Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2000 > June 2000 Decisions > G.R. No. 130490 June 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. VENANCIO FRANCISCO, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 130490. June 19, 2000.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VENANCIO FRANCISCO y BERNALDO alias "MABINI" and ERNIE MANSAMAD alias "NONO", Accused-Appellants.

D E C I S I O N


KAPUNAN, J.:


The instant case was forwarded to this Court by the Court of Appeals pursuant to its Decision, dated 29 July 1997, 1 upon finding that the proper penalty imposable on accused-appellants Venancio Francisco and Ernie Mansamad in Criminal Case No. C-4567 for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua. This Court accordingly accepted the appeal of accused-appellants in its Resolution, dated 1 December 1997.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Accused-appellants were charged with and convicted for the crimes of murder and attempted murder by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 40 of Calapan, Oriental Mindoro. The Information filed against accused-appellants for murder, docketed as Criminal Case No. C-4567, reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about the 21st day of April, 1994, at around 1:00 o’clock in the morning, in Barangay Evangelista, Municipality of Naujan, Province of Oriental Mindoro, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with treachery and evident premeditation and taking advantage of the darkness of the night, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, stab and hack with a [sic] sharp-pointed and sharp-bladed instruments one DANILO MENDOZA thereby inflicting upon the latter several mortal wounds on the different parts of his body, as a result thereof, the said DANILO-MENDOZA died instantly.

That in the commission of the aforecited offense, the qualifying circumstances of treachery and known premeditation were attendant.

Contrary to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. 2

The Information against accused-appellants for attempted murder, docketed as Criminal Case No. C-4588, reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about the 21st day of April, 1994, at around 1:00 o’clock in the morning, in Barangay Evangelista, Municipality of Naujan, Province of Oriental Mindoro, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with treachery and evident premeditation and taking advantage of the darkness of the night, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and wound with a [sic] sharp-pointed and sharp bladed instruments one JOSEFINA MONTOYA-MENDOZA thus commencing the commission of the crime of Murder directly by overt acts, and did not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the said felony by reason of some cause or accident other than their own spontaneous desistance, that is, the said accused ran away after killing [the] victim’s husband, DANILO MENDOZA, who was also being attacked and assaulted at that time.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Contrary to Articles 248, 6 and 51 of the Revised Penal code. 3

At their arraignment, Accused-appellants pleaded "not guilty" to both charges. Upon agreement of the prosecution and defense, the two (2) cases were jointly tried as the criminal charges against accused-appellants arose out of the same incident.

The prosecution presented Josefina Montoya-Mendoza, Supremo Macatangay and Baldomero Gonzales as witnesses. Josefina Montoya- Mendoza, widow of the victim Danilo Mendoza, testified 4 that on 21 April 1994, at around one o’clock in the morning, she and her husband Danilo, together with their four-year old son Rico, were on their way home. They just came from Barangay Evangelista, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, which was then celebrating its barangay fiesta.

While they were walking along the road, husband and wife were conversing with each other. Accused-appellant Francisco suddenly appeared in front of them shouting "putang ina mo, patay kayo sa amin." He immediately stabbed Danilo in his belly. Reeling from the attack, Danilo leaned and embraced accused-appellant Francisco who then stabbed the victim’s back several times. While stabbing the victim, Accused-appellant asked his companion, Accused-appellant Mansamad, for the bolo muttering, "Ernie, gulok!" Accused-appellant Mansamad then hacked the victim with the bolo.

Josefina tried to pull away her husband from Accused-Appellants. She was, however, unable to do so because accused-appellant Francisco likewise stabbed her several times. She sustained three (3) stab wounds in her stomach, leg and at her back. The knife or "balisong" used by accused-appellant Francisco to stab both husband and wife was recovered by Josefina as it was left in her leg. Fortunately, their son, Rico, was unharmed. Josefina readily recognized accused-appellants as the assailants because there was sufficient light from the illumination of the moon. Moreover, she was able to beam her flashlight at accused-appellants’ faces.cralaw : red

After accused-appellants had fled, Baldomero Gonzales, ex-barangay captain of Evangelista, happened to pass by the scene of the crime. He narrated 5 that he was on his way home when he saw Danilo lying on the road lifeless. He also saw Josefina, who was wounded, and their son. Josefina asked for Gonzales’ help who forthwith went to the police authorities in Barangay Aurora. He came back with the Detachment Commander and four (4) members of the CAFGU. They immediately conducted an investigation. Josefina was brought to the provincial hospital white Danilo was taken to the Alcancia Funeral Parlor in Barcenaga, Naujan, where his body was autopsied.

When it was his turn to take the witness stand, Supremo Macatangay substantially corroborated the testimony of Josefina. 6 On that fateful day, at around one o’clock in the morning, Macatangay was also on his way home after attending the festivities in Barangay Evangelista. On the road, he noticed that the people ahead of him were scampering away. He saw Danilo being ganged up by two men. One of them was stabbing Danilo with a "balisong." The other hacked him with a bolo. Macatangay also saw Josefina desperately trying to separate her husband from his assailants.

