Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2003 > September 2003 Decisions > G.R. No. 152604 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONCIO S.PEDRIGAL:



[G.R. No. 152604. September 18, 2003.]




In Criminal Case No. 5247-G, appellant Leoncio Pedrigal y Simballana @ "Bakla" was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Gumaca, Quezon, Branch 61, with murder in an information 1 which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about the 18th day of December 1995, at Sitio Badajos, Barangay Butanyog, Municipality of Mulanay, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, with intent to kill, armed with a small bolo (itak-itakan), with treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with the said weapon one Richard Napeñas, thereby inflicting upon the latter wounds on different parts of his body which directly caused his death.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

That the accused attacked and stabbed said Richard Napeñas suddenly and unexpectedly without giving the latter any opportunity to defend himself or to escape.

Appellant pleaded "not guilty." Trial on the merits then ensued.

At around 5:30 in the afternoon of December 18, 1995, in Barangay Butanyog, Mulanay, Quezon, Crisanta Carsola overheard Juana Pedrigal telling her son, appellant Leoncio Pedrigal, "Bakla, parang awa mo na, tulungan mo si Pepe at nilolooban ni Ricky." Appellant allegedly told his mother not to worry as he will take care of the matter. Carsola relayed what she heard to Felino Rosas, a barangay captain. Later in the afternoon, she joined the victim, Ricky Napeñas, and Leonora Rejano in front of their houses where they partook of coffee and engaged in small talk. Appellant suddenly appeared from out of the dark and repeatedly stabbed Napeñas.

Carsola immediately reported the matter to Rosas, and together they rushed to the scene where they saw appellant holding a small bolo while astride Napeñas. They disarmed appellant and brought Napeñas to the hospital, but he expired on the way.

Dr. Heriberto Morales, Municipal Health Officer of Mulanay, Quezon, conducted the autopsy and concluded that Napeñas died of hemorrhagic shock due to multifarious wounds. The abdominal wound which caused the small intestine to spill out, was the most fatal. 2

Appellant denied the charge against him. He claimed that he was on his way to Barangay Butanyog when Napeñas stabbed him with a tres cantos ice-pick. He drew his small bolo and engaged the victim in a fight. After about thirty minutes, they both fell down in exhaustion. Brgy. Capt. Rosas arrived and disarmed them. He was brought to a hospital in Catanauan for medical treatment. He was issued a medical certificate by the hospital but the same was in his parents’ possession.

The trial court gave credence to the prosecution’s evidence and rendered a decision, 3 the dispositive portion of which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder punished and defined under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code and therefore sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay the heirs of the victim Ricky Napeñas P50,000.00 as indemnity for damages and to pay P20,000.00 as actual damages, plus costs of the suit.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Hence, this appeal. Appellant insists that he killed Napeñas in self-defense. 4 Nonetheless, even assuming that he is found guilty, he submits that he should only be held liable for homicide and not murder. 5

In invoking self-defense, appellant is deemed to have admitted that he killed the victim, and the burden of evidence is shifted on him to prove that he did not commit unlawful aggression. 6 The question of whether appellant acted in self-defense is essentially a question of fact. In self-defense, unlawful aggression is a primordial element. 7

When the accused interposes self-defense, he must prove that: (1) he is not the unlawful aggressor; (2) there was lack of sufficient provocation on his part; and (3) he employed reasonable means to prevent or repel the aggression. 8 Appellant failed to prove these elements.

Appellant alleges that he attacked Napeñas because the latter was suspected of robbing Pepe Briones, his brother-in-law. This, however, fails to qualify as unlawful aggression committed against Appellant.

Significantly, the most telling proof that appellant did not act in self-defense was the number of wounds he inflicted on Napeñas. Napeñas suffered seven (7) stab wounds, one of which proved to be fatal. The nature, number and location of the wounds sustained by the victim belie the assertion of self-defense since the gravity of said wounds is indicative of a determined effort to kill and not just to defend. 9

In the alternative, appellant claims that he should have been convicted only of homicide, instead of murder, because of the absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. He argues that it is not sufficient to show that the attack was sudden to establish treachery. He cites People v. Recepcion, 10 where it was held that for treachery to be appreciated, it must also be proved that the malefactor must have employed means, method or manner of execution that would ensure his safety from retaliatory act of the victim; and that such means, method or form of execution are consciously and deliberately adopted by the malefactor.

In the case at bar, it was shown that appellant suddenly appeared from the dark and surprised the unsuspecting Napeñas, who was not in a position to defend himself as he was not expecting an attack on him. He was simply sitting down, having a conversation with two other persons and enjoying a cup of coffee.

