Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2003 > February 2003 Decisions > G.R. Nos. 144305-07 February 6, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TACIO EMILIO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. 144305-07. February 6, 2003.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TACIO EMILIO y INTE, Accused-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N


PER CURIAM:


On May 22, 2000, in Criminal Cases Nos. 97-CR-2738, 97-CR-2739 and 97-CR-2740, the Regional Trial Court of Benguet, Branch 62, found accused-appellant Tacio Emilio guilty of three (3) counts of rape of his minor stepdaughter and imposed upon him the penalty of death for each.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The prosecution charged accused-appellant in separate Informations, 1 the inculpatory portions of which read as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Criminal Case No. 97-CR-2738

That on or about the month of October 1995, at Bayabas, Municipality of Sablan, Province of Benguet, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge and sexual intercourse with his stepdaughter MARIA TERESA ESLAO, a thirteen year old minor.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Criminal Case No. 97-CR-2739

That on or about the 20th day of October 1996, at Bayabas, Municipality of Sablan, Province of Benguet, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge and sexual intercourse with his stepdaughter MARIA TERESA ESLAO, a thirteen year old minor.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Criminal Case No. 97-CR-2740

That on or about the month of October 1995, at Bayabas, Municipality of Sablan, Province of Benguet, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge and sexual intercourse with his stepdaughter MARIA TERESA ESLAO, a thirteen year old minor.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

When arraigned on March 26, 1997, 2 accused-appellant, duly assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charges, whereupon joint trial commenced.

Culled from the records of the case are the following facts established by the prosecution:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Private complainant Maria Teresa Eslao and her half-sister Latifa were born out of wedlock to Teresita Eslao of Bayabas, Sablan, Benguet. Per birth certificate, 3 she was born on December 11, 1983.

On January 18, 1991, Maria Teresa’s mother Teresita Eslao married accused-appellant 4 following which the couple, together with Maria Teresa and Latifa, resided at Teresita’s house in Sitio Bekes, Bayabas, Sablan, Benguet. Wanting to eke out a more comfortable life for her family, Teresita went to work in Malaysia on April 18, 1994, 5 leaving Maria Teresa and her 4-year old 6 sister Latifa under the care and custody of their stepfather-accused-appellant.

As was her wont, Maria Teresa slept in their living room while accused-appellant and her half-sister slept at the nearby bedroom.

At around midnight one day in October 1995, 11-year old Maria Teresa was roused from her sleep by accused-appellant who lay on top of her. By then, the blanket covering her had been removed and her short pants and underwear pulled down. And accused-appellant was inserting his penis into her vagina 7 on account of which she felt searing pain. Crying unabashedly, she tried to resist by pushing him but to no avail. After accused-appellant succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her, he repaired back to the bedroom.

Already exhausted, Maria Teresa eventually fell asleep. She later awoke not long after when she felt that accused-appellant was again on top of her. Although gripped with fear, she managed to push him away, drawing accused-appellant to return to the bedroom. She thus remained awake until daybreak.

Maria Teresa then prepared breakfast and partook of it with her sister and accused-appellant who looked at her menacingly. 8 Around midnight of that day, she again awoke to find accused-appellant on top of her. 9 Again, Accused-appellant had already pulled down her short pants and underwear and was inserting his penis into her vagina. 10 Overcome by fear, she cried and albeit she struggled to resist his advances by pushing accused-appellant away, her efforts proved to be no match to his strength. His lust satisfied, Accused-appellant went back to the bedroom.

When morning came, Maria Teresa again prepared and had breakfast with her sister and Accused-Appellant. She performed the chores she had been accustomed to doing — washing the dishes, cleaning the house, and washing their clothes.

Close to a month after the two October 1995 incidents, or in November of the same year, 11 she went to live with her maternal grandmother. It was during this month that her mother Teresita arrived from Malaysia for a three-week vacation. 12 She, however, kept mum about the incidents, fearful of the repercussions that her revelation might bring.

