Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > September 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 126047 September 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO AQUINO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 126047. September 16, 1999.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEOPOLDO AQUINO alias Poldong and LORETO AQUINO, Accused-Appellants.


D E C I S I O N


BELLOSILLO, J.:


LEOPOLDO AQUINO alias Poldong and LORETO AQUINO, brothers, appeal from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Br. 32, Agoo, La Union, finding them guilty of murder and sentencing them to reclusion perpetua, to pay the heirs of Loreto Cecilio P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P21,596.00 for actual expenses, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and the costs. 1

On the night of 23 December 1988 Loreto Cecilio attended a Christmas dance in Bgy. Dulao, Aringay, La Union. Prosecution witness Pablo Medriano Jr. narrated in court that on the same evening he and three (3) lady friends were having snacks in a store near the dance hall. Loreto Cecilio was also at the store conversing with Ronald Medriano. Witness Pedro Medriano Jr. knew Loreto Cecilio because the latter was a friend of his brother Julito Medriano. At the back of the store were the accused Leopoldo Aquino and Loreto Aquino who were drinking liquor. While having their snacks, witness Medriano learned that a fight erupted between two (2) groups, one from Bgy. Dulao, and the other, from Bgy. Alaska. But the protagonists were immediately pacified.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Shortly thereafter, the Aquino brothers approached Pablo Medriano and challenged him to a fight. They asked him if he could still remember the time when he stoned them, but Pablo replied in the negative.

For fear of his life Pablo Medriano ran towards the house of Liberato Madriaga, his uncle, to seek shelter and help. Upon reaching the yard of his uncle, Pablo turned back to see if he was still being pursued by the Aquino brothers; instead, he saw them mauling Loreto Cecilio. Leopoldo Aquino was hugging Loreto Cecilio from behind while Loreto Aquino was boxing and hitting their victim. Already dazed and beaten, Loreto Cecilio was hit by Leopoldo with a stone on the neck causing him to fall down.

Upon reaching the house of his uncle Liberato, Pablo was met by his mother who hid him from his attackers until some people carried the lifeless body of Loreto Cecilio to the yard of the house. The victim was rushed to the hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival.

On 4 January 1989 Dr. Arturo Llavore, medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation in San Fernando, La Union, conducted a post-mortem examination of the exhumed body of Loreto Cecilio. In his report, Dr. Llavore concluded that the death of Loreto Cecilio was caused by a very strong force from a blunt object delivered on the right side of the neck. This conclusion confirmed the testimony of Pablo Medriano that Loreto Cecilio was hit by Leopoldo Aquino on the neck with a stone.

As expected, the defense gave a different account of the events. According to accused-appellants, after 11 o’clock in the evening of 23 December 1988, they were drinking beer at the store of a certain Virgilio Bautista. The group of Pablo Medriano and that of the victim Loreto Cecilio were behind the store also drinking liquor. After 30 minutes past midnight of 23 December 1988, the two (2) camps started throwing stones at each other and a free-for-all ensued.chanrobles law library : red

The Aquino brothers denied participation in the melee. Instead, they pointed to prosecution witness Pablo Medriano and his companions as the ones who figured in the brawl. In view of the fight, they thought it prudent to go home and stay away from trouble. The following morning they were arrested and questioned for the killing of Loreto Cecilio. They were later released after being detained by the police for a couple of hours. Both vehemently denied any involvement in the death of Loreto Cecilio. They claimed that the victim was a stranger and they had no grudge against him. There was no reason for them to kill or harm him.

To buttress their defense, Accused-appellants presented Ambrocio Caoile who testified that he was also at the Christmas dance that night of 23 December 1988. According to him, he stayed and roamed around the area looking for his friends from 10:00 o’clock in the evening of 23 December up to 2 o’clock the following morning. He confirmed that a fight broke out between two (2) groups, one from Bgy. Dulao, and the other from Bgy. Alaska. Caoile admitted seeing the Aquino brothers in front of the store of Virigilio Bautista. However, he denied having seen them figure in any altercation, mauling, or killing. In fact, according to Caoile, he did not observe any unusual incident during the dance except for the fracas between the two (2) groups; and, that he only learned about the death of Loreto Cecilio the next morning.