Macatangay recognized accused-appellants as the assailants because when the incident transpired, he was only three (3) meters away from them. He was able to see their faces by pointing his flashlight at them. After witnessing the assault on Danilo, Macatangay hurriedly left the place for fear that accused-appellants would turn their attention on him.

The testimonies of Drs. Angelita Legaspi and Marlon dela Rosa were dispensed with after accused-appellants’ counsel admitted the authenticity of their autopsy report 7 and medical certificate, 8 respectively. The postmortem findings revealed that Danilo died of "hypovolemic shock; blood and chemical peritonitis secondary to penetrating perforating stabbed wound of the abdomen." 9 He sustained the following injuries:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

EXTERNAL FINDINGS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Head and Neck: No pertinent findings.

Chest: (Posterior)

1.) Stabbed wound 2.5 Cm long (Superficial-subcutaneous) over the (L) lateral border of left scapular area directed medially and inferiorly towards lesion number 2.

2.) Stabbed wound 1.5 Cm long (Point of exit) — left infra-scapular area.

3.) Stabbed wound 2.5 Cm long 10 Cm deep directed slightly upwards and anteriorly (L) posterior lumbar area penetrating abdomen.

4.) Stabbed wound 2 cm. long and 1 Cm deep (L) inguinal area.

5.) Incised wound 5 cm. long and 1 cm. deep medial area of left ankle joint.

Abdomen and Extremities has [sic] no pertinent findings.

INTERNAL FINDINGS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Head and Neck: No pertinent findings.chanrobles virtual law library

Chest: No pertinent findings.

Abdomen: Penetrating stabbed wound (L) lobe of the liver inferior or border. Penetrating perforating stabbed wound on the posterior border of the body of the stomach. More than 1 & 1/2 liter clotted and non-clotted sanguinous material with spillage of food particles on the peritoneal cavity.

Extremities: No pertinent findings. 10

The medical certificate of Josefina, on the other hand, showed that she sustained the following injuries:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Incised wound, 2 cm. left leg.

2. Incised wound. 5 cm. left iliac region.

3. Incised wound, 5 cm. left lumbar area.

4. . . . . 11

For its part, the defense presented as witnesses accused-appellant Francisco, Alberto Gonzales and Dr. Marlon dela Rosa. Accused-appellant Mansamad did not take the witness stand. Accused-appellant’s version of what transpired on 21 April 1994 at around one o’clock in the morning is as follows: 12 He was walking on his way home from the barangay fiesta in Evangelista, Naujan. Out of nowhere, Danilo appeared with a bolo and hacked him on the left shoulder. When accused-appellant turned his head, Danilo hacked him on the right shoulder. Thereafter, Danilo and accused-appellant Francisco grappled for the possession of the bolo. As a result thereof, the bolo was thrown away. Josefina then picked it up and hacked accused-appellant Francisco on his head.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Accused-appellant Francisco managed to run away from Danilo and Josefina. After about ten (10) minutes, he met accused-appellant Mansamad and Alberto Gonzales who brought him to the hospital. Accused-appellant Francisco admitted to killing Danilo but claimed that he did so only as an act of self-defense.

Accused-appellant Francisco intimated that prior to the incident, he and Danilo were not in good terms with each other. Three years ago, Danilo stoned accused-appellant Francisco’s house and hit him on the left brow. There was also a time when the victim and his son challenged accused-appellant Francisco to a fight but the latter ignored them. Their serious quarrel, however, occurred when accused-appellant Francisco drained the excess water in his land which flooded the land of Danilo and Josefina. To prevent their house from being flooded as well, the Mendozas closed the culvert. The closure of the culvert caused the water to flood accused-appellant Francisco’s one-hectare land. Consequently, most of the palay on said lot was destroyed. He used to harvest forty (40) cavans of palay but because of the flood, he was able to harvest only twelve (12) cavans.

Alberto Gonzales testified 13 that he was walking home with accused- appellant Mansamad on 21 April 1994 at around one o’clock in the morning. He saw Josefina hack accused-appellant Francisco. She hit him on his head and on his back. He (Gonzales), Accused-appellant Mansamad and one Ireneo Cabales brought accused-appellant Francisco to the Oriental Mindoro Provincial Hospital. He averred that they did not report the matter to the police authorities.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Dr. Marlon dela Rosa appeared as a witness for the defense. 14 He attested to the authenticity and genuineness of the medical certificate he issued in connection with the wounds inflicted on Josefina. A sharp pointed instrument was used to inflict these wounds. As stated in the medical certificate, wound no. 2 (Incised wound, 5 cm. left iliac region) was inflicted on the left side of Josefina’s body below her waist. Wound no. 3 (Incised wound, 5 cm. left lumbar area) was inflicted on the same side of her body but above the waist. The location of these wounds showed that the assailant could have been in front of Josefina. Upon the other hand, the assailant could have been at the back of Josefina when wound no. 1 (Incised wound, 2 cm. left leg) was inflicted on her.

