 13, 1989 wherein accused-appellant raised the following assignment of errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I


THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE CASE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

II


THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT-LOLITA PAGUINTO WATANABE REGARDING THE ALLEGED ACTUAL TURN-OVER OF FOURTEEN (14) PIECES OF ONE HUNDRED US DOLLARS (US$ 1,400.00) AND FORTY (40) PIECES OF JAPANESE YEN AT TEN THOUSAND DENOMINATION EACH FOR A TOTAL OF FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) PHILIPPINE CURRENCY BY THE FORMER TO THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO BE GIVEN TO PAPINIANA PAGUINTO.

III


THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE CONTENTS AND VERACITY OF THE LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 15, 1984 ALLEGEDLY SENT BY PRIVATE COMPLAINANT LOLITA PAGUINTO WATANABE (EXH. A) BASED ON THE BIASED TESTIMONIES OF: (1) COMPLAINANT LOLITA PAGUINTO WATANABE; AND (2) HER MOTHER PAPINIANA PAGUINTO.

IV


THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ADMITTING THE TELEPHONE RECEIPTS (EXHS. B, B-1, B-2); AND FURTHER ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN GIVING WEIGHT TO THE SAID EXHIBITS.

V


THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE BIASED AND UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONIES OF THE FOLLOWING PROSECUTION WITNESSES, NAMELY:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) PAPINIANA PAGUINTO, THE MOTHER OF COMPLAINANT LOLITA PAGUINTO WATANABE; and

(2) RUBEN BARRAMEDA, THE UNCLE OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT LOLITA PAGUINTO WATANABE.

VI.


THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS NOT PROVED HER GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

On 15 August 1990, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision affirming in toto the decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court. 5 On 6 September 1990, Accused-appellant, through counsel, filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court of Appeals decision which was however denied in a Resolution dated November 28, 1990. 6

Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari wherein accused-appellant claims that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion when it affirmed in toto the decision of the regional trial court knowing fully well that the said decision is contrary to law and jurisprudence. 7 In support, Accused-petitioner reiterates the assignment of errors she raised during the proceedings in the appellate court.

We find for the respondents.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

In her petition, Accused-petitioner first questions the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City in taking cognizance of the case. Accused-petitioner alleges that not a single element of the crime occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. As such, the complaint should have been filed in Japan, where the money was allegedly turned-over to accused-petitioner, or in San Pedro, Laguna, where Papiniana Paguinto allegedly demanded the delivery of the money. Accused-appellant argues further that the crime of estafa did not even reach its incipient stage because no demand was ever made by the offended party.

The contentions of accused-petitioner are misplaced.

Accused-petitioner was charged with the crime of estafa through misappropriation or conversion as defined in and penalized under paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. 8 The elements of the said crime are: (1) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, or on commission of for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same; (2) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender. 9

In all criminal prosecutions, the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory wherein the offense was committed or where any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place. 10 In the case at bench, if one of these elements is proven to have occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay, then the said court made a valid exercise of its jurisdiction.

On this point, respondent Court of Appeals correctly ruled that a demand was made by the mother of the private complainant at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport ("NAIA"), which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. Thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . the records show that Papiniana Paguinto was at the Manila International Airport at the date and time when appellant arrived from Japan upon being informed by the arrival of the latter by Mrs. Watanabe by overseas call with the purpose of collecting from the appellant the money sent by Mrs. Watanabe, her daughter. The appellant, however, immediately informed Mrs. Paguinto that the money was allegedly misplaced and that she will look for it among her baggage at Cabrera, Pasay City.

We believe that the presence of Mrs. Paguinto at the airport was for no other purpose but to demand the money which was entrusted to her by Mrs. Watanabe. Logically, it follows that since the international airport is within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, then jurisdiction over the case vests in the trial court." 11

It must be noted that the specific word "demand" need not be used to show that demand had indeed been made upon the person charged of the offense. A query as to the whereabouts of the money, such as the one proven in the case at bench, is tantamount to a demand. 12

Thus, the trial court validly exercised its jurisdiction over the crime charged against accused-petitioner inasmuch as one of the elements of estafa, that of demand, occurred within its territorial jurisdiction.

