Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2000 > February 2000 Decisions > G.R. No. 125341 February 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEY BARCELONA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 125341. February 9, 2000.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOEY BARCELONA y SADILLE, Accused-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N


MENDOZA, J.:


This is an appeal from the decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 223, Quezon City, finding accused-appellant Joey Barcelona y Sadille guilty of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify complainant Dolly Maglinte in the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs of suit.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The facts are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On November 8, 1993, an Information was filed against accused-appellant charging him with the crime of rape, allegedly committed as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about the 1st day of November, 1993, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation with the use of a knife, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge with the undersigned complainant, a minor, 17 years old, all done against her will and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 2

Upon being arraigned on April 19, 1994, Accused-appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the crime charged, whereupon trial ensued.

Dolly Maglinte testified as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

From July 6, 1993 3 until November 1, 1993, 4 she worked in a bakery store located at No. 602 Quirino Highway, Bagbag, Novaliches, and was provided sleeping quarters in the store, which could be accessed through a main door and a secret door. The main door can be locked only from the outside by complainant’s employer. On the other hand, the secret door is locked only by a hook which could easily be unhooked. Inside the store is a folding bed where complainant would sleep. 5

On October 31, 1993, complainant tended the bakery until 10:30 in the evening when she decided to close the store and then go to sleep. 6 At around two o’clock in the morning of November 1, 1993, complainant was awakened by someone opening the zipper of her shorts. When she opened her eyes, she felt someone poking a bladed weapon at her.

By the light coming from the bakery, she saw that her assailant was accused-appellant who then proceeded to remove complainant’s shorts and throw it on the floor. Thereupon, Accused-appellant parted complainant’s legs and inserted his penis into her private parts. Her pleas went unheeded by accused-appellant who continued to force himself inside her for around 10 minutes. Although she was crying, complainant could not shout because she was afraid for her life, the knife being pointed at the left portion of her neck. 7

On November 5, 1993, complainant went to the police station in Sangandaan. She was then referred to Camp Crame where she filed a complaint for rape against Accused-Appellant. 8 Complainant was subjected to a medical examination, the results of which are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Person of Dolly Maglinte, about 17 years old, saleslady and a resident of 602 [Quirino] Hi-way, Bagbag, Novaliches, Quezon City.

PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

To determine physical signs of abuse.

FINDINGS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

GENERAL AND EXTRA GENITAL:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Fairly developed, fairly nourished and coherent female subject. Breasts are conical with pale brown areola and nipples from which no secretions could be pressed out. Abdomen is flat and soft.

GENITAL:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

There is moderate growth of pubic hair. Labia majora are full, convex and coaptated with the congested and abraded labia minora presenting in between. On separating the same is disclosed an abraded posterior fourchette and an elastic, fleshy type hymen, with deep healing laceration at 6 o’clock. External vaginal orifice offers moderate resistance to the introduction of the examining index finger and the virgin-sized vaginal speculum. Vaginal canal is narrow with prominent rugosities. Cervix is normal in size, color and consistency with moderate amount of blood oozing from the external os.

CONCLUSION: . . .

Findings are compatible with recent loss of virginity.

There are no external signs of recent application of any form of violence.

REMARKS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Vaginal and peri-urethral smears are negative for gram-negative diplococci and for spermatozoa. 9

Accused-appellant, for his part, denied that he had raped complainant, and claimed that their sexual relationship was consensual in nature. According to accused-appellant, he met complainant in the bakery store where they both worked. He courted her. They became sweethearts on October 1, 1993. Feeling happy, he kissed her on the lips. On November 1, 1993, he asked complainant to marry him and she agreed. He then began kissing complainant and she embraced him. Afterwards, she removed her shirt. Accused-appellant asked complainant if she was acting of her own free will. When she said that she was, they took off their clothes, lay on the bed and had sexual intercourse. Afterwards, they made plans to talk to their parents about their coming marriage. But before accused-appellant could fetch his parents; he was arrested for raping complainant. 10

To support his claim that complainant consented to have sex with him because they were sweethearts, Accused-appellant presented as evidence a letter dated September 23, 1993, 11 a birthday card 12 and complainant’s picture, 13 which she had given him on his birthday. She also gave him a face towel as a birthday gift. 14

In addition to accused-appellant’s testimony, the defense presented Editha dela Peña who claimed that complainant had confided to her the love and affection she felt for Accused-Appellant. 15 Dela Peña presented a letter, dated September 19, 1993, 16 allegedly given to her by complainant wherein the latter wrote about Accused-Appellant.

Based on the parties’ evidence, the trial court rendered a decision, dated May 14, 1996, finding accused-appellant guilty of the rape of complainant. The dispositive portion of its decision reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused JOEY BARCELONA y SADILLE guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 63 of the same code and hereby sentences him to suffer Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED. 17

Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant contends that —

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF RAPE DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 18

It is contended that there was no meaningful resistance on the part of complainant which would show that accused-appellant used force or intimidation in order to have sexual intercourse with her.