After trial, the lower court rendered judgment the dispositive portion of which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

In Crim. Case No. C-4567

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder punishable under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code in consonance with Sec. 21 of R.A. 7659. Applying the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, this Court hereby sentences both accused to suffer imprisonment from 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of Reclusion Temporal Maximum as minimum to 33 years & 4 months of Reclusion Perpetua Medium as maximum. By way of indemnity, both accused shall pay the heirs of the victim in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). The accused, who are both under preventive imprisonment, shall be credited in the service of their sentences consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time of imprisonment, subject to the conditions prescribed in Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

In Crim. Case No.C-4588

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds the accused Venancio Francisco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Attempted Homicide, punishable under Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, this court hereby sentences him to suffer imprisonment from 6 months of arresto mayor as minimum to 6 years of prision correccional as maximum. Further, this Court hereby declares accused Ernie Mansamad innocent of the crime charged herein.

SO ORDERED. 15

On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction of accused-appellants for the crime of murder in Criminal Case No. C-4567 but modified the penalty imposed therein to reclusion perpetua. In Criminal Case No. C-4588, the CA absolved accused-appellants of the crime of attempted murder. The CA held therein that only accused-appellant Francisco is liable for slight physical injuries, defined and penalized under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, the appealed-decision is hereby modified in that:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

(A.) In Criminal Case No. C-4588, Venancio Francisco y Bernaldo is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of slight physical injuries, defined and penalized under Art. 266 of the Revised Penal Code and there being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstances present, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of ELEVEN (11) DAYS of arresto menor. Accused Ernie Mansamad y Empayan is hereby ACQUITTED.

(B) In Criminal Case No. C-4567 pursuant to Art. 8, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


d. All criminal cases to which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher."cralaw virtua1aw library

and the above-quoted language of Section 13. Rule 124, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, and finding appellants Venancio Francisco y Bernaldo and Ernie Mansamad y Empayan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER, as defined and penalized under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 7659, in its minimum period of reclusion perpetua, we certify this case to the Supreme Court for final determination and appropriate action (See People v. Demecillo, 186 SCRA 161, 164).chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

SO ORDERED. 16

As mentioned earlier, in view of its finding that the proper penalty imposable on accused-appellants for murder is reclusion perpetua, the CA correctly refrained from entering judgment and certified the case to this Court. Upon acceptance of the appeal, the Court required the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs. In compliance therewith, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, manifested that in lieu of filing a supplemental brief, it is adopting the Appellee’s Brief it earlier filed with the CA. 17 Accused-appellants, in their letter, dated 21 January 1998, informed the Court that "they are no longer interested in pursuing the appeal" because they could no longer afford the services of a counsel. 18 Acting thereon, the Court designated the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) as counsel de oficio for Accused-Appellants. 19

In their Appeal Brief filed with the CA, Accused-appellants made the following assignment of errors:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

I


THAT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT, SPEAKING WITH DUE RESPECT, ERRED IN DISREGARDING VENANCIO FRANCISCO’S CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE;

II


THAT THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FAILING TO GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF VENANCIO FRANCISCO SHOWING THE INJURIES SUSTAINED BY HIM IN CONNECTION WITH THESE CASES;

III


THAT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS CONSPIRACY ON THE PART OF HEREIN ACCUSED IN THE KILLING OF DANILO MENDOZA; and

IV


THAT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF JOSEFINA MENDOZA. 20

Moreover, in their Supplemental Appellants’ Brief filed with this Court, Accused-appellants raised the following assignment of errors:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

I


THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS AS THE VICTIMS OF AN UNPROVOKED ATTACK BY DANILO AND JOSEFINA MENDOZA.

II


THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 21

Underlying the foregoing assignment of errors is the crucial contention of accused-appellants that they acted in self-defense. Thus, the fundamental issue that needs to be resolved is whether accused-appellants’ claim of self- defense is worthy of credence.

The appeal must fail.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

ARTICLE 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any criminal liability:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. Unlawful aggression.

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

It is well-settled in our criminal jurisprudence that when the accused invokes self-defense, it is incumbent upon him to prove the existence of the following requisites: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The most decisive of these is the requisite that the victim was guilty of unlawful aggression. 22 Absent clear and convincing evidence of a prior unlawful and unprovoked attack by the victim, the claim of self-defense cannot be given credence.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Accused-appellant Francisco claims that he was the victim, Danilo, who attacked and hacked him with a bolo. This claim was corroborated by Gonzales who testified that he saw Josefina hack accused-appellant Francisco on the head. These claims, however, are belied by several attendant factual circumstances. First, the autopsy report of the victim showed that he sustained four (4) stab wounds and an incised wound. Three (3) of these stab wounds were inflicted on the victim’s back. 23 The number and location of such wounds inflicted on the victim effectively negate accused-appellants’ claim of self-defense.

