Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2001 > February 2001 Decisions > G.R. No. 136257 February 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR YBAÑEZ:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 136257. February 14, 2001.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OSCAR YBAÑEZ, Accused-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N


MELO, J.:


In order to warrant the imposition of the death penalty, the special qualifying circumstance of the victim’s minority and her relationship to the offender should be both alleged in the Information and proved during the trial. This is the principle which finds application in the case at bar.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Before us on automatic review is the decision dated September 25, 1997 of Branch 71 of the Regional Trial Court of the Fourth Judicial Region stationed in Antipolo, Rizal, in its Criminal Case No. 94-11878, finding accused-appellant Oscar Ybañez guilty of rape and sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty of death.

The instant case was initiated by a complaint against accused-appellant Oscar Ybañez y Dagulpo filed by the victim Erika Dialogo, which charged:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about the 1st day of January, 1995, in the Municipality of Taytay, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one Erika Dialogo y Dialogo, a minor, ten (10) years of age, without her consent and against her will.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

(p. 5, Rollo.)

Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and stood trial, resulting in a judgment of conviction, accordingly disposing:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Oscar Ybañez y Daguplo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH, to indemnify the private complainant in the amount of P50,000.00, and to pay the costs.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

(p. 16, Rollo.)

The prosecution’s version of the events is based principally on the testimony of victim Erika Dialogo, Celestino Dialogo, uncle of the victim, and Dr. Jesusa Vergara of the PNP Crime Laboratory Services.

Erika testified that on January 1, 1995, at around 3 o’clock in the afternoon, she was requested by accused-appellant, her mother’s common-law husband, to gather firewood. As she was about to do so, Accused-appellant told her not to go and instead she was brought by him to the forest near their house. At that point, he forced her to lay down on a wooden bed, and despite her strong resistance and lack of acquiescence, Accused-appellant took her panties off. Nevertheless, Erika seized a chance to get up and attempted to ran, but accused-appellant was quick in grabbing her back. As a preliminary to his intended beastful act, Erika tearfully narrated, Accused-appellant inserted his finger into her vagina, and naked as he was, he laid on top of her and indoctrinated her into eroticism and libidinal gratifications. Thereafter, Accused-appellant left her. Erika, on the other hand, left home and went to a certain Ate Rosal where she dozed off. When she woke up, she went home and found therein accused-appellant and her crying baby sister.

Erika continued her silence about her ordeal even as she brought her sister that same day to a certain Ate Tilde. Therefrom, she proceeded to her Ate Dolly, residing nearby. No longer able to keep to herself what she had just gone through, Erika told her Ate Dolly that she was raped by Oscar Ybañez. Consequently, she was brought by her other relatives, including prosecution witness Celestino, to Camp Crame.

Prosecution witness Dr. Jesusa Vergara, the medico-legal officer who conducted a physical examination of Erika confirmed the claim of the victim that she was raped. Dr. Vergara testified that Erika’s external vagina orifice admits the tip of the examiner’s smallest finger with shallow healed lacerations at 3 and 6 o’clock; and that Erika physically was in a non-virgin state.

The defense is based on the testimony of its sole witness, Accused-Appellant. He denied the charge and testified that on January 1, 1995, he was on his way home when he met Erika along the road. He gave her a fatherly kiss on the cheek, considering that he treated her as his own child from the time he started cohabiting with the victim’s mother in 1987. Nothing more happened after that, so he claimed. He alleged that the crime imputed to him was a way of getting back at him, as initiated by prosecution witness Celestino. According to accused-appellant, Celestino used to live with them but was ordered to move out, hence, Celestino’s motive to implicate accused-appellant in this case.

The trial court did not accord credence to the testimony of accused-appellant, pointing out that the defense of denial cannot prevail against the affirmative testimony of Erika who was only 10 years old when subjected to accused-appellant’s sexual perversity. Further, Erika showed no ill motive to falsely testify against accused-appellant, and that her testimony was straightforward and impeccable.

Accused-appellant is now before us insisting on his innocence and pleading for acquittal on the ground of reasonable doubt. He imputes to the trial court the error of finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged notwithstanding the victim’s admission that she was not threatened by Accused-Appellant. He would also make much capital of the circumstance that the victim failed to divulge the rape committed against her to the first person she met after the incident.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Accused-appellant’s assertions must certainly come to naught.

The workings of a human mind are unpredictable; people react differently and there is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident (People v. Ranido, 288 SCRA 369 [1998]). More so, if one is a victim of a misfortune which in the victim’s young mind is beyond comprehension.