In convicting the Aquino brothers of murder, the trial court ratiocinated thus —

The identity of the two accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt by the testimony of Pablo Medriano, Jr. He knew the two accused since he was still young as they all came from Dulao, Aringay, La Union . . . Pablo Medriano could have seen clearly the mauling of Loreto Cecilio as the place of the mauling was well lighted. There was light from the store and the dance hall. The place of the mauling was just 10 to 12 meters from the store and the dance hall.

On the other hand, the defense of the accused consisted merely of denials. They admitted they were at the scene of the incident. They also admitted that Pablo Medriano Jr. and Loreto Cecilio were also present near the store. But they tried to project a saintly poise of indifference to the fight between the two groups and smugly claims that they went home. Their witness Ambrocio Caoile also testified in the same manner by saying that there was no mauling incident involving Loreto Cecilio as he did not witness any mauling during all the time he was near the store . . . The testimony of Pablo Medriano Jr. is a positive narration of the facts surrounding the killing of Loreto Cecilio. The testimonies of the accused and their lone witness are mere denials hence negative. The testimony of Pablo Medriano Jr. being a positive narration of facts must be given greater weight than the negative testimonies of the defense witness of the two accused.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Accused-appellants impute the following alleged errors to the lower court: (1) in considering the existence of conspiracy and the attendance of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength; (2) in disregarding the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of the accused; (3) in admitting in evidence the exhumation report/postmortem findings to show the injuries sustained by the deceased Loreto Cecilio; (4) in relying on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness in convicting the two (2) accused and in not acquitting them on reasonable doubt; and, (5) in acting more like a prosecutor and/or failed to observe the neutrality of an impartial tribunal.

We affirm the Decision of the court below.

First. Accused-appellants submit that they could not have conspired to harm and kill Loreto Cecilio as the latter was a stranger to them and they had nothing against him. Their meeting was merely accidental.

This argument is misplaced. Conspiracy exists when two (2) or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. 2 What is fundamental for conspiracy is the unity of purpose and unity in the execution. 3 Direct proof of the accused’s previous agreement to commit a crime is not indispensable. This fact may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. 4 It is not required that there be an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence. It is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution. 5 A conspiracy may be inferred without need of showing that the parties actually came together and agreed in express terms to enter into and pursue a common design. 6 As found by the trial court —

. . . [the accused-appellants’] behavior and participation as narrated by Pablo Medriano, Jr. clearly shows that there [was a] conspiracy by and between them in the commission of the crime. They aided each other in perpetrating the crime. They [had] the same common purpose, and they pursued it . . . 7

Accused-appellants likewise claim that the trial court erred in considering the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. They insist that "the alleged mauling was a spur of the moment impulse, hence, it may not be said that the accused had cooperated and intended to use or secure advantage from such superior strength, or had specifically contrived or deliberately intended and prepared to take advantage of superior strength in a projected assault against the victim." 8

This contention is without merit. To appreciate the attendant circumstance of abuse of superior strength, what should be considered is whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense. 9 The circumstance of superiority depends on the age, size and strength of the parties. It is considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assessing a superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor which is selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. 10 It is not necessary that a premeditated plan to use superior force against the victim be proved. It is enough that the facts show that this leverage in strength was employed of by the accused in the commission of the crime.

In the instant case, the records show that accused-appellants took advantage of their combined strength against the unarmed and helpless Loreto Cecilio. Leopoldo Aquino embraced and held on to the victim while his brother Loreto Aquino hit and boxed the victim. Thus, even if the killing was a result of a chance encounter, the manner by which the crime was committed clearly indicates that accused-appellants made good use of their dominant strength.chanrobles law library : red

Second. Accused-appellants contend that the lower court should have appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender as they freely submitted themselves to the police on 19 September 1992 without any warrant of arrest having been served on them.

