Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2000 > February 2000 Decisions > G.R. No. 123541 February 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOLO BARITA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 123541. February 8, 2000.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DIOLO BARITA y SACPA, DENVER GOLSING y DELFIN, DIONISIO CUISON y FONTANILLA, Accused-Appellants.

D E C I S I O N


GONZAGA-REYES, J.:


Before us is an appeal from the decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 6, finding accused-appellants Diolo Barita, Denver Golsing and Dionisio Cuison guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425 otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act as amended by Section 13 of Republic Act 7659. 2

Diolo Barita (BARITA), Denver Golsing (GOLSING) and Dionisio Cuison (CUISON) were charged with violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425 in an information that reads:chanrobles.com : law library

"That on or about the 9th day of June 1994, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver more or less 2,800 grams of dried marijuana leaves with flowering tops knowing fully well that said leaves of marijuana is a prohibited drug, in violation of the above mentioned provision of law.

CONTRARY TO LAW." 3

On October 25, 1984, all three accused were arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. 4

The lower court summarized the facts as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The evidence shows that on June 9, 1994 at about 12:00 o’clock noon Police Supt. Felix Cadalli of the 14th Narcotics Regional Field Unit, Camp Bado Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet received a report from a civilian informer that one alias Jun, a taxi driver, who usually waits for passengers at Nelbusco Terminal, Otek St., Baguio City is the middleman of those selling marijuana at Justice Village, Baguio City.

After evaluating the information, P/Supt. Cadalli organized a buy-bust team composed of P/Insp. Virgilio Pelaez as team leader, PO3 Teofilo Juanata as poseur-buyer, SPO1 Edelfonso Sison as driver and PO3 Rolando Gamit as back-up. A briefing ensued wherein Insp. Pelaez, PO3 Gamit and SPO1 Sison were instructed to proceed to Justice Village, and wait and position themselves strategically thereat so that they could witness the transaction between their poseur-buyer and the drug pushers. Supt. Cadalli gave PO3 Juanata two pieces of P100.00 bills together with machine copies thereof and pieces of paper cut into the size of money bills such that if put together with one of the two P100.00 bills on top and the other at the bottom, the whole bunch will have the appearance of a bundle of money to be used in the purchase of marijuana for entrapment purposes. The two P100.00 bills were previously the subject of an Authentication (Exh. E) dated June 3, 1994 before Prosecutor Octavio Banta. Juanata was instructed by Cadalli to proceed with the civilian informer to the Nelbusco Terminal at Otek St., Baguio City to contact alias Jun, the middleman.chanrobles.com.ph : red

In accordance with instructions, Pelaez, Gamit and Sison left for Justice Village at about 3:00 p.m. on board the red car owned and driven by Sison. In turn, Juanata and the civilian informer boarded a passenger jeepney and proceeded to the Nelbusco Terminal. There, they were able to see alias Jun waiting for passengers inside his taxi. Juanata was introduced by the civilian informer to alias Jun, later identified as Dionisio Cuison, as a buyer of marijuana. And the latter told them that the stocks of marijuana were available at Justice Village. The three proceeded to Justice Village on board Jun’s taxicab.

Meanwhile, the Narcom team of Pelaez waited at the road junction of Justice Village and Marcos Highway. Not long after, they spotted the taxi driven by accused Cuison carrying Juanata and the civilian informer and followed it unnoticed. The taxi stopped by the side of the road at Justice Village. The red car of Sison following passed by the taxi and then took a U-turn at the dead end of the road such that when the red car was parked, those inside it were facing the taxi parked around 20 meters away.

Soon after he parked his taxi, Accused Cuison alighted and talked to some persons. When he returned, he informed Juanata that they have to wait because the sellers of marijuana were not around yet. After about five minutes, two persons walked towards the taxi. Accused Cuison went out of the taxi to meet them. And they talked. After which Juanata was introduced by Cuison to the two as a marijuana buyer. Juanata introduced himself as Jojo while the two introduced themselves as Diolo, later identified as Diolo Barita and Denver, later identified as Denver Golsing. Juanata ordered three kilos of marijuana and was told by accused Golsing that a kilo costs P800.00. Then accused Barita and Golsing told them to wait as they will get the marijuana.

