Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2002 > January 2002 Decisions > G.R. No. 132167 January 8, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARMANDO QUENING:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 132167. January 8, 2002.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARMANDO QUENING y VERSOZA, Accused-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N


QUISUMBING, J.:


On appeal is the decision 1 dated October 9, 1997, of the Regional Trial Court of Masbate, Branch 46, in Criminal Case No. 7737, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Appellant was charged under the following Information:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about March 12, 1995, in the afternoon thereof, at sitio Siwayan, barangay Bangon, Municipality of Aroroy, Province of Masbate, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, evident premeditation, and treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and hack with a bolo one Antonio dela Cruz y Rebesi, hitting the latter on the different parts of the body therefore inflicting wounds which cause[d] his instantaneous death.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 2

Appellant pleaded not guilty when arraigned. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. The facts of the case, as culled from the testimonies of the prosecution and defense witnesses, are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

BERNADETH DELA CRUZ, 3 widow of the victim and the first witness for the prosecution, testified that on March 12, 1995, her husband, Antonio dela Cruz, attended a birthday party. In the afternoon of that same day, she saw him walking towards their house but stopped at appellant’s house, which was about 10 to 15 meters from theirs. There was a rumor in their sitio that her husband and appellant’s wife were having an affair. She saw her husband talking to appellant’s wife just outside the latter’s house. Seeing this, she went over to join them. She overheard her husband telling appellant’s wife that should appellant die, he would take the latter’s place. She interrupted them and said that this could not be true. She and her husband were about to leave when suddenly appellant arrived. She then tried to explain to appellant that her husband was just joking. Piqued, appellant immediately boxed her husband. She said she tried to hold on to appellant to stop him from further hurting her husband, but instead both fell to the ground. She recalled that appellant’s brother-in-law, nicknamed Egoy, appeared and tried to hit her as well. However, her husband hit Egoy first, and the latter fell. The spouses hurriedly went home. Upon reaching their house, her husband remainded and sat by the gate, facing the house, with his back to the road. She was standing about 4 to 5 meters away from him, just outside their gate, when she saw appellant, who was armed with a bolo, walking towards her husband. She recalled that she tried to shout and warn him but no avail as no sound came out of her throat. She saw appellant hack her husband to death. She said appellant killed her husband because appellant might have envied her family. 4

On cross-examination, Bernadeth admitted that when her husband left, she stayed behind and talked to appellant’s wife who apologized for the rumor. According to her, when she neared her home, Egoy arrived and engaged her husband in a fistfight in the middle of the road. She reiterated what she narrated in her direct testimony. 5

The second witness for the prosecution was JULITO RABINO, 6 a neighbor of the victim and the appellant. He testified that on March 12, 1995, at around 3:30 P.M., while he was riding his bicycle, he saw appellant hacking at Antonio, near the gate infront of the latter’s house. He shouted for appellant to stop but appellant only looked back at him and continued to hack Antonio. The victim sustained wounds on his head and shoulder. Julito said he was just three (3) arms length away. He saw appellant leave and go to the house of Rafael Mendoza, a barangay kagawad, to surrender. Meanwhile, he saw Bernadeth faint by the side of the road. He then brought her to her parents’ house. 7

DR. ARTEMIO G. CAPELLAN, Municipal Health Officer of Masbate, testified and interpreted the medico-legal findings of Dr. Noel Jazul, who conducted the autopsy and prepared the autopsy report, as follows: (1) Hacking type of wound located at the left side of the head. (2) Hacking wound, 11 cm. x 5 cm., parieto occipital right. (3) Hack wound 5 cm. x 3 cm., extended from maxillary area, located at the right cheek up to the back passing through the right ear. (4) Hacking wound, 11 cm. x 2 cm., right postero lateral aspect, at the right side of the neck through his back. (5) Hacking wound, 8 cm. x 4 cm., with complete fracture at the right shoulder. (6) Hacking wound, 10 cm. x 10 cm., right scapula, at the right side of the back. (7) Hacking wound at 17 cm. x 2.5 cm., scapular area posterior chest, at the left side of the back. Dr. Capellan clarified that of the seven wounds, nos. 6 and 7 were at the back. All the wounds were fatal. However, he was not certain which of the wounds caused the actual death of the victim. 8

