Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1999 > December 1999 Decisions > G.R. No. 126199 December 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SEVILLA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 126199. December 8, 1999.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERNESTO SEVILLA, Accused-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N


PER CURIAM:


For automatic review here is the judgment rendered by Branch 90 1 of the Regional Trial Court in Dasmariñas, Cavite, finding accused-appellant Ernesto Sevilla guilty of incestuous rape and sentencing him to suffer the ultimate penalty of DEATH.

Filed and docketed on March 21, 1994 as Criminal Case No. 3143-94, the Information indicting accused-appellant, alleges:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 15th day of January 1994, in the Municipality of Dasmariñas, Province of Cavite, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, using force and intimidation, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, did then and there, lie and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her (sic) fourteen (14) years (sic) old daughter Myra Sevilla y Deslate, against her will and to her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW." 2

With accused-appellant, assisted by his counsel, Atty. Noel R. Marquez, entering a plea of "Not Guilty" upon arraignment on April 27, 1995, trial ensued.

On August 28, 1996, after trial, the lower court a quo came out with the Decision finding accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged and sentencing him, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the guilt of the accused ERNESTO SEVILLA having been established beyond a scintilla of doubt, the Court hereby pronounces him GUILTY of the indictment for Rape. Under the above-quoted law, the Court sentences him with the penalty of DEATH. The aforenamed accused is also mandated to pay to the private complainant the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000) by way of moral damages in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.

SO ORDERED. 3

In arriving at its aforesaid conclusion, the trial court gave credence to and placed reliance on the version of the complainant of what the accused-appellant did to her, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"On January 15, 1994, at about three o’clock dawn, she was sleeping soundly beside her younger brother in their one-roon (sic) residence at Area G, Dasmarinas, Cavite. She and her brother were left in the sole care of their father, the accused herein, since their mother was confined in a hospital due to an operation. On the said date and time, Myra reluctantly roused from her slumber when she felt that somebody was touching her body. As her eyes got accustomed to the dimness, she was startled to behold her father on top of her. She was then unceremoniously stripped of her clothing and while she cowered in her nudity, her father proceeded to bare himself. Thereafter, the accused mounted her, spread her legs apart and thrust his manhood into her genitals. Myra agonized in silence. Sheer terror effectively stifled her voice and waned her resolve to withstand the assault. In a few moments, Accused’s libidinous desire was totally satiated. Nonchalantly, he dressed up, directed Myra to do the same and then capped his lecherous act with a stern warning that she should not disclose the matter to anyone, or else, she, her mother and her brother will be slain.

Soon it was daylight and the accused, a carpenter, casually left for work. Myra and her brother remained at home and whiled away their time watching the television. At about seven o’clock in the evening of the same date (sic), their two aunts arrived and informed them that their mother was already discharged from the hospital. Myra asked to be taken to her mother, and upon seeing her, Myra refused to part with her. Unable to bear the dread and the disgrace brought about by her revolting ordeal, Myra broke down and divulged how she was violated by her own father. She further revealed that he started making sexual advances on her since she was six years old.

x       x       x


. . . Myra, her mother and her aunt Elva trooped to the National Bureau of Investigation on January 19, 1994, to lodge a formal complaint. Thereat, Myra executed a sworn statement (Exhibit ‘D’) and signed a Complaint Sheet (Exhibit ‘E’) stating therein the circumstances that led to her physical defilement. She also (sic) willingly submitted to a medico-genital examination pursuant to the request form which her mother was asked to sign (Exhibit ‘A’). . . ." 4

Aside from complaint Myra Sevilla herself, Dr. Juan B. Zaldarriaga, Jr. of the Medico-Legal Division of the NBI testified for the prosecution. Embodied in Living Case No. MG-94-72, 5 the findings of Dr. Zaldarriaga, Jr. indicated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. No evident sign of extragenital physical injuries noted on the body of the subject at the time of examination.

