Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2001 > February 2001 Decisions > G.R. No. 137946 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REFORMADOR VIDAL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 137946. February 28, 2001.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REFORMADOR VIDAL y BALLADARES, Accused-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N


MENDOZA, J.:


This is an appeal from the decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Dipolog City, finding accused-appellant Reformador Vidal y Balladares guilty of rape against Imelda Magbojos and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify complainant in the amount of P50,000.00.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The information against accused-appellant alleged —

That in the evening, on or about the 27th day of March 1987, in Sulangon, Dapitan City, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused moved by lewd and unchaste designs, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously hold, hug, kiss, pull down, removed the panty, lay on top and have sexual intercourse with one IMELDA MAGBOJOS y Anghag against her will and without her consent.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 2

Upon being arraigned, Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty, whereupon he was tried.

The evidence for the prosecution is as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

In the evening of March 27, 1987, a dance and amateur singing contest was held at Purok Molave, Sitio Mantutugas, Barangay Sulangon, Dapitan City. Complainant Imelda Magbojos, then 24 years old, was at the place tending a "sari-sari" store. Accused-appellant Reformador Vidal, a relative of complainant, was also there. At around 7 p.m., complainant’s mother, Cresencia Magbojos, arrived to take the place of complainant so she could eat supper at home. Accused-appellant asked Cresencia for permission to have supper with complainant. After getting permission, Accused-appellant bought a can of sardines and went to complainant’s house, and the two had supper together. Complainant’s brother Diosdado was there but, having eaten supper earlier, left and went to the dancing hall. After clearing the table and washing the dishes, complainant, after leaving her slippers on the ground, went up the stairs to put out the light and close the bedroom door as she prepared to return to the dance hall. She locked the door inside and passed through the window to get out, but accused-appellant held her as she was getting out. The window where complainant got out was just a meter high from the ground. Accused-appellant embraced her and started kissing her. Complainant told him to stop, saying that she was getting married soon, but accused-appellant did not heed her. Complainant was able to free herself and run, but accused-appellant caught her shirt, and she fell back. Complainant struggled with accused-appellant, but in the end, Accused-appellant prevailed. He carried her towards a grassy place, about 50 meters from the back of her house, where he succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. After accused-appellant had left, complainant went to the house of her aunt Patricia Magbojos and reported what had happened to her. 3

Complainant’s mother Cresencia became worried because her daughter had not returned from their house. She decided to go home. On her way, she met Accused-Appellant. When she reached their house, she found complainant’s slippers on the ground, but complainant was not there. With the help of her son-in-law, Adan Esmade, they found complainant in the house of Patricia Magbojos. Adan Esmade brought complainant home where she told her mother what happened to her. Cresencia took her daughter to the barangay captain to report the incident. As the barangay captain was not in his house, they proceeded to the Philippine Army detachment in Antipolo, Dapitan City, where complainant reported the incident. 4 The following morning, complainant also made a report to the police. She was examined at the Rizal Memorial Hospital, Dapitan City by Dr. Lolita N.V. Hamoy who later issued a medical certificate containing the following findings:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

— Contusion back, and right buttocks

— I E — Hymen — old laceration 3 o’clock position

— Vagina — Admits 2 fingers with ease

Note: Vaginal smear for spermatozoa taken — NEGATIVE. 5

After receiving the results of the medico-legal examination, complainant and her mother gave their sworn statements. 6

In his defense, Accused-appellant admitted having sexual intercourse with complainant on the night of March 27, 1987 but claimed that the same was consensual. He alleged that after having supper with him, complainant went upstairs to put out the light in the bedroom. She was going back to the dance hall and told accused-appellant she was going to pass through the window after locking the bedroom door from inside. For this purpose, she asked accused-appellant to catch her as she jumped to the ground. Accused-appellant said he agreed and caught complainant in his arms as she jumped out of the window. Then he embraced and kissed her. She did not complain and even embraced and kissed him back, according to Accused-Appellant. They then walked to a place about 20 meters from complainant’s house where complainant allowed herself to be undressed by Accused-Appellant. The two engaged in sexual intercourse, but afterwards, according to accused-appellant, complainant felt guilty and started crying because she was getting married soon. Accused-appellant said he assured her that he would marry her and that he would bring his mother with him to ask for her hand in marriage. After complainant stopped crying and dressed herself, Accused-appellant returned to the dance hall and took part in the singing contest. According to him, he did not know where complainant went after their tryst. Without waiting for the announcement of the winners in the contest, Accused-appellant went home and arrived there at around 10 p.m. At dawn the next day, he was awakened by some men from the military who were looking for him. He was told that there was a complaint for rape filed by complainant against him. His hands were then tied behind his back and he was brought to the Sulangon market. He was taken to the residence of the barangay captain and then to the police station in Dapitan City where he was detained. The following Monday, he was released as there was no case filed against him. 7