Accused-petitioner next alleges that the Court of Appeals and the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant on the ground that the prosecution was not able to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 13 In support, Accused-petitioner faults the trial court in appreciating and giving credence to the evidence, both oral and documentary, presented by the prosecution.

On the issue of credibility of witnesses, it is axiomatic that appellate courts will usually not disturb the findings of the trial court, the latter being in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial, unless certain facts of substance and value had been overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. 14

On this point, we find no error in the conclusion of the trial court that accused-petitioner indeed received the amount of US$1,400.00 and 400,000 yen from the private complainant for delivery to the latter’s mother, Papiniana Paguinto. In arriving at this conclusion, the trial court took into account the testimony of private complainant herself who positively declared that the amount was actually given to and received by accused-petitioner. Thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Q: And were you able to send money thru Wilma Barrameda, Madam Witness?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And to whom were you sending this money when you sent some money thru Wilma Barrameda?

A: To my mother, sir.

Q: Would you kindly tell the Honorable Court how much money did you give to Wilma Barrameda to be given to your mother in the Philippines, Madam Witness?

A: One thousand four hundred U.S. dollars ($1,400) four hundred thousand (400,000) yen, sir.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

x       x       x


Q: And were you able to give this amount to the accused Wilma Barrameda?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Will you kindly tell the Honorable Court in what manner did you give this money to the accused Wilma Barrameda?

A: I first counted the money and then I inserted in an envelope with a letter inside the envelope, sir.

Q: Now, after having counted the money and after having inserted a letter in the envelope together with the money, what happened, if any?

A: She again counted the money and she put it inside her bag, sir. 15

This claim of private complainant was strongly corroborated by the testimonies of Papiniana Paguinto, the mother of private complainant, who testified that she met accused-petitioner at the Manila International Airport on November 27, 1984 in order to get the money sent by her daughter. When the witness got to the airport, Accused-petitioner embraced her and told her that private complainant sent her some money but that she had misplaced it. 16 Accused-appellant then told her that the money might be in her baggage and so they proceeded to the house of Ruben Barrameda, private complainant’s uncle, to search for the money. They were able to go to the house of Ruben Barrameda but they decided against opening the luggage as a lot of people were present, the place being a beerhouse. 17 From the residence of Ruben Cabrera, Accused-petitioner proceeded to her house in San Pedro Laguna. The witness did not anymore go with her as it was getting late. Nevertheless, Accused-petitioner promised her that she would bring the money the following day. When accused-petitioner failed to bring the money, the witness and her husband proceeded accused-petitioner’s residence to demand for the money. However, they were informed by accused-petitioner that she still had not found the money entrusted to her. 18

Ruben Barrameda, likewise testified and he corroborated the version of the events of the prosecution. He testified that on November 26, 1984, her niece, the private complainant, called him up from Japan and requested that he fetch her mother, witness Papiniana Paguinto. 19 Upon fetching Paguinto from her house, they immediately called up private complainant in Japan. He was beside Paguinto during the whole telephone conversation and he overheard that the private complainant was sending money to Paguinto. 20 After the phone conversation, Papiniana Paguinto also told him that the money would be sent through accused-appellant Wilma Barrameda who would be arriving the following day. 21 The following day, on November 27, 1984, Accused-appellant and Papiniana Paguinto went to his house in order to call private complainant. Paguinto was able to talk with private complainant who told her that she wanted to speak with Accused-Appellant. 22 He then overheard accused-appellant tell private complainant not to worry as the money might have been misplaced in her luggage. 23

The receipt of the misappropriated amount was further evidenced by a letter dated November 15, 1984 24 sent by private complainant to her mother through a certain "Nancy." In this letter, private complainant enclosed US$400.00 and informed her mother that she will be sending the equivalent of P50,000.00 through accused-petitioner. Likewise, the telephone calls made at Ruben Barrameda’s house regarding the receipt of the misappropriated amounts were supported by telephone bill receipts.25cralaw:red