2. Hymen, intact but distensible and its orifice wide (2.5 cms. in diameter) as to allow complete penetration by an average-sized adult, Filipino male organ in full erection without producing any hymenal laceration."cralaw virtua1aw library

Accused-appellant put up the defense of denial. He theorized thus: On January 15, 1994, he reached home from work, at around six o’clock in the evening, and slept at nine o’clock. 6 That night, his wife was not in their house as she was confined in the hospital. 7 He, Myra and his two other children slept together, and as their house did not have any partition, the children slept near the window while he slept near the door of the house. 8

Insisting that he could not possibly do such a dastardly act against his own daughter, Accused-appellant contended that Myra must have been coaxed by his sister-in-law, Elva Deslate, into lodging the present charge of rape against him. 9 As to the motive of his sister-in-law in instigating the institution of the case, Accused-appellant opined that he had a long-standing conflict with his sister-in-law, 10 and he further incurred Elva’s ire when he failed to attend to his wife’s hospitalization. 11

Accused-appellant did not present any witness to reinforce his testimony.

The court a quo found the sum and substance of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses deserving of faith and reliance. Convinced that accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged and heeding the mandate of the law under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Republic Act No. 7659, the trial court unhesitatingly meted out the prescribed penalty of death.

Represented by Atty. Ramon Gatchalian of the Public Attorney’s Office, Accused-appellant urges this Court to acquit him, on the basis of lone assignment of error, that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF RAPE AND SENTENCING HIM TO SUFFER THE PENALTY OF DEATH.

In the Appellant’s Brief, Public Attorney Gatchalian exhorts this Court to weigh and take into account "every minute inconsistency and flaw in the evidence of the prosecution" since "a human life is at stake." 12 "Any iota of doubt that could be squeezed from the same should be resolved in favor of the accused." 13

Rest assured, this Court has meticulously examined the records and the evidence on hand. Aware of the gravity and irreversibility of the penalty attached to the offense of which accused-appellant was pronounced guilty by the court of origin, this Court studied and viewed the arguments and evidence in proper perspective and exerted its utmost effort to ensure that no stone is left unturned.

To destroy the credibility of Myra’s testimony which accused-appellant brands uncorroborated, the latter maintains that it is "puzzling that in all those years of languishing in the shadow of the accused’s licentious bestiality, the complaint never once complained about the same to her mother nor to her aunties. Moreover, it is likewise perplexing that she would only complain about one rape in the light of all those years of sexual abuse." 14 Accused-appellant further makes capital of the fact that Myra "failed to scream or to shout during the alleged rape on January 15, 1994 to alarm her older sister and younger brother," 15 thereby shedding doubt on her credibility.

The Court is not persuaded by accused-appellant’s submission.

As held by this Court in People v. Miranda, 16 there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one has just been confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience as heinous as the crime of rape and not every victim to a crime can be expected to act reasonably and conformably with the expectation of mankind.

The fact that Myra did not complain to her mother or her aunts about the sexual abuses committed by her father against her for eight long years, is of no moment. Myra, who was of a very tender age when the horrible events in her life began to unfold, could have, in all probability, been confused and bewildered by her experience that for more than half of her young life, she was shocked into utter insensibility.

It is not unlikely that it is for the same reason that she failed to scream or shout while she was being ravished by her own father on the night of January 15, 1994. Shock must have totally overtaken the young Myra, so much so, that she was not able to signify even a whimper of protest or call the attention of her other siblings who were sleeping in the same room. This is aside from the fact that, as correctly rationalized by the trial court, fear and shame must have prevented the young girl from taking up the courage to report the molestation at the soonest possible time. On direct examination by counsel, Myra testified thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"x       x       x

Q And what did your father do when you tried to wiggle?

A He still inserted his organ inside my organ, ma’am.

Q Did you not shout for help when your father was doing that to you?

A No, ma’am.

Q Why?

A I was afraid of his strength and he said that he will kill all of us, ma’am. 17

During cross-examination, Myra also testified in this wise:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q At the time you were being abused by your father, were you attending school?

A Yes, sir.

Q Did you not reveal this to your guidance counsellor or to your teacher-in-charge?

