Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2000 > December 2000 Decisions > G.R. No. 137143 December 8, 2000 - NERIO SALCEDO y MEDEL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 137143. December 8, 2000.]

NERIO SALCEDO y MEDEL, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N


PANGANIBAN, J.:


Only questions of law, not of fact, may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Further, findings of facts by a trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals are binding on the Supreme Court. Any exception to these principles must be clearly and convincingly proven, a burden that herein petitioner failed to discharge.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The Case


Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the July 13, 1998 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals 2 in CA-GR CR No. 19559. The CA affirmed the judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City (Branch 38), convicting petitioner of homicide. Also challenged is the December 22, 1998 CA Resolution 4 denying reconsideration.

In an Information dated September 9, 1992, Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Portia T. Cabalum charged petitioner with murder allegedly committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about May 30, 1992, in the Municipality of Balasan, Province of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above-named accused, armed with firearms, with deliberate intent and decided purpose to kill, by means of treachery and with evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot one PO1 Nilo Demapaylo with the firearms which the accused was then provided, inflicting gunshot wounds on the victim’s body which caused his instantaneous death." 5

When arraigned on October 22, 1992, Petitioner, assisted by Atty. Manuel Calumpang, pleaded not guilty. 6 After trial in due course, the RTC rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is render[ed] finding the accused, Nerio Salcedo y Medel alias ‘Sandy’ guilty beyond reasonable doubt [of] the crime of [h]omicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and accordingly sentenc[ing] him to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of [p]rision [m]ayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of [r]eclusion [t]emporal as maximum, to pay the heirs of the late PO1 Nilo Depamaylo the sum of P27,037.34 as actual damages and to further indemnify said heirs the sum of P50,000 as civil indemnity on account of his death, pursuant to current jurisprudence.

"x       x       x" 7

Petitioner then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which disposed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision of the lower court in Criminal Case No. 38685 is hereby AFFIRMED by this Court." 8

Hence, this recourse. 9

The Facts


The appellate court narrated the factual antecedents of this case as follows: 10

"At the hearing, it appeared that none of the witnesses for the prosecution, including the victim’s companions at that time of the unfortunate incident, saw the actual shooting which led to the untimely demise of said victim. Nevertheless, a crucial evidence of the prosecution is the findings of Dr. Ricardo Jaboneta, Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, Region 6, Iloilo City, who conducted on June 4, 1992 a postmortem investigation on the cadaver of the victim. In his Autopsy Report No. 92-MO-24 (pp. 290-291, Orig. Rec.), Dr. Ricardo Jaboneta declared that the cause of the victim’s death was due to "Hemorrhage, profuse secondary to multiple gunshot wounds," finding five (5 shotgun wounds on the body of the victim; three (3) of which [were] found on the front left side of the abdomen, one (1) on the front right side ear lobe with powder burns on the right side [of the] cheek, and one (1) fatal wound on the back, left side of the victim.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

"Accused, upon the other hand, while he admits to have shot the victim during the unfortunate incident, invoked self-defense to justify his act. He narrated his version of the incident in the following manner; that at around 7:00 p.m. on May 30, 1992, while he was about to go outside of the cockpit after deciding to go home, he was informed by one Danilo Domingues that some of the men of his brother Noel would like to go with him; that thereafter, after he was handed his shotgun, he proceeded to the cockhouse of his brother Noel, but while he was nearing said cockhouse, he heard someone who shouted ‘Hoy, nga-a may armas ca?’ (Hey, why are you carrying a firearm?); that he answered ‘Te, may lisensiya ini’ (This is licensed) to the person who shouted who turned out to be the victim PO1 Nilo Depamaylo; that upon recognizing who he was, the victim shouted ‘linti’ (lighting) and, at the same time, drew his firearm; that as it took sometime for the victim to draw his firearm from its holster, he (accused) also cocked his .12 gauge shotgun after having sensed that danger was forthcoming; that at that time, he was situated on the higher plain than the victim, and both of them were facing each other at a distance of six (6) to eight (8) feet away; that when the victim pointed and fired his firearm, he (accused) almost simultaneously fired also his weapon; that as the victim continued to advance towards him (accused), he (accused) fired that second shot; that as he hid in [the] gaffers[’area], he heard two (2) shots coming from the victim, and forthwith, in a crouching position, he approached slowly the victim, and saw that the latter was already lying face up; that thereupon he took the firearm of the victim; that when he heard gunshots coming from the cockpit, he immediately withdrew from the scene of the crime and proceeded to the house of his mother in-law where he later surrendered to the Chief of Police of Balasan, Iloilo."cralaw virtua1aw library

Ruling of the Appellate Court

Affirming the trial court, the CA held that petitioner’s theory of self-defense "appears not only to be highly doubtful and unbelievable, but also belied by the physical evidence in this case."cralaw virtua1aw library

It observed that the number of wounds sustained by the deceased disproved self-defense. Considering that the victim had sustained five gunshot wounds, it disbelieved petitioner’s allegation that he had fired only twice. It further held that the wound at the back of the deceased belied petitioner’s claim that the two protagonists were facing each other during the incident.