From all indications, appellant adopted this manner of executing his attack in away that would ensure its success. In this regard, the trial court found:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

From the testimony of Dr. Heriberto Morales, that the victim sustained seven (7) wounds located at the parietal area above the left ear, left elbow, left forearm, right chest, right lower abdomen, left shoulder, left scapular area, right paravertebral area, the most fatal of which is the wound on the abdomen which caused the coming out of the small intestine and caused the instantaneous death of the victim, it can be reasonably presumed that accused chose his manner and mode of attack to ensure that there is no risk to himself that may arise from the defense that the victim may undertake.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Another observation of the Court which confirms the presence of treachery is the fact that Barangay Captain found difficulty in removing the itak-itakan from the accused as it was tied with the sleeve of his jacket wrapped around his hand and which the Court sees also as the reason why Barangay Kagawad Carsula did not notice the weapon held by the accused when he suddenly appeared before them and attacked the victim. Without any visible weapon in his hand when he suddenly appeared, the victim failed to undertake any move to defend himself. 11

The harshness of appellant’s acts indicate a calculated pursuit of decision to kill, thus suggesting treachery. 12 More importantly, appellant did not sustain any wound, thus indicating that the suddenness of his attack on Napeñas ensured his safety from retaliatory attack from the latter.

The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on the victim which renders the latter unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack. 13 Even if the attack was frontal, it does not negate the finding of treachery. A frontal attack can be treacherous if sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed. 14

Appellant admits that he attacked Napeñas because the latter allegedly robbed Briones, his brother-in-law. Plainly, this provides the motive for appellant to avenge whatever wrongdoing, imagined or otherwise, was committed by Napeñas.

All told, the trial court gave full faith and credence to the prosecution witnesses who testified in a positive and straightforward manner, when they identified appellant, and who were not found to have been ill-motivated. Furthermore, the said witnesses were all public officials who enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties. 15 Where there is nothing to indicate that a witness was actuated by improper motive, his positive and categorical declarations on the witness stand under solemn oath deserve full faith and credence. 16

Case law dictates that the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the collective testimonies of the witnesses, its assessment of the probative weight of the evidence of the parties as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, because of the unique advantage of the trial court of observing at close range the conduct, demeanor and deportment of the witnesses as they regale the trial court with their testimonies unless the trial court ignored, misunderstood or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance, which if considered, would alter the outcome of the case. 17 We see no reason to overturn the findings of the trial court.

Thus, we find that the trial court was correct in convicting appellant of the crime of Murder, and imposed on him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, murder is punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Considering that no aggravating or mitigating circumstance attended the killing, the lesser of the two indivisible penalties shall be imposed, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The trial court correctly awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. It however, failed to award moral damages and exemplary damages. An award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is in line with current jurisprudence. In cases of violent death, moral damages are awarded even in the absence of proof because an untimely and violent death invariably brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim’s family. 18 Considering the presence of qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery, exemplary damages in the sum of P25,000.00 are likewise awarded. 19

The trial court, likewise, awarded P20,000.00 only as actual damages. Ordinarily, receipts should support claims of actual damages, but where the defense does not contest the claim, it should be granted. 20 In this case, the defense even stipulated that the heir of the victim suffered actual damages amounting to P30,000.00. 21

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Gumaca, Quezon, Branch 61 finding appellant Leoncio Pedrigal y Simballana @ "Bakla" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. In addition to the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, appellant is likewise ordered to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P30,000.00 as actual damages. Costs de officio.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary


Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.


1. Records, pp. 2–3.

2. TSN, June 17, 1998, pp. 5–6.

3. Penned by Judge Aurora V. Maqueda-Roman of the Regional Trial Court of Gumaca, Quezon, Branch 61, Rollo, pp. 16, 29.

4. TSN, September 27, 2000, p. 10.

5. Appellant’s, Brief, Rollo, p. 44.

6. People v. Rubiso, G.R. No. 128871, 18 March 2003.

7. People v. Muñez, G.R. No. 150030, 9 May 2003.

8. People v. Vicente, G.R. No. 137296, 26 June 2003.

9. People v. Aliben, G.R. No. 140404, 27 February 2003.

10. G.R. No. 141943-45, 13 November 2002.

11. Decision, Records, pp. 262, 277.

12. People v. Tumaob, 353 Phil. 331, 337 (1998).

13. People v. Torio, G.R. No. 122109, 25 June 2003.

14. People v. Vicente, supra.

15. Decision, Records, pp. 276–277.

16. People v. Villegas, G.R. No. 138782, 27 September 2002.

17. People v. Sibonga, G.R. No. 95901, 16 June 2003.

18. People v. Mallari, G.R. No. 145993, 17 June 2003.

19. People v. Vicente, supra.

20. People v. Torio, supra.

21. TSN, June 17, 1998, pp. 9–10; People v. Valledor, G.R. No. 129291, 3 July 2002.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

September-2003 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-03-1705 September 2, 2003 - BALDOMERO DE VERA SOLIMAN, JR. v. PRINCESITO D. SORIANO