For the defense, witness ORLANDO BARTOLAY CABILES testified that on March 12, 1995, while standing six (6) meters away from the house of appellant, he saw Antonio, armed with a bolo, running towards the direction of appellant’s residence. Antonio then found appellant in his yard. Antonio tried to hit appellant with the bolo but missed. They grappled for the bolo and appellant, after getting the weapon, hacked Antonio. Appellant then went up his house while Antonio ran towards the middle of the road where he fell. Cabiles also noticed that there were other people who saw the incident but were too afraid to come forward. When cross-examined, he admitted that he resided in Sitio Bangon while the incident was in Sitio Siwayan; that he was in the vicinity of the crime because there was a shorter road in the area leading to his house; and that when he ran for councilor in the local elections, appellant and he were political allies. He likewise admitted that had he not been asked by appellant, he would not have testified for him. He claimed that he never saw what or how the incident started and that he witnessed only the part when Antonio armed with a bolo rushed towards appellant. 9

The final witness was appellant himself. In his own defense, ARMANDO QUENING recounted that on March 12, 1995, at around 3:30 P.M. he was awakened by a commotion near the gate of his house. When he looked out the window, he saw Antonio boxing his brother-in-law, Egoy. He went down to pacify them but to no avail. When Antonio saw him, Antonio was uttering "It is good that you came here.", while lunging at him with a twelve (12) inch-knife. Antonio missed. They grappled for the knife and he managed to get hold of it then he thrust the knife at Antonio. He explained that perhaps out of blind rage, he hit the victim four (4) times. At this point, he claimed, he no longer knew where Egoy was. He surrendered to Councilor Rafael Mendoza who brought him to the Municipal Building of Aroroy. 10

In its decision, the trial court found appellant guilty for the murder of Antonio dela Cruz. The fallo reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, the accused Armando Quening y Versoza is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay the heirs of Antonio dela Cruz y Rebesi the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages. The accused is further ordered to be transferred to the National Penitentiary.

SO ORDERED. 11

In this appeal, he avers that the trial court erred:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I. . . . IN APPRECIATING THE PRESENCE OF THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY. 12

II. . . . IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT ARMANDO QUENING GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER DEFINED AND PENALIZED UNDER ARTICLE 248 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. 13

Appellant seeks the reversal of his conviction and raises principally the issue of credibility of the prosecution witnesses as well as the propriety of the trial court’s appreciation of treachery as a qualifying circumstance in the commission of the offense.

On the issue of credibility, appellant contends that the trial court erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. He avers that the court a quo merely adopted the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses but wholly disregarded those of the witnesses for the defense. 14

For the State, the Office of the Solicitor General posits that the trial court did not err in finding appellant guilty of murder qualified by treachery. However, the State moves for the modification of the trial court’s decision insofar as the award of moral damages is concerned, which according to the State should have been denominated as indemnity ex delicto and should be increased from P50,000 to P75,000.

It is well settled that in assessing the credibility of witnesses, this Court gives great respect to the evaluation of the trial court for it had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and their deportment while testifying. Such an opportunity is denied the appellate courts, which rely in the cold pages of the records of the case. 15 Only when such assessment is tainted with arbitratriness or oversight of a significant fact or circumstance that could affect the result will the appellate court depart from the trial court’s factual conclusions. 16

Appellant claims self-defense. For self-defense to prosper, the following requirements should be met: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. 17

Appellant avers that he merely came to the aid of his brother-in-law, Egoy, who was being attacked with fistblows by the victim. However, Bernadeth dela Cruz, the victim’s wife, positively testified that appellant stabbed her husband without any provocation on his part.

Between these contradicting testimonies, we are constrained to uphold the findings of the lower court. It found that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Appellant claimed he was attacked by the victim with a bolo. We find it less than credible that the victim who was a bigger man, and armed with a bolo, could be disarmed by appellant, who was unarmed and of smaller built. Noteworthy too is the fact that despite appellant’s claim that they grappled for the possession of the bolo, appellant did not sustain any wound or bruise. Other than his bare allegation, there is no evidence on record, testimonial or documentary, to support appellant’s claim that the victim was the unlawful aggressor.