In the instant case, threatened or otherwise, Erika opted to keep to herself and to endure the misery and pain she suffered from the hands of accused-appellants at least for a while; so that she just dozed off upon reaching the house of her Ate Rosal. Only later did she realize that she had been violated. So, even before the day ended, she intimated her horrible experience to her Ate Dolly.

Erika’s failure to immediately report the rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge (People v. Batoon, 317 SCRA 545 [1999]), and does not by itself undermine the charge. Procrastination seldom works to acquit from liability a person accused of rape (People v. Pacistol, 284 SCRA 520 [1998]). In rape cases, the gravamen of the offense is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent (People v. Igat, 291 SCRA 100 [1998]). Erika, in tears, narrated that she resisted and protested accused-appellant’s sexual advances. In fact, she was even able to stand up and attempted to escape, but accused-appellant grabbed and snatched her back, following which, Accused-appellant’s bestiality unfolded. Erika was 10 years old then. In light of this fact, statutory rape has been committed; force, intimidation or threat need not then be proved (People v. Pacistol, 284 SCRA 520 [1998]). When the testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, sufficient basis exists to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisite of carnal knowledge has thereby been established (People v. Tabion, 317 SCRA 126 [1999]). The mass of physical and testimonial evidence in this case clearly establishes accused-appellant’s guilt of the crime of rape. Verily, the trial court was correct in its findings.

While we agree with the trial court that accused-appellant is guilty of rape, we cannot, however, subscribe to the penalty of death imposed. Both the defense and the Office of the Solicitor General are in concurrence. Article 335, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, provides that the death penalty shall be imposed if the rape victim is under eighteen years of age and the offender is the common-law spouse or the parent of the victim. Clearly believing that the instant case fell within the above-mentioned circumstance, the trial court sentenced accused-appellant to death. A reading of the complaint filed against accused-appellant would, however, reveal that he was charged only with simple rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, with the additional allegation that the victim was only 10 years of age at the time of the incident.

Although the rape of a person under 18 years of age by the common-law spouse of the victim’s mother is punishable by death, this penalty cannot be imposed on accused-appellant because this relationship was not alleged in the complaint. The elements of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must concur. The penalty of death cannot be automatically imposed on accused-appellant merely because of the trial court’s appreciation of both minority and relationship, no matter how clearly established. Jurisprudence is to the effect that these twin facts be alleged in the information or complaint before the death penalty can properly be imposed (People v. Ramos, 296 SCRA 559 [1998]; People v. Leopoldo Ilao, 296 SCRA 658 [1998]).chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Indeed, it would be a denial of the right of accused-appellant to be informed of the charges against him and, consequently, a denial of due process, if he is charged with simple rape but thereafter convicted of its qualified form punishable with death, although the attendant circumstance qualifying the offense and calling for the capital punishment was not alleged in the indictment on which he was arraigned (People v. Garcia, 281 SCRA 463 [1997]). Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, provides that the complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstance.

To be sure, Accused-appellant can only be meted out the penalty of reclusion perpetua on account of the complaint’s failure to specifically allege the relationship between accused-appellant and the victim, the daughter of accused-appellant’s common-law spouse, who was erroneously referred as being instead, the step-daughter of Accused-Appellant.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Finally, modification of the damages awarded by the trial court is in order. In addition to the civil indemnity of P50,000.00, Erika is entitled to the award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 without need for proof of the basis thereof. Lastly, Accused-appellant is liable to pay the victim the sum of P20,000.00 as exemplary damages as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions (Del Rosario v. CA, 267 SCRA 158 [1997]).

WHEREFORE, the judgment under review is hereby AFFIRMED with modifications. Accused-appellant Oscar Ybañez is hereby found guilty of simple rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In addition to the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, Accused-appellant is further ordered to pay the victim P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages to deter other sex perverts from sexually molesting hapless women. No special pronouncement is made as to costs.

SO ORDERED.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Kapunan, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr. and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.