A No, sir. I was embarrassed about the situation.

x       x       x


Q You said you were boxed by your father.

Where were you boxed?

A He boxed me on my thigh, sir, everytime he used me.

Q On January 15, 1994, how many times did he box you?

A Just once, sir.

Q On the following day, did you notice a contusion?

A It was slightly bruised, sir.

Q You also mentioned that you were threatened by your father. When were you threatened by your father?

A Since I was six years old up to now, sir.

Q How did your father threaten you?

A He threaten (sic) me by saying that I should not report this incident to my mother or to anyone or else, he would kill us all.

Q But when your father made this threat, he was not holding any knife or bladed instrument?

A Yes, sir. 18

It bears stressing that in cases of incestuous rape, the father’s moral ascendancy over the victim substitutes for violence or intimidation and reinforces the fear which compels the victim to conceal her dishonor. Myra was sufficiently cowed into silence by the physical and moral influence which accused-appellant exercised over her even though he may have been unarmed.

Accused-appellant argues "that there is a possibility that the current state of complainant’s genitals was induced by the insertion of a foreign object into the same." 19 More so, Accused-appellant points out, that "complainant’s non-virginity could have been caused by anyone (sic) act of the alleged acts of lasciviousness committed against her by the accused." 20

Assuming for the sake of argument that Myra’s non-virgin state could have been a result of acts than the rape committed on the night of January 15, 1994, the same does not altogether negate the fact of rape. It could very well be that Myra was deflowered at some other time and circumstance, but this does not necessarily prove that the events leading to accused-appellant’s indictment did not happen. Clearly, the cause of Myra’s non-virginity is immaterial in the present case. If at all, the "condition of complainant’s genitals" as contained in a medical report is merely corroborative and is not indispensable.

Besides, such an assumption cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal declaration of complainant that she was in fact raped by her own father. On this point, Myra declared, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"x       x       x

Q When did this touching and kissing happen?

A It started when I was six years old.

Q How many times did your father touch you and kiss you?

A Several times, ma’am.

Q Where did he touch you?

A He touched my breasts, ma’am.

Q Where did he kiss you?

A He kissed me on my lips, ma’am.

Fiscal de Castro

Aside from kissing you and touching you, what else did your father do to you?

Witness

He did a lot of things to me, ma’am.

Q Can you tell the Honorable Court what those things are?

A He often looked at my organ, ma’am.

x       x       x


Q Now, madam witness, on January 15, 1994, at about 3:00 a.m/ (sic), do you remember where you were?

A I was in our house, ma’am.

Q What were you doing then?

A I was sleeping then , ma’am.

Q While you were sleeping on that date and time, do you remember any unusual incident that happened?

A I felt that somebody was touching me and when I woke up, I saw him on top of me, ma’am.

Q You said "him", who was that "him" ?

A My father, ma’am.

Q After you woke up, what happened?

A When I woke up, I saw him on top of me and then he undressed me. He likewise undressed himself and then he placed his sex organ on top of my organ. He thereafter made an up-and-down motion.

Q On that particular date, what did your father do to you?

Witness

He undressed me and he likewise undressed himself. He then placed his organ in my organ and made an up-and-down motion.

Q Did he insert his organ inside your organ?

A Yes, ma’am.

Q Was that the first time that your father placed his sex organ inside your sex organ?

A Yes, ma’am.

x       x       x" 21

The Court finds no basis for reversing the finding below that the above-quoted testimony is truthful and credible. In the decision under review, the trial court stated that "Myra Sevilla had indeed vividly displayed bitterness, anguish, and hatred when she took the witness stand on October 26, 1994." 22 It also observed that Myra "likewise unmasked her sentiments through eloquent body movements" 23 and so found that the straightforward and candid statements of the victim must perforce prevail over the bare denials of Accused-Appellant.

As a general rule, this Court will not unduly disturb the findings of the trial court on matters relating to the issue of credibility of witnesses. The determination by the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses is usually accorded great weight and respect since the trial court had the distinct advantage and singular opportunity to observe the witnesses during examination through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood. 24 Absent any showing that certain facts of substance and significance have been plainly overlooked or that the trial court’s findings are clearly arbitrary, 25 the conclusions reached by the court of origin must be respected and the judgment rendered affirmed.

