Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2000 > March 2000 Decisions > G.R. No. 128360 March 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR CRISPIN:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 128360. March 2, 2000.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDGAR CRISPIN, Accused-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N


GONZAGA-REYES, J.:


Appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan, Branch 52, 1 finding accused-appellant Edgar Crispin guilty of the crime of murder, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided by law, and ordering him to pay to the heirs of the victim civil indemnity of P50,000.00, actual damages of P80,000.00, and moral damages of P30,000.00.

The Information reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The undersigned hereby accuses FELIPE CRISPIN, EDGAR CRISPIN, EDMUND LOSIS, HENRY LOSIS and PAQUITO GOMEZ, of the crime of "MURDER" as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about the 4th day of May, 1994, at Sitio Little Caramay, Barangay Magara, Municipality of Roxas, Province of Palawan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another with evident premeditation and treachery, while armed with bladed weapons and with intent to kill, and taking advantage of nighttime, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab one MIGUEL BADENAS, hitting him on various vital parts of his body inflicting upon him multiple injuries, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


which were the direct and immediate cause of the instantaneous death of said Miguel Badenas and thereafter the above-named accused threw the body of said Miguel Badenas into the river.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 2

Of the five accused, only accused-appellant was arrested, arraigned and put to trial.chanrobles virtua| |aw |ibrary

The evidence for the prosecution discloses that at about 8 o’clock in the evening of May 4, 1994, the five accused converged at the house of one Danilo de Asis in Sitio Little Caramay, Magara, Roxas, Palawan for a drink. At about 9 o’clock in the evening, Cesar Delima and the victim joined them. Cesar Delima left after an hour, claiming he was sleepy, and the others continued their drinking until midnight, when Danilo de Asis asked them to leave as it was already late in the evening. The group had consumed five bottles of beer.

Honorio Cabailo testified to witnessing the attack on Miguel Badenas. Cabailo stated that at the time in question, he was active in the campaign for the forthcoming barangay elections, and had just left the house of Ramon Balmonte in Sitio Caramay, for Sitio Capalad, also in Barrio Magara, to meet his fellow election campaigners. As he was walking towards Sitio Capalad, and from a distance of about five meters, he recognized Edgar Crispin and his cousin Felipe Crispin as well as the victim, all being his barriomates in Magara, Roxas, Palawan. Cabailo further testified that while herein accused-appellant Edgar Crispin and Felipe Crispin stabbed Badenas, three other men whom he failed to identify blocked the way of the victim to prevent the latter from escaping. 3 Overcome with fear for what he saw, Cabailo proceeded to Sitio Capalad and did not learn about the death of Miguel Badenas until three days after, when a relative of Badenas told him that Badenas died of stab wounds.

The body of Miguel Badenas was interred immediately and without post-mortem examination after it was fished out of the river of Little Caramay, as it was already in a state of decomposition. About a month later, upon the request of Police Officer Joseph Carbonel, Chief of Police of Roxas, Palawan, the body was exhumed and examined on May 28, 1994 by Dr. Leo Salvino. The exhumation report 4 bore the following findings:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Stab wound, 0.5 cm. penetrating the sternal area, entire anterior chest wall hitting the cardiac ventricle through and through;

2. Stab wound, 0.5 cm. penetrating mid-clavicular area;

3. Stab wound, mid-clavicular area;

4. Stab wound, 0.6 cm. penetrating mid-clavicular area;

5. Stab wound, penetrating mid-axillary area, 2.5 cm.;

6. Stab wound, 2.5 cm., penetrating mid-axillary;

Back — stab wound, 2.5 cm., penetrating paravertebral area; and

Abdomen — stab wound, penetrating the entire abdominal cavity, upper quadrant

PROBABLE CAUSE OF DEATH: Cardiac Tamponade, Massive Hemo-pnemothorax

Testifying on the exhumation report, Dr. Salvino declared that he found at least nine stab wounds on the deceased’s body, eight of which penetrated the body cavities. Based on the sizes of the wounds, he opined that it is likely that more than one person, using different kinds of sharp bladed instruments, have caused the injuries.

