Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2000 > February 2000 Decisions > G.R. No. 128883 February 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR GALIDO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 128883. February 22, 2000.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SALVADOR GALIDO alias "SALVADOR ‘BADONG’ UBERAS", Accused-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N


GONZAGA-REYES, J.:


Before us is an appeal from the October 17, 1996 decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental, Branch 47, finding accused-appellant Salvador Galido alias Salvador "Badong" Uberas (hereafter GALIDO) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim the sums of P50,000 as indemnity, P148,800 for loss of income, and P10,000 as moral damages.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

GALIDO was charged with murder in an information, the accusatory portion of which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about the 4th day of July, 1994, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court , the herein accused, without any justifiable cause of [sic] motive, being then armed with a knife, with intent to kill, and by means of treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack, and stab with said weapon one Dindo Panganiban, thereby inflicting upon the person of the latter the following wound�which was the direct and immediate cause of his death, . . .

GALIDO was arraigned on September 20, 1994 and with the assistance of counsel pleaded not guilty to the crime charged, 2 whereupon trial ensued.

The prosecution witnesses were Renato Fillera, PO3 Felimon Roderos, Dr. Johnnie V. Aritao, Jr. and Juana Panganiban. GALIDO himself was the sole witness for the defense.

Renato Fillera testified that at about 12:30 in the morning of July 4, 1994, he was at the bandstand of the Bacolod City public plaza looking for a "girl of pleasure" with whom he could pass the time. While at such place, he saw a man approach another man asleep on the floor of the bandstand and stab him, hitting his left breast, using a double-bladed knife. The victim stood up for a moment before eventually falling down again. Fillera was about 5 meters away from the victim. He claimed that he was able to take a good look at the face of the assailant because of the light in the bandstand as well as the light coming from the public plaza. After he stabbed the man, the assailant left the bandstand and casually proceeded to the direction of the Manokan, an eating place. Fillera did not do anything upon seeing the stabbing because he was afraid since the assailant was armed and because he knew neither the assailant nor the victim. After the incident, Fillera proceeded to his aunt’s house at the Shopping Center.

Within the week, Fillera met with his friend Kano, who told him that his brother-in-law was stabbed at the public plaza at around 12:30 a.m. of July 4, 1994 and that they had no witnesses. Upon hearing his friend’s account, Renato became convinced that he had witnessed the killing of Kano’s brother-in-law. 3

On cross-examination, Fillera testified that the assailant was facing him when he stabbed the victim. 4 He also declared that the face of the assailant was familiar to him because he often saw him at the public plaza. 5

Police officer Felimon Roderos testified that, while he was on duty at the police headquarters of Magsaysay, Bacolod City during the early morning of July 4, 1994, the station received a radio call from base control to proceed to the Western Visayas Regional Hospital to investigate a stabbing incident. Roderos, together with SPO3 Amador Verzosa and PO3 Edison Rosales, proceeded to the provincial hospital where they found the victim in the emergency room, whom they were told was already dead upon arrival at the hospital. They learned from the nurse that the victim’s name was Dindo Panganiban. Roderos and the other police officers conducted an ocular inspection at the public plaza, but there were no persons there. They then returned to police headquarters to make a report. A follow-up investigation was conducted the following day and they were able to interview a certain Leo Buoy y Garcia who claimed to have witnessed the incident. Garcia told them that on July 4, 1994, at 12:30 a.m., he saw the suspect Salvador Uberas climb up the stage and stab the victim. Acting on Garcia’s testimony, they arrested accused. 6

The post-mortem examination of the body of Dindo Panganiban was conducted by Dr. Johnnie V. Aritao, Jr., the City Health Officer and Medico-Legal Officer of Bacolod City. In his Autopsy Report, 7 Dr. Aritao made the following findings: stab wound 2 cm wide, 4 cm deep at the left 3rd intercostal space, line directed medially forward rupturing the heart and left lung. The cause of death was "cardio-respiratory arrest, shock, hemorrhage, severe, internal, ruptured lung and heart, due to a stab wound." 8 Dr. Aritao testified that, based on the location and the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim, the assailant most probably used a sharp bladed instrument and the attack was frontal. 9

Juana Panganiban, the mother of the victim, testified that her son was born on March 23, 1976. At the time of his death on July 4, 1994, Dindo was a fish vendor at the Central Market of Bacolod City with daily earnings of P100 to P150. He was single and lived with his mother. Dindo was the sole breadwinner of the family. 10

For his defense, GALIDO interposed a denial and an alibi. He stated that on July 4, 1994, at about 12:30 a.m., he was at his boarding house at Barangay 12, Mambulok, asleep beside his gay lover Wilfredo Segovia, Jr., his nightly companion for more than 5 years. On July 3, 1994, GALIDO and Wilfredo Segovia went to sleep at about 11:30 p.m. after watching television and woke up at 7:00 a.m. the following day. He asserted that he never left his boarding house from the time he went to sleep until he awoke the following morning.