Curiously too, as observed by the trial court, appellant’s brother-in-law, Christopher dela Peña nicknamed Egoy, was not presented as a witness, when Egoy was the person that appellant allegedly aided. Appellant could not even account for the whereabouts of Egoy after the stabbing took place. If it is true that appellant merely came to Egoy’s rescue, it was crucial that Egoy corroborate his plea of self-defense. But Egoy was not put on the witness stand. There was no sufficient proof of unlawful aggression on the victim’s part. Thus, appellant’s claim of self-defense could not prosper since unlawful aggression is an indispensable element thereof. 18

Appellant when cross-examined by the prosecutor testified, thus,

Q: What is the name of your brother-in-law with a quarrel with Antonio dela Cruz?

A: Christopher dela Peña. 19

Q: And according to you, the victim, Antonio dela Cruz boxed on the face your brother-in-law?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: He boxed your brother-in-law?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And after boxing your brother-in-law, Antonio dela Cruz stopped boxing your brother-in-law?

A: Yes sir, because my brother-in-law fel[l] unconscious.

Q: But when your brother-in-law fel[l] unconscious, Antonio dela Cruz felt aggressive?

A: Antonio dela Cruz fell in the perimeter fence.

Q: But is it not that you said, you pacified the quarrel between Antonio dela Cruz and your brother-in-law Charlie dela Peña?

A: Yes sir.

Q: At the time Antonio dela Cruz [was] boxing your brother-in-law, Antonio dela Cruz was not carrying any weapon that is why he only boxed your brother-in-law?

A: There was.

Q: You mean that at the time Antonio dela Cruz boxed your brother-in-law, he was already carrying that weapon?

A: Yes sir.

Q: But he did not use it against your brother-in-law?

A: No sir. He was not able to use it because it was still [on] his waist.

Q: It was only when you pacified that Antonio dela Cruz would like to attack you with his bladed weapon, is that correct?

A: Yes sir.

x       x       x


Q: And you were able to grab into possession that bladed weapon from Antonio dela Cruz?

A: Yes sir.

Q: So after you have wrestled from Antonio dela Cruz that bladed weapon, Antonio has no weapon anymore?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Therefore, there was no more danger in yourself because Antonio’s weapon was in your possession?

A: Yes sir.

x       x       x


Q: How many times did you hack Antonio?

A: Four (4) times.

x       x       x


Q: Actually Mr. Witness, according to you when you hacked Antonio dela Cruz you lost control of yourself, you could not really count the number of times you hacked the victim because according to you, you lost control of yourself?

Atty. Sulat: Misleading, Your Honor.

A: Yes sir. 20

Given the aforecited circumstances in this case, appellant’s plea of self-defense has no leg to stand on. Further, as shown by the autopsy report, the victim suffered seven hack wounds, all of which were deemed fatal by the medico-legal officer. The gravity of these hack wounds negates the claim of self-defense. It is an oft-repeated rule that the presence of a large number of wounds, their location and their seriousness would negate self-defense. Instead, they indicate a determined effort to kill. 21

Additionally, we note that the testimony of appellant’s corroborating witness, Orlando Bartolay Cabiles, is suspect. Cabiles admitted that he was a political ally of appellant; that he came forward upon the invitation of the latter; and that conveniently he was in the area by chance when he took a shortcut home. Compare this with the testimony of prosecution witness Julito Rabino. Despite the grueling cross-examination by the defense, his testimony was consistent, straightforward, and candid. The defense had not imputed any ill-motive against him for testifying. It is settled that where there is no evidence that the witness was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. 22

Was the crime qualified by treachery? There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 23

As revealed by witness in their testimony, on the day of the crime, there was a previous altercation between appellant and the deceased. Not long after, the stabbing incident took place. The victim’s wife testified that appellant tapped her husband’s right shoulder before appellant hacked her husband, a warning that the latter’s life was in danger. 24 Also, since witness Rabino said he did not see how the incident commenced, his testimony could not be utilized to support the allegation of treachery. The fatal wounds found at the back of the deceased do not, by themselves, indicate treachery. 25 In the absence of other details that would confirm that indeed appellant deliberately adopted the means employed to kill the deceased, the qualifying aggravating circumstances of treachery cannot be appreciated. Treachery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear and convincing evidence or as conclusively as the killing itself. 26 Hence, the conviction of appellant must be modified so that he is declared guilty not of murder but only homicide.