Danilo de Asis, the owner of the house where the five accused and the victim spent the night drinking, testified that the group left his house at about 12 o’clock in the early morning of May 5, 1994. He went to sleep as soon as the group left, and did not learn of the death of Miguel Badenas until four days later, when the body was fished out of the river. 5

For his part, Accused-appellant interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. He testified that while he knew his four co-accused, he was not with them on the evening in question since he was at the residence of his brother-in-law, Rogelio Gorada, also in Sitio Little Caramay, Magara, Roxas, Palawan. Accused-appellant stated that he and his friend, Nolito Bacaltos, arrived at Gorada’s house at about 7:30 in the evening of May 4, 1994, shortly after which they began drinking beer. At about 8 o’clock in the evening, they finished drinking and ate supper. Then he and Bacaltos spent the night in Gorada’s house, and left for their respective homes at around 6:30 the next morning. He claimed no knowledge of what happened to Miguel Badenas on the early morning of May 5, 1994, and came to learn of the latter’s death on May 7, 1994 only. 6

Nolito Bacaltos testified in support of accused-appellant’s story. Bacaltos’s elder sister, Editha, is married to Teodoro Crispin, an elder brother of Accused-Appellant. He corroborated the testimony of accused-appellant that they were together on the evening of May 4, 1994 at the house of Rogelio Gorada, spent the night there, and went home at about 7 o’clock the following morning. 7

Finally, the defense presented Ramon Balmonte, the owner of the house where Honorio Cabailo was said to have come from on the night that he witnessed the killing. Balmonte, who at the time he testified was a member of the Sangguniang Barangay of Magara, 8 said that he could not remember if Cabailo slept at his house sometime on the first week of May 1994, as he was always out of his house. 9

The trial court rejected the denial and alibi of accused-appellant and convicted him of murder. While it held the circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery unsubstantiated by the evidence, it found the killing to be qualified to murder by the attendance of abuse of superior strength. It also ruled out the generic aggravating circumstance of nighttime, there being no evidence to show that the accused purposely sought nighttime to facilitate the commission of the offense.

Thus, the dispositive portion of the questioned Decision reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the co-accused EDGAR CRISPIN guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principal of the crime of murder, and there being no modifying circumstances appreciated, and pursuant to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, in relation to Article 63(2) of the same Code, and not being entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties of civil interdiction for life and of perpetual absolute disqualification; to pay the heirs of Miguel Badenas for the death of the latter,

a. Civil Indemnity P50,000.00

b. Funeral Expenses and Wake 20,000.00

c. Lost Income for his Family 60,000.00

d. Moral Damages 30,000.00

—————

TOTAL 160,000.00

and the costs.

x       x       x


SO ORDERED. 10

On appeal, Accused-appellant raises the following assignments of error:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. The lower court erred in convicting accused-appellant of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, when said qualifying circumstance is not alleged in the Information.

2. The lower court erred in convicting accused-appellant despite the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt.chanrobles.com : red

In support of the first assignment of error, Accused-appellant cited the Constitution 11 and decided cases 12 which held that an aggravating circumstance not alleged in the Information but proven in trial cannot qualify a crime but should only be treated as a generic aggravating circumstance. Hence, assuming the correctness of the finding of abuse of superior strength, Accused-appellant should not be convicted of murder, but only homicide.

As regards the second assignment of error, Accused-appellant contests the trial court’s reliance on the testimony of eyewitness Honorio Cabailo, especially on Cabailo’s claim that he recognized accused-appellant on a dark moonless night, by mere starlight. He pointed out that even the trial court acknowledged that it is likely for Cabailo’s identification of the perpetrators to have been inaccurate since starlight, by itself, could not have provided him with sufficient illumination. 13

Accused-appellant also assails the trial court’s extensive reference to the sworn statement of Cesar Delima, taken by the police of Roxas, Palawan, who also claimed to witness the five accused attack and kill Miguel Badenas. 14 While Cesar Delima was named in the Information as one of the principal witnesses, he did not appear when subpoenaed to testify. 15 Accused-appellant decries the fact that the trial court gave credence to the allegations of the sworn statement despite the prosecution’s failure to present Delima as a witness, thus depriving the accused of his right to cross-examine him. He further contends that the sworn statement could not have been validly considered by the trial court, it not having been formally offered in evidence by the prosecution.