We do not agree. For the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to be properly appreciated, the following requisites must concur: (a) the offender was not actually arrested; (b) he surrendered to a person in authority or to an agent of a person in authority; and, (c) his surrender was voluntary. 11 In the instant case, the surrender of accused-appellants was far from voluntary. The first warrant of arrest issued on 5 January 1989 was returned unserved because they could not be found. 12 Therafter, several alias warrants of arrest were issued stating therein the possible whereabouts of accused-appellants in La Union, Ilocos Sur, and Pangasinan. The warrant officer in Sta. Cruz, Ilocos Sur, again returned the warrant of arrest unserved because of failure to locate them. As to the warrant of arrest sent to Pangasinan, no return appeared on record. Despite these outstanding warrants of arrest, the Aquino brothers successfully managed to elude the long arm of the law until their surrender to the police through the municipal mayor of Aringay, La Union, on 19 September 1992 or more than three (3) years since the first warrant of arrest was issued.

Besides, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated only where there is nothing on record to show that the warrant of arrest had actually been served on the accused, or that it had been returned unserved for failure of the server to locate the accused, and there is direct evidence to show that the accused voluntarily presented himself to the police when he was taken into custody. 13 In People v. de la Cruz 14 we held that the search for the accused, which lasted four (4) years, belies the spontaneity of the surrender.

Third. Accused-appellants aver that the trial court should not have admitted the exhumation report because the exhumed body was not properly identified to be that of the victim Loreto Cecilio. This averment is clearly without basis. As correctly argued by the Solicitor General —

Dr. Arturo Llavore testified that Carlito Cecilio, brother of the deceased Loreto Cecilio, actually made the request for the exhumation of the latter’s cadaver. In fact, Carlito identified the cadaver as that of his deceased brother, as shown in a photograph taken immediately after the exhumation.

Fourth. Accused-appellants insist that the crime charged against them was not proven beyond reasonable doubt; and, that the reliance by the trial court on a single and uncorroborated witness was not sufficient to warrant a conviction.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

This Court is not persuaded. A doctrine of long standing in this jurisdiction is that the testimony of a lone eyewitness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to convict an accused. 15 The testimony of a single witness, free from any signs of impropriety or falsehood, is sufficient for conviction, even if uncorroborated. 16

This Court accords the highest respect to the findings of the trial court on the issue of credibility of witnesses. 17 In fact, jurisprudence is replete with cases declaring that the assessment by the lower court of the credibility of an eyewitness deserves the highest respect of the Supreme Court considering that it had the direct opportunity to observe his deportment and manner of testifying and availed of the various aids to determine whether he was telling the truth or simply concocting lies. 18 As observed by the court a quo —

The Honorable Court noted that Pablo Medriano, Jr. is an engineering student or graduate and appears to be intelligent. The Honorable Court intently observed the deportment and behavior of Pablo Medriano, Jr. and concludes that he is telling the truth. Pablo Medriano, Jr. testified in a spontaneous and straightforward manner. So that in the light of the declarant’s demeanor, conduct and attitude, his version of the incident is more believable and credible. 19

Absent any consequential argument or proof to the contrary, we see no reason to disturb the findings of the court below.

Corollarily, Accused-appellants parry the imputation of guilt on their part by advancing different theories and arguments with respect to the commission of the crime. They even pointed to the eyewitness Pablo Medriano Jr., and his brother Julito Medriano as the ones responsible for the death of Loreto Cecilio. Unfortunately, this feeble attempt at exoneration not only appears to be incredible but is likewise unsupported by facts and evidence on record.

Clearly, what stands on record is the fact that the eyewitness, Pablo Medriano Jr., positively identified accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. Accused-appellants failed to prove any motive on the part of Pablo Medriano Jr. to falsely accuse them of the crime charged. Thus, his testimony must stand.