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-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 108228 February 1, 2001 - MANUEL DEL CAMPO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117971 February 1, 2001 - ESTRELLITA S. J. VDA. DE VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124639 February 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO DE VILLA

  • G.R. No. 125483 February 1, 2001 - LUDO AND LUYM CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128448 February 1, 2001 - ALEJANDRO MIRASOL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128636 February 1, 2001 - ZACARIAS BATINGAL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129977 February 1, 2001 - JOSELITO VILLEGAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137647 February 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 137751 February 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO LAUT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117857 February 2, 2001 - LUIS S. WONG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 129401 February 2, 2001 - FELIPE SEVILLE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132529 February 2, 2001 - SUSAN NICDAO CARIÑO v. SUSAN YEE CARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 145415 February 2, 2001 - UNITY FISHING DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112550 February 5, 2001 - DICK L. GO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122664 February 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE BAYOD

  • G.R. No. 134402 February 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARCISO BAYANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141634 February 5, 2001 - REMEDIOS R SANDEJAS, ET AL. v. ALEX A. LINA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-98-1174 February 6, 2001 - SANLAKAS NG BARANGAY JULO v. TIBURCIO V. EMPAYNADO

  • A. M. No. P-99-1336 February 6, 2001 - ELEONOR T. F. MARBAS-VIZCARRA v. MA. DINA A. BERNARDO

  • A.M. No. P-99-1347 February 6, 2001 - PANCRACIO N. ESCAÑAN, ET AL. v. INOCENTES M. MONTEROLA II

  • A.M. No. P-00-1437 February 6, 2001 - JULIAN B. SAN JUAN, SR. v. ARIEL S. SANGALANG

  • G.R. No. 108618 February 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO PABILLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113627 February 6, 2001 - CORAZON C. SHIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126026 February 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURICIO LOYOLA

  • G.R. No. 137619 February 6, 2001 - REYNALDO L. LAUREANO v. BORMAHECO, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140486 February 6, 2001 - PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY v. JESUS S. YUJUICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141855 February 6, 2001 - ZACARIAS COMETA, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 144491 February 6, 2001 - JAIME T. TORRES v. HRET, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 146528, 146549, 146579 & 146631 February 6, 2001 - JAIME N. SORIANO, ET AL. v. JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA

  • G.R. No. 133823 February 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMIL VELEZ RAYOS

  • G.R. No. 135200 February 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 136096 February 7, 2001 - NELIA ATILLO v. BUENAVENTURA BOMBAY

  • G.R. No. 136154 February 7, 2001 - DEL MONTE CORPORATION-USA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 136894-96 February 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ASTERIO CORDERO

  • G.R. No. 141853 February 7, 2001 - TERESITA V. IDOLOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 134368 February 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIFICO RONDILLA

  • G.R. No. 109975 February 9, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ERLINDA MATIAS DAGDAG

  • G.R. No. 110003 February 9, 2001 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117434 February 9, 2001 - BENGUET EXPLORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 132696-97 February 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. 133922 February 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEOLITO OPTANA

  • G.R. No. 141968 February 12, 2001 - INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK v. FRANCIS S. GUECO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128089 February 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR VELASCO

  • G.R. No. 134756 February 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 140065 February 13, 2001 - BENITO CALIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117952-53 February 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 136257 February 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR YBAÑEZ

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1341 February 15, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. REINATO G. QUILALA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1568 February 15, 2001 - ROBERT Z. BARBERS, ET AL. v. PERFECTO A. S. LAGUIO

  • G.R. No. 117033 February 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL AVECILLA

  • G.R. No. 130522 February 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO PAGDAYAWON

  • G.R. No. 133132 February 15, 2001 - ALEXIS C. CANONIZADO, ET AL. v. ALEXANDER P. AGUIRRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135066 February 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERLITO TUMANON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136394 February 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERSON NAAG

  • G.R. Nos. 137185-86 February 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR MACAYA

  • G.R. No. 139884 February 15, 2001 - OCTAVIO LORBES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140420 February 15, 2001 - SERGIO AMONOY v. JOSE GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1399 February 19, 2001 - PHIL. BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. EFREN V. CACHERO

  • A.M. No. P-00-1436 February 19, 2001 - ELPIDIO P. DE LA VICTORIA, ET AL. v. HELEN B. MONGAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112978-81 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABUNDIO T. MENDI

  • G.R. No. 115079 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ALBIOR

  • G.R. No. 118982 February 19, 2001 - LORETA BRAVO CERVANTES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118986-89 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANI DICHOSON

  • G.R. No. 119118 February 19, 2001 - RUFINO VALENCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119361 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORAZON NAVARRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127111 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUDOVICO BLAZO

  • G.R. Nos. 128851-56 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUSSEL MURILLO

  • G.R. No. 132550 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON MARIÑO

  • G.R. Nos. 133586-603 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY QUEIGAN

  • G.R. No. 133917 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NASARIO MOLINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133919-20 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS AWING

  • G.R. No. 134727 February 19, 2001 - CESAR BARRERA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 138343 February 19, 2001 - GILDA C. LIM v. PATRICIA LIM-YU