Moreover, we find in favor of appellant the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. For surrender to be voluntary, it must be spontaneous and must show the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either: (1) because he acknowledges his guilt; or (2) because he wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expense incidental to his search and capture. 27 Appellant testified that after the hacking incident he went to the house of kagawad Rafael Mendoza who brought him to the Municipal Building of Aroroy to admit to the killing, albeit in self-defense. This was effectively corroborated by the prosecution through witness Julito Rabino. 28

Finally, the award of damages needs modification. The trial court improperly awarded P50,000 as moral damages. Moral damages can be awarded only upon sufficient proof that the aggrieved party is entitled to it in accordance with Article 2217 of the Civil Code. 29 Nothing on record shows that the wife asked for moral damages. Since moral damages was not prayed for and no evidence to substantiate the award for moral damages was presented, 30 moral damages may not be awarded. Nonetheless, the heirs of the victim are entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. 31

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Masbate, Branch 46, in Criminal Case No. 7737, is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that appellant is found guilty only of HOMICIDE, not murder. With the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in his favor, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its minimum period of 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum and 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum in relation to Article 64 32 of the Revised Penal Code. The award for moral damages in the amount of P50,000 is deleted for lack of basis. But appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto.chanrob1es virtual law library

Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Mendoza, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Buena, J., on official leave.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, p. 10.

2. Id., at 4.

3. Also referred to as Bernardita dela Cruz and Bernadette dela Cruz elsewhere in the TSN, August 21, 1995, p. 12; September 26, 1995, p. 1.

4. TSN, August 21, 1995, pp. 2-6.

5. TSN, August 21, 1995, pp. 7-12.

6. Also referred to as "Dioleto Rabino" in some part of the records.

7. TSN, September 26, 1995, pp. 3-10.

8. TSN, July 24, 1996, pp. 2-6.

9. TSN, January 7, 1997, pp. 1-5.

10. TSN, February 18, 1997, pp. 2-6.

11. Rollo, p. 16.

12. Id., at 31.

13. Id., at 33.

14. Id., at 34.

15. People v. Garcia, G.R. Nos. 137379-81, 341 SCRA 502, 509 (2000); citing People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 132025, 335 SCRA 100, 111-112 (2000); People v. Babera, G.R. No. 130609, 332 SCRA 257, 266 (2000).

16. People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 124368, 333 SCRA 269, 280 (2000); People v. Balgos, G.R. No. 126115, 323 SCRA 372, 380 (2000).

17. Art. 11, par. 1, Revised Penal Code.

18. People v. Lascota, G.R. No. 113527, July 17, 1997, 275 SCRA 591, 601 (1997).

19. Also referred as "Charlie dela Peña" .

20. TSN, February 18, 1997, pp. 7-10.

21. People v. Rivero, G.R. No. 112721, 242 SCRA 354, 360 (1995), citing People v. Maceda, G.R. No. 91106, 197 SCRA 499 (1991); People v. Sagadsad, G.R. No. 88042, 215 SCRA 641 (1992); People v. Nuestro, G.R. No. 111288, 240 SCRA 221, 228 (1995), citing People v. Boniao, G.R. No. 100800, 217 SCRA 653 (1993).

22. People v. Alfeche, G.R. No. 124213, 294 SCRA 352, 376 (1998), citing People v. Simon, G.R. No. 56925, 209 SCRA 148 (1992); People v. Rostata, 218 SCRA 657 (1993); People v. Bergante, G.R. Nos. 120369-70, 286 SCRA 629, 642 (1998).

23. Art. 14, par. 16, Revised Penal Code.

24. TSN, August 21, 1995, p. 5.

25. People v. Magturgo, Sr., G.R. No. 111872, 248 SCRA 519, 531 (1995).

26. People v. Silvestre, G.R. No. 109142, 244 SCRA 479, 494 (1995).

27. People v. Sion, G.R. No. 109617, 277 SCRA 127, 154 (1997).

28. TSN, September 26, 1995, p. 5.

29. People v. Manegdeg, G.R. No. 115470, 316 SCRA 689, 709 (1999).

30. Citing Kierulf v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114383, 269 SCRA 433, 452 (1997) and People v. Corea, G.R. No. 114383, 269 SCRA 76, 94 (1997).