Accused-appellant flatly denies that the incident complained of ever took place. However, other than his own assertions, Accused-appellant did not come forward with any evidence which would convince the Court that he is innocent of the charge proffered against him. This Court has consistently held in a long line of cases, 26 that with respect to denial, it is inherently a weak defense which cannot prevail over positive identifications. It must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. Otherwise, the same is self-serving and deserves no greater evidentiary value. Affirmative testimony like that of the victim is stronger than a negative one.

In the case under scrutiny, although the narration of events was uncorroborated, the Court nonetheless upholds the same for the reason that in crimes of the nature now on appeal, the sole testimony of the victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction if such testimony is credible. Thus, Accused-appellant’s stance that the prosecution should have presented Myra’s siblings as well as her aunt, Elva Deslate, as corroborating witnesses in the case, does not hold water. By the very nature of rape cases, conviction or acquittal depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant’s testimony, the fact being that usually, only the participants therein can testify as to its occurrence. 27 To repeat, the prosecution is not bound to present witnesses other than the offended party and accused-appellant can be convicted on the sole basis of the victim’s oral evidence.

Furthermore, a rape victim’s testimony is entitled to greater weight when she accuses a close relative of having raped her, as in the case of a daughter against her father. 28 Earlier and long standing decisions of this Court have likewise held that when a woman testifies that she has been raped, she says all that is needed to signify that the crime has been committed. This is true when made against any man committing the crime; it is more so when the accusing words are said against a close relative. 29

Accused-appellant’s theory that the charges brought against him were concocted by his sister-in law, Elva, because he infuriated the latter when he failed to take care of his wife in the hospital, is too preposterous to deserve any consideration. On this score, the Court finds tenability in the contention of the Office of the Solicitor General that it is "not in accord with human experience for an aunt of a girl to charge the girl’s father with rape and expose her niece to public scrutiny and humiliation for the petty reason that the father did not visit his wife in the hospital." 30

It cannot also be believed that accused-appellant’s very own daughter would consent to the plan allegedly hatched by the latter’s aunt and allow herself to be perverted if she was not truly motivated by a desire to seek retribution for the abominable violation committed against her by the father. It is extremely unlikely that the victim, presumably a virgin, an innocent and unsophisticated girl, unexposed to the ways of the world, would concoct a reprehensible story of defloration, no less than against her own father, allow an examination of her private parts and then subject herself to the rigors, trouble, inconvenience, ridicule and scandal of a public trial, where she has to bare her harrowing and traumatic experience and be subjected to harassment, embarrassment and humiliation during cross-examination, unless she was in fact raped and deeply motivated by her sincere desire to do so solely to seek justice and obtain redress for the unforgivable and wicked acts done on her. 31 Moreover, the complainant does not appear to have any strong reason or nefarious motive to fabricate the grave charges against her very own father and so expose not only herself but the entire family to shame and scandal. 32

All things studiedly considered and viewed in proper perspective, the Court is fully convinced that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . the accused had indeed assaulted not just the flesh but also the honor and integrity of his own offspring, a felony undeserving of clemency and forbearance. This Court believes that guardians of the law should be doubly vigilant in safeguarding the interests and welfare of the children. If children cannot be secured under the wings of their parents who are charged with the natural right and duty over the person of their unemancipated children, then a breakdown in the family as a foundation of the nation, will lamentably happen. This is the state which this Court is duty-bound to guard against. For if the father who is perceived to be the protector of his brood can perniciously molest a helpless child, there is no reason why any stranger cannot be subjected to this vicious torment." 33

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 7659, which took effect on December 31, 1993 34 or barely fifteen (15) days before the perpetration by accused-appellant of his felonious acts, reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

ARTICLE 335. When and how rape is committed. — Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. By using force or intimidation;

2. When the woman is deprived of reason or other wise unconscious; and

3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.

x       x       x


The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim;

x       x       x


Following the aforecited provision of law in point and with the guilt of accused-appellant proved beyond reasonable doubt, the Court cannot help but uphold the decision under traumatic review, sentencing accused-appellant to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH.