After about 5 minutes, Accused Golsing and Barita returned. Accused Barita was carrying a transparent plastic bag which he handed to Juanata. After examining the contents of the plastic bag (Exh. G), consisting of three bundles (Exhs. H, I, J), two wrapped in a brown paper (Exhs. H and I) and the third wrapped in a newspaper page (Exh. J), and determining the contents thereof as marijuana, Juanata handed the boodle money to accused Golsing and immediately gave the pre-arranged signal by removing his cap.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Forthwith, the group of Insp. Pelaez rushed to where the transaction took place, identified themselves as Narcom agents, and arrested accused Barita, Golsing and Cuison. The accused together with the marijuana confiscated and the boodle money recovered were brought to the 14th Narcotics Regional Field Unit at Camp Dangwa. The accused were turned over for investigation while the marijuana was turned over to the evidence custodian after Juanata, Gamit and Sison inscribed and signed their initials on the transparent plastic bag (Exh. G) as well as on the wrappers of the three bundles (Exhs. H, I, J) contained therein to identify the confiscated items and avoid tampering. The Booking Sheet and Arrest Reports (Exhs. B, C, D) of the accused were made." 5

On November 6, 1995, the RTC rendered its decision finding all the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425 as amended, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE the Court finds the accused Diolo Barita y Sacpa, Denver Golsing y Delfin and Dionisio Cuison y Fontanilla Guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals by direct participation and/or by indispensable cooperation of the offense of Violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425 as amended by Section 13 of Republic Act 7659 (Sale of 2.8 kilos of marijuana, a prohibited drug) as charged in the Information and hereby sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the proportionate costs.

The marijuana confiscated from the accuses (Exhs. G, H, I, J) being the subject and instrument of the crime is declared confiscated and forfeited in favor of the state and referred to the Dangerous Drugs Board for immediate destruction.

The accused Diolo Barita, Denver Golsing and Dionisio Cuison, being detention prisoners are entitled to be credited in the service of their sentence 4/5 of their preventive imprisonment in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.chanrobles.com : chanrobles.com.ph

SO ORDERED." 6

Hence, this appeal where each of the accused-appellants filed their respective appellant’s briefs.

In support of his appeal, BARITA denies any participation in the alleged sale of marijuana. He claims that no buy-bust operation was conducted and that the accusation against him was all part of a frame-up. To prove this, BARITA alleges that the prosecution evidence is replete with numerous flaws and glaring inconsistencies considering that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1.) Records (requests for physical examination made by P/Supt. Felix G. Caddali, Jr.) reveal that the buy bust team allegedly arrested five (5) persons 7 yet the prosecution witnesses insist that only three (3), herein accused-appellants, were arrested. Considering that the prosecution witnesses made no explanation concerning this, their testimonies should not be given credence. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses attempted to hide the fact of the arrest of the other two who were arrested, SIBAYAN and BINDADAN. According to them, since the prosecution witnesses were not able to give a sufficient explanation why only three accused were charged, they concocted the buy-bust operation.

2.) None of the accused-appellants reside or are from Justice Village, the place where the alleged sale took place and could not have committed the crime.

3.) There is a reasonable doubt as to the existence of the civilian informer for if there really was one, the NARCOM agents would not have taken his report without question.

4.) The events leading to the buy-bust are contrary to human experience and opposed to common sense inasmuch as the alleged sale of marijuana was not definite to happen and that Jun supposedly knew the sellers of marijuana yet upon arrival at Justice Village, he had to inquire about them thereat.

5.) The prosecution witnesses’ accounts differ with respect to whether or not Jun alighted from the taxicab at the time when the alleged pushers neared the taxicab.chanrobles.com : virtuallawlibrary

6.) PO3 Juanata’s testimony is doubtful since he could not testify as to where his companions were at the time of the sale, which negates the existence of a buy-bust plan.

7.) There is a divergence of testimony as to where the sale took place.

8.) The prosecution witnesses gave different versions as to where the alleged sellers proceeded after they went to get the marijuana.

9.) The testimonies given with respect to the buy-bust money is shrouded with contradictions.

10.) There is a divergence of testimony as to the ownership of the red car used in the buy-bust operation.

11.) There is a divergence of testimony as to the existence of a safehouse.

12.) There is a divergence of testimony as to the participation of PO3 Gamit in the arrest of the Accused-Appellants.

13.) The taxicab was released without an order from the trial court and such release was never explained.

14.) The joint affidavit of arrest does not contain the name of P/Insp. Virgilio Pelaez, the team leader, as one of the affiants.

It is contended that the foregoing inconsistencies and unexplained facts in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses cast doubt on their credibility. BARITA also claims that the trial court convicted the accused-appellants based on the weakness of their defense and not on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence. Moreover, BARITA questions the identity of the marijuana presented in court considering that the description of the marijuana in the joint affidavit of arrest and the written request for laboratory examination differ and that the chain of custody of the confiscated marijuana leaves was not clearly established. Finally, BARITA alleges that the weight of the alleged marijuana leaves was not duly proved in light of the fact that the forensic chemist admitted that she only tested small quantities of the specimens given to her and that she could not determine whether the whole specimen was marijuana. 8

Accused-appellants GOLSING and CUISON raise substantially identical arguments for the reversal of the decision of the RTC in their briefs. Thus, for the purpose of this appeal, we resolve to discuss their arguments jointly.

We find no merit in the appeal.chanrobles virtuallawlibrary

Accused-appellants’ defenses consist of questioning the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution and "frame-up" .

It is well established in this jurisdiction that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless the court a quo overlooked substantial facts and circumstances which, if considered, would materially affect the result of he case. 9 We find no reason to depart from this rule in the present case.

