Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2002 > February 2002 Decisions > G.R. Nos. 137401-03 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS MARCELLANA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. 137401-03. February 6, 2002.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TOMAS MARCELLANA, Accused-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N


PER CURIAM:


This is an automatic review of the decision dated January 21, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court, Fifth Judicial Region, Branch 7, Legazpi City in Criminal Cases Nos. 7584, 7585 and 7586 for three (3) counts of Rape, the dispositive portion of which reads:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

"PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court finds the accused TOMAS MARCELLANA, as having committed beyond reasonable doubt the crime of RAPE against her (sic) daughter FRANCIA MARCELLANA, who was sixteen (16) years old at the time of the incidents complained of. He is therefore declared GUILTY of the crime as charged on three (3) counts.

"Pursuant to the provisions of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, Under Criminal Case No. 7584, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH. He is likewise ordered to pay the victim the amounts of PhP50,000.00, as damages for the offense of rape, PhP30,000.00 as moral damages, and PhP20,000.00 as exemplary damages.

"Under Criminal Case No. 7585, Accused is likewise hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH and ordered to pay the victim the amounts of PhP50,000.00 as damages for the offense of rape, PhP30,000.00 as moral damages, and PhP20,000.00 as exemplary damages.

"Under Criminal Case No. 7586, Accused is also hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH and ordered to pay the amounts of PhP50,000.00 as damages for the offense of rape, PhP30,000.00 as moral damages, and PhP20,000.00 as exemplary damages.

"SO ORDERED." 1

The antecedents of the case are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Private complainant Francia Marcellana testified that her father, Accused-appellant Tomas Marcellana, had been raping the former since 1992, the last of which happened on November 10 and 12, and December 5, 1996. The incidents usually happen at about 7 o’clock in the morning when Francia is left alone in their house, as her classes start at 11:00 a.m. At this time, her brothers and sisters are already in school while her mother is in the farm. Accused-appellant also goes to the farm early but returns before 7:00 a.m., at which time Francia’s ordeal at the hands of her father begin. He would drag Francia inside the bedroom, undress her, lay her down on the bed and tie her hands and feet to the farm posts of the bed. Accused-appellant would then take off his shorts and brief, lay on top of Francia and make a push and pull movement for about three minutes. Thereafter, Accused-appellant would put on his brief and shorts, untie one of the hands of Francia and leave her. The latter would then untie her other hand and feet. 2 She could not tell her mother as well as her siblings about the incidents because she was always threatened by Accused-Appellant. It was only in December of 1996 when Francia, suspecting that she might be pregnant, gathered enough courage to reveal her ordeal to her mother. 3 Since her mother did not initially believe her, Francia went to her high school teacher 4 who helped her secure assistance from the Department of Social Welfare and Development. 5

Dr. Jose Cope, the Municipal Health Officer of Daraga, Albay, conducted a medical examination on Francia and found one deep old hymenal laceration at 1:00 o’clock and multiple superficial lacerations at 3:00, 5:00, 9:00, 11:00 and 12:00 o’clock positions. 6

On January 15, 1997, a criminal complaint was filed against accused-appellant Tomas Marcellana on the basis of which accused-appellant was charged in three separate informations for Rape, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"CRIMINAL CASE NO. 7584

"The undersigned PROSECUTOR II, upon sworn written complaint of private complainant FRANCIA MARCELLANA, hereby accuses TOMAS MARCELLANA, of the crime of RAPE, committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on November 10, 1996 at 7:00 o’clock in the morning, more or less, at Barangay Kilicao, Municipality of Daraga, Province of Albay, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd and unchaste designs, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with his own 16 years old daughter, FRANCIA MARCELLANA, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.

"ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW." 7

"CRIMINAL CASE NO. 7585

"The undersigned PROSECUTOR II, upon sworn written complaint of private complainant FRANCIA MARCELLANA, hereby accuses TOMAS MARCELLANA, of the crime of RAPE, committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on November 12, 1996 at 7:00 o’clock in the morning, more or less, at Barangay Kilicao, Municipality of Daraga, Province of Albay, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd and unchaste designs, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with his own 16 years old daughter, FRANCIA MARCELLANA, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.

"ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW." 8

"CRIMINAL CASE NO. 7586

"The undersigned PROSECUTOR II, upon sworn written complaint of private complainant FRANCIA MARCELLANA, hereby accuses TOMAS MARCELLANA, of the crime of RAPE, committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on December 5, 1996 at 7:00 o’clock in the morning, more or less, at Barangay Kilicao, Municipality of Daraga, Province of Albay, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd and unchaste designs, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with his own 16 years old daughter, FRANCIA MARCELLANA, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.

"ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW." 9

Upon arraignment on August 28, 1997, Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to each of the offenses charged. 10

In disowning liability, Accused-appellant simply denied the same and argued that the charges were mere fabrications as a consequence of an isolated incident wherein he reprimanded her daughter, herein complainant, for going home late. 11

After trial on the merits, Accused-appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged and was sentenced accordingly. Hence, this case before us for review.

In his brief, Accused-appellant raised the following errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

"I.


"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.

"II.


"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT IN EACH OF THE THREE (3) RAPE CHARGES.

"III.


"ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT INDEED HAD SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH PRIVATE COMPLAINANT, NONETHELESS, THE COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING UPON HIM THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH, CONSIDERING THAT THE ESTABLISHED FACTS SHOW THAT, IF EVER A CRIME IS COMMITTED, THE SAME IS ONLY QUALIFIED SEDUCTION." 12

The first and the second assigned errors were explained simultaneously in appellant’s brief. Consequently, We will examine and discuss them jointly.

Three indications, allegedly upholding accused-appellants innocence, were laid down. First, Accused-appellant points to the delay in reporting the incidents complained of.

We are not persuaded. The delay and initial reluctance of a rape victim to make public the assault on her virtue is neither unknown or uncommon. 13 Particularly in incestuous rape, this Court has consistently held that delay in reporting the offense is not indicative of a fabricated charge. 14

"Delay in reporting a rape incident neither diminishes complainant’s credibility nor undermines the charges of rape where the delay can be attributed to the pattern of fear instilled by the threats of bodily harm, specially by one who exercised moral ascendancy over the victims. (Emphasis supplied)" 15

Moreover, the young victim might just opt to bear the ignominy and pain in private rather than reveal her shame to the whole world. 16 She may also be too overwhelmed with fear and confusion as to why her very own father would commit such a nefarious act. 17

In the case before us, Francia’s ordeal in the hands of her father began in 1992. 18 Based on her Certificate of Live Birth, 19 Francia was then only twelve years old. At that young age and with the naivete and innocence that comes with provincial upbringing, the callow Francia was undoubtedly under her father’s moral authority and influence. This ascendancy over her together with the constant threats from her father, Francia could not possibly be expected to come out in the open. It took her four more years of prolonged abuse as well as the threat of a more humiliating circumstance — that of being pregnant — to gather enough courage in finally revealing her ordeal. 20 Withal, we do not consider the delay to be fatal.

With regard to the second indication, Accused-appellant lays too much emphasis on the accuracy of the frequency offered by Francia regarding the number of times she was raped.

In People v. Alicante, 21 this Court aptly said,

"The other inconsistencies refer to minor details such as how many times she was raped during a certain month. These do not create a reasonable doubt as to whether or not accused-appellant raped his daughter. It must be remembered that the victim is a girl of tender age who was sexually attacked by her father several times during a period of less than a year.

"It is not expected that Richelle would remember every single detail of every single rape. It is understandable, even anticipated, that there would be minor lapses and inaccuracies when a young girl is made to recount, detail by detail her frightful ordeal under the hands of her father. Considering the age of the victim, she is more prone to error than an adult person. The grueling experience of testifying in public, face to face with her perpetrator and being questioned by hostile lawyers would undoubtedly intimidate and confuse a young girl."cralaw virtua1aw library

In People v. Villar, 22 We held that the burden of exactness cannot be imposed on a young victim who claimed to have been raped for more than 100 times in a span of one year.

Considering private complainant Francia Marcellana’s harrowing experience lasting for four (4) years 23 , it is with more reason that we should not demand such a high degree of accuracy and detail on the poor victim. What is important is that Francia remained steadfast in her claim that her father raped her. 24

As to the third indication of accused-appellant’s alleged innocence, he argued and we quote:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The prosecution failed to rebut defense’s theory that it was Rudy Completo, Francia’s fiancé, who had sexual intercourse with her. It must be remembered that Rudy and Francia were set to be wed in January 1997 and yet, Rudy decided not to pursue with the wedding. Does this fact not raise doubt that the supposed groom backed out from the marriage plan because, anyway, he has already had carnal knowledge with his would-be-bride?

