Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > September 1998 Decisions > G.R. Nos. 133949-51 September 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN BUENDIA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 133949-51. September 16, 1999.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EFREN BUENDIA y PERALTA, Accused-Appellant.


D E C I S I O N


PANGANIBAN, J.:


The trial court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight and respect, absent any showing that some facts or circumstances of weight and substance were overlooked which, if considered, would affect the result of the case. The testimony of a lone witness, if found credible, is sufficient to justify a judgment of conviction. Resistance is not an element of rape, and its absence does not denigrate the victim’s claim that appellant employed force and intimidation against her.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

The Case


Efren Buendia appeals the May 21, 1998 Decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City (Branch 66) in Criminal Case Nos. 97-866 to 97-868, which convicted him of three counts of rape. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"a) In Criminal Case No. 97-866, finding accused Efren Buendia guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the crime of rape and the Court hereby sentences him to suffer, taking into consideration the absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay Sofia Balena the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages;

"b) In Criminal Case No. 97-867, finding accused Efren Buendia guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the crime of rape and the Court hereby sentences him to suffer, taking into consideration the absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay Sofia Balena the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages;

"c) In Criminal Case No. 97-868, finding accused Efren Buendia guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the crime of rape and the Court hereby sentences him to suffer, taking into consideration the absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay Sofia Balena the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages." 2

On June 30, 1997, Sofia M. Balena filed three Complaints 3 of rape against Appellant Buendia. The similarly worded Complaints read:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 10th day of March 1996, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a knife and by means of force and intimidation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously ha[d] carnal knowledge of the undersigned, against her will." 4

After State Prosecutor Imelda P. Saulog certified that a preliminary investigation had been conducted, the three Complaints were treated as the Informations.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

When arraigned on October 9, 1997, appellant, with the assistance of Counsel de Oficio Rommel Odronio of the Public Attorney’s Office, pleaded not guilty. 5 The three cases were tried jointly. Thereafter, the court a quo rendered its assailed Decision.

Hence, this appeal. 6

The Facts: Version of the Prosecution

The Office of the Solicitor General 7 summarized the facts in this wise:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"When the crimes were perpetrated on March 10, 1996, Sofia Balena, the complainant, was a single mother of a one year and 5 months old son. Sofia lived at Masilang Street, Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City. On the other[hand], Efren Buendia, the appellant, was the common-law-husband of Sofia’s younger sister. At that time he lived at Sto. Niño St., Brgy Southside, Ft. Bonifacio, Makati, which is five (5) houses away from that of Sofia.

"At midnight of March 10, 1996, Sofia was awakened from her sleep when she felt that somebody was fondling her breasts. When she opened her eyes, she readily identified Efren Buendia who was molesting her. Efren was all naked. Sofia started to shout but Efren was quick to cover her mouth with a blanket. Efren poked a knife at her face and threatened to kill her if she ma[de] a noise. Efren undressed her. Sofia resisted but Efren was too strong for her. Efren crawled over Sofia who was pressed down on her bed and he succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina. After ejaculating, Efren rested. After 10 minutes of rest, Efren who was still holding the knife fondled Sofia’s breasts again and raped her for the second time. Efren rested for 15 minutes and then, he raped Sofia for the third time.

"Efren was exhausted. Then, he left, but not without threatening to kill Sofia, her father and her sister and to burn her house if she [squealed].

"Because of fear Sofia kept her fate to herself. Days later, when Sofia noticed that she was pregnant, she and her son left for Antique. They stayed in the house of her uncle. Three months after the rape, and that was June, 1996, Sofia could no longer conceal her pregnancy. Her uncle and older sister confronted her. And she unburdened herself. She told [them], Efren raped her.

