Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > September 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 124506 September 9, 1998 - ROMEL JAYME v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 124506. September 9, 1999.]

ROMEL JAYME y REFE, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


PARDO, J.:


The case before the Court is an appeal via certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals 1 affirming, with modification as to the penalty, that of the Regional Trial Court, Pasig, Metro Manila, 2 convicting petitioner of frustrated homicide. He claimed self-defense.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

We sustain the appeal. Petitioner acted in legitimate self-defense. We acquit him of the charge of frustrated homicide.

The Court of Appeals related both the prosecution and the defense version of the event, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The prosecution’s version is that on May 25, 1992 at about 6:30 in the evening, Ramil Cruz was on his way from his house to the Torres Store to buy ice when he saw the accused Romel Jayme from distance of thirty meters walking towards him. Romel passed by, and without provocation, suddenly stabbed him, hitting the left side of the stomach. He thought he was boxed, and when he faced Romel, he was stabbed for the second time, also on the left side (tsn, November 25, 1992). Edwin Cruz, a tricycle driver, brother of Ramil, was then at the other aside of the street, and saw the stabbing from a distance of about three (3) meters; he rushed towards his brother to help, and was able to hold the right hand of Romel. Romel managed to free himself and turned his ire at Edwin hitting the latter on the right arm. Edwin went to his house to call his brother, Mario. Edwin and Mario picked up stones to throw at Romel, who was with two other companions but Romel ran away (tsn, May 19, 1993). Ramil was brought to the Polymedic Hospital where he was hospitalized for six (6) days, spending a total of P27,276.20 in medical expenses. Dr. Agaton Manimtim testified that Ramil was treated for two "perforating and penetrating" stab wounds, any of which could have caused the victim’s death if unattended (tsn, March 23, 1993).

"The version of the accused Romel Jayme is that on May 25, 1992, at about 5:45 in the afternoon, he was fetching Nawasa water at Bautista Street, when his way was blocked by a man, who said "Pare ito ba? Alalayan niyo ako" and then suddenly pulled a knife from his right waist and thrust it on him. The accused twisted the hand of his assailant and wrestled with the latter for possession of the knife. While he was twisting the hand of his attacker, several persons were boxing him at the back. He was able to get hold of the knife, and he swung it right and left; somebody hit him at the back of his head and he fell; he dropped the knife in the process. He suffered a lacerated wound in the head. He recognized his attackers only by face (tsn, June 30, 1993).cralawnad

"Edmund Villanueva was presented by the defense. He testified that earlier in the afternoon of the day, at about 5:00 o’clock, he met Edwin Cruz. The latter told him that they had an enemy and were asking for help, and were waiting for someone. He refused to give help and proceeded to the basketball court. After playing for fifteen minutes, he was on his way home when Ramil Cruz suddenly appeared and boxed Romel Jayme. He also testified that he saw Ramil Cruz coming from the house of Celso Ramirez, where there was drinking session (tsn, Aug. 4, 1993)." 3

Then, the Court of Appeals concluded, going along with the trial court, that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


". . . Ramil Cruz was in a drinking session before the incident and was under the influence of liquor when he boxed the accused without provocation. Surprised at the sudden attack, Jayme drew a knife and used it against Ramil. When Edwin arrived to come to the assistance of his brother Ramil, Edwin succeeded in wresting the knife from the accused who ran away."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the basis of the foregoing, the Court of Appeals found that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim Ramil Cruz. He attacked the accused suddenly and boxed him. There was no provocation on the part of the accused.

Accordingly, on January 31, 1996, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision affirming that of the trial court convicting accused-appellant of frustrated homicide, but credited him with the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense.

Hence, this appeal.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

On July 10, 1996, the Court required respondent to comment on the petition within ten (10) days from notice. 4 On September 10, 1996, the Solicitor General filed his comment. On November 18, 1996, petitioner filed a reply to comment, 5 as required in the Court’s resolution of October 2, 1996. 6

The Court of Appeals held that "there was no reasonable necessity for appellant to draw a knife and stab the victim, inflicting upon the latter two stab wounds which could have caused his death."cralaw virtua1aw library

In his comment, the Solicitor General agreed that there was attendant the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense. He submitted that there was no reasonable necessity for the accused to use a knife to repel the attack.

We disagree with both the Solicitor General and the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals found that "the evidence established the presence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the appellant."cralaw virtua1aw library

In making such finding, the appellate court recognized that the complainant was the aggressor, that the aggression was real and imminent, not merely imaginary. 7 "The aggression must be of such a nature as to have placed in real peril the life or the personal safety or the rights of the accused." 8 "In other words, there must have been an outward and material attack upon the person defending himself or a wrongful act showing the aggressor’s wrongful intent, not merely a threatening attitude." 9

"Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude; there has to exist a real danger to the life or personal safety of the person claiming self-defense." 10

The remaining question is whether there was reasonable necessity for the means employed by petitioner to repel the attack.