31. People v. Verde, G.R. No. 119077, 302 SCRA 690, 706 (1999).

32. ART. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contains three periods. — In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty to composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Article 76 and 77, the courts shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


(2) When only a mitigating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum period.




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






January-2002 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 132245 January 2, 2002 - PNB MANAGEMENT and DEV’T. CORP. v. R&R METAL CASTING and FABRICATING

  • G.R. No. 131282 January 4, 2002 - GABRIEL L. DUERO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132115 January 4, 2002 - TEOFILO C. VILLARICO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 136031 January 4, 2002 - JEFFERSON LIM v. QUEENSLAND TOKYO COMMODITIES

  • G.R. No. 132167 January 8, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARMANDO QUENING

  • G.R. No. 132351 January 10, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEXANDER SALVA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1381 January 14, 2002 - FR. ROMELITO GUILLEN v. JUDGE ANTONIO K. CAÑON

  • A.M. No. 00-1394 January 15, 2002 - RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS OCA IPI NO. 97-228-P

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1590 January 15, 2002 - GINA B. ANG v. JUDGE ENRIQUE B. ASIS

  • A.M. No. 00-4-06-SC January 15, 2002 - RE: COMPLAINT OF EXECUTIVE JUDGE TITO GUSTILO

  • G.R. No. 98431 January 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSUE DELA TORRE

  • G.R. No. 105830 January 15, 2002 - ELADIO C. TANGAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132557 January 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO LUMINTIGAR

  • G.R. Nos. 133489 & 143970 January 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALD GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133570-71 January 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NERIO SUELA

  • G.R. Nos. 134288-89 January 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR ESTOMACA

  • G.R. No. 136144 January 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROQUE ESTOPITO

  • G.R. No. 136292 January 15, 2002 - RUDY CABALLES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136751 January 15, 2002 - NATIVIDAD CANDIDO, ET AL. v. RICARDO CAMACHO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140407-08 & 141908-09 January 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PO3 RENATO F. VILLAMOR

  • G.R. Nos. 141154-56 January 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO COSTALES

  • G.R. No. 143686 January 15, 2002 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. 143143-44 January 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO GONZALES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 144978 January 15, 2002 - UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 147096 & 147210 January 15, 2002 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EXPRESS TELECOMMUNICATION CO.

  • A.M. No. 01-4-119-MTC January 16, 2002 - RE: PACITA T. SENDIN

  • G.R. No. 88435 January 16, 2002 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 111448 January 16, 2002 - AF REALTY & DEVELOPMENT v. DIESELMAN FREIGHT SERVICES

  • G.R. No. 125817 January 16, 2002 - ABELARDO LIM, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126322 January 16, 2002 - YUPANGCO COTTON MILLS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133438 January 16, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WILSON LAB-EO

  • G.R. No. 133478 January 16, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SALUSTIANO CALLOS

  • G.R. No. 134483 January 16, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO CONDE, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134903 January 16, 2002 - UNICRAFT INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136080 January 16, 2002 - EASTERN SHIPPING LINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136368 January 16, 2002 - JAIME TAN, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137014 January 16, 2002 - ANTONIETO LABONG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 137471 January 16, 2002 - GUILLERMO ADRIANO v. ROMULO PANGILINAN

  • G.R. Nos. 137514-15 January 16, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO PANABANG

  • G.R. No. 138497 January 16, 2002 - IMELDA RELUCIO v. ANGELINA MEJIA LOPEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 138934-35 January 16, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTHONY ESCORDIAL

  • G.R. No. 139136 January 16, 2002 - LINA ABALON LUBOS v. MARITES GALUPO

  • G.R. Nos. 140964 & 142267 January 16, 2002 - INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. v. ROBERT YOUNG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141851 January 16, 2002 - DIRECT FUNDERS HOLDINGS CORP. v. JUDGE CELSO D. LAVIÑA

  • G.R. No. 144153 January 16, 2002 - MA. CHONA M. DIMAYUGA v. MARIANO E. BENEDICTO II

  • G.R. No. 148582 January 16, 2002 - FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. ESTRELLA O. QUERIMIT

  • A.M. No. P-99-1332 January 17, 2002 - GERTRUDES V. VDA. DE VELAYO v. JOHN C. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 130397 January 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GODOFREDO DIEGO

  • G.R. No. 135219 January 17, 2002 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137305 January 17, 2002 - QUIRINO MATEO, ET AL. v. DOROTEA DIAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139971 January 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RAMON TROPA

  • G.R. No. 146651 January 17, 2002 - RONALDO P. ABILLA, ET AL. v. CARLOS ANG GOBONSENG, JR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1449 January 18, 2002 - EDMUNDO & CARMELITA BALDERAMA v. JUDGE ADOLFO F. ALAGAR

  • G.R. No. 126243 January 18, 2002 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. MACRO TEXTILE MILLS CORP.