In contrast, the trial court noted that the version of the defense as to what transpired, as shown in the testimony of accused-appellant, "smacks of inconsistencies which render the uncorroborated testimony of the accused unworthy of belief." 26 As previously stated, the findings of the trial court regarding the issue of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are entitled to great respect and are accorded the highest consideration by the Supreme Court. 27 Furthermore, Accused-petitioner’s defense is a mere denial which is a feeble defense which cannot stand against the positive testimony of eyewitnesses and by the evidence on record. 28

Accused-petitioner likewise takes exception to the admission by the trial court of the November 15, 1984 letter and the telephone bill receipts. In objecting to the admissibility of the November 15, 1984 letter, Accused-petitioner argues that the letter was not properly identified by the person ("Nancy") thru whom the letter was sent. 29 On the other hand, the telephone bill receipts were objected to for being written in a foreign language (Japanese) with no accompanying translation.

Again, Accused-petitioner’s arguments are not convincing.

A perusal of the records show that the November 15, 1984 letter was properly identified by private complainant, Lolita Watanabe, who wrote the letter 30 and by Papiniana Paguinto, who received the same. 31 The testimony of "Nancy", through whom the letter was allegedly sent, was not necessary for its proper identification as her testimony would be merely corroborative.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

As for the telephone bill receipts, a perusal of the aforementioned documents clearly shows that the Japanese entries appearing therein have English or numerical entries which show the date, type, destination/origin, etc. From these receipts, it is evident that calls were made on November 26 and 27 to the Philippines and the party called was a certain "Paguinto," 32 as stated by Ruben Barrameda in his testimony.

It must be noted, however, that these receipts were merely presented in connection with the telephone conversations between private complainant in Japan and her mother in the Philippines wherein the fact that money was sent thru accused-appellant was shown. As such, these receipts were simply supporting evidence which show that these telephone conversations were made. Hence, even if they were excluded, the fact that accused-petitioner failed to deliver the amount in her custody to Papiniana Paguinto is amply supported by other evidence on record.

In sum, the prosecution has conclusively shown that accused-petitioner received money equivalent to P50,000.00 from private complainant Lolita Paguinto Watanabe, in trust and under the obligation to deliver the same to her mother, Papiniana Paguinto. The accused denied having received the said amount, which denial has been proven to be false. The denial made by accused-petitioner was to prejudice of the private-complainant and her mother. Finally, demand was made for the return of the money from accused-petitioner which she failed to do.

Under these circumstances, Accused-petitioner is clearly guilty of the crime of estafa through misappropriation or conversion as penalized under Article 315, paragraph 1(B) of the Revised Penal Code which states as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ARTICLE 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal property received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property;

x       x       x."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Court notes, however, that the penalty imposed by the trial court is erroneous. Considering that the total amount of the fraud committed is P50,000.00, the applicable penalty is that provided in the 1st paragraph of Article 315 which states as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1ST. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be;"

Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law 33 , if the offense is punished by the Revised Penal Code, such as estafa, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum term of which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense. 34

Applying the foregoing rules, the trial court correctly imposed ten (10) years of prision mayor as the maximum of the indeterminate sentence. However, the minimum of the indeterminate sentence should be within the range of the penalty one degree lower than that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code which is prision correccional minimum. Considering that there are no aggravating circumstances, the minimum of accused-petitioner’s indeterminate sentence should properly be two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED and the decision of the trial court and Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that the petitioner is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum. Accused-petitioner is likewise ordered to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P50,000.00 representing the amount embezzled, and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.

Melo, Vitug, Panganiban and Purisima, JJ., concur.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

Endnotes:



1. 15th Division, Justices Gloria C. Paras, Bonifacio A. Cacdac, and Serafin V.C. Guingona.