Second, Accused-appellants’ assertion that he himself sustained wounds is unsupported by evidence. As found by the trial court and subsequently affirmed by the CA, the medical certificate presented by accused-appellant Francisco to prove his wounds is of doubtful authenticity as it was not identified by the physician who examined him. Further, said physician did not affix his signature thereon. The scars which accused-appellant Francisco showed to the trial court when he took the witness stand may have been sustained on a different occasion. Granting accused-appellant Francisco did sustain injuries from said incident, the same may have been inflicted by Josefina when she tried to help her husband.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Third, Accused-appellant Francisco’s allegation that it was Danilo who attacked him is incredulous. At the time of the incident, the victim was with his wife and their four-year old son. It is utterly inconceivable and against human nature for a man to bring with him his family, including a helpless child, and unnecessarily endanger their lives, to commit a dastardly crime.

Under the given circumstances, Accused-appellants miserably failed to convince this Court that the killing of Danilo was an act of self-defense on their part.

Upon the other hand, the Court finds no reason to deviate from the general rule that "factual findings of the trial court deserve respect and are not disturbed on appeal, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted, and would otherwise materially affect the disposition of the case." 24

In this case, the trial court correctly gave credence to the clear, categorical and straightforward testimony of Josefina as she recounted the events on that fateful day, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Q Mrs. Witness, do you recall the 21st day of April, 1994?

A Yes, sir.

Q Where were you at around 1:00 in the morning of April 21, 1994?

A We were on our way home from a barrio fiesta we attended.

Q You said "we." Who were your companions at that time?

A My husband whom they killed and my youngest child, sir.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Q Mrs. Witness, you said that on said time and date, you, your husband and your youngest child were walking towards your house. Who, if any, were also walking on that road you were then traversing at that time?

A I did not notice if there was any, sir.

Q While you, your husband and your son were walking on your way home, what happened if any?

A While we were walking and conversing with each other, Venancio Francisco and Ernie Mansamad suddenly appeared on the road, sir.

Q By the way, Mrs. Witness, will you please tell this Honorable Court what kind of road were you then traversing at that time?

A Wide road, sir.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Q And how wide is this road?

A Five (5) meters more or less, sir.

Q You said that while you were walking on your way home, Accused Venancio Francisco and Ernie Mansamad suddenly appeared. From where did they come from?

A In front of us at the right side of the road, sir.

Q When you saw accused Venancio and Ernie for the first time on that particular moment, how far were they from you?

A Maybe less than a meter away from us, sir.

Q When the two (2) accused suddenly appeared in front of you, what happened after that?

A Venancio Francisco uttered "Putang ina mo, patay kayo sa amin!"

Q After Venancio Francisco uttered "Puta’ng ina mo, patay kayo sa amin!", what did you do, if any?chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

A He immediately stabbed my husband, sir.

Q Was your husband hit by the stab blow delivered by Venancio Francisco?

A Yes, sir

Q In what part of the body was your husband hit by the stab blow delivered by Venancio Francisco?

A Below the belly, sir.

Q After your husband was hit below the belly, what happened next?

A My husband leaned and embraced Venancio Francisco while Venancio Francisco at that time was delivering several stab blows in my husband’s body.

Q You said that after your husband was hit by the stab blow below the belly, he embraced Venancio Francisco while the latter was delivering stab blows several times more, in what particular part of the body was your husband hit?chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

A At the back, sir.

Q How many times did Venancio Francisco stab your husband at the back?

A Many times, sir.

Q While Venancio Francisco was stabbing your husband, where was accused Ernie Mansamad?

A While Venancio Francisco was stabbing my husband, he asked Ernie Mansamad for the bolo, saying: "Ernie, gulok!"

Q Then what happened next?

A Ernie Mansamad hacked my husband, sir.

Q Was your husband hit by the hacking blow delivered by accused Ernie Mansamad?

A Yes, sir.

Q While accused Venancio Francisco was stabbing your husband and accused Ernie Mansamad hacking him, what did you do, if any?chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

A I tried to pull my husband away from them, sir.

Q While you were trying to pull your husband away from them, what happened?

A As I was pulling my husband, Venancio Francisco stabbed me also, sir.

Q How many times did Venancio Francisco stab you?

A Several times, sir, but only three (3) landed on my body.

Q In what particular part of your body were you hit by the stab blows of Venancio Francisco?

A On my stomach, at the back and in my leg, sir.

Q Will you please show to this Honorable Court the scars or injuries you sustained in front of your body?chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(Showing the-stab in her lowest left rib about 2 inch- long and at the back about 2 1/2 inch-long).

Q You said you also sustained injury in your leg. Will you please show that injury to the Honorable Court?

WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(Showing the scar in her leg).