On October 20, 1996, Maria Teresa and her cousins Jonah Hemeno and Nerissa Bayating 13 went to the house of her mother where they were to stay overnight. As she lay asleep between her cousins in the living room, she awoke to again find accused-appellant on top of her, inserting his penis into her vagina. 14 She thereupon pushed him away by swinging her right hand, causing accused-appellant to move to her right side to thereby push her cousin Nerissa. She immediately pulled up her underwear and jogging pants with her right foot, 15 and as she rose up crying, Accused-appellant asked her why she reacted that way but she merely cursed him. 16 By this time, Jonah and Nerissa had awakened and asked her why she was crying. Without answering them, she left and headed toward the house of her grandmother 17 to whom she revealed her ordeals. She did also later reveal her ordeals to her uncles Carlos Mayunget, Paquito Ap-ap and Avelino Siano who advised her to report to the police. 18

On December 13, 1996, Maria Teresa finally informed, via telephone, her mother who was in Malaysia about her "Daddy" raping her 19 and pleaded with her to come home to attend to the matter. Her mother did come to the Philippines not long after.

On January 2, 1997, Maria Teresa executed a sworn statement at the Investigation Section of the Sablan Police Station 20 and went to the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office at La Trinidad, Benguet where she filed the criminal complaints against Accused-Appellant. 21 She then proceeded to the Municipal Health Office of Sablan, Benguet where Dr. Judith T. Codamon, medico-legal officer of the municipality, conducted a physical examination on her 22 which yielded the following results:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Perineal area — no excoriations, no lesions

Hymen lacerated, 3:00 o’clock position

Vagina admits 2 fingers with ease 23

The trial court, brushing aside accused-appellant’s denial, found accused-appellant guilty as charged in its decision on review, the fallo of which reads verbatim as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court finds Tacio Emilio y Inte guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape in three (3) counts as charged in the three Informations, defined and penalized by Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, aggravated by the fact that the accused Tacio Emilio y Inte is the stepfather of the victim, Maria Teresa Eslao, and sentences him to suffer the penalty of DEATH for each count of rape as charged; to indemnify Maria Teresa Eslao, the victim, the sum of Seventy Five Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos for each count of rape; and to pay Maria Teresa Eslao the sum of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos for each count of rape as moral damages.

Pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 4-92-A of the Court Administrator, the Provincial Jail Warden of Benguet Province is directed to immediately transfer the said accused Tacio Emilio y Inte to the custody of the Bureau of Corrections, City of Muntinlupa, Metro Manila.

Conformably with Section 1, Rule 111, Rules of Court, the corresponding filing fee for the Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos herein awarded as moral damages for each count of rape shall constitute a first lien on this judgment.

Let a copy of this Judgment be furnished to the Provincial Jail Warden of Benguet Province for his information and guidance.

Let the records of these cases be transmitted to the Supreme Court for automatic review and judgment within the period provided by law.

SO ORDERED. 24

The cases are now before this Court for automatic review pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

Accused-appellant maintains his innocence and assigns the following errors to the trial court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT APPRECIATE THE UNREASONABLY LONG AND UNEXPLAINED DELAY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT IN INSTITUTING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT APPRECIATE THE LACK OF CREDIBILITY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.

III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT APPRECIATE THE ODD CONDUCT OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE ALLEGED RAPE.

IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT RELIED ON THE LACK OF MOTIVE OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.

V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED WITH A FINDING OF GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.25cralaw:red

In the main, Accused-appellant assails the credibility of Maria Teresa. He posits that her unreasonable and unexplained delay in reporting the incidents to the proper authorities and to her relatives renders her testimony highly dubious and suspect. 26 He thus proffers that, in all probability, her charges are fabricated.

This Court is not persuaded. The silence of the offended party in a case of rape, or her failure to disclose her defilement without loss of time to persons close to her and to report the matter to the authorities, does not perforce warrant the conclusion that she was not sexually molested and that her charges against the accused are all baseless, untrue and fabricated. 27 If delay in making a criminal accusation is satisfactorily explained, 28 it does not impair the credibility of a witness.

At the time of the rape incidents, Maria Teresa was barely at the threshold of adolescence. Her assailant is the husband of her mother whom she lived with and treated as her own parent. Her claim that fear prevented her from at once revealing what had been done to her by accused-appellant whom she had priorly seen fire his gun is not hard to believe. Thus she declared:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Q: In the first two rape incidents, you were raped in 1995. Is that correct?

A: Yes, Sir.

Q: And when your mother arrived in November of 1995, it was barely less than a month that you were raped. Is that correct?