We find no merit in accused-appellant’s contention.

In adjudging rape cases, the Court is guided by the following principles: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) in view of the nature of the crime in which only two persons are involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. 19

The trial court found complainant’s narration of the alleged rape to be clear, convincing and straightforward. 20 Such evaluation of the testimonies of the witnesses is binding upon the appellate court, there being no showing that it was made arbitrarily, or that the trial court overlooked certain facts of substance which, if considered, could affect the result of the case. 21

According to accused-appellant, complainant did practically nothing to defend herself while she was allegedly being raped. He asserts that there was no real struggle or determined effort on her part to signify resistance such as to be expected of a woman defending her honor. 22

This is not so. In the first place, complainant testified that accused-appellant pointed a knife at her neck. There was, therefore, the essence of force and intimidation sufficient to engender fear in complainant’s mind that she would be killed if she did not yield to accused-appellant’s desires. As stated in the case of People v. Paranzo: 23

The Court has repeatedly held that rape is committed when intimidation is used on the victim and the latter submitted against her will because of fear for her life or personal safety. It is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed be so great or of such character as could not be resisted because all that is required is that it be sufficient to consummate the purpose that the accused had in mind. . . .

Secondly, the fact that complainant failed to shout or to fight off accused-appellant’s sexual advances when her room was just adjacent to her employer’s room does not necessarily show consent. Failure of the victim to shout for help does not negate rape. 24 The intimidation of the victim may be so overpowering as to prevent the victim from making an outcry. Nor is there any standard mode of behavior which can be set for people confronted with a frightening event. As we held in another case:chanrobles virtuallawlibrary:red

. . . . The behavior and reaction of every person cannot be predicted with accuracy. It is a time-honored precept that "different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience." Not every rape victim can be-expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of every one. Some may shout; some may faint; and some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may openly welcome the intrusion.25cralaw:red

Accused-appellant cites the case of People v. Velasquez 26 wherein the Court disbelieved the complaining witness’ testimony due to its inherent improbabilities. In said case, the complainant testified that, while she was sleeping inside her employer’s house, the accused, her employer, entered her room, embraced her and held a bladed weapon against her. Frightened, the complainant did not shout while the accused consummated the sexual act. The Court held complainant’s testimony to be unbelievable for the following reasons: (a) there was no sincere struggle on her part to preserve her virtue; (b) the complainant engaged in sexual intercourse with the accused twice after the alleged rape but no other charge was filed against the accused; (c) the complainant slept afterwards in the same room where she was allegedly raped in spite of the fact that the room had no lock, nor did she take any other precaution to prevent the accused from taking advantage of her; (d) only when her mother noticed signs of pregnancy did the complainant make an outcry against the alleged assault on her virtue; (e) instead of eliciting pity from her family when she told them of the paternity of her child, complainant was even slapped by her brother, a reaction which cannot be expected if a woman had just told her kin that she had been the victim of a bestial attack; (f) the filing of the case appeared to be motivated by the accused’s refusal to marry the complainant; (g) the fiscal to whom complainant made her complaint was unsure of whether to charge the accused with seduction or rape; and, (h) complainant’s child was born after at least 10 months and 11 days from the time of the last intercourse, casting a reasonable doubt on complainant’s credibility. 27

But in the case at bar, no such circumstances exist so as to create a reasonable doubt in the mind of this Court that accused-appellant actually raped Dolly Maglinte. Complainant never wavered in her assertion that accused-appellant was able to have sexual intercourse with her only at knife point. She never admitted loving accused-appellant nor did she give any indication that she was attracted to him. On the contrary, she categorically denied having special feelings toward Accused-Appellant. 28 Even under cross-examination, complainant’s testimony did not falter on that material fact. "The rule is that when a rape victim’s testimony is straightforward and candid, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points, the same must be given full faith and credit." 29

Absent any showing of ill motive on the part of complainant, we uphold the principle that the lone, uncorroborated testimony of the complainant is sufficient to convict the accused, provided that such testimony is clear, positive, convincing, and otherwise consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. 30

Accused-appellant makes much of the fact that complainant gave him a birthday card, a picture, a letter and a face towel for his birthday, to show that they were sweethearts and that on November 1, 1993 they were trysting.

While the Court has upheld the defense of consensual sex in some cases, this was on the basis of strong evidence, consisting of letters and the testimonies of witnesses, showing that the alleged rape was actually sex by mutual consent. 31 Having been raised as an affirmative defense, the "sweetheart theory" must be established by convincing proof. 32 Accused-appellant bears the burden of proving that he and complainant had an affair which naturally led to a sexual relationship. This accused-appellant failed to do.