Without the affidavit of Cesar Delima, and considering the weakness of the testimony of purported eyewitness Honorio Cabailo, Accused-appellant argues that the trial court had insufficient bases to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the murder of Miguel Badenas.

The records and evidence before us convince us to agree with Accused-Appellant. Before the rule that positive identification prevails over mere denial and alibi may apply, it is necessary that the credibility of the eyewitness be first put beyond question. This Court has always recognized that the trial courts are the ones best-equipped to pass upon the credibility of witnesses, having had the opportunity to observe firsthand the demeanor and actuations of the witness while on the witness stand. 16 Where the trial court itself expresses doubts on the credibility of the eyewitness and looks to other evidence to secure the conviction, we are inclined to find less believable the identification by that eyewitness. The following portions of the RTC Decision serve to illustrate this point:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Doubt may indeed be entertained with respect to the identification of the five accused only by prosecution witness Honorio Cabailo. The slaying of Miguel Badenas purportedly took place at about 12 o’clock midnight of May 4, 1994. 17 It was not a moonlit night and the only source of light were the stars. Under the circumstances, the likelihood of a wrong identification may not altogether be precluded. Such being the case, the defense of alibi may gain some credence.

But apart from the testimony of Honorio Cabailo is that of Danilo de Asis who declared that co-accused Edgar Crispin was with Felipe Crispin, Edmundo Losis, Henry Losis and Paquito Gomez drinking Ginebra in his (Danilo de Asis’s) residence from about 8 o’clock to 12 o’clock midnight of May 4, 1994. At about 9 o’clock that same evening Cesar Delima and Miguel Badenas also came and joined them in drinking.

Moreover, included and forming part of the records of the case is the records of the preliminary investigation, among which is a sworn statement by Cesar Delima, taken by the police of Roxas, Palawan, where he declared among others, that: . . . 18

In its Brief, the OSG stated that it was not impossible for Cabailo to have properly identified the five accused despite the poor illumination since he saw the incident from a mere five meters away, and because he knew these people beforehand. However, these matters have formed part of the testimony of Honorio Cabailo, and have been taken into consideration by the trial court when it passed upon the overall credibility of Cabailo’s testimony. The matter of assigning values to declarations at the witness stand is most competently carried out by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the witness’s behavior and attitude at the trial, and the conclusions of the trial judge command great weight and respect. 19 When in the end, the trial court still declared that it found Honorio Cabailo’s identification of the accused doubtful, we will not disturb such finding on appeal.

From the records of the case, we also note that the trial judge himself questioned Honorio Cabailo on whether there was sufficient illumination. Thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

COURT: Since it was nighttime, it was dark already, how were you able to see them?

A: Eventhough it was nighttime the night was not totally dark because of the stars.

Q: Was there moonlight at the time?

A: There was no moonlight, sir. 20

Hence, as clearly set out in the RTC Decision, above-quoted, the trial court’s conviction of accused-appellant was not based on Cabailo’s identification, as it in fact found the same to be unsatisfactory, but on the testimony of Danilo de Asis and the affidavit of Cesar Delima.

The affidavit of Cesar Delima details the attack and the killing by the accused of Miguel Badenas in the same way as Honorio Cabailo in his testimony, but with the significant distinction of having allegedly recognized the perpetrators with the aid of a flashlight. As mentioned earlier, Cesar Delima was named a principal witness in the Information, but he failed to testify despite being subpoenaed twice. In considering the affidavit as evidence, the RTC reasoned that the sworn statement formed part of the record of the case on preliminary investigation. We cannot uphold this.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

An affidavit is hearsay and has weak probative value, unless the affiant is placed on the witness stand to testify on it. 21 Being hearsay evidence, it is inadmissible because the party against whom it is presented is deprived of his right and opportunity to cross-examine the person to whom the statement or writing is attributed. 22 The right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him 23 is a fundamental right of every accused which may not be summarily done away with. Another reason why the right to confrontation is so essential is because the trial judge’s duty to observe and test the credibility of the affiant can only be met by his being brought to the witness stand. 24 That the affidavit formed part of the record of the preliminary investigation does not justify its being treated as evidence because the record of the preliminary investigation does not form part of the record of the case in the RTC. 25 Such record must be introduced as evidence during trial, and the trial court is not compelled to take judicial notice of the same. 26 The prosecution having failed to present Cesar Delima as a witness, his sworn statement was patently inadmissible and deserves no consideration at all.