A: Yes, Sir.

Q: But you did not report these two rape incidents that happened in October of 1995 to your mother?

A: No, Sir.

Q: Why?

A: I was scared at that time or afraid, if I will tell my mother what happened to me, [accused-appellant] might go after me when I will go out of the house.

Q: From the time you were raped in 1995 October up to the time you reported the matter to the Police, did you not have a chance to . . . were you not free to go around Sablan and have the chance to report to the Police?

A: No, Sir.

x       x       x


Q: Your answer to the last question is "haan man", stated as "No, Sir." Why?

A: "Mabutengak gamin ta no kasparigan baka rumuarrak diay balay ta kuna no agipulungak." (Interpreted freely as, I was afraid because to my mind if I will go out of the house my stepfather might go after me because he might think that I will go out and report what happened to me.) (Emphasis supplied) 29

Neither is this Court persuaded by accused-appellant’s contention that the improbabilities and inconsistencies in Maria Teresa’s testimony with respect to the dates and details of, and her conduct during and after, the alleged incidents render her accusations baseless.

Specification of the exact date or time of the commission of the rape is not important 30 as this is not an element of the crime.

As for the alleged discrepancies in Maria Teresa’s statements regarding the number of times she was mounted on and subsequently raped during the first incident, Maria Teresa had, on cross-examination, satisfactorily clarified that as to the first incident which occurred on a day in October 1995, Accused-appellant mounted on her twice but succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her only during the first. 31

At all events, errorless recollection of a harrowing incident cannot be expected of a witness, especially when she is recounting details of an experience so humiliating and painful as rape. 32 As long as the testimony is consistent on material points, as was Maria Teresa’s, slightly conflicting statements will not undermine the witness’ credibility not the veracity of the testimony. 33

Accused-appellant focuses on Maria Teresa’s failure to shout during the incidents. Failure of the victim to shout for help does not, however, negate the commission of rape. 34 For, the workings of the human mind under emotional stress are unpredictable, such that people react differently to startling situations. 35 The explanation of Maria Teresa that extreme fright and shock rendered her unable to scream for help 36 is, to Court, satisfactory. It bears noting that she not only cried. She struggle to extricate herself from him during the incidents.

As to the way Maria Teresa comported herself after the rape incidents, the same cannot infirm her credibility. Being then only 11 in 1995 and 12 in 1996, she should not be judged by the norms of behavior expected of mature persons. 37

The alleged inconsistencies in Maria Teresa’s testimony pertaining to the persons to whom she reported the incidents prior to reporting them to the police and the exact positions of accused-appellant while he was on top of her are minor details which do not affect the essential integrity and veracity of her testimony. In fact they tend to buttress, rather than weaken, her credibility because they erase any suspicion of coached or rehearsed testimony. 38

As observed by the trial court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

. . . Her answers were straightforward, categorical and spontaneous. . . . Even when pressed with embarrassing questions, she answered them bereft of equivocation and stood firm on her experience of defloration, not once but three times. Absent were telltales (sic) of prevarication in her entire testimony. This is not to say that her testimony was impeccable. Indeed, because of the long direct and cross-examinations, Maria Teresa committed, here and there, in her testimony, inconsistencies or contradictions but they refer to inconsequential details. Her depiction of the three sexual assaults of Tacio Emilio was candid and compatible with human experience. There were no traces of coached testimony. 39

As for the reasons which accused-appellant proffers, as reflected in his following testimony, could have motivated Maria Teresa’s filing of the charges against him:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Q: Maria Teresa Eslao, your stepdaughter, who was thirteen (13) years old in 1995 accused you of three (3) serious offenses of rape, can you tell the Court what reason has she to accuse you of three (3) serious offenses? Do you know of any reason?

A: I do now (sic) know, your Honor, but personally maybe that is her way of letting me go and leave the store so that she will be the one to manage or tend to the store.

Q: Other than that perception, do you have any good justified reason for her to file these three (3) cases against you?

A: I do not know, your Honor, but when they were younger they already showed and told me that they don’t like me as their stepfather.

Q: Aside from that, do you have any other reason why Maria Teresa accused you of three (3) counts of rape?

A: One reason was when I let her stop going to school.