2. Per Judge Sofronio G. Sayo.

3. Records, p. 1

4. Records, p. 46.

5. Rollo, pp. 38-44.

6. Rollo, p. 46-47.

7. Rollo, p. 6.

8. Revised Penal Code, Art. 315, par. 1 (b)

"By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods or any other personal property received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property;"

9. Fontanilla v. People, 258 SCRA 460; Manahan, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 202.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

10. People v. Tomio, 202 SCRA 77.

11. Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 15, 1990, p. 6; Rollo, p. 43.

12. Tubb v. People, 101 Phil. 114.

13. Rollo, p. 15.

14. People v. Flores, 252 SCRA 31.

15. TSN, September 8, 1986, pp. 17-22.

16. TSN, June 25, 1984, pp. 6-10.

17. Ibid., p. 19.

18. Ibid., pp. 13-14.

19. TSN. August 11, 1986, pp. 15-16.

20. Ibid., pp. 18-21.

21. Ibid., p. 23.

22. Ibid., pp. 26-30.

23. Ibid., p. 31.

24. Exhibit "A" .

25. Exhibits "B", "B-1", and "B-2" .

26. Decision, p. 6; Rollo, p. 28.

27. Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 254 SCRA 542.

28. People v. Flores, 252 SCRA 31.

29. Petition, p. 10; Rollo, p. 11.

30. TSN, September 8, 1986, pp. 57-61.

31. TSN, June 25, 1986, pp. 46-51.

32. Exhibits "B-1-1" and "B-1-2" .

33. Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225.

34. Ibid., Section 1.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





September-1998 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. RTJ-98-1406 September 1, 1998 - EVELYN DE AUSTRIA v. ORLANDO D. BELTRAN

  • G.R. No. 129680 September 1, 1998 - CARRARA MARBLE PHIL. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. 136159 September 1, 1998 - MACRINA S. SAURA, ET AL. v. RAMON G. SAURA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96428 September 2, 1998 - WILMA T. BARRAMEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118784 September 2, 1998 - CHRISTINA AYUSTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119730 September 2, 1998 - RODOLFO NOCEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 127022 & 127245 September 2, 1998 - FIRESTONE CERAMICS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130501 September 2, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISABELO PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 130550 September 2, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES PEÑAFLORIDA

  • G.R. No. 106916 September 3, 1998 - MASAGANA CONCRETE PRODUCTS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116568 September 3, 1998 - DELFIN GARCIA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125808 September 3, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE TAPALES

  • G.R. No. 129103 September 3, 1998 - CLAUDIO DELOS REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130525 September 3, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SACAPAÑO

  • G.R. No. 130964 September 3, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO ACUNO

  • G.R. No. 131827 September 3, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERLITO PELEN

  • G.R. Nos. 131830-34 September 3, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY MOSQUEDA

  • G.R. No. 125848 September 6, 1998 - EDMUNDO BENAVIDEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120011 September 7, 1998 - LINO A. SANCHEZ, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122732 September 7, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR BAYRON

  • G.R. No. 127844 September 7, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH GALICGIC

  • G.R. No. 129521 September 7, 1998 - SEC, ET AL. v. MANUEL D. RECTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122725 September 8, 1998 - BIOGENERICS MARKETING, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124920 September 8, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO ROSALES

  • A.C. No. 5118 September 9, 1998 - MARILOU SEBASTIAN v. DOROTHEO CALIS

  • A.M. No. P-98-1274 September 9, 1998 - ACELA P. LEONOR v. VILMA B. DELFIN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1477 September 9, 1998 - MAXIMINO BALAYO v. MAMERTO M. BUBAN

  • G.R. No. 119085 September 9, 1998 - RESTAURANTE LAS CONCHAS, ET AL. v. LYDIA LLEGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120066 September 9, 1998 - OCTABELA ALBA Vda. De RAZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120465 September 9, 1998 - WILLIAM UY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121764 September 9, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL H. SESBREÑO