Q Mrs. Witness, you said that while accused Venancio Francisco was stabbing your husband, Accused Ernie Mansamad was also hacking him, will you please tell this Honorable Court the kind of weapon used by Ernie Mansamad in hacking your husband?

A A bolo, sir.

Q And how long was that bolo used by Ernie Mansamad in hacking your husband?

A Not long and not short, sir.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Q You said that your husband was stabbed several times by accused Venancio Francisco and you were also stabbed by Venancio Francisco. Will you please inform this Court the kind of weapon used by Venancio Francisco in stabbing you and your husband?

A A "balisong", sir.

Q Why do you know that a "balisong" or a knife was used by Venancio Francisco in stabbing you and your husband?

A Because I was able to retrieve that "balisong" or knife he used in stabbing me and my husband.

Q How were you able to recover the knife Venancio Francisco used in stabbing you and your husband?

A Because Venancio left it in my leg, sir.

Q Will you be able to identify that "balisong" if you’ll see it now?

A Yes, sir.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

PROS. SEÑOREN:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

May we request for the production of that knife, your Honor.

(At this juncture, the subject "balisong" or knife cannot be located).

Q Mrs. Witness, you testified a while ago that at that particular moment when you and your husband were assaulted by the accused you were together with your son. What is the name of your son?

A Rico Mendoza, sir.

Q And how old is Rico Mendoza?

A Four years, sir.

Q At that time that your husband was assaulted by accused Venancio Francisco and Ernie Mansamad, where was your son Rico?chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

A I was holding him by the hand, sir.

Q While you and your husband were being assaulted by the accused, who were the persons present, if any other than you, your husband, your son and the 2 accused?

A I noticed someone who was carrying a flashlight, sir.

Q And how far was this person from you?

A Just near, sir.

Q What did this person do, if any while you and your husband were being assaulted by the accused?

A He ran away after beaming his flashlight to us.

Q Mrs. Witness, it was 1:00 in the morning when this particular incident happened. How were you able to recognize that Venancio Francisco and Ernie Mansamad were the ones who assaulted you and your husband?chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

A Aside from the moon, I was then carrying a flashlight and I was able to focus on them.

Q After you were stabbed by Venancio Francisco, what did he and Ernie Mansamad do, if any after that?

A I noticed the coming of that man carrying a flashlight and then they ran away, and Ex-Barangay Captain arrived at the scene of the crime.

Q After the accused stabbed and hacked your husband, what happened to your husband?

A He died, sir.

Q You said that after the two (2) accused ran away, an ex-barangay captain arrived. Who was this ex- barangay captain?

A Ex-Barangay Captain Baldomero Gonzales, sir.

Q And he was a former barangay captain of Evangelista?

A Yes, sir.

Q What happened after the arrival of Ex-Barangay Captain Gonzales?chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

A I asked help from him so he went to the police detachment.

Q Police Detachment of what?

A Barangay Aurora, sir.

Q After that, what happened, Mrs. Witness?

A The ex-barangay captain and the police he fetched arrived and they conducted an investigation.

Q What happened after that?

A I was brought to the provincial hospital while my husband was taken by the funeral car to Barcenaga, Naujan for autopsy.25cralaw:red

Supremo Macatangay, an eyewitness to the incident, corroborated the testimony of Josefina on its material points, including the identity of accused appellants as the assailants, thus:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Q After you have witnessed that the people ahead of you were running or scampering, what did you do?

A I observed what incident was the people being afraid of.

Q And what did you observe, if any?

A I saw that Danilo Mendoza was being ganged-up and someone was stabbing him and someone was hacking him.

Q Who was stabbing Danilo Mendoza?

A Venancio Francisco, sir.

Q Do you personally know Venancio Francisco who according to you was stabbing Danilo Mendoza on said time and date?

A Yes, sir.

Q How long have you known him prior to April 21, 1994?

A For almost 5 years already, sir.

Q Would you be able to recognize Venancio Francisco if you would see him now?chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

A Yes, sir.

Q If he is inside the courtroom, please point to him.

(Witness pointing to accused Venancio Francisco inside the courtroom.).

Q You mentioned the name Danilo Mendoza as the one being ganged-up by Venancio Francisco and his companion. Do you personally know Danilo Mendoza?

A Yes, sir.

Q How long have you known Danilo Mendoza prior to April 21 1994?

A For about 15 years already, sir.

Q By the way, where is Danilo Mendoza now?

A Already dead, sir.

Q Do you know the cause of his death?

A Because of the stabbing incident.

Q You said that another person was hacking Danilo Mendoza, who was this person?chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

A (The other man, witness pointing to the man sitted on the left side of Venancio Francisco.)

Q Do you know the name of that man who according to you hacked Danilo Mendoza on said time and date?

A No, sir.

PROS. SEÑOREN:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

May we request the Clerk of Court to ask the name of that man sitted on the left side of accused Venancio Francisco and identified by the witness as the other person who hacked Danilo Mendoza, the victim in this case.