Accused-appellants were arrested by virtue of a buy-bust operation conducted by the 14th Narcotics Regional Command Field Unit. The buy-bust operation was established by prosecution witnesses PO3 Teofilo S. Juanata, Jr. (JUANATA), Rolando Gamit (GAMIT) and Idelfonso Sison (SISON), the apprehending officers, who positively identified BARITA and GOLSING as the two men who sold the marijuana and CUISON (the taxi driver) as the middleman in the sale. JUANATA, who acted as poseur buyer, testified that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"PROS. CENTENO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Q: Who was your companion in going to the Nel Bosco Terminal after the briefing was conducted by Felix Cadalig?

A: Our Civilian Informer, sir.

Q: Do you know the name of this Civilian Informer?

A: No, sir.

Q: Until now?

A: No, sir, it was my first time to see him.

Q: Were you able to reach the Nel Bosco Terminal?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: How about the group of Pelaes, Gamit and Sison, do you know where they went?

A: They proceeded to Justice Village, Marcos Highway, Baguio City, sir.

Q: Now, what time did you reach the Nel Bosco terminal located at Otek St., Baguio City on June 9, 1994?chanrobles virtuallawlibrary:red

A: 4 p.m., sir.

Q: And what was your purpose in going to the Nel Bosco Terminal on that day?

A: To look for alias Jun, sir.

Q: Were you able to locate alias Jun at Nel Bosco Terminal?

A: Yes, sir, he was there because he is a taxi driver.

Q: What happened when you saw alias Jun at the Nel Bosco Terminal which happened to be a taxi driver?

A: I was introduced by the civilian informer as a prospective marijuana buyer, sir.

Q: And what happened after this civilian informer introduced to you to alias Jun to be a prospective buyer of marijuana?

A: Jun answered that he knows somebody who sells marijuana at Justice Vil., Marcos Highway, sir.

Q: If this alias Jun will be seen again by you, will you be able to identify him?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Will you please look inside the courtroom and tell us if this alias Jun present?chanrobles virtua| |aw |ibrary

A: (Witness pointing to a person in blue t-shirt who identified himself as Dionisio Cuison)

x       x       x


PROS. CENTENO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Q: Now, after alias Jun left you and the civilian informer inside the taxi cab, what happened next Mr. Juanata?

A: He returned, sir.

Q: How many times lapsed when you noticed that alias June just returned to the place after he left you?

A: About five minutes, sir.

Q: Was he alone when he returned to your place?

A: Yes, sir, he was not able to see the person selling marijuana.

Q: So what happened when you saw alias Jun returned alone because he was not able to locate the person selling marijuana?

A: We waited for a while, sir.

Q: At that time when you were already at Justice Village waiting for a while as you said, did you know the other members of the buy bust team?

A: I was not able to see them but I know they were their positioned, sir.

Q: How long did you wait at Justice Village after alias Jun returned without having located the seller of marijuana as you said?

A: About 5 minutes, sir.

Q: And what happened after the lapse of five minutes?

A: Two male persons arrived, sir.chanrobles virtuallawlibrary

Q: Will you tell us the appearance of these two male persons walking?

A: They look like bachelors, sir.

Q: Aside from walking toward your place, what else did you observe if any?

A: Alias Jun alighted from the taxi cab and met the two male persons sir.

Q: How about you, what did you do when you saw that alias Jun alighted from the taxi cab and met these two persons?

A: I remained inside the taxi, sir.

Q: Was alias Jun able to meet these two persons?

A: Yes, sir, they talked, sir.

Q: How far was that place where you saw alias Jun and the two male persons talking from the place where you were seated inside the taxi cab?

A: More or less five minutes, sir.

Q: After you saw alias Jun and the two male persons talking as you said, what happened next?

A: Alias Jun introduced me to that two male persons, sir.

Q: How far were you from these two male persons when alias Jun introduced you to them?

A: They approached the taxi, sir and I was introduced as a marijuana buyer.

Q: After you were introduced by alias Jun to these two male persons that you were a marijuana buyer, what happened next?chanrobles virtuallawlibrary:red

A: Denver said that a kilo of marijuana cost P800.00, sir.

Q: By the way, what was the name you gave to these two male persons when you were introduced by alias Jun to them?

A: I introduced myself as Jojo, sir.

Q: And how did the two male persons introduced themselves to you?

A: Diolo and Denver, sir.

Q: If this Denver would be seen again by you, would you be able to identify him?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: If Denver is in the courtroom, will you please point to him?

A: (Witness pointed to a person inside the courtroom who identified himself as Denver Golsing)

Q: How about this other person who introduced himself to you as Diolo, if you will see him again, will you be able to identify him?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Will you please point to him?