It also ruled that the presence of powder burns on the victim refuted petitioner’s claim that they were six to eight feet apart from each other at the time. It noted that, in any case, it was "inconceivable" that petitioner had actually emerged unscathed from the incident.

Issues


In his Memorandum, petitioner presents the following issues for our consideration: 11

"I. Whether or not the petitioner properly resorted to Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure to question the 13 July 1998 Decision of the Honorable Court of Appeals and the 22 December 1998 denial of the Motion for Reconsideration [of] the 13 July 1998 Decision[.]

"II. Whether or not the analysis and legal conclusions of the lower court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as to the nature, location, and number of gunshot wounds are correct to warrant the rejection of petitioners theory of self-defense[.]

- and -

"III. Whether or not the rejection of petitioner’s plea of self-defense by the lower court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, [has] been based on groundless speculations, inferences, and conjectures[.]"

In the main, the Court will determine whether the CA erred in rejecting petitioner’s plea of self-defense.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The Court’s Ruling


The Petition has no merit.

Main Issue: Self-Defense

As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 12 However, in Fuentes v. Court of Appeals and several other cases, the Court laid down several exceptions as follows: 13

"(1) When the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory;

(2) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

(3) When the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;

(4) When there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;

(5) When the appellate court, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case, and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;

(6) When the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on misapprehension of facts;

(7) When the Court of Appeals failed to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion;

(8) When the findings of fact are themselves conflicting;

(9) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which they are based; and

(10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the basis of these exceptions, petitioner argues that the findings of the trial and the appellate courts were "grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures," and that their inferences were "absurd and impossible." 14 He further maintains that the two courts misapprehended the facts in rejecting his claim of self-defense. As will be shown below, however, he has not substantiated his claims of exception to the general rule.

CA Decision Not Based on

Conjectures or Surmises

Specifically, petitioner assails the CA finding that, based on the number and the location of the wounds, the victim must have been shot three or more times with a shotgun. He contends that this finding was based on conjectures and surmises, because it was "not in accord with the obvious effect of the Squibman riot shotgun fired five separate times [at] the victim." Rather, he maintains that "gunshot wounds nos. 1 - 4 clearly showed that they all came from one gunshot coming from a shotgun fired at a distance." 15 He insists that no damage to a single organ resulted from the four wounds, which would have been the necessary consequence of four separate shots from the subject weapon. Moreover, he adds that "wound no. 5 was caused by a single blast of a shotgun fired at a distance." 16

This argument is utterly bereft of merit. Unquestionably, the victim bore five gunshot wounds — three on the front left side of the abdomen, one on the right cheek and one on the back. Considering the distance of each of the five entry wounds, it is clear that the CA did not err in finding that there were more than two shots. One shot caused the wound on the ear (gunshot wound no. 1); another, on the back (gunshot wound no. 5); and another (or even more), the three wounds on the abdomen (gunshot wound nos. 2-4). Indeed, other than his bare assertions, petitioner has not presented any cogent proof that wound no. 1 on the ear of the victim came from the same gunshot that caused wound nos. 2-4 on the abdomen.

Contrary to the misleading insinuation of petitioner, we stress that nowhere did the CA hold that he had fired five times at the victim. It merely relied on the statement of Dr. Ricardo Jaboneta that three or more shots had been fired.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

In any event, petitioner focuses entirely on the CA’s rejection of his claim that he fired only twice. He ignores in effect the other factual rulings that were just as fatal to his cause. Indeed, he fails to explain sufficiently the presence of powder burns on the right cheek of the victim. The former’s claim that these were caused by the latter’s own pistol 17 deserves scant consideration. Most telling is the failure of petitioner to explain the presence of the entry wound on the back of the victim. Although that wound rebutted his main theory of a face-to-face shootout, the former does not claim that the CA conclusion on this crucial point resulted from conjecture, absurd inference or misapprehension of facts.