Pursuant to the ruling of this Court in People v. Victor, 35 the amount of P75,000.00 has to be awarded to the victim as indemnity, the rape being qualified by any of the circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized by the applicable law. The said amount is in addition to the moral damages awarded by the trial court.

Four Justices of the Court maintain that R.A. No. 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty. Nevertheless, they submit to the majority opinion that the said law is constitutional and the death penalty can be properly imposed in this case.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court finding accused-appellant ERNESTO SEVILLA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of incestuous rape and imposing upon him the penalty of DEATH is AFFIRMED with the modification that accused-appellant is ordered to pay civil indemnity in the amount of Seventy-five Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos, in addition to the moral damages of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos awarded by the lower court.

In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659 amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this decision, let the records of this case be forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Presided by Judge Dolores Español.

2. Rollo, p. 4.

3. Rollo, p. 21.

4. Original Records, pp. 91-98; Rollo, pp. 59-60 & 66.

5. Exhibit ‘B’, Original Records, p. 12.

6. TSN, July 12, 1995, p. 8.

7. TSN, July 12, 1995, p. 9.

8. TSN, July 12, 1995, p. 9.

9. TSN, July 12, 1995, p. 3.

10. TSN, July 12, 1995, p. 2.

11. TSN, July 12, 1995, p. 3.

12. Rollo, pp. 56-57.

13. Rollo, p. 57.

14. Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, pp. 54-55.

15. Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, p. 55.

16. 262 SCRA 351, 357, citing: People v. Flores, 217 SCRA 613 and People v. Dupali, 230. SCRA 62.

17. TSN, Oct. 26, 1994, p. 5.

18. TSN, Oct. 26, 1994, p. 11-12.

19. Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, p. 54.

20. Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, p. 55.

21. TSN, Oct. 26, 1994, pp. 3-5.

22. RTC Decision, Rollo, p. 8.

23. RTC Decision, Rollo, p. 19.

24. People v. Alitagtag, G.R. Nos. 124449-51, June 29, 1999, citing : People v. Quijada, 259 SCRA 191.

25. People v. Renola, G.R. 12290912, June 10, 1999, citing: People v. Quejada, 223 SCRA 77.

26. People v. David Silvano, G.R. No. 127356, June 29, 1999, citing: People v. Taton, 282 SCRA 308; People v. Remoto, 314 Phil. 432; People v. Ramos, 315 Phil 435 (1995); People v. Amador, 226 SCRA 241; People v. Ylarde, 224 SCRA 405; People v. Burce, 269 SCRA 293; People v. Paloma, 278 SCRA 114; People v. Barazo, 272 SCRA 512; People v. Estares, 282 SCRA 524; People v. Apongan, 270 SCRA 713.

27. People v. Losano, G.R. No. 127122, July 20, 1999 citing: People v. Bolatete, G.R. No. 127570, February 25, 1999 and People v. Villaluna, G.R. No. 117666, February 23, 1999.

28. People v. Carullo, G.R. No. 129289, July 29, 1999 citing: People v. Tabugoca, 285 SCRA 312 (1998)

29. People v. Catoltol, 265 SCRA 109.

30. Appellee’s Brief, Rollo, p. 95.

31. People v. Silvano, supra.

32. People v. Renola, G.R. No. 122902-12, June 10, 1999, citing People v. Bantisil, 249 SCRA 367.

33. RTC Decision, Rollo, p. 20.

34. People v. Midtomod, 283 SCRA 395.

35. 292 SCRA 186.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1999 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. 96-7-257-RTC December 2, 1999 - RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT AND PHYSICAL INVENTORY OF PENDING CASES IN THE MTCC

  • G.R. Nos. 95751-52 December 2, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME TUMARU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116996 December 2, 1999 - ANDRES VILLALON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 120493-94 & 117692 December 2, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO OCUMEN