"Her uncle and sister were enraged. Sofia’s father was summoned and when informed he fumed with madness. Sofia was advised to sue Efren. Money was raised for the transportation of Sofia, her son and her father in coming to Makati. And they came on December 22, 1996 to file the complaint. But Sofia and her father were able to file the complaint only [o]n February 1997 because Sofia gave birth on December 24, 1996." 8

Version of the Defense

The charge was denied by appellant, who alleged that he and the complainant were lovers. The following version of the facts is narrated in his Brief: 9

"Accused testified that he did not rape complainant on March 10, 1996 but admit[ted] that complainant was his girlfriend, and that he and complainant had sexual intercourse for several times, three (3) times at the back of Betromix in Fort Bonifacio, and many times in his house, while his live-in partner who is the sister of complainant, [was] out of the house. Oftentimes, complainant rode in the tricycle he [was] driving, and . . . he was the one who accompanied complainant and her child to the pier when the two left for Antique on June 16, 1996. Had accused really raped complainant, then she would at least get away from him to show her dislike [of] what accused had done to her. On the contrary, even prior to March 10, 1996, and . . . thereafter accused and complainant were close to each other because on September 17, 1994 accused was the one who spent for the birth of the complainant’s first child. . ." chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Ruling of the Trial Court

The trial court found the victim’s testimony credible and ruled that appellant’s denial was weak and could easily be concocted. It ruled out the "sweetheart theory" and held that the delay in the reporting of the crime was sufficiently explained.

Assignment of Errors

Appellant assigns to the trial court the following alleged errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. The trial court erred in convicting the accused upon the material testimonies of complainant who [was] the only witness of the prosecution and whose testimonies [were] contrary to human experience.

"II. The trial court erred in giving credence to the complaint of rape of complainant despite being filed on the twel[fth] month after the alleged incident took place when she had all the opportunities to do so.

"III. The trial court erred in rejecting the defense of the accused that he did not rape the complainant and that the complainant, Sofia was his girlfriend." 10

In the main, appellant questions the credibility of the lone prosecution witness.

This Court’s Ruling


The appeal is not meritorious.

Main Issue: Credibility of Lone Prosecution Witness

It is well-settled that the assessment by a trial court of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to the highest respect, 11 because it heard the witnesses and observed their behavior and manner of testifying. Absent any showing that it overlooked some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case, its factual findings will not be disturbed on appeal. 12 In the present case, appellant failed to discredit its ruling that the lone prosecution witness, Sofia M. Balena, was credible. She testified:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q And will you tell this Court what happened Miss witness?

A On March 10, 1996 at mid-night 12:00 o’clock I felt somebody touching my body. May humihimas sa akin.

Q You said that somebody was touching your body, what part of your body was being touched?

A My breast, Sir.

Q And then what happened Miss witness?chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

A When I opened my eyes, I saw Efren Buendia naked.

Q And where was Mr. Buendia the accused in these cases, where was he when you saw him?

A beside me and he was totally naked.

Q And what happened next Miss witness?

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

After touching your breast?

WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

A When I tried to shout he immediately covered my mouth with a blanket and poked a knife at me.

FISCAL FLORES:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Q Miss witness do you recall what hand did he use in covering your mouth?

A Right hand, Sir.

Q And with what hand did he use to hold the knife to poke it at your neck?

A Left, Sir.

Q Where did the accused poke the knife at you?

A At my neck, Sir.

Q After the accused covered your mouth and pointed the knife at your neck what happened next Miss witness?

A He threatened me not to shout otherwise he will kill me.

x       x       x


Q What did you do when he threatened that he will kill you if you will shout?

A I just kept [quiet] because he was threatening me, Sir.

x       x       x


COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Q Hindi ka na lumaban?

WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

A I tried to fight him but the accused [was] stronger so I [could] not fight him.

FISCAL FLORES:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Q After the accused threatened to kill you, what happened next Miss witness?

A Nag-paubaya na lang ako until he undressed me.

Q What hand did he use in undressing you Miss witness?

A Right hand, Sir.

Q And what happened next Miss witness after he undressed you?

A He ordered me to [lie] down and then he [lay] on top of me.

Q What happened next Miss witness?

A He [lay] on top of me ‘hanggang matapos siya[’] and he touched me and kissed me.

Q By ‘matapos’ Miss witness what do you mean? Until he finished.