The letter presented by accused-appellant is not, in fact, a love letter. It contains no passage in which complainant professes her love to Accused-Appellant. On the contrary, complainant wrote "Happy Birthday, my friend," leaving no room for interpretation as to what she felt toward Accused-Appellant. At best, this letter can be taken as a friendly greeting on accused-appellant’s birthday. Surely, the letter was not intended to be a carte blanche or an open invitation for sexual indulgence. 33

As for the other presents given by complainant, e.g., birthday card, picture and face towel, the same cannot be considered evidence to support accused-appellant’s claims as it is not unnatural for friends to give each other gifts on special occasions.

Neither is the testimony of Editha dela Peña believable insofar as it corroborates the alleged relationship between accused-appellant and Dolly Maglinte. Dela Peña admitted in open court that she was in love with accused-appellant and would do anything to help him get out of the case. 34 Her credibility is, to say the least, highly questionable. In an analogous case where the mother of the accused testified to corroborate his alibi, 35 the Court held that corroborative testimony is not credible if tainted with bias, especially where the witness is so closely related to the accused as to wish to help him evade liability for the crime.

Furthermore, the letter given by complainant to Dela Peña cannot be interpreted as a confession of love for Accused-Appellant. The letter only stated that her reason for giving gifts to accused-appellant is to mollify him since he appeared angry at her for no apparent reason. Nowhere is it stated in the letter that complainant was in love with Accused-Appellant. Complainant wrote that she noticed an improvement in accused-appellant’s attitude towards other people and his work. This certainly cannot be taken to mean that complainant was in love with Accused-Appellant.

As for accused-appellant’s own testimony that it was complainant’s aunt who caused his arrest and that complainant filed a case for rape only because she was afraid of her aunt, 36 we find the same to be implausible. His protestations that complainant loved him and that her only motive for filing a rape case was her fear of her aunt are so contrary to common experience that they cannot be deemed worthy of belief. Considering the inherent modesty and reticence of a typical Filipina, it is highly unlikely that she would fabricate a tale which would surely cast dishonor on her virtue. No young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit she had been raped unless that was the truth. 37 Even in these modern times, this principle still holds true.

Besides, even if indeed accused-appellant and complainant are sweethearts, this fact does not necessarily negate rape. "A sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex against her will. Definitely, a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiancee and, worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext of love. Love is not a license for lust." 38

Neither can one say that, because accused-appellant did not flee after the commission of the crime, he must be innocent. This is not necessarily the case, especially since the evidence clearly established accused-appellant’s guilt.

The trial court granted only P50,000.00 as moral damages in favor of complainant. Moral damages is separate and distinct from the civil indemnity awarded to rape victims. 39 In accordance with our recent rulings, an award of P50,000.00 should be given to complainant as her civil indemnity, in addition to the P50,000.00 moral damages awarded by the trial court. 40

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 223, Quezon City, is AFFIRMED, with MODIFICATION that an additional amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is awarded to complainant Dolly Maglinte.chanrobles virtuallawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Per Judge Victorino P. Evangelista.

2. Records, p. 1.

3. TSN, p. 3, Nov. 8, 1994.

4. TSN, p. 5, Sept. 7, 1994.

5. Id., p. 7.

6. TSN, pp. 13-16, Nov. 8, 1994.

7. TSN, pp. 5-10, Sept. 7, 1994.

8. Exh. B.

9. Exh. D.

10. TSN, pp. 3-10, Jan. 23, 1995.

11. Exh. 4.

12. Exh. 2.

13. Exh. 3.

14. TSN, p. 4, Jan. 23, 1995.

15. TSN, p. 1, Jan. 11, 1995.

16. Exh. 1.

17. RTC Decision, p. 13; Records, p. 226.

18. Rollo, p. 59.

19. People v. Panique, G.R. No. 125763, Oct. 13, 1999.

20. RTC Decision, p. 8; Records, p. 221.

21. People v. Panique, supra.

22. Rollo, p. 62.

23. G.R. No. 107800, Oct. 26, 1999.

24. People v. Luzorata, 286 SCRA 487 (1998).

25. People v. Silvano, G.R. No. 127356, June 29, 1999.

26. 120 SCRA 847 (1983).

27. Id., at 854-857.

28. TSN, p. 13, Nov. 8, 1994.

29. People v. Caratay, G.R. Nos. 119418, 119436-37, Oct. 5, 1999.

30. People v. Abuan, 284 SCRA 46 (1998).

31. See People v. Bayron, G.R. No. 122732, Sept. 7, 1999.

32. People v. Monfero, G.R. No. 126367, June 17, 1999.

33. People v. Cervantes, 333 Phil. 704 (1996).

34. TSN, p. 11, Jan. 11, 1996.

35. People v. Gailo, G.R. No. 116233, Oct. 13, 1999.

36. TSN, p. 10, Jan. 23, 1995.

37. People v. Manahan, G.R. No. 128157, Sept. 29, 1999.

38. Ibid.

39. People v. de los Santos, G.R. No. 120235, Sept. 30, 1999.

40. People v. Bayron, supra.




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.