"Further, likewise undisputed from the records is the fact that it was not only once that private complainant went home drunk, and that when she attended a ball one time, she returned home late after the socials. Could it not be possible that in one or all occasions Francia Marcellana committed sexual indiscretions which is now being charged against herein accused?"25cralaw:red

The foregoing attempt to blacken Francia’s character is but a futile attempt to discredit her unfaltering testimony. These suggestions mock the intelligence of the court and sorely test its patience. Accused-appellant should, at the very least, offer some basis to support these suppositions. Generally, no young woman would accuse her father of so grave a crime as rape unless she was truly wronged 26 and is now seeking retribution for the abominable violation against her. 27 Neither would she publicly disclose a humiliating and painful experience if it were not the truth. 28 We also find it inconceivable that the young victim would devise or fabricate a story that she was raped by her own father considering that family honor is at stake, and that she might just send him to jail. 29

In the present case, not only was Francia’s testimony unwavering, it was also clear, convincing and straightforward. 30 More importantly, her credibility was bolstered beyond reproach by her spontaneous emotional breakdown during trial. 31

With regard to accused-appellants’ third and final assigned error, we find the same to be both repulsive to this Court’s luminosity and that of the young Francia’s person. In the words of Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, "Of all so called heinous crimes, none perhaps more deeply provokes feelings of outrage, detestation and disgust than incestuous rape." 32 No daughter in her right mind would consent to having carnal knowledge with her own father. 33

Besides, Accused-appellant’s reliance on the case of People v. Castillan is misplaced. The peculiarities of that case are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1) the complainant and the accused were sweethearts; and

2) the complainant’s testimony showed inherent lack of credibility on crucial points.

In contrast, the relationship between accused-appellant and Francia is that of a father and daughter. As such, the rape contemplated here is quite different from that in Castillan. There, the crime of rape is that alleged to have been committed by force. Where, the rape is committed by a father against his own daughter, the father’s moral ascendancy and influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation. 34 Moreover, failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance will not make a rape victim’s submission voluntary. 35

As a last note, on accused-appellant’s overtones that he should only be held liable for qualified seduction, 36 we said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The accused charged with rape cannot be convicted of qualified seduction under the same information. Then, too, rape and qualified seduction are not identical offenses. While the two felonies have one common element which is carnal knowledge of a woman, they significantly vary in all other respects." 37

In view of the foregoing, we uphold the decision of the trial court finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of rape.

In accordance with recent jurisprudence, Accused-appellant should indemnify the victim Francia Marcellana the amount of PhP75,000.00 for each of the three (3) counts of rape since these were committed or effectively qualified by circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized by applicable amendatory laws. 38 The award of moral damages in favor of Francia should be increased from PhP30,000.00 to PhP50,000.00 in each of the three counts of rape without need of proof save for the conviction of Accused-Appellant. 39 The award of exemplary damages is deleted for lack of legal basis. 40

Four Justices of the Court maintain their position that R. A. No. 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty. Nevertheless they submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case at bar.

WHEREFORE, the decision under review convicting accused-appellant Tomas Marcellana for three (3) counts of rape and sentencing him to DEATH for each of the three counts is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is hereby ordered to pay the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a) the amount of PhP75,000.00 as civil indemnity for each of the three counts of rape; and

b) the amount of PhP50,000.00 as moral damages for each of the three counts of rape.

In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this decision, let certified copies thereof, as well as the records of this case, be forwarded without delay to the Office of the President for possible exercise of executive clemency.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

SO ORDERED.

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

Quisumbing and Carpio, JJ., on official business.

Endnotes:



1. RTC Decision, p. 16, ROLLO.

2. TSN, November 13, 1997, pp. 10-20.

3. TSN, November 13, 1997, pp. 20-21.

4. Mrs. Herminia Esporlas.

5. TSNs, November 13, 1997, pp. 21-22; and February 5, 1998, pp. 5-6, and 8-10.

6. TSN, November 13, 1997, pp. 3, and 5.

7. Amended Information for Criminal Case No. 7584, p. 3, ROLLO.

8. Ibid., p. 4, ROLLO.

9. Amended Information for Criminal Case No. 5, ROLLO.

10. Certificate of Arraignment in Criminal Case No. 7584, dated August 28, 1997, p. 23, RECORDS Vol. I; Certificate of Arraignment in Criminal Case No. 7585, dated August 26, 1997, p. 20, RECORDS Vol. II; and Certificate of Arraignment in Criminal Case No. 7586, dated August 26, 1997, p. 17, RECORDS Vol. III.