A: (Witness pointed to a person inside the courtroom who identified himself as Diolo Barita)

Q: You said a while ago that after you were introduced to these two male persons by this Jun, Denver told you that a price of a kilo of marijuana is P800.00, so what did you tell Denver when he told you that a price of a kilo of marijuana is P800?chanrobles.com : virtual law library

A: I told them that I will buy three kilos, sir.

Q: At the time Denver was telling you that the cost of a kilo of marijuana is P800, where was Diolo?

A: At this side, sir.

Q: What was he doing at the time Denver was telling you that the cost of a kilo of marijuana was P800.00?

A: He was there listening, sir.

Q: After you told Denver that you wanted to buy 3 kilos of marijuana after you were told that the cost of a kilo is P800, what happened next?

A: The two of them left, sir.

Q: How about alias Jun, where did he go?

A: He was left there, sir.

Q: So the person who left were Denver and Diolo?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: How about your civilian informer, where was he during all the time that you were ordering 3 kilos of marijuana?

A: He was near inside the taxi cab, sir.

Q: Do you know where Denver and Diolo went after they left the place where you were told that a cost of a kilo of marijuana is P800?

A: I don’t know, sir.

Q: What happened after Denver and Diolo left the place where you were with Jun and the civilian informer?chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

A: They returned after five minutes, sir.

Q: I am just curious Mr. Juanata, everytime you answer a question regarding the time element, you have been uniformed in saying that the interval is always five minutes.

After the lapse of five minutes, you said they returned to the place, who returned to the place?

A: Denver and Diolo, sir.

Q: Did you see these two persons approach the place where you were with Jun at that time?

A: I saw them, sir.

Q: Will you tell us the appearance at that time they were returning to your place?

A: Diolo was carrying a plastic bag, sir.

Q: Could you tell us the size of this plastic bag being carried by Diolo at that time?

A: (Witness demonstrating a with the size of about 2 feet in height)

Q: How about the bulk?

A: Two feet by � feed in width.

Q: How about Denver, what was the appearance at that time?

A: He was not carrying anything, it was only Diolo who was carrying something, sir.

Q: If you see that plastic bag again which was carried by Diolo on June 9, 1994 at Justice Village, Baguio City, will you be able to identify the same?chanrobles.com.ph : red

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Were these two persons, Diolo and Denver able to reach the place where you were on June 9, 1994?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What happened when they reached the place where you were?

A: I alighted from the taxi cab and then Diolo handed to me the plastic bag, sir.

Q: After Diolo handed to you the plastic bag, what did you do?

A: I opened the contents of the object wrapped in a newspaper, sir.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

You are saying therefore that inside the plastic bag was an object wrapped in a newspaper?

A: Yes, sir.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Continue, counsel.

PROS. CENTENO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Q: Now, this plastic bag, is it transparent or not?

A: Yes, sir, transparent.

Q: What happened after you opened these items wrapped in a newspaper page found inside the transparent bag?

A: I saw a marijuana wrapped inside the newspaper and then I gave the money to Denver and also, I gave my pre-arrange signal to the back up team, sir.

Q: By the way, what was supposed to be the pre-arrange signal to be given to the back up team?chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

A: By removing my yellow cap, sir.

Q: And after you have delivered the money to Denver at the same time giving your signal by removing your yellow cap as you said, what happened?

A: I introduced myself as a Narcom Agent and gave my name as PO3 Teofilo Juanata, Jr.

Q: What happened after you gave your pre-arrange signal and at the same time you introduced yourself as a Narcom Agent to the persons?

A: The back up team arrived and we apprehended them, sir.

Q: Who were the persons whom you apprehended upon arrival of the back up team?

A: Jun, Denver and Diolo, sir.

Q: The persons you earlier identified in Court?

A: Yes, sir." 10

JUANATA’s testimony is corroborated by the testimonies of GAMIT 11 and SISON 12 who gave similar accounts of the events that transpired. The alleged inconsistencies and/or flaws in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses pointed out by accused-appellants are insufficient to overturn the judgment of conviction against them inasmuch as the testimonies of these witnesses are consistent with each other on material points. Their testimonies sufficiently establish all the facts necessary for the conviction of the accused for what is material and indispensable is the submission of proof that the sale of the illicit drug took place between the seller and the poseur-buyer. 13 At any rate, the inconsistencies pointed out by the accused-appellants are trivial in nature and do not prove that they did not commit the crime charged.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Furthermore, the testimonies of the three police officers carry with it the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. 14 Accused-appellants failed to convincingly prove that in testifying against them, these witnesses were motivated by reasons other than their duty to curb the sale of prohibited drugs. In the absence of such ill motive, it is presumed that none exists.