  • G.R. No. 139834 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO TOLENTINO

  • G.R. No. 140615 February 19, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141244 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF PHIL. v. SALIPADA MUSTAPA

  • A.M. No. P-99-1323 February 20, 2001 - DAVID DE GUZMAN v. PAULO M. GATLABAYAN

  • G.R. No. 118334 February 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LARRY CONSEJERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 132482-83 February 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELISEO TIO

  • G.R. No. 133026 February 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWARD ENDINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141093 February 20, 2001 - PRUDENTIAL BANK and TRUST COMPANY v. CLARITA T. REYES

  • G.R. No. 143377 February 20, 2001 - SHIPSIDE INCORPORATED v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124297 February 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO SAYAO

  • G.R. No. 126117 February 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARLON ZUNIEGA

  • G.R. No. 127957 February 21, 2001 - COLLIN A. MORRIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130597 February 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMER BOLIVAR

  • G.R. Nos. 132635 & 143872-75 February 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAMBERTO VELASQUEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 135964-71 February 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN MANALO

  • G.R. No. 136253 February 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE JOHN LUGOD

  • A.M. No. 10019-Ret. February 22, 2001 - RE: MS. MAYLENNE G. MANLAVI

  • G.R. No. 117734 February 22, 2001 - VICENTE G. DIVINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124704 February 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO CUADRO

  • G.R. No. 128629 February 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMELO LENANTUD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129238 February 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REGALADO B. BURLAT

  • G.R. No. 131851 February 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO BASADRE

  • G.R. Nos. 138859-60 February 22, 2001 - ALVAREZ ARO YUSOP v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • A.M. No. P-00-1426 February 23, 2001 - JOSE P. SOBERANO, JR. v. ADELIA P. NEBRES

  • G.R. Nos. 103613 & 105830 February 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115678 & 119723 February 23, 2001 - PHIL. BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126933 February 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILUMINADA DELMO VALLE

  • G.R. No. 132322 February 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTHONY ESTRELLA

  • G.R. No. 138017 February 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNULFO NATIVIDAD

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1255 February 26, 2001 - MELVIN L. ESPINO, ET AL. v. ISMAEL L. SALUBRE

  • G.R. No. 129933 February 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO BALTAZAR

  • G.R. No. 130196 February 26, 2001 - LUCIA MAPA VDA. DE DELA CRUZ, ET AL. v. ADJUTO ABILLE

  • G.R. No. 134529 February 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO SABALAN

  • G.R. No. 136967 February 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO VISAYA

  • G.R. No. 137046 February 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO CAPITLE

  • G.R. No. 141536 February 26, 2001 - GIL MIGUEL T. PUYAT v. RON ZABARTE

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1250 February 28, 2001 - RIMEO S. GUSTILO v. RICARDO S. REAL

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1312 February 28, 2001 - GERARDO UBANDO-PARAS v. OCTAVIO A. FERNANDEZ

  • A.M. No. P-99-1302 February 28, 2001 - PLACIDO B. VALLARTA v. YOLANDA LOPEZ Vda. de BATOON

  • G.R. Nos. 109491 & 121794 February 28, 2001 - ATRIUM MANAGEMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122858 February 28, 2001 - BIEN D. SEVALLE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123891 February 28, 2001 - PHIL. TRANSMARINE CARRIERS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127227 February 28, 2001 - PAZ S. LIM v. VICTORIA K CHAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128117 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR CAWAYAN

  • G.R. No. 128538 February 28, 2001 - SCC CHEMICALS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129184 February 28, 2001 - EMERGENCY LOAN PAWNSHOP INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 131136 February 28, 2001 - CONRADO L. DE RAMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133695 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL MAURICIO

  • G.R. No. 134373 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASTANITO GANO

  • G.R. Nos. 135231-33 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLESIE VELASCO

  • G.R. No. 137480 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO SERRANO

  • G.R. No. 137566 February 28, 2001 - ROBERTO G. ROSALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137946 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REFORMADOR VIDAL

  • G.R. No. 138042 February 28, 2001 - MAMERTO R. PALON, ET AL. v. GIL S. NINO BRILLANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138146-91 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDY HINTO

  • G.R. No. 138805 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO MACEDA

  • G.R. No. 140937 February 28, 2001 - EXUPERANCIO CANTA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 142029 February 28, 2001 - ERLINDA FRANCISCO, ET AL. v. RICARDO FERRER JR, ET AL.