Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1999 > March 1999 Decisions > G.R. No. 127123 March 10, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH LAKINDANUM:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 127123. March 10, 1999.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSEPH LAKINDANUM y CALMA, Accused-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N


ROMERO, J.:


In a decision dated October 10, 1996, 1 accused was convicted for the crime of statutory rape and was meted out the capital punishment of death pursuant to Republic Act No. 7659. The dispositive portion of said decision, now up for automatic review, is quoted herein:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, finding the accused Joseph Lakindanum guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, he is hereby sentenced to die by electrocution pursuant to RA 7659 and to indemnify his victim in the amount of P60,000 as compensatory damages and P300,000 as moral damages.

SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

As the victim was only nine years old, her mother, Lanie Calaguin, filed the complaint for rape allegedly committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 8th day of September, 1996, in the City of Dagupan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, JOSEPH LAKINDANUM y Calma, by means of intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and criminally, have carnal knowledge upon the person of one CATHERINE CALAGUIN, who is under 12 years of age, to her damage and prejudice.

Contrary to Article 334, par. 1 & 3 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R. A. 7659." 2

Upon arraignment, Accused pleaded "not guilty" to the offense charged. On October 2, 1996, however, just before the direct examination of the victim started, the defense counsel manifested that the accused wanted to withdraw his original plea of "not guilty" and replace it with a "guilty" plea. The Court gave defense counsel time to confer with his client and apprise him of the consequences of entering a "guilty" plea. 3chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

At the next hearing, the trial court judge examined the accused to determine the voluntariness and full comprehension of the plea he was about to make. Thereafter, Lakindanum was rearraigned and he pleaded "guilty" to the charge. 4

The trial court then proceeded to hear the evidence of the prosecution to establish Lakindanum’s guilt and the precise degree of his culpability. Since the defense already admitted the genuineness and authenticity of the victim’s birth certificate and the medical certificate issued by the doctor who examined her, only the victim, Catherine Calaguin, was presented as the lone prosecution witness.

Based on Catherine’s testimony, it appears that at around ten o’clock in the morning of September 8, 1996, she rode with the accused in the latter’s tricycle together with her grandmothers Sion, Anit, and Coring. The three, however, alighted at Banaoang, leaving Catherine alone with the accused in the tricycle.

Instead of heading home to Malued, Lakindanum drove toward Bonuan and, upon reaching a secluded place concealed from the highway by hilly mounds, parked his tricycle and joined Catherine in the passenger cab. He removed his pants and underwear and proceeded to take off Catherine’s short pants and panty. Thereafter, Lakindanum placed the girl on top of his lap and inserted his penis into her vagina, accomplishing full penetration and causing her to cry from excruciating pain. Not satisfied, he then inserted his finger into Catherine’s vagina. Before taking her home, Lakindanum threatened to kill Catherine if she told anyone about the incident.

Upon reaching home, Catherine did not tell her parents about what happened. However, her mother noticed that her shorts were bloodied and immediately brought her to the hospital for examination. It was there that Catherine revealed her ordeal to the doctor. According to the medical certificate which was admitted as evidence, Catherine’s vagina bore lacerations and had traces of spermatozoa.chanrobles virtuallawlibrary

As their lone assignment of error, the defense asserted that the trial court erred in accepting the accused-appellant’s improvident plea of guilty to the crime charged and in not requiring the accused-appellant to take the witness stand to determine his degree of culpability considering that the case involves a capital offense. Defense counsel argued that Lakindanum was not well apprised of the legal consequences of his plea and should therefore be acquitted.

The contention is without merit.

The Court observes that indeed, the manner by which the trial court judge conducted the inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the accused-appellant’s plea of guilty leaves much to be desired.

The rule is that where the accused desires to plead guilty to a capital offense, the court is enjoined to observe the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. It must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea;

2. The court must require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and

3. The court must ask the accused if he desires to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires 5

From the records of the proceedings in the court below, it can be gleaned that the trial judge’s manner of apprising Lakindanum of the consequences of his plea was at best, cursory, to wit:chanrobles law library

Atty. Taminaya:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

We are ready and may we manifest that the accused be allowed to withdraw his plea of not guilty and be re-arraigned?

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Alright, you call for the accused.

FOR THE COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Your lawyer has informed this court that you are willing to withdraw your plea of not guilty and replace to (sic) that of guilty. Have you been apprised of the consequences of your entering into a plea of not guilty and replace it to (sic) that of guilty?

a Yes, sir.

q And have you been apprised of the consequences of your plea?

a Yes, sir.

q And that you don’t have the right anymore to testify in your favor and prove your innocence?

a I don’t know, sir, because this is my first time to know that.

q And you still want to plead guilty?

a Yes, sir.

q And of course, under the law, you know that the moment you plead guilty, the court will impose to you the proper sentence?

a. Yes, sir.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Alright, order.