Aside from proving the fact of the sale, the prosecution also successfully established the identity of the packages taken from the accused-appellants in court through the testimonies of JUANATA, 15 GAMIT, 16 SISON 17 and Forensic Chemist P/Ins. Alma Margarita Villaseñor (VILLASEÑOR). 18 In addition, JUANATA’s testimony traces the chain of custody of the packages to the effect that after arresting the accused-appellants, they were brought to Camp Dangwa together with the confiscated marijuana. The marijuana was turned over to the Investigation Division after the apprehending officers properly initialed the bags. Thereafter, a request for laboratory exam was prepared and SPO1 Modesto Carrera delivered the three packages to the PNP Crime Laboratory Service assigned to Camp Dangwa. 19 The said office received the three packages, which were properly identified in court by VILLASEÑOR. 20

It was also proved that the substance sold by the accused-appellants was approximately 2,800 grams of marijuana. On the witness stand, VILLASEÑOR, who was qualified as an expert witness, 21 testified that she subjected samples taken from the three packages to three examinations all of which resulted in a positive finding that the samples she tested were marijuana. She also weighed the packages and established that their total weight came out to 2,810.5 grams. 22 Her findings were placed in the chemistry report 23 , which states that "Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimen gave POSITIVE result to the test for the presence of Marijuana, a prohibited drug." chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

We are not persuaded by the claim of accused-appellants that in order for them to be convicted of selling 2,800 grams of marijuana, the whole specimen must be tested considering that Republic Act 7659 imposes a penalty dependent on the amount or the quantity of drugs seized or taken. This Court has ruled that a sample taken from one of the packages is logically presumed to be representative of the entire contents of the package unless proven otherwise by Accused-Appellant. 24

Likewise, Accused-appellants’ defense of "frame-up" does not convince us of their innocence. Such defense has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted but difficult to prove and is a common and standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 25 BARITA’s 26 and GOLSING’s 27 attempt to prove the "frame-up" by claiming that they were abused by the police officers 28 in order to confess to the crime is belied by the testimony of defense witness, Dr. Vladimir Villaseñor (DR. VILLASEÑOR). DR. VILLASEÑOR testified that BARITA, GOLSING and CUISON did not exhibit any signs that they were maltreated after he examined them and that none of them sustained any physical injuries. 29 Similarly, BARITA’s claim that he was arrested by the police in order to extort P200,000.00 from him is not worthy of belief. No evidence aside from his bare assertions was presented to establish such as fact. Neither of his co-accused, GOLSING or CUISON substantiated this allegation. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence to prove the alleged "frame-up" or extortion, such defenses must fail.

Finally, the fact that the requests for physical examination show that five persons were examined does not discredit the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that only three persons were arrested at Justice Village. As aptly observed by the trial court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Apparently, only Barita, Golsing and Cuison were caught in the actual act of the selling the marijuana along the road in Justice Village. Sibayan and Bindadan were not caught on the road as they were in their houses. Sibayan and Bindadan were invited and taken into custody afterwards when implicated by Barita when the latter was asked to point to the house of his companions where they got the marijuana.

This explains why Dr. Villaseñor examined five persons instead of only the three accused. This also explains why Juanata, Sison and Gamit insisted only three accused as they really arrested only the three accused in the actual act of selling marijuana.chanrobles.com : chanrobles.com.ph

This is supported by the fact that only Barita, Gosling and Cuison have booking sheet and arrest reports (Exh. B, C and D). There were no booking sheet and arrest reports of Sibayan and Bindadan presented by both the prosecution and the defense.

If there were any booking sheet and arrest reports of Sibayan and Bindadan, the defense would have demanded their production in court by Subpoena duces tecum. Why did not defendants do so?

Further, the two requests for physical examination (Exhs. 1 and 2) would show that Barita, Golsing and Cuison were arrested together as they were lumped together in one request for physical examination (Exh. 1 for defense). And that Sibayan and Bindadan were not taken together with the aforesaid 3 accused as the request for their physical examination was in a separate paper (Exh. 2 for defense).

In any event, a close scrutiny of the physical examination papers signed by Barita, Cuison, Golsing, Sibayan and Bindadan (Exh. 8 to 12) would show that the alleged case against them is ‘suspected drug pushers’ or ‘Violation of Section 4 Article II RA 6425.’

Hence, even assuming 5 persons were arrested for drug pushing, the 3 accused herein, Barita, Golsing and Cuison were definitely among those arrested. So, instead of contradicting or destroying the truth and veracity of the drug pushing charge against the 3 accused, the physical examination papers actually confirm and strengthen the case against them because the same would show that they were really arrested for drug pushing." 30

Any person who sells or acts as a broker in the sale of marijuana shall be punished with reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos 31 if 750 grams or more of marijuana is sold. 32 In the present case, BARITA, GOLSING and CUISON (as broker) were correctly meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) by the RTC considering that the prosecution has clearly established that they delivered and sold 2,800 grams of marijuana to JUANATA, the poseur-buyer. Moreover, the RTC also correctly ordered the confiscation and forfeiture of the marijuana in favor of the state for its immediate destruction as this is in accordance with law. 33

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby AFFIRMED.chanrobles.com : red

SO ORDERED.

Melo, Vitug, Panganiban and Purisima, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Penned by Judge Ruben C. Ayson.