  • G.R. No. 121204 December 2, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIFICO BARELLANO

  • G.R. No. 126670 December 2, 1999 - ERNESTO T. PACHECO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127899 December 2, 1999 - MARILYN C. SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129213 December 2, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERRY PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 129339 December 2, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. 131540 December 2, 1999 - BETTY KING v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 97399 December 3, 1999 - SECON PHILIPPINES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120634 December 3, 1999 - FLORA DORONILA-TIOSECO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126661 December 3, 1999 - JOSE S. ANDAYA, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127639 December 3, 1999 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. ALFREDO ETCUBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128888 December 3, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHARITO ISUG MAGBANUA

  • G.R. No. 130985 December 3, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO DE LEON

  • G.R. No. 136500 December 3, 1999 - CONRADO R. ISIDRO v. NISSAN MOTOR PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 111630 December 6, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR O. JUACHON

  • G.R. No. 112998 December 6, 1999 - FRANCIS HERVAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117711 December 6, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENNY NABLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125834 December 6, 1999 - VIOLETA SANTIAGO VILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 97-9-94-MTCC December 8, 1999 - REYNALDO Q. MARQUEZ v. ARCADIO I. MANIGBAS

  • G.R. No. 108581 December 8, 1999 - LOURDES L. DOROTHEO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121630 December 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE BIÑAS

  • G.R. No. 124342 December 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN LADRILLO

  • G.R. No. 126010 December 8, 1999 - LUCITA ESTRELLA HERNANDEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126199 December 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SEVILLA

  • G.R. No. 127421 December 8, 1999 - PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AGENCY CORP. v. VIRGILIO DAPITON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127493 December 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO LABTAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130210 December 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RALPH VELEZ DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 131039 December 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ALBERTO FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131715 December 8, 1999 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. ERNESTO PABION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134047 December 8, 1999 - AMADO S. BAGATSING v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134272 December 8, 1999 - CELIA T. LAYUS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 134514 December 8, 1999 - INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES v. PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE & ASSURANCE CO.

  • G.R. No. 136384 December 8, 1999 - HADJI HUSSEIN MOHAMMAD v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 99-5-18-SC December 9, 1999 - RE: PETITION FOR UPGRADING OF COURT OF APPEALS POSITIONS

  • G.R. No. 74851 December 9, 1999 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 119837-39 December 9, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERWIN AGRESOR

  • G.R. Nos. 123267-68 December 9, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTHONY APOSTOL

  • G.R. No. 123918 December 9, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AUGUSTO LORETO RINGOR

  • G.R. No. 125633 December 9, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO ALFANTA

  • G.R. No. 125687 December 9, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN RONDERO

  • G.R. No. 130722 December 9, 1999 - REYNALDO K. LITONJUA, ET AL. v. L & R CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134559 December 9, 1999 - ANTONIA. TORRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135627 December 9, 1999 - ROGELIO G. SIQUIAN, JR. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1217 December 10, 1999 - GLICERIO M. RADOMES v. SALVADOR P. JAKOSALEM

  • G.R. No. 106833 December 10, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME QUISAY

  • G.R. No. 116363 December 10, 1999 - SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118233 December 10, 1999 - ANTONIO Z. REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128436 December 10, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO DE LEON

  • G.R. No. 128877 December 10, 1999 - ROLANDO ABAD, JR. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129893 December 10, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNOLD DIZON

  • G.R. No. 93540 December 13, 1999 - FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118289 December 13, 1999 - TRANS-ASIA PHILS. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (TAPEA), ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123599 December 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO FLORES

  • G.R. No. 130430 December 13, 1999 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SALUD V. HIZON

  • G.R. Nos. 133527-28 December 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JEANETTE (GINETTE) YANSON-DUMANCAS

  • G.R. No. 135362 December 13, 1999 - HEIRS OF AUGUSTO L. SALAS v. LAPERAL REALTY CORP.