Q: Are you telling the Court that these are the three (3) reasons that you perceived and that upon these reasons she filed these three (3) rape cases against you?

A: Yes, your Honor. 40 (Emphasis supplied),

this Court finds the same unthinkable. It is farfetched to consider or believe that Maria Teresa would purposely subject herself to the humiliation attendant to an accusation for rape for the above-mentioned reasons, especially given her tender years and non-exposure to the ways of the world.

Clutching at straws, Accused-appellant claims that it was impossible for him to have raped Maria Teresa as he is impotent. 41 He failed, however, to present evidence to that effect, or that if he is, that his impotency is absolute. The presumption in favor of his potency 42 thus remains.

In fine, Maria Teresa’s testimony not only stood the test of credibility. It was corroborated by Dr. Codamon’s finding of lacerations in her hymen which, as opined by her, are most commonly caused by the entry of a turgid penis into the vagina. 43

The rape of a stepdaughter by her stepfather is analogous to the sexual assault committed by a father against his own daughter. The stepfather’s moral ascendancy and influence over his stepdaughter substitutes for violence and intimidation as an element of rape. 44 He does not have to threaten the stepdaughter because she is cowed into submission when gripped with the fear of refusing the advances of a person she customarily obeys. 45 There is no gainsaying that Maria Teresa looked upon accused-appellant as an authority figure, her stepfather of more than four years on whom, by accused-appellant’s own information, 46 she was entirely dependent for her day-to-day needs.

The three informations allege that Maria Teresa was 13 years old at the time of the commission of the crimes. Her birth certificate 47 presented during the trial shows, however, that she was born on December 11, 1983. Hence, she was 11 years and 10 months old when the first and second rape incidents took place in October 1995 and 12 years and 10 months old when the third rape incident occurred in November 1996. Since the elements of a crime must be set out in the complaint or information to apprise the accused of the crime of which he is being charged, 48 the allegation in the informations in Criminal Case Nos. 97-CR-2738 and 97-CR-2740 covering the incidents which occurred in 1995 that Maria Teresa was 13 years old can not be deemed to have been modified by the date of her birth appearing in the birth certificate. Undoubtedly, however, she was a minor, below 18 years of age, when the rape incidents of October 1995 took place.

The relationship of accused-appellant to Maria Teresa and her minority (below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crimes) having been alleged and proved, he must be meted the death penalty following Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659 which provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Article 335. When and how rape is committed.

x       x       x


The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouses of the parent of the victim.

x       x       x (Emphasis supplied)

Three members of this Court continue, however, to maintain the unconstitutionality of R.A. 7659 insofar as it prescribes the death penalty. Nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority to the effect that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case at bar.

With respect to the civil aspect of the case, this Court further awards to Maria Teresa exemplary damages, following jurisprudence, 49 in the amount of P25,000.00 for each count.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Benguet, Branch 62 in Criminal Case Nos. 97-CR-2738, 97-CR-2739 and 97-CR-2740 is AFFIRMED, with MODIFICATION consisting of the further award to the private complainant Maria Teresa Eslao of P25,000.00 (or total of P75,000.00) as exemplary damages.

In accordance with Section 25 of R.A. 7659 amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon the finality of this decision, let the records of these cases be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power.chanrob1es virtua1 law library

Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr. and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo at 16–21.

2. Original Records at 37 and 39.

3. Exhibit "B," Id. at 87.

4. Exhibit "C," Id. at 88.

5. TSN, October 1, 1997 at 15.

6. TSN, May 5, 1998 at 9.

7. TSN, June 16, 1997 at 12.

8. Id. at 17.

9. TSN, July 30, 1997 at 4.

10. TSN, June 23, 1997 at 8.

11. Id., at 14.

12. TSN, October 1, 1997 at 15

13. TSN, June 23, 1997 at 17.

14. TSN, June 25, 1997 at 7.

15. Id., at 8.

16. Id. at 10.

17. Id. at 11.

18. TSN, June 30, 1997 at 13.

19. TSN, October 1, 1997 at 16.

20. TSN, June 25, 1997 at 23.

21. Id. at 25–27.

22. Id. at 31.

23. Exhibit "A," Original Records at 11.

24. RTC Decision at 30–31, Rollo at 75–76.

25. Appellant’s Brief at 1, Rollo at 86.

26. Appellant’s Brief at 9, Rollo at 91.

27. People v. Yambao, 193 SCRA 571, 579 (1991).

28. People v. Tanail, 323 SCRA 667, 675 (2000) (Citation omitted).

29. TSN, September 25, 1997 at 14–15.

30. People v. Alvero, 329 SCRA 737, 747 (2000) (Citation omitted); People v. Sancha, 324 SCRA 646, 654 (2000) (Citation omitted).