2. "SEC. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs. — The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as broker in any of such transactions.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, if the victim of the offense is a minor, or should a prohibited drug involved in any offense under this Section be the proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. Rollo, p. 11.

4. Record, p. 40.

5. Decision, pp. 1-4; Rollo, pp. 30-33.

6. Decision, pp. 20-21; Rollo, pp. 49-50.

7. Herein accused-appellants together with a John Sibayan and a Reynald Bindadan.

8. Appellant’s Brief - Barita, pp. 10-53; Rollo, pp. 88-131.

9. People v. Chua, G.R. No. 127542, March 18, 1999 at p. 9.

10. T.S.N., January 10, 1995, pp. 16-17 and pp. 22-29.

11. T.S.N., January 24, 1995, pp. 10-14; T.S.N., January 26, 1995, pp. 8-22.

12. T.S.N., February 15, 1995, pp. 7-15; T.S.N., February 16, 1995, pp. 2-13.

13. People v. Lacbanes, 270 SCRA 193 at p. 200 [1997]; People v. Salazar, 266 SCRA 607 at pp. 615-616 [1997].

14. People v. Salazar, Supra.

15. T.S.N., January 19, 1995, pp. 15-23.

16. T.S.N., January 24, 1995, pp. 15-19.

17. T.S.N., February 15, 1995, pp. 14-17.

18. T.S.N., January 19, 1995, pp. 41-43.

19. T.S.N., January 10, 1995, pp. 28-34.

20. T.S.N., January 19, 1995, pp. 41-43.

21. T.S.N., January 19, 1995, pp. 40.

22. T.S.N., January 19, 1995, pp. 43-47.

23. Exhibit M; Exhibits Folder, p. 13.

24. People v. Tang Wai Lan, 276 SCRA 24 at p. 33 [1997].

25. Espino v. Court of Appeals, 288 SCRA 558 at p. 564 [1998].

26. BARITA claims that his head was submerged in a drum of water and that he was boxed, mauled and kicked in the stomach by the police officers.

27. GOLSING claims that he was boxed by the police officers.

28. T.S.N., April 18, 1995, pp. 12, 19 and 22; T.S.N., April 19, 1995, p. 57; T.S.N., May 30, 1995, p. 17.

29. T.S.N., April 19, 1995, pp. 65-70 and 75-77.

30. Decision, pp. 12-14; Rollo, pp. 41-43.

31. � 4, Republic Act No. 6425 as amended by Republic Act No. 7659.

32. � 20, Republic Act No. 6425 as amended by Republic Act No. 7659; People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668 at p. 718 [1999].

33. Ibid.




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






February-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 84905 February 1, 2000 - REGINO CLEOFAS, ET AL. v. ST. PETER MEMORIAL PARK INC. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109193 February 1, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119467 February 1, 2000 - SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA MOLDEX PRODUCTS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120283 February 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO LUMACANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123358 February 1, 2000 - FCY CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124078 February 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO Y. BLANCO

  • G.R. No. 124832 February 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE CEPEDA

  • G.R. No. 126397 February 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL MENDOZA CERBITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129670 February 1, 2000 - MANOLET O. LAVIDES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131619-20 February 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNIE CORTEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131679 February 1, 2000 - CAVITE DEVELOPMENT BANK, ET AL. v. CYRUS LIM, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1359 February 2, 2000 - OFELIA C. CASEÑARES v. ARCHIMEDES D. ALMEIDA, JR.

  • A.C. No. 3808 February 2, 2000 - RAYMUNDO T. MAGDALUYO v. ENRIQUE L. NACE

  • A.M. No. 96-12-429-RTC February 2, 2000 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN BRANCH 34, RTC, IRIGA CITY

  • G.R. No. 104314 February 2, 2000 - HEIRS OF NEPOMUCENA PAEZ v. RAMON AM. TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114776 February 2, 2000 - MENANDRO B. LAUREANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116194 February 2, 2000 - SUGBUANON RURAL BANK v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121605 February 2, 2000 - PAZ MARTIN JO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122979 February 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIMON ALIPAYO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126586 February 2, 2000 - ALEXANDER VINOYA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131384-87 February 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEGIO NADERA

  • G.R. No. 134169 February 2, 2000 - SADIKUL SAHALI v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135899 February 2, 2000 - AYALA LAND v. MARIETTA VALISNO

  • G.R. No. 81024 February 3, 2000 - ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103412 February 3, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107943 February 3, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110259 February 3, 2000 - RODOLFO BARRETTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112905 February 3, 2000 - HEIRS OF PEDRO LOPEZ v. HONESTO C. DE CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128772 February 3, 2000 - RICARDO C. CADAYONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130598 February 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENITO MIER

  • G.R. No. 131835 February 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNULFO QUILATON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131818-19 February 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNABE SANCHA

  • G.R. Nos. 132875-76 February 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO G. JALOSJOS

  • A.M. No. MTJ-98-1164 February 4, 2000 - VICTORIA R. NABHAN v. ERIC CALDERON

  • G.R. No. 81524 February 4, 2000 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116986 February 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICANOR LLANES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 125125-27 February 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELANDRO NICOLAS

  • G.R. No. 112567 February 7, 2000 - DIRECTOR, LANDS MANAGEMENT BUREAU v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116384 February 7, 2000 - VIOLA CRUZ v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 134122-27 February 7, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEPITO ALAMA MAGDATO

  • A.M. No. 001363 February 8, 2000 - WILFREDO F. ARAZA v. MARLON M. GARCIA ET.AL.