11. TSN, October 29, 1998, pp. 4-6.

12. Appellant’s Brief, pp. 30-31, ROLLO.

13. People v. Cabana, 331 SCRA 569, 581 [2000].

14. People v. Silvano, 309 SCRA 362, 392 [1999].

15. People v. Padil, 318 SCRA 795, 807 [1999].

16. Ibid., 318 SCRA 795, 807-808 [1999].

17. People v. Narido, 316 SCRA 131, 145-146 [1999].

18. TSN, November 13, 1997, p. 17.

19. Ex. "E" p. 7, RECORDS.

20. TSN, November 13, 1992, pp. 17 and 21.

21. 332 SCRA 440, 453-454 [2000].

22. 322 SCRA 393, 400 [2000].

23. TSN, November 13, 1992, p. 17.

24. Ibid., p. 21.

25. Appellant’s Brief, p. 39, ROLLO.

26. People v. Mangila, 325 SCRA 586, 597 [2000].

27. People v. Razonable, 330 SCRA 562, 574 [2000].

28. People v. Alicante, 332 SCRA 440, 455 [2000]; see also People v. Pineda, 311 SCRA 368, 380 [1999].

29. People v. Razonable, 330 SCRA 562, 575 [2000]; see also People v. Bation, 305 SCRA 253, 269-270 [1999].

30. TSN, November, 13, 1997, pp. 10-15, 18-19, and 19-20.

31. TSN, November 13, 1997, p. 14; see People v. Sancha, 324 SCRA 646, 663 [2000]; People v. Alquizalas, 305 SCRA 367, 374 [1999]; People v. Bea, Jr., 306 SCRA 653, 659 [1999]; People v. Ramos, 312 SCRA 137, 147 [1999]; and People v. Mosqueda, 313 SCRA 694, 707 [1999].

32. People v. Baculi, 246 SCRA 756, 758 [1995].

33. People v. Traya, 332 SCRA 499, 505 [2000].

34. People v. Traya, 332 SCRA 499, 513-514 [2000]; People v. Javier, 311 SCRA 122, 138-139 [1999]; People v. Burce, 269 SCRA 293, 314 [1997] citing People v. Matrimonio, 215 SCRA 613, 632 [1992].

35. People v. Vergel, 316 SCRA 199, 212 [1999].

36. Appellant’s Brief, pp. 43-44, ROLLO.

37. People v. Javier, 311 SCRA 122, 139 [1999].

38. People v. Sancha, 324 SCRA 646, 669 [2000]; see also People v. Ramos, 312 SCRA 137, 157 [1999]; People v. Bation, 305 SCRA 253, 271 [1999]; and People v. Prades, 293 SCRA 411, 430 [1998].

39. People v. Alicante, 332 SCRA 440, 470 [2000]; see also People v. Sancha, 324 SCRA 646, 669 [2000]; People v. Padil, 318 SCRA 795, 811 [1999]; People v. Vergel, 316 SCRA 199, 213-214 [1999]; People v. Ramos, 312 SCRA 137, 151 [1999]; and People v. Bation, 305 SCRA 253, 271 [1999].

40. Article 2230, Civil Code; see People v. Alquizalas, 305 SCRA 367, 379 [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-2002 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 5574 February 1, 2002 - TEODOLFO REYES v. ATTY. ROLANDO JAVIER

  • G.R. Nos. 102390 & 102404 February 1, 2002 - REY LAÑADA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106755 February 1, 2002 - APOLINARIA AUSTRIA-MAGAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114231 February 1, 2002 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. NELIA A. BARLIS

  • G.R. Nos. 117913 & 117914 February 1, 2002 - CHARLES LEE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132286 February 1, 2002 - LOLIHALA SABERON LERCANA v. PORFERIO JALANDONI, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 144476 & 144629 February 1, 2002 - ONG YONG, ET AL. v. DAVID S. TIU, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1264 February 4, 2002 - RAMIR MINA v. JUDGE RODOLFO GATDULA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1530 February 4, 2002 - DR EDGARDO ALDAY, ET AL. v. JUDGE ESCOLASTICO U. CRUZ, JR.