  • G.R. No. 127703 January 18, 2002 - DONATO REYES, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130757 January 18, 2002 - EMILIA T. BONCODIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136603 January 18, 2002 - EMILIO Y. TAÑEDO v. ALLIED BANKING CORP.

  • G.R. No. 138258 January 18, 2002 - EDDIE HERRERA, ET AL. v. TEODORA BOLLOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 145422-23 January 18, 2002 - ERWIN C. REMIGIO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1286 January 21, 2002 - NELLY J. TE v. JUDGE ROMEO V. PEREZ

  • A.M. No. 02-1-07-SC January 21, 2002 - RE: REQUEST FOR CREATION OF SPECIAL DIVISION TO TRY PLUNDER CASE

  • G.R. No. 132321 January 21, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO COSCOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135003 January 21, 2002 - PHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORITY v. BIENVENIDO GARRIDO

  • G.R. No. 139670 January 21, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AHMAD LANGALEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143885-86 January 21, 2002 - MERCED TY-DAZO, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 140500 January 21, 2002 - ERNESTINA BERNABE v. CAROLINA ALEJO

  • A.M. No. P-00-1371 January 23, 2002 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN S. NEQUINTO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1376 January 23, 2002 - SPO1 EDUARDO CAÑEDA, ET AL. v. HON. QUINTIN B. ALAAN

  • A.M. No. P-01-1529 January 23, 2002 - GISELLE G. TALION v. ESTEBAN P. AYUPAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1431 January 23, 2002 - JUDGE FLORENTINO M. ALUMBRES v. JUDGE JOSE F. CAOIBES, JR.

  • A.M. No. CA-01-32 January 23, 2002 - HEIRS OF JOSE B.L. REYES v. JUSTICE DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101783 January 23, 2002 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. PHIL. CONSUMERS FOUNDATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120344 January 23, 2002 - FLORENTINO PADDAYUMAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 125025 January 23, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALTAZAR BONGALON

  • G.R. No. 128720 January 23, 2002 - S/SGT. ELMER T. VERGARA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 129382 January 23, 2002 - VICTOR SIASAT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130972 January 23, 2002 - PHIL. LAWIN BUS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 132592 & 133628 January 23, 2002 - AIDA P. BAÑEZ v. GABRIEL B. BAÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 135547 January 23, 2002 - GERARDO F. RIVERA, ET AL. v. EDGARDO ESPIRITU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137385 January 23, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODITO DAGANIO

  • G.R. No. 138863 January 23, 2002 - FRANCISCO S. DIZON v. SEBASTIAN GONZAGA

  • G.R. No. 139511 January 23, 2002 - JESUS A. CASIM v. BRUNO CASIM FLORDELIZA

  • G.R. No. 141961 January 23, 2002 - STA. CLARA HOMEOWNERS’ ASSO., ET AL. v. SPS. VICTOR MA. AND LYDIA GASTON

  • G.R. No. 142005 January 23, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ATILANO GILBERO

  • G.R. No. 142727 January 23, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO DULINDO ESUREÑA

  • G.R. No. 142728 January 23, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOROTEO ABAÑO

  • G.R. No. 144386 January 23, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIETO RAMA

  • G.R. No. 145973 January 23, 2002 - ANTONIO G. PRINCIPE v. FACT-FINDING & INTELLIGENCE BUREAU

  • G.R. No. 146291 January 23, 2002 - UNIVERSITY OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPCION v. SEC. OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

  • G.R. No. 147248-49 January 23, 2002 - BAYBAY WATER DISTRICT v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 147978 January 23, 2002 - THELMA A. JADER-MANALO v. SPS. NORMA AND EDILBERTO CAMAISA