31. TSN, July 21, 1997 at 19.

32. People v. Lomerio, 326 SCRA 530, 548 (2000) (Citation omitted); People v. Cula, 329 SCRA 101, 113 (2000).

33. People v. Licando, 331 SCRA 357, 370 (2000) (Citation omitted).

34. People v. Barcelona, 325 SCRA 168, 176 (2000) (Citation omitted).

35. People v. Cabradilla, 133 SCRA 413, 418–419 (1984).

36. TSN, June 23, 1997 at 6.

37. People v. Remoto, 244 SCRA 506, 519–520 (1995).

38. Lomerio, 326 SCRA 548 (Citation omitted).

39. RTC Decision at 15, Rollo at 15.

40. TSN, September 10, 1998 at 13–14.

41. TSN, May 5, 1998 at 12.

42. People v. Palma, 144 SCRA 236, 242 (1986).

43. TSN, June 9, 1997 at 7.

44. People v. Casil, 241 SCRA 285, 292 (1995) (Citation omitted).

45. People v. Balacano, 336 SCRA 615, 625 (2000).

46. TSN, September 10, 1998 at 12.

47. Exhibit "B," Rollo at 87.

48. People v. Canonigo, G.R. No. 133649, August 4, 2000.

49. People v. Bayona, 327 SCRA 190, 202 (2000).




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-2003 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. 02-10-05-SC February 3, 2003 - RE: REPORT ON THE SERIES OF THEFT AND ROBBERY IN THE PREMISES OF THE SUPREME COURT

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1403 February 3, 2003 - BOBBY CARRIAGA v. ROMEO L. ANASARIO

  • G.R. No. 133003 February 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAWRENCE MACAPANPAN , ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140727-28 February 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAQUIM PINUELA

  • G.R. Nos. 141438-40 February 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LITO LIMPANGOG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 150799 February 3, 2003 - AMELITA S. NAVARRO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 5957 February 4, 2003 - WINNIE C. LUCENTE, ET AL. v. CLETO L. EVANGELISTA, JR.

  • A.M. Nos. MTJ-03-1475, RTJ-03-1752 & RTJ-03-1754 February 4, 2003 - EARLA SY v. VERONICA DONDIEGO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1476 February 4, 2003 - BENITO ANG v. REINATO G. QUILALA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1618 February 4, 2003 - ERLINDA Y. LICUDINE v. WILFREDO P. SAQUILAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 136066-67 February 4, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BINAD SY CHUA

  • G.R. Nos. 140736-39 February 4, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS LILO

  • G.R. Nos. 142919 & 143876 February 4, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO P. NAPALIT

  • G.R. No. 153945 February 4, 2003 - REYNATO BAYTAN, ET AL. v. COMELEC

  • A.M. No. 2002-6-SC February 5, 2003 - ALEJANDREA GURO, ET AL. v. SUSAN M. DORONIO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1449 February 5, 2003 - FUNDADOR AMBALONG v. ANTONIO C. LUBGUBAN

  • G.R. No. 142556 February 5, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS S. PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 143784 February 5, 2003 - PHILIPPINE RETIREMENT AUTHORITY v. JESUSITO L. BUÑAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148944 February 5, 2003 - ALVIN B. GARCIA v. PRIMO C. MIRO

  • A.C. No. 5085 February 6, 2003 - PABLITO SANTOS v. ALVARO BERNABE LAZARO

  • G.R. No. 142283 February 6, 2003 - ROSA LIGAYA C. DOMINGO, ET AL. v. RONALDO D. ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 144305-07 February 6, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TACIO EMILIO

  • G.R. No. 145804 February 6, 2003 - LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & RODOLFO ROMAN v. MARJORIE NAVIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 151925 February 6, 2003 - CHAS REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. TOMAS B. TALAVERA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1366 February 7, 2003 - MARIA ELISSA F. VELEZ v. RODRIGO R. FLORES