On the other hand, the defense of accused-appellants consists merely of denials as against the positive identification by the prosecution eyewitness. We have ruled often enough that positive identification by an independent witness who has not been shown to have any reason to falsely testify must prevail over the simple denials and unacceptable alibi of the accused. 20 The murder of Loreto Cecilio by Leopoldo Aquino and Loreto Aquino was indeed established beyond reasonable doubt.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

Fifth. A conscientious perusal of the records yields no proof that the trial judge acted partially and improperly. That he asked questions in the course of the trial does not make him a biased judge. In fact, the questions he propounded were merely clarificatory aimed at elucidating the issues of the case. We ruled in People v. Manalo 21 —

It is not only the right but oft-times the duty of a trial judge to examine witnesses when it appears necessary for the elucidation of the record. Under the system of legal procedure in vogue in this jurisdiction, where the trial court is judge of both the law and the facts, it is oft-times expedient or necessary in the due and faithful administration of justice for the presiding judge to re-examine a witness in order that his judgment when rendered may rest upon a full and clear understanding of the facts.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Agoo, La Union, finding accused-appellants LEOPOLDO AQUINO and LORETO AQUINO GUILTY of MURDER and sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of Loreto Cecilio P50,000.00 as death indemnity and P21,596.00 for actual damages, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages is REDUCED from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence. 22 Costs against Accused-Appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Mendoza, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Decision dated 4 January 1994 by Presiding Judge Leo M. Rapatalo.

2. Art. 8, The Revised Penal Code.

3. People v. Dorico, No. L-31568, 29 November 1973, 54 SCRA 172.

4. People v. Cara, G.R. Nos. 117483-84, 12 December 1997, 283 SCRA 96; People v. Hayahay, G.R. No. 120550, 26 September 1997, 279 SCRA 567; People v. Asto, G.R. No. 108611, 20 August 1997, 277 SCRA 697; People v. Sion, G.R. No. 109617, 11 August 1997, 277 SCRA 127; People v. Apongan, G.R. No. 112369, 4 April 1997, 270 SCRA 713; People v. Gayon, G.R. No. 116228, 13 March 1997, 269 SCRA 587; People v. Magallano, G.R. No. 114872, 16 January 1997, 266 SCRA 305.

5. People v. Hubila, Jr., G.R. No. 114904, 29 January 1996, 252 SCRA 471.

6. People v. Salison, G.R. No. 115690, 20 February 1996, 253 SCRA 758.

7. Decision, p. 23; Rollo, p. 32.

8. Rollo, p. 65.

9. People v. Balano, G.R. No. 116721, 272 SCRA 782.

10. People v. Bongadillo, G.R. No. 96687, 20 July 1994, 234 SCRA 233.

11. People v. Rapanut, G.R. No. 106817, 24 October 1996, 263 SCRA 515.

12. See Return Warrant of Arrest, Records, p. 8a.

13. People v. Braña, No. L-29210, 31 October 1969, 30 SCRA 307.

14. No. L-30059, 19 December 1970, 36 SCRA 452.

15. People v. Abalos, G.R. No. 88189, 9 July 1996, 258 SCRA 523.

16. See People v. Pabalan, G.R. Nos. 117819-21, 30 September 1996, 262 SCRA 574; People v. Tuvilla, G.R. No. 88822, 15 July 1996, 259 SCRA 1; People v. Garde, G.R. No. 103968, 11 July 1996, 258 SCRA 613.

17. People v. Talaboc, G.R. No. 103290, 23 April 1996, 256 SCRA 441.

18. People v. Laurente, G.R. No. 116734, 29 March 1996, 255 SCRA 543.

19. See Note 7, pp. 18-19; Rollo, pp. 27-28.

20. People v. Bracamonte, G.R. No. 95939, 17 June 1996, 257 SCRA 380.

21. G.R. No. 55177, 27 February 1987, 148 SCRA 98.

22. People v. Verde, G.R. No. 119077, 10 February 1999; People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 116281, 8 February 1999.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary




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.