  • G.R. No. 113095 February 8, 2000 - ELISEO DELA TORRE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123541 February 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOLO BARITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126097 February 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORNELIA SUELTO

  • G.R. Nos. 131946-47 February 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO REYES GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132747 February 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO CABANDE

  • G.R. Nos. 137017-18 February 8, 2000 - RAMON G. CUYCO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137686 February 8, 2000 - RURAL BANK OF MILAOR (CAMARINES SUR) v. FRANCISCA OCFEMIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139157 February 8, 2000 - ROGELIO PADER v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-96-1076 February 9, 2000 - VENUS P. DOUGHLAS v. FRANCISCO H. LOPEZ, JR.

  • A.C. No. 3324 February 9, 2000 - EDWIN VILLARIN, ET AL. v. RESTITUTO SABATE, JR.

  • G.R. No. 105902 February 9, 2000 - SEVERINO BARICUATRO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112752 February 9, 2000 - OSS SECURITY & ALLIED SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125341 February 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEY BARCELONA

  • G.R. No. 128814 February 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ARAFILES

  • G.R. No. 133509 February 9, 2000 - AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134117 February 9, 2000 - SEN PO EK MARKETING CORP. v. TEODORA PRICE MARTINEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135368 February 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ENTILA

  • G.R. No. 136374 February 9, 2000 - FRANCISCA S. BALUYOT v. PAUL E. HOLGANZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140276 February 9, 2000 - FELICIDAD CALLA, ET AL. v. ARTURO MAGLALANG

  • G.R. No. 102967 February 10, 2000 - BIBIANO V. BAÑAS, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114261 February 10, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERLY FABRO

  • G.R. Nos. 126536-37 February 10, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLIE ALAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130341 February 10, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMMEL BALTAR

  • G.R. No. 133259 February 10, 2000 - WENIFREDO FARROL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133547 & 133843 February 10, 2000 - HEIRS OF ANTONIO PAEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134568 February 10, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EULOGIO IGNACIO

  • G.R. No. 138639 February 10, 2000 - CITY-LITE REALTY CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117204 February 11, 2000 - MAGDALITA Y. TANG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120646 February 14, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLINAR DANDO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1534 February 15, 2000 - GERONIMO GROSPE, ET AL. v. LAURO G. SANDOVAL, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1187 February 15, 2000 - PACIFICA A. MILLARE v. REDENTOR B. VALERA

  • A.M. No. P-00-1362 February 15, 2000 - ORLANDO LAPEÑA v. JOVITO PAMARANG

  • A.M. No. 99-11-06-SC February 15, 2000 - RE: ABSENCE WITHOUT OFFICIAL LEAVE (AWOL) OF ANTONIO MACALINTAL

  • G.R. No. 103506 February 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO TOLIBAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108205 February 15, 2000 - BRIGIDA F. DEE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113940 February 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIELITO BULURAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114740 February 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO GALAM

  • G.R. No. 115508 February 15, 2000 - ALEJANDRO AGASEN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115962 February 15, 2000 - DOMINADOR REGALADO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122954 February 15, 2000 - NORBERTO P. FERIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124245 February 15, 2000 - ANTONIO F. NAVARRETE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126996 February 15, 2000 - CESARIO VELASQUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 129577-80 February 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BULU CHOWDURY

  • G.R. Nos. 130203-04 February 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABUNDIO MANGILA

  • G.R. No. 130606 February 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELRANIE MARTINEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 131592-93 February 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JULIAN CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 133909 February 15, 2000 - PHIL. NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. MARS CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES

  • G.R. Nos. 136282 & 137470 February 15, 2000 - FRANCISCO D. OCAMPO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137287 February 15, 2000 - REBECCA VIADO NON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1473 February 16, 2000 - JESSICA GOODMAN v. LORETO D. DE LA VICTORIA

  • G.R. No. 127710 February 16, 2000 - AZUCENA B. GARCIA v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134939 February 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO BATO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1459 February 17, 2000 - VICTOR D. ONG v. VOLTAIRE Y. ROSALES

  • A.C. Nos. 4426 & 4429 February 17, 2000 - RAMON SAURA, ET AL. v. LALAINE LILIBETH AGDEPPA