  • A.M. No. P-01-1488 February 7, 2003 - ILUMINADA CABATO-CORTES v. VICTORIA M. AGTARAP

  • A.M. No. P-01-1508 February 7, 2003 - EVELYN GAMOTIN NERY v. MELLARDO C. GAMOLO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1517 February 7, 2003 - FE ALBANO-MADRID v. MARIPI A. APOLONIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121069 February 7, 2003 - BENJAMIN CORONEL, ET AL.vs. FLORENTINO CONSTANTINO

  • G.R. No. 124392 February 7, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO ABRAZALDO

  • G.R. No. 144590 February 7, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO F. PARADEZA

  • G.R. No. 152158 February 7, 2003 - WALLEM PHILIPPINES SHIPPING INC., ET AL. v. PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE & ASSURANCE INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132120 February 10, 2003 - PCGG v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO

  • A.M. No. 02-10-598-RTC February 11, 2003 - IN RE: DELAYED REMITTANCE OF COLLECTIONS OF TERESITA LYDIA R. ODTUHAN

  • G.R. No. 131377 February 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAZAR U. CHAVES

  • G.R. No. 136911 February 11, 2003 - SPS. LEON CASIMIRO and PILAR PASCUAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142396 February 11, 2003 - KHOSROW MINUCHER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142416 February 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO SORONGON

  • G.R. No. 143297 February 11, 2003 - SPS. VIRGILIO and MICHELLE CASTRO v. ROMEO V. MIAT

  • G.R. No. 143440 February 11, 2003 - SERENA T. BACELONIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146034 February 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LASTIDE A. SUBE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127152 February 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO AVERGONZADO

  • G.R. No. 139211 February 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO VILLARAMA

  • G.R. Nos. 140724-26 February 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALLEN BUSTAMANTE

  • G.R. No. 118249 February 14, 2003 - MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130912 February 14, 2003 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GERTRUDES V. SUSI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133831 February 14, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO CULTURA

  • G.R. No. 137404 February 14, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE CASITAS JR.

  • G.R. No. 143092 February 14, 2003 - TERESITA G. FABIAN v. NESTOR V. AGUSTIN

  • G.R. No. 143671 February 14, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGNES C. PADASIN

  • G.R. No. 143933 February 14, 2003 - PHILIPPINE NAILS AND WIRES CORPORATION v. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 150453 February 14, 2003 - RAFAEL AMATORIO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 151447 February 14, 2003 - NEW SAMPAGUITA BUILDERS CONSTRUCTIONS, INC., ET AL. v. FERMINA CANOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 153483 February 14, 2003 - FLORDELIZA F. QUERIJERO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 155172 February 14, 2003 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. PATERNO V. TAC-AN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1287 February 17, 2003 - ROGELIO G. CAPULONG v. VINCI G. GOZUM

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1479 February 17, 2003 - MELENCIO A. CEA v. ORLANDO C. PAGUIO

  • A.M. No. P-02-1597 February 17, 2003 - MARY GRACE G. FRIAS v. PALERMO AGUILAR

  • G.R. No. 126833 February 17, 2003 - MELODY B. BATOY v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 137278-79 February 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRIVALDO L. BESMONTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137283 February 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODERICK LEGASPI

  • G.R. No. 141116 February 17, 2003 - DAMASO SEBASTIAN, ET AL. v. HORACIO R. MORALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142440 February 17, 2003 - EL REYNO HOMES v. ERNESTO ONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144109 February 17, 2003 - ASSOCIATED COMMUNICATIONS & WIRELESS SERVICES — UNITED BROADCASTING NETWORKS v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 146267 February 17, 2003 - NYK INTERNATIONAL KNITWEAR CORP. PHILS., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 148948 & 148951-60 February 17, 2003 - COMELEC v. LUCENITO N. TAGLE

  • G.R. Nos. 147589 & 147613 February 18, 2003 - ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY v. COMELEC, AT AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1232 February 19, 2003 - ROSARIO D. ADRIANO v. FRANCISCO D. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. P-02-1594 February 19, 2003 - IGNACIO R. CONCEPCION v. RONALDO HUBILLA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1757 February 19, 2003 - ALBERT T. UY v. ADRIANO R. OSORIO