On the basis of the evidence presented by the parties, the trial court rendered its decision on October 14, 1998, the dispositive portion of which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, finding the accused Reformador Vidal y Balladares guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and ordered to pay the private offended party Imelda Magbojos civil indemnity in the sum of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00).

SO ORDERED. 8

Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant contends:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I. THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT RAPED IMELDA MAGBOJOS;

II. THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN THE APPRECIATION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL CONFLICTING TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES;

III. THE LOWER COURT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT REFORMADOR’S JOINING THE SINGING CONTEST AND IMELDA’S RETURN TO THE MARKET PLACE AND BECAME A HAPPY AUDIENCE BELIE THE ALLEGATION OF RAPE;

IV. THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS NO RESISTANCE AND/OR INSUFFICIENT RESISTANCE ON THE PART OF IMELDA;

V. THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT EXHIBITS "A", "B", "C", AND "D" DO NOT CORROBORATE WITH THE TESTIMONY OF THE COMPLAINANT;

VI. THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 9

The issues raised by accused-appellant boil down to a question of the credibility of the complainant’s testimony. After a perusal of the records, we find the above contentions to be without merit.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

First. Accused-appellant admitted that he had sexual intercourse with complainant on the date and time alleged in the information. He claims, however, that it was consensual. Thus, the question is anchored on whether or not there was consent on the part of complainant to the sexual intercourse. We find no reason to reverse the findings of the trial court that complainant was raped. It is settled that the evaluation by the trial court of the testimony of a witness is accorded the highest respect because the trial court had the opportunity to observe the facial expression, gesture, and voice tone of a witness while testifying and, therefore, competent to determine whether or not the witness is telling the truth. 10 Complainant’s testimony on how she was raped is straightforward and direct and bears the earmarks of truthfulness.

Accused-appellant’s counsel points out that complainant stated during her direct examination that she was completely naked when accused-appellant had sexual intercourse with her, 11 while during her cross-examination she claimed that her pants were pushed down up to her legs. 12 He thus seeks to impeach complainant’s credibility. To do this, however, Accused-appellant’s counsel should have first asked complainant during the trial to explain the differences in her statements. This is required by Rule 132, �13, but counsel for accused-appellant failed to do so. Hence, he cannot raise the point for the first time in this appeal. For aught counsel knows, what complainant meant when she said she was completely naked was that she had nothing on to cover her private parts. With her pants and panties pulled down her legs, although not removed by accused-appellant, she still considered herself completely naked.

Furthermore, the alleged inconsistency is minor and inconsequential in nature and does not detract from the fact that complainant was raped. In fact, this even strengthens her credibility as this shows that she is not a rehearsed witness. 13 Also, the variance in her statements is but natural considering that the cross-examination of complainant took place almost 11 years after her direct examination.

For the same reason, the alleged inconsistency between the testimonies of complainant and that of her mother as to whether or not complainant returned to the dance and watched the singing contest is insignificant and does not negate the existence of rape. It remains undisputed that complainant reported the matter to the police authorities and allowed herself to be physically examined and be subjected to interrogation concerning delicate matters in order to vindicate her honor. Accused-appellant’s contention that complainant accused him because she felt remorse for having sex with him in spite of her engagement to another man is simply preposterous. No decent woman in her right mind would tell a tale that could sully her reputation and bring undue embarrassment and shame to herself and expose her family to all sorts of public aspersions if it is not the truth. 14