  • G.R. No. 146980 September 2, 2003 - LUZ E. TAGANAS, ET AL. v. MELITON G. EMUSLAN, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3967 September 3, 2003 - ARTEMIO ENDAYA v. WILFREDO OCA

  • A.C. No. 6084 September 3, 2003 - FELICITAS BERBANO v. WENCESLAO BARCELONA


  • A.M. No. OCA-01-6 September 3, 2003 - DOMINADOR V. ASPIRAS v. ESMERALDA ABALOS

  • A.M. No. P-01-1466 September 3, 2003 - EDUARDO F. BAGO v. JOEL FERAREN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1501 September 3, 2003 - ROMEO E. EJERCITO v. ILDEFONSO B. SUERTE

  • G.R. No. 131915 September 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE LACHICA, ET AL.


  • G.R. No. 139400 September 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURICIO WATIWAT

  • G.R. No. 140652 September 3, 2003 - OLIVERIO LAPERAL v. PABLO V. OCAMPO

  • G.R. No. 144312 September 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHUA TAN LEE

  • G.R. No. 145737 September 3, 2003 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. EVELYN P. CAYOBIT

  • G.R. No. 149617 September 3, 2003 - MARIANO JOAQUIN S. MACIAS v. MARGIE CORPUS MACIAS

  • G.R. No. 141527 September 4, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RANDY G. BOCALAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1788 September 5, 2003 - JORGE F. ABELLA v. FRANCISCO L. CALINGIN

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1430 September 8, 2003 - ROMEO B. SENSON v. HERIBERTO M. PANGILINAN


  • G.R. No. 152957 September 8, 2003 - FAUSTINO ESQUIVEL v. EDUARDO REYES

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1480 September 10, 2003 - TRINIDAD CABAHUG v. JASPER JESSE G. DACANAY

  • G.R. No. 91486 September 10, 2003 - ALBERTO G. PINLAC, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107271 September 10, 2003 - CITY OF CALOOCAN, ET AL. v. MAURO T. ALLARDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125329 September 10, 2003 - ANN BRIGITT LEONARDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140762 September 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER C. ROXAS

  • G.R. No. 148912 September 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO ESCARLOS

  • G.R. No. 151212 September 10, 2003 - TEN FORTY REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. MARINA CRUZ

  • A.M. No. P-02-1562 September 11, 2003 - ROMULO SG. VILLANUEVA v. CHARLIE C. LARCENA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1742 September 11, 2003 - AVELINA MADULA v. RUTH CRUZ SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 136286-89 September 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN G. DE TAZA

  • G.R. No. 138366 September 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN CAÑETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138569 September 11, 2003 - CONSOLIDATED BANK and TRUST CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144785 September 11, 2003 - YOLANDA GARCIA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 145407 September 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONITO HEREVESE

  • G.R. No. 151081 September 11, 2003 - TOP RATE CONSTRUCTION & GENERAL SERVICES v. PAXTON DEV’T. CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 153126 September 11, 2003 - MONTEREY FOODS CORP., ET AL. v. VICTORINO E. ESERJOSE

  • G.R. No. 153845 September 11, 2003 - EFREN P. SALVAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.


  • G.R. No. 127206 September 12, 2003 - PERLA PALMA GIL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135029 September 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR CARRIAGA

  • G.R. No. 141600 September 12, 2003 - ROBERTO FULGENCIO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144639 September 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENNY GO

  • G.R. Nos. 144972-73 September 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO JUNAS

  • G.R. No. 133365 September 16, 2003 - PLATINUM TOURS AND TRAVEL, INC. v. JOSE M. PANLILIO

  • G.R. Nos. 147814-15 September 16, 2003 - RAUL ZAPATOS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 155278 September 16, 2003 - PRUDENCIO J. TANJUAN v. PHIL. POSTAL SAVINGS BANK

  • A.M. No. P-03-1740 September 17, 2003 - FRANKLIN Q. SUSA v. TEOFILA A. PEÑA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1656 September 17, 2003 - EDGARDO D. BALSAMO v. PEDRO L. SUAN

  • G.R. No. 141120 September 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO BUENAVIDEZ

  • G.R. No. 146125 September 17, 2003 - NOVELTY PHIL., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1347 September 18, 2003 - BENJAMIN TUDTUD v. MAMERTO Y. COLIFLORES

  • A.M. No. P-00-1370 September 18, 2003 - ALEJANDRO PAREDES, ET AL. v. JERRY MARCELINO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1510 September 18, 2003 - MARY ANN PADUGANAN-PEÑARANDA v. GRACE L. SONGCUYA

  • A.M. No. P-03-1691 September 18, 2003 - JOSE S. SAÑEZ v. CARLOS B. RABINA

  • A.M. No. P-03-1703 September 18, 2003 - EDNA FE F. AQUINO v. JOSE R. MARTIN

  • A.M. No. P-03-1724 September 18, 2003 - VICENTE ALVAREZ, Jr. v. JOSE R. MARTIN

  • A.M. No. P-03-1742 September 18, 2003 - SALVADOR L. BERNABE v. WINSTON T. EGUIA

  • G.R. No. 135559 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MORENO OCUMEN

  • G.R. No. 135563 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOBBY P. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 144913 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF PHIL. v. GERONIMO C. CENIZA

  • G.R. No. 149627 September 18, 2003 - KENNETH O. NADELA v. CITY OF CEBU, ET AL..