  • G.R. No. 124506 September 9, 1998 - ROMEL JAYME v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 129939 September 9, 1998 - AMOR D. DELOSO, ET AL. v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 133535 September 9, 1998 - LILIA B. ORGANO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter Nos. MTJ- 94-923 & MTJ- 95-11-125-MCTC September 10, 1998 - ELENA E. JABAO v. MELCHOR E. BONILLA

  • G.R. No. 121982 September 10, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONILO CUI, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 125646 & 128663 September 10, 1998 - CITY OF PASIG v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129418 September 10, 1998 - RODRIGO G. HABANA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134222 September 10, 1998 - DON TINO REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. JULIAN FLORENTINO

  • G.R. No. 139043 September 10, 1998 - ALVIN B. GARCIA v. ARTURO C. MOJICA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103073 September 14, 1998 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108710 September 14, 1998 - ARMANDO T. DE ROSSI v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 110672 & 111201 September 14, 1998 - RURAL BANK OF STA. MARIA, v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116109 September 14, 1998 - JACINTO OLAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121365 September 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MACAPANTON SALIMBAGO

  • G.R. No. 126998 September 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL ELLOREG DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 127370 September 14, 1998 - PNB-REPUBLIC BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128075 September 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ABLANEDA

  • G.R. No. 128325 September 14, 1998 - RODOLFO CAOILI , ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128734 September 14, 1998 - ANGEL L. BOLEYLEY v. CLARENCE J. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 128927 September 14, 1998 - REMEDIOS NOTA SAPIERA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129286 September 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMIE BANTILAN

  • G.R. No. 129843 September 14, 1998 - BLUE DAIRY CORPORATION, ET AL v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129882 September 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO TAN

  • G.R. No. 130947 September 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON ROMAN

  • G.R. No. 132244 September 14, 1998 - GERARDO ANGAT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 134104 September 14, 1998 - NENITA R. ORCULLO v. MARGARITO P. GERVACIO

  • G.R. No. 118971 September 15, 1998 - RODOLFO R. VASQUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129692 September 15, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABUBAKAR ANG-NGUHO

  • G.R. No. 104944 September 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMSON SUPLITO

  • G.R. No. 115215 September 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIZALDE FACO

  • G.R. No. 121719 September 16, 1998 - VICENTE MANINANG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125931 September 16, 1998 - UNION MOTORS CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126047 September 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130067 September 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETA "ANNIE" MORENO

  • G.R. No. 130604 September 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELESTINO JUNTILLA

  • G.R. No. 131784 September 16, 1998 - FELIX L. GONZALES vs.THOMAS and PAULA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 133064 September 16, 1998 - JOSE C. MIRANDA, ET AL. v. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133949-51 September 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN BUENDIA

  • G.R. No. 136203 September 16, 1998 - LOREÑO TERRY v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 138520 September 16, 1998 - BALAGTAS MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1483 September 17, 1998 - LAURO D. GACAYAN, ET AL. v. FERNANDO PAMINTUAN

  • A.M. No. P-93-989 September 21, 1998 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. RODRIGO B. GALO

  • G.R. No. 96982 September 21, 1998 - EMILIANO A. RIZADA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103453 September 21, 1998 - LUIS CEREMONIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 106516 September 21, 1998 - PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120554 September 21, 1998 - SO PING BUN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124355 September 21, 1998 - CHING SEN BEN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126118 September 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROCOPIO TRESBALLES

  • G.R. No. 127315 September 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL "Lito" BALDEVIESO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132061 September 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELECIO HIVELA

  • A.C. No. 5135 September 22, 1998 - ELSIE B. AROMIN, ET AL. v. VALENTIN O. BONCAVIL

  • A.M. No. 99-8-126-MTC September 22, 1998 - ISSUANCE OF HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER OF JUDGE LUISITO T. ADAOAG

  • G.R. Nos. 84813 & 84848 September 22, 1998 - DOMEL TRADING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123901 September 22, 1998 - ENRIQUE A. BARROS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128001 September 22, 1998 - MINERVA FRANCO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131847 September 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARMELITO S. ABELLA