  • A.M. No. P-02-1539 January 24, 2002 - RAMON C. CASANO v. ARNEL C. MAGAT

  • G.R. No. 139693 January 24, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE CATIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140759 January 24, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACINTO NARVAEZ

  • G.R. No. 112443 January 25, 2002 - TERESITA P. BORDALBA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118073 January 25, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO ORPILLA

  • G.R. Nos. 119086 & 119087 January 25, 2002 - EMMANUEL G. HERBOSA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129053 January 25, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PO3 AKIB NORRUDIN

  • G.R. No. 133224 January 25, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLY VERINO

  • G.R. Nos. 134488-89 January 25, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEPITO FLORES

  • G.R. No. 136914 January 25, 2002 - COUNTRY BANKERS INS. CORP. v. LIANGA BAY AND COMMUNITY MULTI-PURPOSE COOP.

  • G.R. No. 140033 January 25, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO R. MORENO

  • G.R. No. 145153 January 25, 2002 - PHIL. PORTS AUTHORITY v. THELMA M. MARANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 145957-68 January 25, 2002 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. RUBEN ENOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137933 January 28, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN BARING, JR.

  • G.R. No. 141136 January 28, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELSON PARCIA

  • A.M. No. P-00-1401 January 29, 2002 - BALTAZAR LL. FIRMALO v. MELINDA C. QUIERREZ

  • A.M. No. MTJ-98-1169 January 29, 2002 - CITY GOVT. OF TAGBILARAN v. JUDGE AGAPITO HONTANOSAS, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 115236-37 January 29, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRYAN FERDINAND DY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130170 January 29, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROWENA ESLABON DIONISIO

  • G.R. No. 130523 January 29, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GARIO ALBA

  • G.R. No. 137147 January 29, 2002 - BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CARLOS LEOBRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138251 January 29, 2002 - MAGDALENA BLANCIA v. LOLITA TAN VDA. DE CALAUOR

  • G.R. No. 140732 January 29, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOB CORTEZANO

  • G.R. No. 143819 January 29, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERRY CUENCA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1672 January 30, 2002 - MICHAEL T. VISTAN v. JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES

  • G.R. No. 102508 January 30, 2002 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126828 January 30, 2002 - SPS. MILLER AND ADELIE SERONDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127767 January 30, 2002 - NILO R. JUMALON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129319 January 30, 2002 - DONATO PANGILINAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131839 January 30, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARANDE COLINA ADLAWAN

  • G.R. No. 132415 January 30, 2002 - MIGUEL KATIPUNAN, ET AL. v. BRAULIO KATIPUNAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 132560 January 30, 2002 - WESTMONT BANK v. EUGENE ONG

  • G.R. No. 133984 January 30, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MEDRILLO RODRIGUEZ

  • G.R. No. 134484 January 30, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEO ABEJUELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135557-58 January 30, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMMANUEL QUEZADA

  • G.R. No. 137148 January 30, 2002 - BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CARLOS LEOBRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138016 January 30, 2002 - HEIRS OF JOSE JUANITE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138990 January 30, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WALLY TICALO

  • G.R. No. 139821 January 30, 2002 - DR. ELEANOR A. OSEA v. DR. CORAZON E. MALAYA

  • G.R. No. 140733 January 30, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO TAGUD, SR.

  • G.R. No. 146775 January 30, 2002 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 147465 January 30, 2002 - MMDA v. JANCOM ENVIRONMENTAL CORP., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC January 31, 2002 - RE: PROBLEMS OF DELAYS IN CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 124393 January 31, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO SANCHEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 127374 & 127431 January 31, 2002 - PHIL. SKYLANDERS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130876 January 31, 2002 - FRANCISCO M. ALONSO v. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB

  • G.R. No. 130213 January 31, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMIL MARQUINA

  • G.R. No. 135789 January 31, 2002 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 137448 & 141454 January 31, 2002 - GSIS v. BENGSON COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

  • G.R. No. 137681 January 31, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. CONRADO R. ANTONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139531 January 31, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO BAGANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140203 January 31, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE S. FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 143483 January 31, 2002 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 146921-22 January 31, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. MARY GRACE CAROL FLORES

  • G.R. No. 149803 January 31, 2002 - DATU ANDAL S. AMPATUAN, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 150111 January 31, 2002 - ABDULAKARIM D. UTTO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.