Self Defense Not Proven

Clearly, the CA did not misapprehend the facts in rejecting the claim of self-defense.

Well-entrenched is the rule that one who invokes self-defense admits authorship of the killing. Hence, the burden shifts to that person to establish with clear and convincing evidence all the following elements of the justifying circumstance: 18 (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the one resorting to self-defense. 19

Petitioner sought to establish the victim’s "three (3) continuous acts" that allegedly constituted unlawful aggression: 20

"a. Upon recognizing the petitioner, the victim uttered in a rude manner the Visayan idiomatic expression — "AY LINTI." . . . Said Visayan idiomatic expression connotes anger, hatred [or] exasperation, depending on the circumstances surrounding the incident;

"b. Upon uttering the Visayan idiomatic expression, "Ay Linti" is the simultaneous drawing by the victim of his service pistol from the holster; and

"c. After drawing his service pistol from the holster, [he] pointed the same to the petitioner and fired said pistol. Moreover, even when the petitioner ha[d] already fired his SQUIBMAN RIOT SHOTGUN, the victim again attempted to shoot the PETITIONER for the second time."cralaw virtua1aw library

The evidence that petitioner presented, however, was neither clear nor convincing. His assertion that the victim fired first is doubtful by itself. It should thus be examined in the light of his testimony that both of them fired "almost simultaneously," viz: 21

"Q. And so what happened at that time?

A. After he got the firearm from its holster, he pointed it at me at the same time firing it and so I also fired my firearm almost simultaneously and at that time I was able to kneel on my right side."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner asserts that when the victim encountered difficulty in drawing the latter’s pistol from its holster, the former took the opportunity to cock his own shotgun. 22 Hence, petitioner was ready to shoot even before the victim could draw and aim his pistol. In this light, it was foolhardy and unbelievable for the victim to continue drawing his pistol at a time when his adversary was ready to fire.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Indeed, other circumstances negate petitioner’s claim. It was sufficiently established that the victim was armed with an armalite rifle when he and the other policemen went to the cockpit. Petitioner avers, however, that the victim used a pistol during the incident. If the latter had really wanted to attack, he would have used the rifle and not the pistol, which he knew could not match the power of the former’s shotgun. Even assuming that the armalite rifle was somewhere else in the cockpit at the time, it was unthinkable that the victim refused to get it and instead opted to shoot it out against a ready and better armed foe. In the same vein, we find it unbelievable that that petitioner, a civilian, would brandish a shotgun in a public place, if he had no reason to do so.

Petitioner’s allegation that he shot the victim in a frontal encounter at a distance of six to eight feet is further belied by the presence of wound no. 5. As noted earlier, this wound, which was located at the back of the victim, was considered the most fatal. That the entry wound damaged the heart and the kidney and that there were four exit wounds show that the gun was fired at a range nearer than six to eight feet. More important, the entry wound was sustained while the back of the victim was turned towards petitioner.

Most significant, petitioner himself was unscathed. We find this implausible in view of his claim that that the victim fired first at a very short range of six to eight feet.

All in all, petitioner has failed to prove unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Without this essential element, self-defense cannot be appreciated. Indeed, all these circumstances cast doubt on the former’s tale. They show that unlawful aggression came from him not from the latter. Petitioner himself initiated the attack.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

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

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 37-44.

2. Written by Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico with the concurrence of Justices Jainal D. Rasul (Division chairman) and Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis (member).

3. Written by Judge David A. Alfeche Jr.; CA rollo, pp. 22-39.

4. Rollo, p. 45.

5. Information, p. 1; CA rollo, p. 18.

6. Certificate of Arraignment; CA rollo, p. 17.

7. RTC Decision, p. 17; CA rollo, p. 38.

8. CA Decision, p. 7; rollo, p. 43.

9. The case was deemed submitted for resolution on January 25, 2000, upon receipt by this Court of petitioner’s Memorandum signed by Atty. Leon G. Moya Jr. Filed earlier on January 18, 2000 was respondent’s Memorandum signed by Sol. Gen. Ricardo P. Galvez, Asst. Sol. General Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang and Asso. Sol. Ma. Lilia O. de la Rea.

10. CA Decision, pp. 3-5; rollo, pp. 39-41.

11. Memorandum for Petitioner, p. 5; rollo, p. 112. Upper case used in the original.

12. SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth."cralaw virtua1aw library

13. Fuentes v. Court of Appeal, 268 SCRA 703, February 26, 1997, per Panganiban, J. See also Castillo v. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA 374, August 7, 1996; Solid Homes, Inc v. Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 267, 279, July 8, 1997.

14. Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 6; rollo, p. 113.

15. Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 9; rollo, p. 116.

16. Ibid., p. 10; rollo, p. 117.

17. Ibid., p. 13; rollo, p. 120.

18. People v Albao, 287 SCRA 129, 143, March 6, 1998; People v. De la Cruz, 291 SCRA 164, 180, June 26, 1998; People v. Borreros, GR No. 125185, May 5, 1999; People v. Dorado, GR No. 12224811, February 11, 1999; People v Vermudez, GR No. 119464, January 28, 1999; People v. Umadhay, GR No. 119544, August 8, 1998.

19. 11 (1), Revised Penal Code.

20. Petitioner’s Memorandum, pp. 15-16; rollo, pp. 122-123.

21. Ibid., p. 17; rollo, p. 124.

22. Petitioner testified that" [i]t took [the victim] awhile to take out the firearm from his holster and so I also cocked my firearm."




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-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1248 December 1, 2000 - FABIANA J. PADUA v. EUFEMIO R. MOLINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115247-48 December 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GASPAR S. SINDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117749 December 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARDO C. ESPERO

  • G.R. No. 133569 December 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO K. TEMPLO

  • G.R. No. 134245 December 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERRY CIRILO

  • G.R. No. 134284 December 1, 2000 - AYALA CORPORATION v. ROSA-DIANA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 134431 December 1, 2000 - DAVAO ABACA PLANTATION COMPANY v. DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC.

  • G.R. No. 134888 December 1, 2000 - RAM’S STUDIO AND PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142507 December 1, 2000 - ALFREDO U. MALABAGUIO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115755 & 116101 December 4, 2000 - IMELDA B. DAMASCO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120985 December 4, 2000 - ROMEO J. MIZONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122479 December 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELLESOR T. SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. 126102 December 4, 2000 - ORTIGAS & CO. LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128606 December 4, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE L. AFRICA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129365 December 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO MALACURA

  • G.R. No. 130601 December 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL DIOPITA

  • G.R. No. 130630 December 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALIWANG BUMIDANG

  • G.R. Nos. 132239-40 December 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO NAVIDA

  • G.R. No. 134530 December 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO SAMONTAÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 136254 December 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO DAGPIN

  • G.R. No. 139875 December 4, 2000 - GREGORIO PESTAÑO, ET AL. v. TEOTIMO SUMAYANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141931 December 4, 2000 - ANICETO RECEBIDO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1439 December 5, 2000 - MARIANO HERNANDEZ v. SAMUEL ARIBUABO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1602 December 5, 2000 - ANGEL A. GIL v. LEONCIO M. JANOLO

  • G.R. No. 112014 December 5, 2000 - TEODORO L. JARDELEZA v. GILDA L. JARDELEZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129189 December 5, 2000 - DONATO C. CRUZ TRADING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133472 December 5, 2000 - CONSOLACION A. LUMANCAS, ET AL. v. VIRGINIA B. INTAS

  • G.R. No. 134735 December 5, 2000 - ANGEL CHICO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137118 December 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUNE REX PABURADA

  • G.R. No. 137675 December 5, 2000 - NOVERNIA P. NAGUIT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139272 December 5, 2000 - FLORENTINA D. DAVID v. MANILA BULLETIN PUBLISHING COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 139292 December 5, 2000 - JOSEPHINE DOMAGSANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116220 December 6, 2000 - ROY PO LAM, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128359 December 6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO E. DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 134847 December 6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBY MARIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135385 December 6, 2000 - ISAGANI CRUZ, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF DENR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139382 December 6, 2000 - SERAFIN R. CUEVAS, ET AL. v. ATTY. JOSEFINA G. BACAL

  • G.R. No. 139822 December 6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR CAGUING

  • G.R. Nos. 71523-25, 72420-22, 72384-86 & 72387-89 December 8, 2000 - ROLANDO SANTOS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111102 December 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME MACABALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116290 December 8, 2000 - DIONISIA P. BAGAIPO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117412 December 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117416 December 8, 2000 - AVELINA G. RAMOSO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, Et. Al.

  • G.R. No. 134692 December 8, 2000 - ELISEO FAJARDO v. FREEDOM TO BUILD

  • G.R. No. 134974 December 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO ARAPOK

  • G.R. No. 137143 December 8, 2000 - NERIO SALCEDO y MEDEL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. 137408-10 December 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLY MARQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 138046 December 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL D. TORRES JR.