  • AC No. 5176 December 14, 1999 - RITA DE ERE v. MANOLO RUBI

  • G.R. Nos. 95897 & 102604 December 14, 1999 - FLORENCIA T. HUIBONHOA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126954 December 14, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO MACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 136916 December 14, 1999 - FLEURDELIZ B. ORGANO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1508 December 15, 1999 - FLAVIANO B. CORTES v. SEGUNDO B. CATRAL

  • G.R. Nos. 124374, 126354 & 126366 December 15, 1999 - ISMAEL A. MATHAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124658 December 15, 1999 - PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129713 December 15, 1999 - CAGAYAN DE ORO COLISEUM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129793 December 15, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AUGUSTO TANZON

  • G.R. No. 130407 December 15, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO RAMON

  • G.R. No. 131828 December 15, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE CABALIDA

  • G.R. No. 132512 December 15, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LYNDON SAÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 134047 December 15, 1999 - AMADO S. BAGATSING, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134657 December 15, 1999 - WENCESLAO P. TRINIDAD v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case. No. 675 December 17, 1999 - ROSARIO MARQUEZ v. ATTY. DIONISIO MENESES

  • G.R. No. 102596 December 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICASIO ENOJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107245 December 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE ABORDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114267 December 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT DORIMON

  • G.R. No. 117363 December 17, 1999 - MILA G. PANGILINAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123780 December 17, 1999 - PEDRO R. CABUAY, JR v. POTENCIANO MALVAR

  • G.R. No. 123817 December 17, 1999 - IBAAN RURAL BANK INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127631 December 17, 1999 - ANGEL AGUIRRE JR, ET AL. v. EVANGELINE C. DE CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 127876 December 17, 1999 - ROXAS & CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128525 December 17, 1999 - MA. DIVINA ORTAÑEZ-ENDERES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128667 December 17, 1999 - RAFAEL A. LO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132329 December 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSTANCIO MERINO, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 132451 December 17, 1999 - ENRIQUE T. GARCIA v. RENATO C. CORONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134028 December 17, 1999 - EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION v. EDMUND SANICO

  • G.R. No. 138969 December 17, 1999 - SALIPONGAN DAGLOC v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1240 December 21, 1999 - PATRICK JUAN PEREZ v. IGNACIO R. CONCEPCION

  • A.M. No. RTJ-95-1283 December 21, 1999 - DAVID C. NAVAL, ET AL. v. JOSE R. PANDAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109149 December 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONCIO SANTOCILDES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 115191 December 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOLITO MORENO

  • G.R. No. 126169 December 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLINARIO GEROMO

  • G.R. No. 129750 December 21, 1999 - LEONARDO T. REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129792 December 21, 1999 - JARCO MARKETING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132266 December 21, 1999 - CASTILEX INDUSTRIAL CORP. v. VICENTE VASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135915 December 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERT ERNEST WILSON

  • G.R. No. 114262 December 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUIRINO QUIJADA

  • G.R. No. 123769 December 22, 1999 - E. GANZON v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125434 December 22, 1999 - DELFIN ABALOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125754 December 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZENAIDA BOLASA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127864 December 22, 1999 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. NLRC and ROGELIO ESPAÑOLA

  • G.R. No. 114823 December 23, 1999 - NILO B. DIONGZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119870 December 23, 1999 - DR. BIENVENIDO B. GESMUNDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121669 December 23, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDILBERTO DURADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126764 December 23, 1999 - PHILIMARE SHIPPING & EQUIPMENT SUPPLY INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127326 December 23, 1999 - BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128820 December 23, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDIOSO MORE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133289 December 23, 1999 - LICERIO A. ANTIPORDA v. FRANCIS E. GARCHITORENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134699 December 23, 1999 - UNION BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124062 December 29, 1999 - REYNALDO T. COMETA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124354 December 29, 1999 - ROGELIO E. RAMOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128557 December 29, 1999 - LAND BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131591 December 29, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERRY SILVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133876 December 29, 1999 - BANK OF AMERICA v. AMERICAN REALTY CORP., ET AL.