  • G.R. No. 115324 February 19, 2003 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122791 February 19, 2003 - PLACIDO O. URBANES, JR. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132042 February 19, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNOLD B. LAPITAJE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136796 February 19, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO DATU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136804 February 19, 2003 - MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST CO., ET AL. v. RAFAEL MA. GUERRERO

  • G.R. No. 138093 February 19, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. EDWIN D. VELEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140897 February 19, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RIZ M. JARLOS

  • G.R. No. 143676 February 19, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELY MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 147572 February 19, 2003 - TEODORICO ROSARIO v. VICTORY RICEMILL

  • A.C. No. 5024 February 20, 2003 - ARSENIA T. BERGONIA v. ARSENIO A. MERRERA

  • G.R. No. 132256 February 20, 2003 - SPS. EUFRONIO and VIDA DELFIN v. MUNICIPAL RURAL BANK OF LIBMANAN

  • G.R. No. 150530 February 20, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX BAYTIC

  • G.R. No. 150913 February 20, 2003 - SPS. TEOFILO and SIMEONA RAYOS, ET AL. v. DONATO REYES, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1433 February 21, 2003 - TOMAS R. LEONIDAS v. FRANCISCO G. SUPNET

  • A.M. No. P-01-1449 February 21, 2003 - CLEMENTINO IMPERIAL v. MARIANO F. SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. 120650 February 21, 2003 - RENE BOTONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140217 February 21, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO PATOC

  • G.R. No. 118830 February 24, 2003 - SPS. ALFREDO AND ENCARNACION CHING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125755 February 24, 2003 - PEDRO MOLINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143708 February 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO T. SAMBRANO

  • G.R. No. 146189 February 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO GARILLO

  • G.R. No. 131804 February 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO OSTIA

  • A.C. No. 4801 February 27, 2003 - MENA U. GERONA v. ALFREDO DATINGALING

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1427 February 27, 2003 - MODESTO MAGSUCANG v. ROLANDO V. BALGOS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1759 February 27, 2003 - JIMMY T. GO, ET AL. v. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

  • G.R. No. 118900 February 27, 2003 - JARDINE DAVIES INSURANCE BROKERS, INC. v. ERNA ALIPOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119477 February 27, 2003 - EDDIE TALAY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123552 February 27, 2003 - TWIN TOWERS CONDOMINIUM CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129428 February 27, 2003 - BENJAMIN NAVARRO, ET AL. v. SECOND LAGUNA DEVELOPMENT BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133445 February 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONESIO SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. 140404 February 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO ALIBEN

  • G.R. No. 140853 February 27, 2003 - ARIEL A. TRES REYES v. MAXIM’S TEA HOUSE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142293 February 27, 2003 - VICENTE SY v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 142648 February 27, 2003 - OFELIA J. VILLAVICENCIO v. ALEJANDRO A. MOJARES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143089 February 27, 2003 - MERCEDES R. GOCHAN, ET AL. v. VIRGINIA GOCHAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143216 February 27, 2003 - CLEOFE NORRIS v. JOSE J. PARENTELA

  • G.R. No. 144117 February 27, 2003 - MILAGROS B. NAYVE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146770 February 27, 2003 - ORLANDO P. NAYA v. SPS. ABRAHAM and GUILLERMA ABING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148000 February 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATERNO V. TAC-AN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1451 February 28, 2003 - LINA M. PANER v. SHERIFF IV EDGARDO M. TORRES, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-03-1681 February 28, 2003 - VERONICA A. DONDIEGO v. PETRONIO D. CUEVAS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118133 February 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO Q. BALACANAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131035 February 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 134525 February 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO DELOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 137411-13 February 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMUEL LORETO

  • G.R. No. 139833 February 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL B. GABAWA

  • G.R. No. 141646 February 28, 2003 - PABLO CONDRADA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143929 February 28, 2003 - GUILLERMO AND LOURDES BERNALDEZ v. CONCHITA FRANCIA

  • G.R. Nos. 145172-74 February 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO CORRAL

  • G.R. No. 150673 February 28, 2003 - SUPERLINES TRANSPORTATION CO. v. ICC LEASING and FINANCING CORP.