  • G.R. No. 123557 February 4, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. 132339 February 4, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE CAMACHO TORREJA

  • G.R. Nos. 140393-94 February 4, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCOS ASUELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140633 February 4, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 145872 February 4, 2002 - GLORIA OCAMPO-PAULE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 147927 February 4, 2002 - RAYMUNDO M. ADORMEO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148075 February 4, 2002 - PANGKAT LAGUNA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132816 February 5, 2002 - SUSANA B. CABAHUG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 133799 February 5, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGINO BONIFACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139539 February 5, 2002 - CEROFERR REALTY CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2417 February 6, 2002 - ALEX ONG v. ATTY. ELPIDIO D. UNTO

  • A.C. No. 4738 February 6, 2002 - VIOLETA FLORES ALITAGTAG v. ATTY. VIRGILIO R. GARCIA

  • A.M. No. P-02-1541 February 6, 2002 - FLORENTINO A. MERCADO, JR. v. NOEL T. MANALO

  • G.R. No. 122930 February 6, 2002 - SPS. VICTORIA and ARTURO SERRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126515 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SSGT. DOMINGO DALMACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126638 February 6, 2002 - ROSANNA B. BARBA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127094 February 6, 2002 - ALEJANDRIA PINEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129919 February 6, 2002 - DOMINION INSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131392 February 6, 2002 - CITY GOVERNMENT OF MAKATI CITY v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131808 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO C. FELIPE

  • G.R. No. 132568 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATT G. CAMPOMANES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133008-24 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO RODAVIA

  • G.R. No. 133185 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWARD OLLAMINA

  • G.R. Nos. 137401-03 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS MARCELLANA

  • G.R. Nos. 137610-11 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137621 February 6, 2002 - HAGONOY MARKET VENDOR ASSO. v. MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY, BULACAN

  • G.R. No. 137963 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO CAIÑGAT

  • G.R. No. 138987 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO RODRIGUEZ

  • G.R. No. 139330 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO SANSAET, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 139616-17 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NATHANIEL PONSARAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140199-200 February 6, 2002 - FELICITO S. MACALINO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142920 February 6, 2002 - DOROTEO SALAZAR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143363 February 6, 2002 - ST. MARY’S ACADEMY v. WILLIAM CARPITANOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143370 February 6, 2002 - MARIO J. MENDEZONA, ET AL. v. JULIO H. OZAMIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 144086-87 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDRALIN TABOGA

  • G.R. No. 122906 February 7, 2002 - DINAH B. TONOG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139768 February 7, 2002 - ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138382-84 February 12, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO ASPIRAS

  • G.R. No. 138677 February 12, 2002 - TOLOMEO LIGUTAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1339 February 13, 2002 - EFREN MORALES, SR. v. JUDGE CESAR M. DUMLAO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1636 February 13, 2002 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE ANTONIO P. QUIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117202 February 13, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEORITO PORIO

  • G.R. No. 131773 February 13, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANABEL VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133964 February 13, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMIL PEÑA

  • G.R. No. 138454 February 13, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOCEL BEJO

  • G.R. Nos. 140218-23 February 13, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS ESCAÑO

  • G.R. No. 140550 February 13, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR AYUPAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1407 February 15, 2002 - SPS. FELIPE and ROSELYN BIGLETE v. BONIFACIO V. MAPUTI, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1441 February 15, 2002 - RODOLFO S. CRUZ v. VIRGILIO F. VILLAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124525 February 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO SAN JUAN

  • G.R. No. 124666 February 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO SAMSON

  • G.R. No. 125797 February 15, 2002 - DENR v. GREGORIO DARAMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128118 February 15, 2002 - GSIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128996 February 15, 2002 - CARMEN LL. INTENGAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130596 February 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO CASTILLANO

  • G.R. No. 131200 February 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133632 February 15, 2002 - BPI INVESTMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 134139-40 February 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO SOMODIO

  • G.R. No. 135026 February 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NILO HERMO

  • G.R. No. 137745 February 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO TAGUN

  • G.R. No. 139578 February 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL BANIEGA

  • G.R. Nos. 140729-30 February 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO QUARRE

  • G.R. No. 141238 February 15, 2002 - SATURNINO SALERA, JR., ET AL. v. A-1 INVESTORS, INC.