  • G.R. No. 152351 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMIL MALA

  • G.R. No. 152604 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONCIO S.PEDRIGAL

  • G.R. No. 153571 September 18, 2003 - BENGUET MANAGEMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 156259 September 18, 2003 - GROGUN, INC. v. NAPOCOR

  • G.R. No. 157957 September 18, 2003 - CHARITO NAVAROSA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142974 September 22, 2003 - SPS. SHEM G. ALFARERO and AURELIA TAGALOG v. SPS. PETRA and SANCHO SEVILLA

  • G.R. No. 152529 September 22, 2003 - SPS. HENDRIK and ALICIA S. BIESTERBOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1450 September 23, 2003 - RAMIRO S. DE JOYA v. AUGUSTUS C. DIAZ

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1509 September 23, 2003 - HELEN GAMBOA-MIJARES v. MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-03-1732 September 23, 2003 - ROSENINA O. UY, ET AL. v. LOLITA R. EDILO

  • G.R. No. 123140 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO CORTEZANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135446 September 23, 2003 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BPI


  • G.R. Nos. 138716-19 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PILLAS

  • G.R. No. 138725 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO OLIVAR

  • G.R. No. 139360 September 23, 2003 - HLC CONSTRUCTION AND DEV’T. CORP., ET AL. v. EHSHA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140982 September 23, 2003 - MARIO GUTIERREZ v. SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141434 September 23, 2003 - ANTONIO LO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143132 September 23, 2003 - VAN MELLE PHILS. ET AL. v. VICTOR M. ENDAYA

  • G.R. No. 144533 September 23, 2003 - JIMMY L. BARNES v. TERESITA C. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 146786-88 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES T. DAÑO

  • G.R. No. 149295 September 23, 2003 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GENEROSO DE JESUS

  • G.R. No. 149370 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN ALEJO

  • G.R. No. 150905 September 23, 2003 - CITIBANK v. EFREN S. TEODORO

  • G.R. No. 151072 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 151931 September 23, 2003 - ANAMER SALAZAR v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 152823-24 September 23, 2003 - RUFINA CHUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152998 September 23, 2003 - SIMON Q. AÑONUEVO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 156295 September 23, 2003 - MARCELO R. SORIANO v. SPS. RICARDO and ROSALINA GALIT

  • G.R. No. 156983 September 23, 2003 - In the Matter of the Application for the Habeas Corpus of JOSE VICTOR RIGOR y DANAO v. The Superintendent

  • A.M. No. P-00-1418 September 24, 2003 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. CELESTINA B. CORPUZ

  • G.R. No. 124293 September 24, 2003 - JG SUMMIT HOLDINGS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130087 September 24, 2003 - DIANA M. BARCELONA v. CA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136726 September 24, 2003 - PANFILO V. VILLARUEL v. REYNALDO D. FERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148924 September 24, 2003 - TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. v. CA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 153781 September 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO GREGORIO, ET AL.


  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1746 September 26, 2003 - ROGER F. BORJA v. ZORAYDA H. SALCEDO

  • G.R. No. 130330 September 26, 2003 - FERNANDO GO v. MICHAEL TAN and LOLITA TAN

  • G.R. No. 141217 September 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSEBIO DUBAN

  • G.R. No. 144037 September 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL P. TUDTUD, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 5480 September 29, 2003 - LEILANI OCAMPO-INGCOCO, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO G. YRREVERRE, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 137370-71 September 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL OCO

  • G.R. No. 139185 September 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 148902 September 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO ANDRADE

  • G.R. No. 149718 September 29, 2003 - MARIO VALEROSO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 152057 September 29, 2003 - PT & T CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 5854 September 30, 2003 - NORA E. MIWA v. RENE O. MEDINA

  • G.R. No. 127593 September 30, 2003 - CLARA C. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 136742-43 September 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO Y. ALFARO

  • G.R. Nos. 140514-15 September 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUNE IGNAS

  • G.R. No. 142751 September 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO OPELIÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143010 September 30, 2003 - MIGUEL DANOFRATA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 144230 September 30, 2003 - ARTURO G. MACKAY v. ADORACION G. ANGELES, ET AL.