From the foregoing, it is clear that the judge can hardly be said to have satisfied the requirement of conducting a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension by the accused of entering a guilty plea. Worse, the judge erroneously informed Lakindanum that by pleading guilty, the latter forfeited his right to testify and to adduce evidence in his defense. Section 4, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court is clear on the matter:chanrobles law library : red

"SECTION 4. Plea of guilty to a capital offense; reception of evidence. — When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may also present evidence in his behalf."cralaw virtua1aw library

Considering that Lakindanum stands accused of a capital offense for which he may be put to death, the trial judge should have been more vigilant and solicitous in making sure that the accused-appellant clearly understood the legal consequences of the plea he was about to make.

In People v. Alicando, 6 the Court stressed that the plea of guilty to a capital offense is null and void where the trial court inadequately discharged the duty of conducting a "searching inquiry." In that case, the Court remanded the case to the trial court for rearraignment and trial on the merits.

It should be noted, however, that the proceedings in the present case are not exactly the same as those in Alicando because here, there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant indeed committed the crime charged. The testimony of Catherine, as corroborated by the findings embodied in the medical certificate, shows that she was indeed raped by Lakindanum. Despite her tender age, Catherine was able to relate in a clear, credible, and straightforward manner the events leading to, during, and after her rape. We, therefore, find that the trial court properly relied on the lone testimony of the child victim to convict Lakindanum. To reproduce Catherine’s account:chanrobles.com : virtual law library

x       x       x


Prosecutor:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

What is your age?

a Nine (9), sir.

q When were you born?

a January 30, 1987, sir.

q What did the accused Joseph Laquindanum do you (sic)?

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Lay the basis, Fiscal.

Prosecutor:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Your honor please, this humble representation believes that the witness is of tender age.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The court denies the motion. The witness here appears to be mentally alert, probably of proper discernment. She response (sic) quickly to questions.

Prosecutor:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Where were you madam witness at about 10 o’clock in the morning of September 8, 1996?

a In Bonuan, sir.

q Who was Your companion?

a Uncle Joseph, sir.

q If that Uncle Joseph is around in court, can you point to him?

a Yes, sir.

q Where?

(Witness pointing to the accused who is wearing a yellow shirt and stood up when asked his name, answered Joseph Lakindanum).chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

q What ride did you take going to Bonuan?

a A tricycle, sir.

q Who was driving the tricycle?

a Uncle Joseph, sir.

q Why did you go to Bonuan with Uncle Joseph?

a I don’t know, sir.

q Did you reach Bonuan?

a Upon reaching Bonuan, what did Uncle Joseph do to you, if any?

Atty. Taminaya

Leading.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Reform the question, Fiscal.

Prosecutor:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

What happened next?chanrobles law library

a He raped me, sir.

q Will you explain to this court how your Uncle Joseph raped (sic) you?

a He let me sat (sic) on his lap, sir.

q Then what next happened?

a He inserted his penis into my vagina, sir.

q And what did you feel?

a It is painful, sir.

q What else happened?

a He inserted his finger into my vagina, sir.

q After that, where else did you go?

a No more, sir.

q After the accused raped you as you claim at Bonuan, where did you go next?

a We went home, sir.

q When you went home, what place?

a In our house, sir.

q At?

a Malued, sir.

q What happened in your house, if any?

a I bleed (sic), sir.

q Did the accused say anything to you?

a Yes, sir.

q What was that?

a That if I will tell to somebody (sic), he will kill me, sir.

q Where did he tell you that?

a In Bonuan, sir.

q You claim that you were bleeding when you reached home. Did any member of your family knew (sic) this fact?

a Yes, sir.

q Who noticed?

a My mother, sir.

q And what did your mother do when she noticed that you were bleeding.

a She asked me why my underwear was bloodied, sir, and then she brought me to the hospital.chanrobles virtuallawlibrary

x       x       x


From the foregoing positive identification by the child victim of her rapist and her candid narration of the circumstances surrounding the rape, it is clear that accused-appellant was properly convicted for robbing Catherine of her innocence and childhood. This Court cannot, on mere procedural grounds, allow the revolting perversion of the accused-appellant to go unpunished.

As held in People v. Nismal 7 and reiterated in People v. Petalcorin, 8 convictions based on pleas of guilty to capital offenses have been set aside because of improvidence of the plea only when such plea is the sole basis of the judgment. When, as in this case, the trial court relied on sufficient and credible evidence to convict the accused-appellant, the same must be sustained for the simple reason that the conviction is predicated not on the guilty plea of the accused but on the convincing evidence proving his commission of the offense charged.