Consider the factual situation at the time, as found by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. It was about 7:00 in the evening of May 25, 1992. Petitioner was walking along Bautista St., Pasig City on the way home. He was carrying a pail of water he had fetched from the public faucet when suddenly complainant Ramil Cruz blocked his way and attacked him with fist blows. Ramil Cruz was in a drinking session before the incident and was under the influence of liquor when he boxed the accused without provocation. He was with his brothers and three other persons. Surprised at the sudden attack, Accused drew a knife and used it against complainant. His brother Edwin came to his immediate succor and succeeded in wresting the knife. Under that situation, in the darkness of the night, with the element of surprise in the assault, and his perception that the aggressor was armed with a knife and together with three or more persons was ganging up on him, it was reasonable for petitioner to use a knife to disable his adversary. "His knife was his only means of defense, and under the circumstances of the case there was clearly a reasonable necessity for him to make use of it. It cannot be said with any certainty that his life was not in danger. When a highwayman brutally assault one in the dark and tries to take away one’s only means of defense, it is reasonable to believe that one’s life is endangered." 11 According to the accused , three other persons joined Ramil in attacking him, one hitting him on his head, causing him to drop the knife. He then ran away. His head injury is duly proved. 12

To support its decision, the Court of Appeals cited the cases of People v. Montalbo; 13 People v. Gutierrez; 14 and People v. Madali. 15 None of these case is applicable.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

In Montalbo, the factual situation was different. There, the trial court found that the deceased attacked the accused with his fist. However, there was no sufficient proof that the attack took place before the accused used his knife. The court did not accept the version of the defense. Rather, the court found that he deceased being wounded in the chest could not have attacked the accused. In other words, unlawful aggression on the part of the victim was not proved, aside from which the court ruled that the accused was not justified in mortally wounding his assailant with fan knife. 16

In Gutierrez, the court ruled that first, the accused has not proved the first requirement of self-defense, which is unlawful aggression on the part of the victim against his killer. This is a condition sine qua non. 17 In the second place, the accused claimed that he accidentally stabbed the victim while parrying his attack. This does not square with his subsequent testimony that it was the deceased who grabbed the knife and that the accused stabbed the older man during their struggle. 18

In Madali, the court ruled that for self-defense to prosper, it must be positively shown that there was a previous unlawful and unprovoked attack that placed the accused’s life in danger and forced him to inflict more or less severe wounds upon his assailant, employing therefor reasonable means to resist the attack. The court ruled that the allegation that accused’s residence was hurled with stones before he confronted the Gasang group was not credibly established. It was not shown that the victims were armed with clubs and knife and even if it is were so, the accused’s means of resisting them was unreasonable under the circumstance. The accused, a policeman, fired at the victims with his service revolver and all four shots hit their targets.

The circumstances in the three cited cases are totally different from the case at bar, and consequently, none of them is applicable herein.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Consequently, we rule that petitioner employed reasonable means to repel the sudden unprovoked attack of which he was the victim. 19

"Reasonable necessity does not mean absolute necessity. It must be assumed that one who is assaulted cannot have sufficient tranquility of mind to think, calculate and make comparisons which can easily be made in the calmness of the home. It is not the indispensable need but the rational necessity which the law requires. In each particular case, it is necessary to judge the relative necessity, whether more or less imperative, in accordance with the rules of rational logic. The defendant may be given the benefit of any reasonable doubt as to whether he employed rational means to repel the aggression." 20

"The rule of reasonable necessity is not ironclad in its application; it depends upon the circumstances of the particular case. One who is assaulted does not have the time nor sufficient tranquility of mind to think, calculate and choose the weapon to be used. The reason is obvious, in emergencies of this kind, human nature does not act upon processes of formal reason but obedience to the instinct of self-preservation; and when it is apparent that a person has reasonably acted upon this instinct, it is the duty of the court to sanction the act and to hold the actor irresponsible in law for the consequences." 21

In light of the foregoing, petitioner has duly proved all the essential elements of self-defense, namely, unlawful aggression on the part of the complainant; reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused. 22 He is entitled to an acquittal.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

WHEREFORE, THE Court hereby REVERSES and SET ASIDE the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. CR No. 16607, promulgated on January 31, 1996, and ACQUITS the accused-appellant Romel Jayme y Refe, with cost de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, Kapunan and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Davide, Jr., C.J., on official leave.

Endnotes:



1. In CA-G.R. No. 16607, promulgated on January 31, 1996.

2. In Crim. Case No. 92745.

3. Decision, CA-G.R. CR No. 16607, Rollo, pp. 25-32, 26-27.

4. Rollo, p. 36.

5. Rollo, pp. 51-57.

6. Rollo, p. 50.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

7. People v. Francisco de la Cruz, 61, Phil. 422, 427 (1935)

8. Ramon C. Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, 1997 ed. Vol 1, p. 136.

9. Ibid., at p. 137.

10. People v. Galapin, 293 SCRA 474, 488 (1998), citing People v. Boniao, 217 SCRA 653, 667 (1993); People v. Talinting, G.R. No. 107747, October 20, 1997; People v. Villamor 292 SCRA 384,396 (1998); People v. Panes, 278 SCRA 357 (1997); People v. Baniel, 275 SCRA 472 (1997); Escoto v. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 752 (1997)

11. People v. Reyes, 60 Phil. 858, 861 (1934)

12. Exhs. 1, 1-a, Annex "B", Petition, Rollo, p. 24.

13. 56 Phil. 443 (1931)

14. 209 SCRA 206 (1992)

15. 188 SCRA 69 (1990)

16. At p. 445.

17. At p. 208.

18. At p. 212.

19. See People v. Ignacio, 58 Phil. 858 (1933); Cf. People v. Encomienda, 46 SCRA 522 (1972); People v. Viernes, 262 SCRA 641 (1996)

20. Ramon C. Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, op cit. At pp. 145-146, citing People v. Amante, 47 Phil. 8 (1924)

21. Ibid, at pp. 149-150; People v. Viernes, supra.

22. Article 11, (1), Revised Penal Code; People v. Galapin, supra, at p. 488; People v. Aguilar, 292 SCRA 349, 356 (1998); People v. Villamor, 292 SCRA 384, 395 (1998); People v. Viernes, supra.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary




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.