As for the testimony of Danilo de Asis, all that it proves is that the five accused and the victim left de Asis’s house together on that fateful night. In his testimony, de Asis plainly professed that he had no knowledge of the incidents that took place after they left his house. 27 The evidence that may be adduced from de Asis’s testimony is plainly circumstantial, and no inference may be drawn from it as to the probable guilt of accused-appellant for the crime charged.

Settled is the rule that conviction should rest on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense. 28 The identity of the offender, like the crime itself, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 29 Even though accused-appellant invokes the inherently weak defense of alibi, such defense nonetheless acquires commensurate strength in the instant case where no positive and proper identification has been made by the prosecution witnesses of the offender, as the prosecution still has the onus probandi in establishing the guilt of the accused. 30 The weakness of the defense does not relieve it of this responsibility.

After having ascertained the affidavit of Cesar Delima to be inadmissible, and going by the trial court’s plain declaration that the identification by Honorio Cabailo of the accused is doubtful, it is clear that in the instant case the prosecution has failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

The acquittal of accused-appellant being apropos, we therefore find it unnecessary to pass upon the first assignment of error.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated November 29, 1996 of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan, Branch 52, in Criminal Case No. 11926 convicting accused-appellant Edgar Crispin of murder is REVERSED, and accused-appellant is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court orders his RELEASE from commitment unless he is held for some other legal cause or ground. Costs de oficio.chanrobles virtua| |aw |ibrary

SO ORDERED.

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

Endnotes:



1. Presided by Judge Filomena A. Vergara.

2. Rollo, 4-5.

3. TSN, September 27, 1995, 5-6.

4. RTC Decision; Rollo, 16-17.

5. TSN, September 27, 1995, 17-20.

6. TSN, November 16, 1995, 4-6.

7. TSN, November 29, 1995, 3-9.

8. TSN, February 14, 1996, 3-4.

9. Ibid., 4.

10. RTC Decision; Rollo, 28-29.

11. Article III, Sec. 14 (2) of the 1987 Constitution declares that the accused has a right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him."cralaw virtua1aw library

12. People v. Lacao, 60 SCRA 89; People v. Navarro, 12 SCRA 530.

13. RTC Decision; Rollo, 21.

14. Ibid., 21-23.

15. The RTC Decision explains that subpoena for Delima’s appearance in the hearing of September 13, 14, 20 and 21, 1995 was issued on June 2, 1995 and served to him on September 3, 1995 through the sister of the victim, Belinda Badenas Bron. Another subpoena was issued by the court on September 20, 1995 through Ms. Bron, for the hearing of September 26, 1995, but he again failed to appear. The records fail to disclose the reasons for his failure to appear.

16. People v. Vidal, G.R. No. 90419, June 1, 1999; People v. Peralta, 283 SCRA 81; People v. Oliva, 282 SCRA 470; People v. Tan, Jr., 264 SCRA 425.

17. We think it is more accurate to say that the killing was committed at approximately 12 o’clock in the morning of May 5, 1994.

18. The RTC Decision goes on to summarize the contents of Delima’s sworn statement, thus: He left the house of Danilo de Asis at about 10 o’clock in the night of May 4, 1994. At about 12 o’clock midnight, he was in his house when he heard voices of people fighting outside. He went out of his house and, with the aid of a flashlight, saw the five accused attacking the victim. He attempted to stop them but they threatened him that they will kill him if he told anyone of what he saw. Rollo, 21-23.

19. People v. Magallanes, 23 SCRA 1275.

20. TSN, September 27, 1995, 8.

21. People v. Silvestre, G.R. No. 127573, May 12, 1999; Carlos A. Gothong Lines v. NLRC, G.R. No. 96685, February 15, 1999.