CLERK OF COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(To the accused sitted on the left side of accused Venancio Francisco.)

Please stand up, what is your name?

ACCUSED:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Ernie Mansamad, sir. 26

Contrary to accused-appellants’ contention, the fact that Josefina is the wife of the victim does not make her testimony less believable. No law disqualifies a person from testifying in a criminal case in which [her] relative is involved if the former was really at the scene of the crime and witnessed the execution of the criminal act. 27 In this case, Josefina did not only witness the killing of her husband by accused-appellants; she was a victim herself as accused-appellants likewise hacked her when she tried to pull her husband away from them.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

For the death of Danilo, the trial court correctly convicted accused-appellants for murder. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. 28 In this case, Accused-Appellants, armed with a bolo and balisong, launched a surprise attack on the victim, who was innocuously walking with his wife and four-year old son. The victim was caught unaware and had no chance of putting up any defense. Clearly, treachery attended the commission of the crime since the attack, although frontally, was no less sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or offer any defense of his person. 29

As observed by the CA, however, the trial court erroneously imposed on accused-appellants the-penalty of imprisonment from "17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal maximum, as minimum, to 33 years and 4 months of reclusion perpetua medium, as maximum" for murder. In imposing said penalty, the trial court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law stating that Republic Act No. 7659 (An Act to-Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes) made the penalty of reclusion perpetua indivisible. This is incorrect. Notwithstanding R.A. No. 7659, the penalty of reclusion perpetua remains an indivisible penalty. In this Court’s En Banc Resolution, dated 9 January 1995, 30 it was explained that" [a]fter deliberating on the motion and re-examining the legislative history of R.A. No. 7659, the Court concludes that although Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659 has fixed the duration of reclusion perpetua from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years, there was no clear legislative intent to alter its original classification as an indivisible penalty. It shall then remain as an indivisible penalty." 31 The CA thus correctly imposed the indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua on accused-appellants for the crime of murder.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

With respect to Criminal Case No. C-4588, the Court fully agrees with the findings of the CA that only accused-appellant Francisco is liable therein and only for the crime of slight physical injuries. The CA explained, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

In the wounding of Josefina, it must be noted she was stabbed by Venancio only when she approached him while he and Danilo were wrestling with each other, and tried to pull her husband away. Obviously, the stabbing of Josefina was not simultaneous with the initial attack on Danilo much less sudden. Before that, she and their four-year-old son were never assaulted by the two appellants. As correctly held by the court a quo, there was no treachery.

The environmental circumstances of Josefina’s wounding make Venancio solely liable and only for slight physical injuries. Ernie did nothing prior to and in the course of Venancio’s knifing Josefina. With his "gulok" he could have joined Venancio in attacking Josefina. There is no evidence whatsoever that Ernie did, or for that matter, what he did as Josefina was being stabbed. Conspiracy by its legal consequences must be established like the crime itself by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

From the nature of the three wounds inflicted (Exh. B), superficial as they are, requiring just less than nine days to cure and under the facts proven, intent to kill is not clearly manifested. A personal assault must be characterized according to its consequences and the harm done to the victim (Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, 1976 Ed., Vol. II, Book II, p. 1309). At any rate, the teaching is, in case of doubt, the accused should be convicted of the lesser offense of lesiones, instead of attempted or frustrated murder, homicide or parricide. 32

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals modifying the decision of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellants are found guilty of murder (Criminal Case No. C-4588) and, accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The award of damages to the heirs of the deceased Danilo Mendoza in the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is likewise AFFIRMED. Further, Accused-appellant Venancio Francisco is found guilty of slight physical injuries (Criminal Case No. C-4588) and, accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of eleven (11) days of arresto menor.cralaw : red

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Pardo and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Penned by Justice Buenaventura J. Guerrero.

2. Records, Criminal Case No. C-4567, p. 1.

3. Records, Criminal Case No. C-4588, p. 1.

4. TSN, Testimony of Josefina Montoya-Mendoza, 3 August 1994, pp. 3-23.

5. TSN, Testimony of Baldomero Gonzales, 1 August 1994, pp. 33-41.

6. TSN, Testimony of Supremo Macatangay, 1 August 1994, pp. 5-20.

7. Exhibit "D", Criminal Case No. C-4567.

8. Exhibit "E", Criminal Case No. C-4567.

9. Exhibit "D-2", Criminal Case No. C-4567.

10. Exhibits "D" and "1", Criminal Case No. C-4567.

11. Exhibit "H", Criminal Case No. 4588.

12. TSN, Testimony of Venancio Francisco, 16 September 1994, pp. 21-42.

13. TSN, Testimony of Alberto Gonzales, 29 August 1994, pp. 3-22.

14. TSN, Testimony of Dr. Marlon dela Rosa, 16 September 1994, pp. 3-11.

15. Joint decision, Rollo, p. 40.

16. CA Rollo, pp. 16-17.

17. Rollo, pp. 3-4.

18. Id., at 8.

19. Id., at 13.

20. Appellant’s Brief, pp. 1-2; Records of the CA, pp. 27-28.

21. Supplemental Appellants’ Brief, p. 1; Rollo, p. 23.

22. People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 133382, 9 March 2000, pp. 10-11.; People v. de la Cruz, G.R. No. 130608, 26 August 1999, p. 14; People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 96092, 17 August 1999, p. 8;