GALIDO denied knowing Leo Boy Y Garcia and Dindo Panganiban. He claims that the first time he heard the name Dindo Panganiban was when he was arrested by the police. On August 21, 1994, as he was returning to his job after having bought cigarettes, he was called by a policeman who requested him to go with them because there was a charge against him for having killed Dindo Panganiban. When he refused to go with the arresting officers, they struck him with an armalite.

GALIDO testified that the public plaza is only about 30 meters from Barangay 12 where he lives. He stated that Barangay 12 was at the back of Manokan Country, a refreshment parlor, which is two blocks away from the public plaza. However, immediately after GALIDO said this, counsel for the defense asked him to point out to the court the distance of 30 meters from where he was seated and GALIDO pointed to an area about 300 to 400 meters away. Yet, on cross-examination, GALIDO admitted that it only takes five minutes to traverse the distance between Barangay 12 and the public plaza. 11

The trial court gave credence to the testimony of Renato Fillera, an eyewitness to the killing of Dindo Panganiban. The court found Fillera’s comportment to be "natural and normal" and that his testimony was given "with candor and sincerity" and replete with the necessary details. The court stated that the fact that Fillera’s testimony was uncorroborated did not make it any less worthy of credit since it is intrinsically credible and there was no showing that it was improperly or maliciously motivated. Finally, the court said that the failure of Fillera to report the crime to the police and to mention the incident to his aunt with whom he was living was understandable since he feared reprisal from GALIDO, whom he often encountered at the public plaza. 12

The alibi of GALIDO was not accepted by the trial court. First of all, the crime scene was only five minutes away from the house of accused, therefore it was not physically impossible for accused to have been at the crime scene at the time of its commission. Secondly, such alibi was uncorroborated, even by Wilfredo Segovia, Jr. who was supposed to have been with GALIDO on the night of the killing. 13

The qualifying circumstance of treachery was appreciated by the trial court due to the fact "that the victim was in a slumber when accused administered and delivered the fatal blow with the use of a lethal weapon, a knife, at the left breast of his totally unsuspecting victim. Being asleep at the time of the attack, the victim could not have put up any defense whatsoever against the sudden assault by accused." 14

Thus, in its decision, 15 the trial court decreed:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, finding accused Salvador Galido alias "Salvador ‘Badong’ Uberas" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7659, judgment is hereby rendered, sentencing him to suffer RECLUSION PERPETUA, as well as the accessory penalty provided by law. He is likewise ordered to indemnify the heirs of Dindo Panganiban P50,000 for his death, P148,800 for loss of income, and P10,000 as moral damages.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

SO ORDERED. 16

In his appellant’s brief, 17 GALIDO contends that the trial court gravely erred in giving full weight and credit to the testimony of Renato Fillera. According to accused, the lower court failed to consider that Fillera is a friend of the decedent’s brother-in-law, which relation "unequivocally dictated and/or pushed him to testify against the Accused-Appellant." GALIDO insists that Fillera’s failure to report the incident to the police belies his credibility, considering that there was a police precinct near the scene of the crime. That Fillera feared reprisal from GALIDO was not believable since even after the accused was arrested on August 21, 1994, Fillera only came forward after about six months. Based on the foregoing circumstances, GALIDO submits that the testimony of Renato Fillera was incredible and tainted with partiality and is not sufficient to sustain a conviction.

Finally, GALIDO contends that, assuming that he had in fact stabbed Dindo Panganiban, the prosecution had not established the qualifying circumstance of treachery as there was no proof "that prior to the killing the accused-appellant had made some sort of preparation to kill the deceased in such a manner as to insure the execution of the crime or to make [it] hard or impossible for the person attacked to defend himself or retaliate." GALIDO contends that "it does not always follow that if the attack was sudden and unexpected, it should be attended with treachery."cralaw virtua1aw library

Based on a careful study of the records, we uphold the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of Renato Fillera. The transcripts reveal that his testimony was candid, straightforward, and consistent on all material points. It is doctrinal that the trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of a testimony is accorded the highest respect, for the trial court has the distinct opportunity of directly observing the demeanor of a witness and, thus, to determine whether he is telling the truth. 18

Other than accused’s bare accusations, there is no showing that Fillera testified falsely due to the promptings of his friend Kano, the brother-in-law of the victim. We have held that where the defense fails to prove that witnesses are moved by improper motives, the presumption is that they are not so moved and their testimonies are therefore entitled to full weight and credit. 19 The fact that Fillera is a friend of deceased’s brother-in-law does not taint his testimony with bias, as accused would have us hold.