  • G.R. No. 133076 September 22, 1998 - MOISES S. SAMSON v. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135869 September 22, 1998 - RUSTICO H. ANTONIO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • Administrative Case No. 1571 September 23, 1998 - PARALUMAN B. AFURONG v. ANGEL G. AQUINO

  • A.M. No. P-99-1340 September 23, 1998 - ZENAIDA MUSNI v. ERNESTO G. MORALES

  • G.R. No. 108129 September 23, 1998 - AEROSPACE CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110873 September 23, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118647 September 23, 1998 - CONSOLIDATED FOOD CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130460 September 23, 1998 - HERMINIO A. SIASOCO, ET AL. v. JANUARIO N. NARVAJA

  • G.R. No. 135042 September 23, 1998 - ROBERN DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. JESUS V. QUITAIN

  • G.R. No. 135716 September 23, 1998 - FERDINAND TRINIDAD v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 114299 & 118862 September 24, 1998 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128874 September 24, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMSON B. BRAGAS

  • G.R. No. 116599 September 27, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO PAGPAGUITAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129304 September 27, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AVA MA. VICTORIA CARIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 135691 September 27, 1998 - EMMANUEL SINACA v. MIGUEL MULA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 105954-55 September 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO FAJARDO

  • G.R. No. 114323 September 28, 1998 - OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126152 September 28, 1998 - PNB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128806 September 28, 1998 - KAMS INTERNATIONAL INC, ET AL.. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130632 September 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NATY CHUA

  • G.R. No. 131621 September 28, 1998 - LOADSTAR SHIPPING CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132324 September 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORLITO TAN, and JOSE TAN

  • G.R. No. 136294 September 28, 1998 - MARIA G. BALUYUT, ET AL. v. RODOLFO GUIAO, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 4017 September 29, 1998 - GATCHALIAN PROMOTIONS TALENTS POOL v. PRIMO R. NALDOZA

  • A.C. No. 5141 September 29, 1998 - PRISCILA L. TOLEDO v. ERLINDA ABALOS

  • A.M. No. CA-99-30 September 29, 1998 - UNITED BF HOMEOWNERS v. ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-94-904 September 29, 1998 - JOSEPHINE C. MARTINEZ v. CESAR N. ZOLETA

  • G.R. No. 105374 September 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO (DAGIT) RABANG, JR.

  • G.R. No. 124736 September 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO GALLO

  • G.R. No. 125330 September 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO TAHOP

  • G.R. No. 128157 September 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL MANAHAN

  • G.R. No. 132878 September 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO GUTIERREZ

  • G.R. No. 137793 September 29, 1998 - NILO H. RAYMUNDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139281 September 29, 1998 - ROMUALDO SUAREZ v. ARSENIO SALAZAR

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1209 September 30, 1998 - FLAVIANO G. ARQUERO v. TERTULO A. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 105327 September 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO QUINAGORAN

  • G.R. No. 108135-36 September 30, 1998 - POTENCIANA M. EVANGELISTA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111915 September 30, 1998 - HEIRS OF FERNANDO VINZONS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113070 September 30, 1998 - PAMPIO A. ABARINTOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113781 September 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. VERGILIO REYES

  • G.R. No. 120235 September 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 121324 September 30, 1998 - PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHIL INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122269 September 30, 1998 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, Et. Al.

  • G.R. Nos. 127173-74 September 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRENETO CERVETO

  • G.R. No. 127608 September 30, 1998 - GUADALUPE S. REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128129 September 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TUNDAGUI GAYOMMA

  • G.R. No. 128862 September 30, 1998 - ESTRELLA REAL ESTATE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130425 September 30, 1998 - ANTONIO C. CAÑETE JR. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131166 September 30, 1998 - CALTEX (PHIL.) v. SULPICIO LINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132480 September 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RANDY RAQUIÑO

  • G.R. No. 135451 September 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO F. SERRANO, SR.

  • G.R. No. 135996 September 30, 1998 - EMILIANO R. "BOY" CARUNCHO III v. COMELEC, ET AL.