  • G.R. No. 139437 December 8, 2000 - LANGKAAN REALTY DEVELOPMENT v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140358 December 8, 2000 - PCGG v. ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140975 December 8, 2000 - OFELIA HERNANDO BAGUNU v. PASTORA PIEDAD

  • G.R. No. 125306 December 11, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAFGU FRANCISCO BALTAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127753 December 11, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 132810 December 11, 2000 - ESPERANZA SALES BERMUDEZ v. HELEN S. GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138731 December 11, 2000 - TESTATE ESTATE OF MARIA MANUEL Vda. DE BIASCAN v. ROSALINA C. BIASCAN

  • G.R. Nos. 134163-64, 141249-50 & 141534-35 December 13, 2000 - MUSLIMIN SEMA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140335 December 13, 2000 - THELMA P. GAMINDE v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144197 December 13, 2000 - WILLIAM P. ONG v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100388 December 14, 2000 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113796 December 14, 2000 - CRESENCIANO C. BOBIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123504 December 14, 2000 - RODOLFO SAMSON, ET AL. v. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128622 December 14, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALMA GARALDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131022, 146048 & 146049 December 14, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER ANIVADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132047 December 14, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE PECAYO, SR.

  • G.R. No. 133001 December 14, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMERSON B. TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134308 December 14, 2000 - SUSANA MENGUITO, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135051-52 December 14, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLARITO ARIZOBAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135495 December 14, 2000 - GENARO CORDIAL v. DAVID MIRANDA

  • G.R. No. 137693 December 14, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DARWIN BANTAYAN

  • G.R. No. 137806 December 14, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN KENNETH DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140243 December 14, 2000 - MARILYN C. PASCUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 4980 December 15, 2000 - JESUSIMO O. BALDOMAR v. JUSTO PARAS

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1256 December 15, 2000 - VIRGILIO & LUZVIMINDA CABARLOC v. JUAN C. CABUSORA

  • G.R. Nos. 113022-24 December 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO SERANILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127842 December 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONORA DULAY

  • G.R. No. 127843 December 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMAN D. BATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127930 December 15, 2000 - MIRIAM COLLEGE FOUNDATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130281 December 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX CELESTE

  • G.R. No. 132153 December 15, 2000 - FRANCISCO SAPAD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133575 December 15, 2000 - MARTIN A. OCAMPO v. SUN-STAR PUBLISHING

  • G.R. No. 134004 December 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 135045 December 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO GAKO

  • G.R. No. 135784 December 15, 2000 - RICARDO FORTUNA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 136502 & 135505 December 15, 2000 - RUFINA GREFALDE v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137823 December 15, 2000 - REYNALDO MORTEL v. KASSCO

  • G.R. No. 137898 December 15, 2000 - CHINA ROAD AND BRIDGE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138518 December 15, 2000 - MARCELINA GACUTANA-FRAILE v. ANGEL T. DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139844 December 15, 2000 - SALOME D. CAÑAS v. LERIO C. CASTIGADOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116572 December 18, 2000 - D.M. CONSUNJI v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117660 December 18, 2000 - AGRO CONGLOMERATES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123096 December 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO DUMANON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 132625-31 December 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL SANDOVAL

  • G.R. No. 135109-13 December 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PAJO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138881 December 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEILA JOHNSON

  • G.R. No. 140520 December 18, 2000 - JUSTICE SERAFIN R. CUEVAS v. JUAN ANTONIO MUÑOZ

  • G.R. Nos. 143013-14 December 18, 2000 - TELEFUNKEN SEMICONDUCTORS EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135109 December 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PAJO, ET AL.

  • AM. No. MTJ-00-1336 December 19, 2000 - PETRA M. SEVILLA v. ISMAEL L. SALUBRE

  • G.R. Nos. 107297-98 December 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128058 December 19, 2000 - MARGUERITE J. LHUILLIER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136818 December 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN BAYOTAS

  • G.R. No. 127495 December 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLITO BORAS

  • G.R. Nos. 136138-40 December 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO BISCO

  • G.R. No. 139548 December 22, 2000 - MARCOPPER MINING CORP. v. ALBERTO G. BUMOLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131924 December 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO CORTEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133439 December 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ULDARICO PANADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 137551, 138249, 139099, 139631 & 139729 December 26, 2000 - CHARLES D. COLE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125533 December 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY ALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125796 December 27, 2000 - OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126817 December 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILBERT ARCILLAS

  • G.R. No. 128513 December 27, 2000 - EMMA OFFEMARIA MARCELO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.