23. See Exhibit "F", Criminal Case No. C-4567.

24. People v. Alagon, G.R. No. 126536-37, 10 February 2000, p. 9; People v. Quinanola, 289 SCRA 710 (1998).

25. See Note 4, at 7-19.

26. See Note 6, at 7-10.

27. People v. Andales, G.R. No. 130637, 19 August 1999, pp. 6-7; People v. Nitcha, 240 SCRA 283 (1995).

28. People v. Aranjuez, 285 SCRA 466 (1998); People v. Zamora, 278 SCRA 60 (1997).

29. Id., People v. Apongan, 270 SCRA 713 (1997).

30. People v. Lucas, 240 SCRA 66 (1995).

31. Id., at 69.

32. See Note 16, at 14-15.




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






June-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1554 June 1, 2000 - SIMEON B. GANZON II v. JULIAN Y. EREÑO

  • G.R. No. 128845 June 1, 2000 - INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF EDUCATORS v. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 133921 June 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY DELA CRUZ

  • ADM. CASE No. 3319 June 8, 2000 - LESLIE UI v. ATTY. IRIS BONIFACIO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1274 June 8, 2000 - JEPSON DICHAVES v. BILLY M. APALIT

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1275 June 8, 2000 - CARLITO C. AGUILAR v. VICTOR A. DALANAO

  • G.R. Nos. 92735, 94867 & 95578 June 8, 2000 - MONARCH INSURANCE CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101335 June 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR ROBLES, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 109939 June 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLORIA MITTU , ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 111715 & 112876 June 8, 2000 - MANUEL SILVESTRE BERNARDO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115117 June 8, 2000 - INTEGRATED PACKAGING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120062 June 8, 2000 - WORKERS OF ANTIQUE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121494 June 8, 2000 - VICTOR ONG ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122473 June 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTECHE P. ANTONIO

  • G.R. No. 122899 June 8, 2000 - METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123155 June 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO MUMAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123619 June 8, 2000 - SEAGULL SHIPMANAGEMENT AND TRANSPORT v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123912 June 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEVY MONIEVA

  • G.R. No. 124055 June 8, 2000 - ROLANDO E. ESCARIO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124368 June 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 125947 June 8, 2000 - ROMAGO ELECTRIC CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127131 June 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO CAMBI

  • G.R. No. 129528 June 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO CANDARE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127500 June 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL C. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130588 June 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO CAPILI

  • G.R. No. 131127 June 8, 2000 - ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131502 June 8, 2000 - WILSON ONG CHING KLAN CHUNG ET AL. v. CHINA NATIONAL CEREALS OIL AND FOODSTUFFS IMPORT AND EXPORT CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134938 June 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. CARLOS FORCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135297 June 8, 2000 - GAVINO CORPUZ v. GERONIMO GROSPE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136200 June 8, 2000 - CELERINO VALERIANO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 122283 June 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE GERAL

  • G.R. No. 124243 June 15, 2000 - RUDY S. AMPELOQUIO, SR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136342 June 15, 2000 - PAUL HENDRIK P. TICZON, ET AL. v. VIDEO POST MANILA

  • G.R. No. 138493 June 15, 2000 - TEOFISTA BABIERA v. PRESENTACION B. CATOTAL

  • A.M. No. 99-10-03 OCA June 16, 2000 - RE: PILFERAGE OF SUPPLIES IN THE STOCKROOM OF THE PROPERTY DIVISION

  • G.R. Nos. 111734-35 June 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO A. MALAPAYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115998 June 16, 2000 - RICARDO SALVATIERRA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 121576-78 June 16, 2000 - BANCO DO BRASIL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124582 June 16, 2000 - REGGIE CHRISTI LIMPO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 125303 & 126937 June 16, 2000 - DANILO LEONARDO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127841 June 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. EPIE ARLALEJO

  • G.R. No. 130408 June 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR HISTORILLO

  • G.R. No. 136803 June 16, 2000 - EUSTAQUIO MALLILIN v. MA. ELVIRA CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 137552 June 16, 2000.