  • G.R. Nos. 47013, 60647 & 60958-59 February 17, 2000 - ANDRES LAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111286 February 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMIL DACIBAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115687 February 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO QUILLOSA

  • G.R. No. 122876 February 17, 2000 - CHENIVER DECO PRINT TECHNICS CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129887 February 17, 2000 - TALA REALTY SERVICES CORP. v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS and MORTGAGE BANK

  • G.R. Nos. 131872-73 February 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHEN TIZ CHANG. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132344 February 17, 2000 - UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST v. ROMEO A. JADER

  • G.R. No. 132555 February 17, 2000 - ELISEO MALOLOS, ET AL. v. AIDA S. DY

  • G.R. No. 133025 February 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RADEL GALLARDE

  • G.R. No. 133507 February 17, 2000 - EUDOSIA DAEZ AND/OR HER HEIRS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118821 February 18, 2000 - BAI UNGGIE D. ABDULA, ET AL. v. JAPAL M. GUIANI

  • G.R. No. 122346 February 18, 2000 - PHIL. TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123164 February 18, 2000 - NICANOR DULLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126351 February 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 126481 February 18, 2000 - EMILY M. MAROHOMBSAR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132217 February 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO TOREJOS

  • G.R. No. 132964 February 18, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID REY GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 134932 February 18, 2000 - VITO BESO v. RITA ABALLE, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-97-1120 February 21, 2000 - NBI v. RAMON B. REYES

  • G.R. No. 129056 February 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIBERATO MENDIONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117079 February 22, 2000 - PILIPINAS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118670 February 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124706 February 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. CARLITO EREÑO

  • G.R. No. 127598 February 22, 2000 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. LEONARDO QUISUMBING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128883 February 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR GALIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130667 February 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO VIRTUCIO JR.

  • G.R. No. 131943 February 22, 2000 - VIRGINIA G. RAMORAN v. JARDINE CMG LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 134246 February 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO SAN ANDRES

  • G.R. No. 135829 February 22, 2000 - BAYANI BAUTISTA v. PATRICIA ARANETA

  • G.R. No. 136021 February 22, 2000 - BENIGNA SECUYA, ET AL. v. GERARDA M. VDA. DE SELMA

  • G.R. No. 102667 February 23, 2000 - AMADO J. LANSANG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 105630 February 23, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE P. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114243 February 23, 2000 - ISAGANI MIRANDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115734 February 23, 2000 - RUBEN LOYOLA ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119268 February 23, 2000 - ANGEL JARDIN, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121980 February 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GONZALO PENASO

  • G.R. No. 125936 February 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO DELA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131641 February 23, 2000 - NATIVIDAD P. NAZARENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132738 February 23, 2000 - PCGG v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133715 February 23, 2000 - DOUGLAS R. VILLAVERT v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO

  • G.R. No. 139599 February 23, 2000 - ANICETO SABBUN MAGUDDATU, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1368 February 28, 2000 - ABELARDO H. SANTOS v. AURORA T. LARANANG

  • G.R. Nos. 95891-92 February 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSMUNDO FUERTES ,ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 112160 February 28, 2000 - OSMUNDO S. CANLAS,ET.AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET.AL.

  • G.R. No. 113907 February 28, 2000 - (MSMG-UWP, ET AL. v. CRESENCIOJ. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 124680-81 February 28, 2000 - IMELDA R. MARCOS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126443 February 28, 2000 - FLORDESVINDA C. MADARIETA v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127480 February 28, 2000 - CONCHITA L. ABELLERA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128010 February 28, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128812 February 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. THADEOS ENGUITO

  • G.R. No. 129074 February 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR LOMERIO

  • G.R. No. 129761 February 28, 2000 - CORAL POINT DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131724 February 28, 2000 - MILLENIUM INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL CORP. v. JACKSON TAN

  • G.R. No. 137887 February 28, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DAMIAN ERMITAÑO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 138377 February 28, 2000 - CONCEPCION V. AMAGAN, ET AL. v. TEODORICO T. MARAYAG

  • G.R. No. 139288 February 28, 2000 - LEONIDA S. ROMERO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • AC No. 4834 February 29, 2000 - FELICIDAD L. COTTAM v. ESTRELLA O. LAYSA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-98-1153 February 29, 2000 - MAGDALENA M. HUGGLAND* v. JOSE C. LANTIN

  • G.R. No. 112392 February 29, 2000 - BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET.AL

  • G.R. No. 115984 February 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO GAMER

  • G.R. Nos. 116009-10 February 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODERICK LORIEGA, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. 118828 & 119371 February 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY LAGARTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123102 February 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MADELO ESPINA

  • G.R. No. 125290 February 29, 2000 - MARIO BASCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130969 February 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO SAN JUAN

  • G.R. No. 131820 February 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO ATIENZA

  • G.R. No. 133694 February 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS CLAUDIO

  • G.R. No. 136283 February 29, 2000 - VIEWMASTER CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. REYNALDO Y. MAULIT, ET AL.