A Hanggang nakaraos siya.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Put the words ‘hanggang nakaraos siya.[’]

Q What do you mean, it is very important for you to relay to the Court, what do you mean by ‘hanggang nakaraos siya’?

WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

A Kinantot po niya ako.

FISCAL FLORES:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Q In short Miss witness by your words he inserted his penis in your vagina.

A Yes, Sir, pinasok niya.

Q After you said ‘nakaraos’, what happened next Miss witness?

A He was still holding his knife and he [lay] beside me.

Q By your estimation Miss witness, how long did the accused rest?

A About ten (10) minutes, Sir.

Q After the accused rested, what happened next Miss witness?

A He again lay down on top of me and inserted his penis [into] my vagina.

Q And after that what happened Miss witness?

A He inserted his penis [into] my vagina ‘at nakaraos siya uli sa akin’.

Q After the second time na nakaraos siya, what happened next Miss witness?

A The same, he again lay on top of me still holding the knife still poked at me.

Q After the accused rested for the second time, how long did the accused [rest] for the second time Miss witness?

A Around ten to fifteen minutes.

Q After the accused rested for the second time Miss witness, what happened next?

A He again kissed me, he touched my breast and again inserted his penis [into] my vagina.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Q You said that before having sexual intercourse for the third time he first kissed you and touched your breast[;] what did you do?

WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

A None Sir, I was just [lying] down because even if I kept on pushing him, he was too strong for me and there was nothing that I [could] do.chanrobles law library

FISCAL FLORES:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Q And then what happened after the third time Miss witness?

A He again rested for a while then he dressed up.

Q And then what happened Miss witness?

A He threatened me before he left, Sir.

Q And will you tell this Court how he threatened you?

A He told me not to tell anybody otherwise he will kill my father, my sister and he will burn the house.

x       x       x


Q After the accused had threatened you, what happened next Miss witness?

A He went out of our house by jumping thru the window at the back of our house, Sir." 13

It has been held that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused, for evidence is weighed, not counted. 14 Complainant’s testimony determines the outcome of the case, 15 because "when an alleged rape victim says she was violated, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her." 16 Furthermore, appellant failed to show any ill motive on the part of the victim to testify falsely against him. Unless she was speaking the truth, she would not have concocted a story of sexual assault, undergone gynecologic examination, risked her relationship with her sister who was appellant’s common-law spouse, or subjected herself and her family to the trauma and the embarrassment concomitant to criminal prosecution. 17

No Need to Establish Resistance

Appellant argues that the victim’s account was contrary to human experience, because there was "no sincere struggle" or "determined effort" on her part to preserve her virtue. He adds that her alleged resistance was "insufficient to constitute rape." 18

We do not agree. Rape is perpetrated when the accused has carnal knowledge of the victim through the use of force or intimidation. 19 It must be stressed that the resistance of the victim is not an element of the crime, and it need not be established by the prosecution. In any event, the failure of the victim to shout or to offer tenacious resistance does not make the sexual congress voluntary. 20 Indeed, rape victims have no uniform reaction: some may offer strong resistance; others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. 21 In the present case, the victim categorically testified that she was cowed into submission because appellant pointed a knife at her neck.

Rape Not a Respecter of Time or Place

Appellant maintains that the rape could not have happened because at the time, complainant’s child was sleeping just one foot away from her. 22 This argument is bereft of merit. The Court has repeatedly held that rape is not a respecter of place or time. The rapist could not have been deterred by the mere presence of a one and a half-year old child. After all, they lived in the same house, and the child obviously knew him.chanrobles law library : red

Delay Sufficiently Explained

Appellant also questions the credibility of complainant, because she reported the incident only after seven months when she could no longer hide her pregnancy.

We disagree. If satisfactorily explained, the delay in exposing her ordeal to her family or in filing a complaint does not necessarily impair the complainant’s credibility. 23 In the present case, complainant admitted in court that she was threatened by appellant and that she was afraid of him. 24 Indeed, she was so afraid that she could not even offer strong resistance to the sexual assault. Furthermore, she hailed from a poor family, and money for her fare to Manila was not immediately available. Besides, she had to give birth before filing the case and undergoing the travails that came with it.25cralaw:red

Sweetheart Theory and Denial Not Worthy of Belief

Appellant also denies having had sexual intercourse with the victim on the date mentioned in the Informations, but admits that he had done so on other occasions because they were lovers.