22. People v. Ola, 152 SCRA 1.

23. Article III, Sec. 14(2), 1987 Constitution; Sec. 1, Rule 115, Revised Rules of Court.

24. People v. Estenzo, 72 SCRA 428; U.S. v. Javier, 37 Phil. 449.

25. Sec. 8, Rule 112, Revised Rules of Court.

26. People v. dela Iglesia, 241 SCRA 718.

27. TSN, September 27, 1995, 17-20.

28. People v. Rugay, 291 SCRA 692; People v. Meneses, 288 SCRA 95; People v. Solis, 182 SCRA 182; People v. Hora, 153 SCRA 21.

29. People v. Niño, 290 SCRA 155; People v. Clores, 125 SCRA 67.

30. People v. Ola, supra; People v. Somontao, 128 SCRA 415; People v. Teaño, 128 SCRA 149.




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






March-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 104930 March 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX K BELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111928 March 1, 2000 - ALMARIO SIAPIAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116464 March 1, 2000 - RODENTO NAVARRO, ET AL v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117691 March 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO B. SAMPIOR

  • G.R. Nos. 119958-62 March 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO MARQUITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124895 March 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN DE LOS REYES

  • G.R. No. 134286 March 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO AMBAN

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-99-1184 March 2, 2000 - AMPARO S. FARRALES, ET AL. v. RUBY B. CAMARISTA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1454 March 2, 2000 - NESCITO C. HILARIO v. CRISANTO C. CONCEPCION

  • G.R. Nos. 115239-40 March 2, 2000 - MARIO C.V. JALANDONI v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125332 March 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERACLEO MONTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126212 March 2, 2000 - SEA-LAND SERVICE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126814 March 2, 2000 - JUDY CAROL L. DANSAL, ET AL. v. GIL P. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127718 March 2, 2000 - NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128360 March 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR CRISPIN

  • G.R. No. 128677 March 2, 2000 - SANTIAGO ABAPO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133343-44 March 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO BAYONA

  • G.R. Nos. 104769 & 135016 March 3, 2000 - AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120656 March 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNEL FERDINAND A. OMAR

  • G.R. No. 126021 March 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE SIAO

  • G.R. No. 135802 March 3, 2000 - PRISCILLA L. TAN v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES

  • G.R. No. 108381 March 7, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADEO I. ACAYA

  • G.R. No. 108951 March 7, 2000 - JESUS B. DIAMONON v. DOLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109992 March 7, 2000 - HEIRS OF THE LATE HERMAN REY SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110899 March 7, 2000 - ELIZARDO D. DITCHE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115192 March 7, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMER D. SALAS

  • G.R. No. 128046 March 7, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON CHUA UY

  • G.R. No. 128102 March 7, 2000 - AZNAR BROTHERS REALTY COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129644 March 7, 2000 - CHINA BANKING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138291 March 7, 2000 - HECTOR C. VILLANUEVA v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK

  • G.R. Nos. 139573-75 March 7, 2000 - JUNE GENEVIEVE R. SEBASTIAN v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 96-1-25-RTC March 8, 2000 - REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT IN RTC

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1446 March 9, 2000 - CONCERNED EMPLOYEES OF THE RTC OF DAGUPAN CITY v. ERNA FALLORAN-ALIPOSA

  • G.R. No. 111174 March 9, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO V. SALUDARES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111806 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN G. GALANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 114299 & 118862 March 9, 2000 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116044-45 March 9, 2000 - AMERICAN AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116084-85 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAMASO JOB

  • G.R. No. 118216 March 9, 2000 - DELTAVENTURES RESOURCES v. FERNANDO P. CABATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120060 March 9, 2000 - CEBU WOMAN’S CLUB v. LORETO D. DE LA VICTORIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121348 March 9, 2000 - ANGELITO P. DELES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121998 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO CLEOPAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125233 March 9, 2000 - Spouses ALEXANDER and ADELAIDA CRUZ v. ELEUTERIO LEIS

  • G.R. No. 126125 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO GAVIOLA

  • G.R. No. 126210 March 9, 2000 - CRISTINA PEREZ v. HAGONOY RURAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127439 March 9, 2000 - ALFREDO PAZ v. ROSARIO G. REYES