Second. Accused-appellant contends that the prosecution’s failure to present complainant’s aunt Patricia Magbojos and brother-in-law Adan Esmade to corroborate complainant’s testimony puts doubt in her claim that she had been raped. This is untenable. In rape cases, the prosecution is not bound to present witnesses other than complainant herself, as accused-appellant may be convicted solely on the testimony of complainant, provided the same is credible, natural, convincing, and otherwise consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. 15 The testimony of complainant complied with such standards.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Third. The failure of complainant to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not imply her submission to accused-appellant’s desires. 16 To be sure, it is not required that the victim of rape resist her assailant unto death. All that is necessary is that the force or intimidation employed against complainant enabled the assailant to effect sexual penetration. 17

Accused-appellant questions the lack of bruises on several parts of complainant’s body to show resistance to the sexual assault. But neither is it necessary for complainant to show physical injuries. 18 In this case, the evidence shows that complainant resisted the advances of Accused-Appellant. She tried to run from accused-appellant but the latter was able to catch her shirt and once again hold her against her will. Likewise, her testimony that accused-appellant pushed her to the ground was corroborated by the contusion on her back. The damaged bra and the torn pants and panties further attest to the use of force in undressing her. 19 That the undergarments were clean when presented in court was amply explained by complainant who said she washed them before presenting them in evidence. 20

Fourth. The absence of fresh injuries in complainant’s private part does not negate rape as proof of hymenal lacerations is not an element of rape. 21 Moreover, if as accused-appellant contends, complainant had sexual relations with another man and in fact had previously given birth, which facts were admitted by complainant, 22 then it would be absurd for him to demand that the prosecution prove that complainant’s hymen suffered laceration as a result of the rape.

Fifth. Accused-appellant’s contention that he and complainant were lovers is not worthy of any consideration at all. He presented no witness to corroborate his claim. He showed no love letters, pictures, or other mementoes to prove that he and complainant were sweethearts. 23 Neither does the fact that complainant had given birth to a child by another man negate rape in this case. Even a woman of loose morals could still be the victim of rape, the essence thereof being carnal knowledge of a woman without her consent. 24

Sixth. While it is true that flight raises the presumption of guilt on the part of an accused, the converse does not necessarily mean innocence. There is no rule that, in every instance, the fact that the accused did not flee is a proof of his innocence. 25 It is not unnatural for a criminal, as in this case, to desist from leaving the place where the crime was committed to feign innocence.

Considering the foregoing reasons, the assailed decision must be upheld. However, the decision of the trial court must be modified as complainant should be awarded moral damages in addition to the indemnity given by the trial court. This does not need to be alleged, much less proved, because it is presumed that complainant has sustained mental, physical, and psychological sufferings as a result of the rape. 26

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Dipolog City, finding accused-appellant Reformador Vidal y Balladares guilty of rape of Imelda Magbojos y Anghag and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is ordered to pay the additional amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

SO ORDERED.

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

Endnotes:



1. Per Judge Primitivo S. Abarquez, Jr.

2. Rollo, p. 9.

3. TSN, pp. 2-9, Sept. 8, 1987; TSN, pp. 2-19, Oct. 27, 1987.

4. TSN, pp. 3-7, Nov. 24, 1994.

5. Exh. D.

6. Exh. F; Records, p. 5.

7. TSN, pp. 22-35, Aug. 19, 1998.

8. Rollo, p. 26.

9. Id., pp. 46-47.

10. People v. Cortes, G.R. No. 129693, Jan. 24, 2000.

11. TSN, p. 11, Oct. 27, 1987.

12. TSN, pp. 19-20, Mar. 24, 1998.

13. People v. Padilla, 301 SCRA 265 (1999).

14. People v. Roman, 314 SCRA 425 (1999).

15. People v. Luisa, 288 SCRA 296 (1998).

16. People v. Vergel, 316 SCRA 199 (1999).

17. People v. Macosta, 320 SCRA 668 (1999).

18. People v. Lucban, 322 SCRA 313 (1999).

19. Exhs. A, B, and C.

20. TSN, p. 14, Mar. 24, 1998.

21. People v. Dizon, 309 SCRA 669 (1999).

22. TSN, p. 27, Mar. 24, 1998.

23. People v. Palma, 308 SCRA 466 (1999).

24. People v. Bernaldez, 322 SCRA 462 (1999).

25. People v. Arafiles, G.R. No. 128814, Feb. 9, 2000.

26. People v. Baygar, 318 SCRA 358 (1999).




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.