Although the defense makes much of the failure of Fillera to immediately report the incident to the police, we hold that the same does not impair his credibility. Fillera testified that he was afraid that accused would harm him if he reported the crime to the police, as the latter knew him at least by face and knew that he frequented the public plaza. Fear of reprisal and the natural reluctance of a witness to get involved in a criminal case are sufficient explanations for a witness’ delay in reporting a crime to the authorities. 20

The positive identification of GALIDO as the perpetrator of the crime by Renato Fillera, absent any showing of ill motive, must prevail over the weak and obviously fabricated alibi of the accused. 21

GALIDO testified that, at the time of the killing of Dindo Panganiban at the public plaza, he was sleeping together with Wilfredo Segovia in their boarding house in Barangay 12. Accused himself testified, however, that Barangay 12 is near the public plaza and the distance can be negotiated by a short five-minute walk. For the defense of alibi to serve as a basis for acquittal, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and that it would thus be physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. 22 Accused failed to discharge this evidentiary burden.

Since alibis are inherently weak and unreliable, they must receive credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses. The failure of the defense to present Wilfredo Segovia as a witness, the only person who could attest to the truth of accused’s testimony, further weakens GALIDO’s alibi. When the accused is unable to substantiate his alibi with the testimony of a credible witness, the same is reduced to self-serving evidence undeserving of any weight in law. 23

We affirm the trial court’s appreciation of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms which tend directly and specially to insure the execution of the crime without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 24 Dindo Panganiban was sleeping when GALIDO suddenly and unexpectedly stabbed him in the chest, without any warning. There is no doubt that the victim in this case could not have repelled the attack or offered any defense of his person.

The existence of treachery qualifies the killing to murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Under R.A. No. 7659, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. The trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua upon accused since no generic aggravating nor mitigating circumstances were proven, pursuant to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.

Consistent with current jurisprudence, we affirm the award of P50,000 as indemnity for the victim’s untimely death 25 and order the increase of the award of moral damages to P50,000. 26

With regard to the decedent’s loss of earning capacity, the trial court limited its award to the amount of P148,800 because this is the amount which the prosecution alleged in the information. Such award is erroneous. The formula for computing loss of earning capacity is

2/3 x [ 80 – age of victim at the time of death ] x [reasonable portion of the annual net income which would have been received as support by heirs ] 27

Dindo Panganiban was eighteen years old on July 4, 1994. As testified to by Juana Panganiban, he was earning P100 to P150 each day, or an average daily income of P125 or P3,750 monthly. From this monthly income must be deducted the reasonable amount of P1,875 representing the living and other necessary expenses of the deceased. 28 Thus, the victim’s net annual income would be P22,500. The lost earnings of the deceased should be computed as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

= [2/3 x (80 – 18) ] x [22,500]

= P930,000

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental is AFFIRMED, except that the moral damages should be increased to P50,000 and the amount awarded for loss of income should be increased to P930,000.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.chanrobles.com : red

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

Endnotes:



1. Docketed as G.R. No. 16626 and penned by Judge Edgar G. Garvilles. Rollo, 55-64.

2. Rollo, 56.

3. TSN, February 15, 1995, 1-13.

4. Ibid., 16.

5. Ibid., 23-24.

6. TSN, October 4, 1995, 1-18.

7. Exhibit B.

8. Exhibit C.

9. TSN, December 6, 1995, 1-15.

10. TSN, January 24, 1996, 1-4.

11. TSN, February 28, 1996, 1-31.

12. Rollo, 61.

13. Ibid., 62-63.

14. Ibid., 59-60.

15. Supra note 1.

16. Rollo, 64.

17. Ibid., 44-53.

18. People v. Obello, 284 SCRA 79 (1998).

19. People v. Mendoza, 284 SCRA 705 (1998).

20. People v. Viovicente, 286 SCRA 1 (1998); People v. Villanueva, 284 SCRA 501 (1998).

21. People v. Andres, 296 SCRA 318 (1998); People v. Enriquez, 292 SCRA 656 (1998).

22. People v. Balmoria, 287 SCRA 687 (1998); People v. Ravanes, 284 SCRA 634 (1998).

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

24. People v. Gungon, 287 SCRA 618 (1998).

25. People v. Vermudez, G.R. No. 119464, January 28, 1999.

26. People v. Gutierrez, 302 SCRA 643 (1999); People v. Reyes, 287 SCRA 229 (1998); People v. Aringue, 283 SCRA 291 (1997).

27. People v. Jerez, 285 SCRA 393 (1998).

28. People v. Verde, G.R. No. 119077, February 10, 1999; People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 116281, February 8, 1999. In these cases, the Court considered 50% of the gross annual income as a reasonable amount representing the living and other necessary expenses of the deceased.




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.