  • G.R. No. 127749 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BEN GAJO

  • G.R. No. 131925 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DARIO CABANAS CUAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132745 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO UGIABAN LUMANDONG

  • G.R. No. 133323 March 9, 2000 - ALBERTO AUSTRIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133345 & 133324 March 9, 2000 - JOSEFA CH. MAESTRADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133382 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 135613 March 9, 2000 - ARTHUR V. VELAYO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 99-9-11-SC March 10, 2000 - RE: DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST RICARDO BANIEL III

  • A.M. No. 99-9-12-SC March 10, 2000 - ROSA J. MENDOZA v. RENATO LABAY

  • G.R. No. 127845 March 10, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LODRIGO BAYYA

  • G.R. No. 127673 March 13, 2000 - RICARDO S. MEDENILLA, ET AL. v. PHIL. VETERANS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130769 March 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHRISTOPHER GEGUIRA

  • G.R. No. 132624 March 13, 2000 - FIDEL M. BAÑARES II, ET AL. v. ELIZABETH BALISING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140179 March 13, 2000 - ROQUE FERMO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1443 March 14, 2000 - EVAN B. CALLEJA v. RAFAEL P. SANTELICES

  • G.R. No. 109271 March 14, 2000 - RICARDO CASTILLO, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110524 March 14, 2000 - DOUGLAS MILLARES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123509 March 14, 2000 - LUCIO ROBLES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133778 March 14, 2000 - ENGRACE NIÑAL v. NORMA BAYADOG

  • G.R. No. 135087 March 14, 2000 - ALBERTO SUGUITAN v. CITY OF MANDALUYONG

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1544 March 15, 2000 - ROMEO DE LA CRUZ v. CARLITO A. EISMA

  • G.R. No. 124453 March 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH PAMBID

  • G.R. No. 130602 March 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL FRONDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130809 March 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 131814 March 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO ARIZAPA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1221 March 16, 2000 - JOSEFINA M. VILLANUEVA v. BENJAMIN E. ALMAZAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1542 March 16, 2000 - ROLANDO M. ODOÑO v. PORFIRIO G. MACARAEG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115949 March 16, 2000 - EVANGELINE J. GABRIEL v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124372 March 16, 2000 - RENATO CRISTOBAL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125536 March 16, 2000 - PRUDENTIAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126805 March 16, 2000 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128550 March 16, 2000 - DIGITAL MICROWAVE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129904 March 16, 2000 - GUILLERMO T. DOMONDON v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133226 March 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOCSIN FABON

  • A.M. No. 99-8-286-RTC March 17, 2000 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

  • A.M. Nos. RTJ-99-1484 (A) & 99-1484 March 17, 2000 - JOSELITO RALLOS, ET AL. v. IRENEO LEE GAKO JR.

  • G.R. No. 113433 March 17, 2000 - LUISITO P. BASILIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115221 March 17, 2000 - JULIUS G. FROILAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 116754 March 17, 2000 - MORONG WATER DISTRICT v. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121780 March 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON SUMALDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122510-11 March 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERACLEO MANRIQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124224 March 17, 2000 - NEW PACIFIC TIMBER & SUPPLY COMPANY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124526 March 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY SAPAL

  • G.R. No. 124874 March 17, 2000 - ALBERT R. PADILLA v. FLORESCO PAREDES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125059 March 17, 2000 - FRANCISCO T. SYCIP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129284 March 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALINO FLORES

  • G.R. No. 129297 March 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO SAN DIEGO

  • G.R. No. 131270 March 17, 2000 - PERFECTO PALLADA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 134504 March 17, 2000 - JOSELITO V. NARCISO v. FLOR MARIE STA. ROMANA-CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 134986 March 17, 2000 - CAMPO ASSETS CORP. v. CLUB X. O. COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 138218 March 17, 2000 - CLAUDIUS G. BARROSO v. FRANCISCO S. AMPIG, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 98-8-262-RTC March 21, 2000 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

  • A.M. No. 99-2-79-RTC March 21, 2000 - REQUEST of Judge IRMA ZITA MASAMAYOR v. RTC-Br. 52

  • G.R. Nos. 130568-69 March 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHE CHUN TING