    ROBERTO Z. LAFORTEZA, ET AL. v. ALONZO MACHUCA

  • G.R. No. 117356 June 19, 2000 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 124863 June 19, 2000 - ANTONIO G. PACHECO, ET. AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128066 & 128069 June 19, 2000 - JARDINE DAVIES INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130487 June 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO ESTRADA

  • G.R. No. 130490 June 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. VENANCIO FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 130509-12 June 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO NAVA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 130593 June 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO ARILLAS

  • G.R. No. 131082 June 19, 2000 - ROMULO , ET. AL. v. HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND

  • G.R. No. 131085 June 19, 2000 - PGA BROTHERHOOD ASSOCIATION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131683 June 19, 2000 - JESUS LIM ARRANZA, ET AL. v. B.F. HOMES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132632 June 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL RIOS

  • G.R. No. 137350 June 19, 2000 - JAIME P. CORPIN v. AMOR S. VIVAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140359 June 19, 2000 - HERMAN CANIETE, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, CULTURE and SPORTS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1488 June 20, 2000 - JUANA MARZAN-GELACIO v. ALIPIO V. FLORES

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1493 June 20, 2000 - JAIME L. CO v. DEMETRIO D. CALIMAG

  • G.R. No. 121668 June 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL TAÑEZA

  • G.R. No. 125160 June 20, 2000 - NICANOR E. ESTRELLA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126282 June 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILSON DREU

  • G.R. No. 133573 June 20, 2000 - LEAH ICAWAT, ET AL.. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137567 June 20, 2000 - MEYNARDO L. BELTRAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 137980 June 20, 2000 - TALA REALTY SERVICES CORP. v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK

  • G.R. No. 138896 June 20, 2000 - BARANGAY SAN ROQUE v. FRANCISCO PASTOR

  • Adm. Case No. 3677 June 21, 2000 - DANILO M. CONCEPCION v. DANIEL P. FANDINO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1432 June 21, 2000 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. LORENZO B. VENERACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108397 June 21, 2000 - FOOD TERMINAL INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124670 June 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BELBES

  • G.R. No. 128405 June 21, 2000 - EDUARDO CALUSIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1555 June 22, 2000 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. LYLIHA A. AQUINO

  • G.R. No. 116805 June 22, 2000 - MARIO S. ESPINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124977 June 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISABELO RAGUNDIAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134772 June 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE HOFILEÑA

  • G.R. No. 138674 June 22, 2000 - ARTURO REFUGIA, ET AL. v. FLORO P. ALEJO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1276 June 23, 2000 - FELIMON R. CUEVAS v. ISAURO M. BALDERIAN

  • A.M. No. P-99-1300 June 23, 2000 - GILBERT CATALAN v. REYNALDO B. UMALI

  • G.R. No. 116794 June 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY FLORES

  • G.R. No. 125909 June 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMOGENES FLORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131829 June 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONNIE AGOMO-O, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132703 June 23, 2000 - BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS and MORTGAGE BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137569 June 23, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SALEM INVESTMENT CORP., ET. AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1278 June 26, 2000 - FLORA D. GALLEGO v. ARTURO DORONILA

  • A.M. No. P-96-1185 June 26, 2000 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JULIUS G. CABE

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1433 June 26, 2000 - GARY P. ROSAURO v. WENCESLAO R. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 124461 June 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTRELLA T. ESTRADA

  • G.R. No. 129572 June 26, 2000 - PHILBANCOR FINANCE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135927 June 26, 2000 - SULTAN USMAN SARANGANI, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1519 June 27, 2000 - GREGORIO LIMPOT LUMAPAS v. CAMILO E. TAMIN

  • G.R. No. 123539 June 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO AUSTRIA

  • G.R. No. 124703 June 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO DE LARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125567 June 27, 2000 - ANTONIO (ANTONINO) SAMANIEGO, ET AL. v. VIC ALVAREZ AGUILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133801 June 27, 2000 - LEY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL. v. UNION BANK OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 109111 June 28, 2000 - CARMELINO M. SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 127022 & 127245 June 28, 2000 - FIRESTONE CERAMICS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132088 June 28, 2000 - EVERDINA ACOSTA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134262 June 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABDULAJID SABDANI

  • A.C. No. 2614 June 29, 2000 - MAXIMO DUMADAG v. ERNESTO L. LUMAYA

  • G.R. No. 113725 June 29, 2000 - JOHNNY S. RABADILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 116340 June 29, 2000.

    CECILIA GASTON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125586 June 29, 2000 - TERESITA G. DOMALANTA, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130504 June 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO TABANGGAY

  • G.R. No. 130589 June 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEPE LOZADA

  • G.R. No. 130656 June 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO REANZARES

  • G.R. No. 130711 June 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO LAZARTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131103 and 143472 June 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO M. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 132154 June 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACITO ORDOÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 132379-82 June 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIDO ALCARTADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137270 June 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNOLD RATUNIL

  • G.R. No. 142261 June 29, 2000 - MANUEL M. LAPID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119088 June 30, 2000 - ZAIDA RUBY S. ALBERT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 122477 June 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDISON ARELLANO

  • G.R. No. 133325 June 30, 2000 - FFLIPA B. CUEME v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.