Coming now to the proper penalty that should be imposed, the trial court erroneously meted out the death penalty on Lakindanum. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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 otherwise unconscious; and

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

The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

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."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Solicitor General correctly observed that the fact of rape has been sufficiently established beyond reasonable doubt and that the victim was only nine years old when she was violated. However, the prosecution failed to prove the relationship between accused-appellant and his victim. Although Catherine addressed Lakindanum as "Uncle Joseph," it was not established how the latter became her uncle. In view of this omission, the crime cannot be classified under the aforecited paragraph of Section 11, R.A. No. 7659, providing for the penalty of death when the rape victim is under eighteen years old and the offender is a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree. Thus, the proper penalty that should be imposed is reclusion perpetua as no attendant qualifying circumstance was proven.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

It should likewise be noted that no mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty to the offense charged may be appreciated in favor of the accused-appellant because, first, as already discussed, the plea was void. And second, even assuming that the plea was validly made, well-settled is the rule that reclusion perpetua being an indivisible penalty, it is imposed in its entirety regardless of any mitigating circumstance that attended the commission of the crime. 9

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court finding accused Joseph Lakindanum guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape is hereby AFFIRMED except for the MODIFICATION that the penalty is reduced from death to reclusion perpetua and that accused is ordered to pay an indemnity of 50,000.00, as well as moral damages in the amount of 50,000.00.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

Vitug, J., abroad on official business.

Panganiban, J., is on leave.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 14-17.

2. Ibid., p. 5.

3. TSN, October 1, 1996, p. 2.

4. TSN, October 9, 1996, p. 2.

5. People v. Dayot, 187 SCRA 637 (1990).

6. 251 SCRA 293 (1995).

7. 114 SCRA 487 (1982)

8. 180 SCRA 685 (1989)

9. People v. Alvarado, 275 SCRA 727 (1997).




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





March-1999 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 99266 March 2, 1999 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117105 March 2, 1999 - TIMES TRANSIT CREDIT COOP. INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124320 March 2, 1999 - HEIRS OF GUIDO YAPTINCHAY, ET AL. v. ROY S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125138 March 2, 1999 - NICHOLAS Y. CERVANTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125683 March 2, 1999 - EDEN BALLATAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126134 March 2, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JOVEN DE LA CUESTA

  • G.R. No. 131047 March 2, 1999 - TOYOTA AUTOPARTS, PHILS., INC. v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1178 March 3, 1999 - COMELEC v. BUCO R. DATU-IMAN

  • A.M. No. P-94-1107 March 3, 1999 - CARMELINA CENIZA-GUEVARRA v. CELERINA R. MAGBANUA

  • G.R. No. 93090 March 3, 1999 - ROMEO CABELLAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127575 March 3, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONORIO CANTERE

  • G.R. No. 127801 March 3, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMUEL YU VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 130347 March 3, 1999 - ABELARDO VALARAO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134096 March 3, 1999 - JOSEPH PETER S. SISON v. COMELEC

  • A.M. No. P-99-1286 March 4, 1999 - CONCEPCION L. JEREZ v. ARTURO A. PANINSURO

  • G.R. No. 108027 March 4, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISTINA M. HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 111676 March 4, 1999 - SILVINA TORRES VDA. DE CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117213 March 4, 1999 - ARMANDO DE GUZMAN v. MARIANO ONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122539 March 4, 1999 - JESUS V. TIOMICO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123936 March 4, 1999 - RONALD SORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132648 March 4, 1999 - GSIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133563 March 4, 1999 - BRIDGET BONENG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 123792 March 8, 1999 - MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125537 March 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JOSE MAGLANTAY

  • A.C. CBD No. 167 March 9, 1999 - PRUDENCIO S. PENTICOSTES v. DIOSDADO S. IBAÑEZ

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-99-1175 March 9, 1999 - VICTORINO CRUZ v. REYNOLD Q. YANEZA

  • G.R. No. 108532 March 9, 1999 - PABLITO TANEO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115741 March 9, 1999 - HEIRS OF JOAQUIN ASUNCION v. MARGARITO GERVACIO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121587 March 9, 1999 - SOLEDAD DY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126123 March 9, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO PLATILLA

  • G.R. No. 128721 March 9, 1999 - CRISMINA GARMENTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-94-1106 March 10, 1999 - ADALIA B. FRANCISCO v. ROLANDO G. LEYVA

  • Adm. Matters No. RTJ-98-1423 March 10, 1999 - ROMAN CAGATIN, ET AL. v. LEONARDO N. DEMECILLO

  • G.R. No. 95815 March 10, 1999 - SERVANDO MANGAHAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120163 March 10, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATUKON BANSIL

  • G.R. No. 120971 March 10, 1999 - TAGGAT INDUSTRIES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123426 March 10, 1999 - NAT’L. FEDERATION OF LABOR v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA

  • G.R. No. 126874 March 10, 1999 - GSIS v. ANTONIO P. OLISA

  • G.R. No. 127123 March 10, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH LAKINDANUM

  • G.R. No. 129442 March 10, 1999 - FEDERICO PALLADA, ET AL. v. RTC OF KALIBO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129824 March 10, 1999 - DE PAUL/KING PHILIP CUSTOMS TAILOR, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1293 March 11, 1999 - EMILIO DILAN, ET AL. v. JUAN R. DULFO

  • G.R. No. 95326 March 11, 1999 - ROMEO P. BUSUEGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106518 March 11, 1999 - ABS-CBN SUPERVISORS EMPLOYEES UNION MEMBERS v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108440-42 March 11, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 109721 March 11, 1999 - FELIX A. SAJOT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109979 March 11, 1999 - RICARDO C. SILVERIO, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119157 March 11, 1999 - GOLDEN THREAD KNITTING INDUSTRIES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125590 March 11, 1999 - BIOMIE S. OCHAGABIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127004 March 11, 1999 - NAT’L. STEEL CORP. v. RTC OF LANAO DEL NORTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127663 March 11, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 132250 March 11, 1999 - ROSALIA P. SALVA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 123982 March 15, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO K. JOYNO

  • G.R. No. 134188 March 15, 1999 - NUR G. JAAFAR v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61508 March 17, 1999 - CITIBANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111704 March 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 115693 March 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVERIANO BOTONA

  • G.R. No. 119347 March 17, 1999 - EULALIA RUSSELL, ET AL. v. AUGUSTINE A. VESTIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120751 March 17, 1999 - PHIMCO INDUSTRIES v. JOSE BRILLANTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125311 March 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ONYOT MAHINAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129695 March 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO TABONES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130380 March 17, 1999 - HEIRS OF GAUDENCIO BLANCAFLOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115006 March 18, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 119756 March 18, 1999 - FORTUNE EXPRESS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127542 March 18, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHENG HO CHUA

  • G.R. No. 128682 March 18, 1999 - JOAQUIN T. SERVIDAD v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 97-6-182-RTC March 19, 1999 - RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN RTC, BRANCH 68

  • G.R. No. 96262 March 22, 1999 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. EMBROIDERY AND GARMENTS INDUSTRIES (PHIL.)

  • G.R. No. 116738 March 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO DOMOGOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126286 March 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER VAYNACO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126714 March 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MARCELO

  • G.R. No. 127523 March 22, 1999 - LEONCIA ALIPOON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1296 March 25, 1999 - DANIEL CRUZ v. CLERK OF COURT, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1297 March 25, 1999 - LUDIVINA MARISGA-MAGBANUA v. EMILIO T. VILLAMAR V

  • G.R. No. 96740 March 25, 1999 - VIRGINIA P. SARMIENTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103953 March 25, 1999 - SAMAHANG MAGBUBUKID NG KAPDULA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112088 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALDO ALMADEN

  • G.R. Nos. 116741-43 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN MONTEFALCON

  • G.R. No. 117154 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO A. BORROMEO

  • G.R. No. 119172 March 25, 1999 - BELEN C. FIGUERRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120505 March 25, 1999 - AIUP, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122966-67 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR S. ALOJADO

  • G.R. No. 123160 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS BATION

  • G.R. No. 124300 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENANTE ROBLES

  • G.R. No. 125053 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHRISTOPHER CAÑA LEONOR

  • G.R. Nos. 126183 & 129221 March 25, 1999 - LUZVIMINDA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126916 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLINO BACONG MANAGAYTAY

  • G.R. No 127373 March 25, 1999 - ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127662 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO V. ERIBAL

  • G.R. No. 127708 March 25, 1999 - CITY GOVERNMENT OF SAN PABLO, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO V. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128386 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUDITO ALQUIZALAS

  • G.R. No. 130491 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO MENGOTE

  • G.R. No. 130872 March 25, 1999 - FRANCISCO M. LECAROZ, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131108 March 25, 1999 - ASIAN ALCOHOL CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132980 March 25, 1999 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GLADYS C. LABRADOR

  • G.R. No. 133107 March 25, 1999 - RCBC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-96-1082 & 98-10-135-MCTC March 29, 1999 - MARCELO CUEVA v. OLIVER T. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. P-94-1015 March 29, 1999 - JASMIN MAGUAD, ET AL. v. NICOLAS DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93291 March 29, 1999 - SULPICIO LINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113150 March 29, 1999 - HENRY TANCHAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122827 March 29, 1999 - LIDUVINO M. MILLARES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125129 March 29, 1999 - JOSEPH H. REYES v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 129058 March 29, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO SEVILLENO

  • G.R. No. 131124 March 29, 1999 - OSMUNDO G. UMALI v. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123540 March 30, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN AYO