  • G.R. No. 130685 March 21, 2000 - FELIX UY, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133434 March 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNABE E. ADILA

  • A.C. No. 4807 March 22, 2000 - MANUEL N. CAMACHO v. LUIS MEINRADO C. PANGULAYAN, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 5235 March 22, 2000 - FERNANDO C. CRUZ, ET AL. v. ERNESTO C. JACINTO

  • A.M. No. 00-1258-MTJ March 22, 2000 - Spouses CONRADO and MAITA SEÑA v. ESTER TUAZON VILLARIN

  • G.R. No. 122540 March 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL SAPINOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123206 March 22, 2000 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132551 March 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE DEDACE

  • Adm. Case No. 4083 March 27, 2000 - LEONITO GONATO, ET AL. v. CESILO A. ADAZA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1204 March 27, 2000 - MILA MARTINEZ v. ALEXANDER RIMANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120150 March 27, 2000 - ADRIAN DE LA PAZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123560 March 27, 2000 - YU ENG CHO, ET AL. v. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS

  • G.R. No. 124118 March 27, 2000 - MARINO ADRIANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127240 March 27, 2000 - ONG CHIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. and COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 128073 March 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE MAMALIAS

  • G.R. No. 130669 March 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILSON MITRA

  • G.R. No. 130722 March 27, 2000 - REYNALDO K. LITONJUA, ET AL. v. L & R CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131074 March 27, 2000 - CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO BICHARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132929 March 27, 2000 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135962 March 27, 2000 - METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION

  • G.R. No. 136478 March 27, 2000 - ARSENIO P. REYES, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1528 March 28, 2000 - ROMULO SJ TOLENTINO v. ALFREDO A. CABRAL

  • G.R. No. 79679 March 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE CABINGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117145-50 & 117447 March 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONIDA MERIS

  • G.R. No. 131472 March 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO TIPAY

  • G.R. No. 132518 March 28, 2000 - GAVINA MAGLUCOT-AW, ET AL. v. LEOPOLDO MAGLUCOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133146 March 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL CULA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133832 March 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZOSIMO BARREDO

  • A.M. No. P-98-1284 March 30, 2000 - ABRAHAM D. CAÑA v. ROBERTO B. GEBUSION

  • G.R. No. 106671 March 30, 2000 - HARRY TANZO v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109773 March 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELBERTO BASE

  • G.R. No. 123112 March 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO CAVERTE and TEOFILO CAVERTE

  • G.R. No. 125355 March 30, 2000 - CIR v. COURT OF APPEALS and COMMONWEALTH MANAGEMENT AND SERVICES CORP.

  • G.R. No. 129288 March 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEY AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129433 March 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMO CAMPUHAN

  • G.R. No. 138081 March 30, 2000 - BUREAU OF CUSTOMS (BOC), ET AL. v. NELSON OGARIO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-98-1167 March 31, 2000 - EMILY M SANDOVAL. v. FELICISIMO S. GARIN

  • A.M. No. P-96-1211 March 31, 2000 - PACIFICO S. BULADO v. DOMINGO TIU

  • G.R. No. 100152 March 31, 2000 - ACEBEDO OPTICAL COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114734 March 31, 2000 - VIVIAN Y. IMBUIDO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115181 March 31, 2000 - MARIA SOCORRO AVELINO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115990 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSELITO BALTAZAR y ESTACIO @ "JOEY"

  • G.R. No. 121517 March 31, 2000 - RAY U. VELASCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121572 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL ELAMPARO

  • G.R. No. 123113 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY ABALDE

  • G.R. No. 123636 March 31, 2000 - JOSELITO LAGERA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125280 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILSON SUITOS

  • G.R. Nos. 128056-57 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCOS PARAMIL

  • G.R. No. 128647 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO SALONGA

  • G.R. No. 132053 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO TAYAG

  • G.R. No. 132192 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO NOROÑA and FREDDIE NOROÑA

  • G.R. Nos. 133387-423 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EXPEDITO ABAPO

  • G.R. No. 133857 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEY AMIGABLE

  • G.R. No. 139137 March 31, 2000 - ALFREDO ARQUELADA, ET AL v. PHIL. VETERANS BANK