  • G.R. Nos. 142561-62 February 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE VELASQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 143481 February 15, 2002 - NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 143764 February 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAM HINAUT

  • G.R. No. 144227 February 15, 2002 - GEORGINA HILADO v. HEIRS OF RAFAEL MEDALLA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1395 February 19, 2002 - BAIKONG AKANG CAMSA v. JUDGE AURELIO D. RENDON, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1596 February 19, 2002 - ATTY. JOSE B. ECHAVES v. JUDGE RUMOLDO R. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127536 February 19, 2002 - CESAR JARO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130489 February 19, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS JAVIER

  • G.R. No. 133650 February 19, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMIL MATIC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140651 February 19, 2002 - ESTELITA G. HERRERA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144499 February 19, 2002 - FIRST GLOBAL REALTY AND DEV’T. CORP. v. CHRISTOPHER SAN AGUSTIN

  • G.R. No. 121106 February 20, 2002 - DURISOL PHIL., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124975 February 20, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORIANO AMAQUIN

  • G.R. No. 133444 February 20, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IÑEGO LAS PIÑAS, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 133583-85 February 20, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO BERNAS

  • G.R. No. 134767 February 20, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLY ESPEJON

  • G.R. Nos. 139112-13 February 20, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS TITO LAVADOR

  • G.R. Nos. 139698-726 February 20, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO D. MATUGAS

  • G.R. No. 142572 February 20, 2002 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CARMEL DEVELOPMENT, INC.

  • G.R. Nos. 143755-58 February 20, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO PAJARILLO

  • G.R. No. 147328 February 20, 2002 - SPS. ANTON and EILEEN LIM v. UNI-TAN MARKETING CORP.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1486 February 21, 2002 - JUDGE LORETO D. DE LA VICTORIA v. HON. LEOPOLDO V. CAÑETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138231 February 21, 2002 - GREGORIO R. CASTILLO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1556 February 22, 2002 - NORMA SANTOS v. JOYCE TRINIDAD A. HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149930 February 22, 2002 - SULPICIO LINES, INC., v. QUINCIANO GULDE

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1517 February 26, 2002 - PURITA T. LIM v. JUDGE DEMETRIO D. CALIMAG, JR.

  • G.R. No. 148965 February 26, 2002 - JOSE "JINGGOY" E. ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1331 February 27, 2002 - MAYOR REYNOLAN T. SALES v. JUDGE MELVYN U. CALVAN

  • A.M. No. P-00-1384 February 27, 2002 - JUDGE PASCUAL F. FOJAS, JR. v. GALICANO M. ROLLAN

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1398 February 27, 2002 - JOSELITO R. ENRIQUEZ v. JUDGE PLACIDO B. VALLARTA

  • G.R. No. 111610 February 27, 2002 - ROMEO P. NAZARENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130970 February 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DENNIS EDEM

  • G.R. No. 133490 February 27, 2002 - MA. GWENDOLYN R. BELLEZA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 134362 February 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMELITO SITCHON

  • G.R. Nos. 135639 & 135826 February 27, 2002 - TERMINAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES CORP. v. PHIL. PORTS AUTHORITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137911 February 27, 2002 - AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE v. JESUS R. FACTORA

  • G.R. No. 138200 February 27, 2002 - SECRETARY OF DOTC v. ROBERTO MABALOT

  • G.R. No. 139794 February 27, 2002 - MARTIN S. EMIN v. CHMN. CORAZON ALMA G. DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140074 February 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPHINE SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 143781 February 27, 2002 - JOSE CLAVANO, INC. v. HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146741 February 27, 2002 - NATIONAL BOOKSTORE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 147379 February 27, 2002 - HEIRS OF AMBROCIO KIONISALA v. HEIRS OF HONORIO DACUT

  • A.C. No. 5174 February 28, 2002 - ERNESTO M. RAMOS v. ATTY. MARIANO A. DAJOYAG, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1460 February 28, 2002 - ESPERANZA L. DE GUZMAN v. NORMA M. BURCE

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1677 February 28, 2002 - JERUSALINO V. ARAOS v. JUDGE ROSALINA L. LUNA-PISON

  • G.R. No. 130506 February 28, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO R. JAKOSALEM

  • G.R. No. 141125 February 28, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JEFFREY GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144422 February 28, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALDRIN LICAYAN

  • G.R. No. 146664 February 28, 2002 - JOHN ANGCACO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.