Again, we find no reason to overrule the trial court’s rejection of appellant’s contention. Appellant presented no other witness; or evidence like love notes, pictures or other mementos to corroborate his "sweetheart theory." Even assuming that they were sweethearts, he had no excuse to employ force and intimidation in satisfying his carnal desires. 26 Love is not a license to rape. 27

Damages

We agree with the Office of the Solicitor General that civil indemnity, which may be awarded upon proof that rape has been committed, should be granted, but only in the amount of P50,000 — not P75,000 — for each count of rape.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED, with the modification that appellant is ordered to pay the victim indemnity ex delicto of P50,000 for each count of rape, or a total of P150,000, in addition to the moral damages awarded by the trial court. Costs against Appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Melo, Purisima and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

Vitug, J., took no part; did not participate in the deliberations (in PHILJA on official business).

Endnotes:



1. Penned by Judge Eriberto U. Rosario Jr., now a member of the Court of Appeals.

2. Assailed Decision, p. 4; rollo, p. 17.

3. Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 97-866 to 97-868.

4. Rollo, pp. 6-8.

5. Records, p. 25.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

6. The case was deemed submitted for resolution on June 23, 1999, when this Court received the appellee’s Brief. The filing of a reply brief was deemed waived, as none was submitted within the reglementary period.

7. The Brief for the Appellee was signed by Sol. Gen. Ricardo P. Galvez, Asst. Sol. Gen. Cecilio D. Estoesta and Sol. Reynaldo L. Saludares.

8. Appellee’s Brief, pp. 3-5; rollo, pp. 64-66. (Citations omitted.)

9. Appellant’s Brief, p. 10; rollo, p. 46. This was signed by Atty. Antonio N. Rosario Jr.

10. Appellant’s Brief, p. 1; rollo, p. 37. All caps in the original.

11. People v. de la Cruz, 276 SCRA 191, July 24, 1997; People v. Corea, 269 SCRA 76, March 3, 1997; People v. Frago, 232 SCRA 653, May 31, 1994.

12. People v. Miñano, 220 SCRA 681, March 31, 1993; People v. Nuñez, 208 SCRA 341, April 10, 1992.

13. TSN, November 13, 1997, pp. 8-15.

14. People v. Corea, 269 SCRA 76, 89, March 3, 1997; People v. Quitoriano, 266 SCRA 373, 376, January 20, 1997.

15. People v. Julian, 270 SCRA 733, 746, April 4, 1997; People v. Apilo, 263 SCRA 582, 598, October 26, 1996; People v. Ramirez, 266 SCRA 335, 348, January 20, 1997; People v. Gabris, 258 SCRA 663, 671, July 11, 1996; and People v. Alimon, 257 SCRA 658, 669, June 28, 1996.

16. People v. Borja, 267 SCRA 370, 379, February 3, 1997; and People v. Ramirez, 266 SCRA 335, 348, January 20, 1997.

17. People v. Erese, 281 SCRA 316, 322, November 5, 1997; People v. Mamalayan, 280 SCRA 748, 760, October 16, 1997; and People v. Gomez, 279 SCRA 688, 696, September 29, 1997.

18. Appellant’s Brief, pp. 4-5; rollo, pp. 40-41.

19. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

20. People v. Corea, 269 SCRA 76, 92, March 3, 1997.

21. People v. Rabosa, 273 SCRA 142, 150-151, June 9, 1997.

22. Appellant’s Brief, p. 4; rollo, p. 40.

23. People v. Quitoriano, 266 SCRA 373, 378, January 20, 1997.

24. TSN, November 13 and 20, 1997, pp. 16 and 19-20, respectively.

25. TSN, November 13, 1997, pp. 19-20.

26. People v. Laray, 253 SCRA 654, 662-663, February 20, 1996.

27. People v. Gecomo, 254 SCRA 82, 110, February 23, 1996.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.