Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions


Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > March 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 184649 : March 21, 2012] CESAR P. FIANZA, PETITIONER VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS. :




SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 184649 : March 21, 2012]

CESAR P. FIANZA, PETITIONER VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 21 March 2012 which reads as follows:cralaw

G.R. No. 184649CESAR P. FIANZA, Petitioner vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

This is a petition for review of the decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 30 April 2008 denying the appeal of petitioner Cesar Fianza and affirming the judgement dated 2 October 2000 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 44, Dagupan City in Criminal Case No. D-7020, finding petitioner guilty of the crime of estafa but with modification as to penalty in that petitioner was sentenced to suffer the penalty of Twelve (12) years of Prision Mayor, as minimum to Twenty-One (21) years of Reclusion Perpetua, as maximum.

Petitioner was indicted for the crime of estafa under Article 315, 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code in an information dated 13 December 1985: 

That on or about the 4th day of August 1979 in the City of Dagupan, Philippines, and within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused CESAR FIANZA, JOHN DOE AND PETER DOE, with false pretenses and "with intent to defraud, confederating together, acting jointly and helping each other, did then and there, willfullv, unlawfully and criminally, issued Check No. B-18723 of the Traders Royal Bank, Dagupan City Branch dated August 4, 1979, in the amount of THIRTY NINE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED THIRTEEN PESOS (P39,113.00), Philippine Currency, in payment of one (1) passenger jitney purchased from the Viltrade Industries, with business address at Dagupan City, thru its Proprietor-Manager EMILIO E. VILLETA, although the said accused knew fully well that their funds deposited in the said bank, if any, were not sufficient to cover the face value of the check, as a matter of fact, when the said check was presented to the drawee bank, the same was dishonored for reason "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS", and despite repeated demands from the said accused to deposit the equivalent amount of the said check and/or redeem the same, [the said accused failed and refused to do so up to the present], to the damage and prejudice of the herein complainant, EMILIO E. VILLETA, in the aforesaid amount of P39,113.00, and other consequential damages.(Emphasis and underscore supplied)[2]

The prosecution showed that petitioner Cesar Fianza is the owner-proprietor of Annex Motor Sales in Dagupan City; which is engaged in the business of buying and selling motor vehicles. He does not hold office in Dagupan City but stays in Baguio City. Cipriano Garcia was petitioner's Branch Manager in Dagupan City, while Paul Maniacop was his Assistant Manager. Cipriano Garcia and Paul Maniacop took charge of the Dagupan City business establishment. Emilio Villeta is the owner of Viltrade Industries, a distributor of automotive products.

For several years, Cipriano Garcia and Paul Maniacop transacted with private complainant Emilio Villeta. In fact, before July 1979, petitioner purchased from Viltrade Industries thirteen (13) passenger jeepneys. The purchases were made through Cipriano Garcia and Paul Maniacop who were duly authorized by petitioner to transact and sign checks for and in behalf of Annex Sales Company.

On 7 July 1979, Paul Maniacop issued a Purchase Order for one (1) passenger jeepney. The subject jeepney was delivered and received by Paul Maniacop on 4 August 1979. The Delivery Receipt No. 0887 and Sales Invoice No. 0930 therefor were both dated 4 August 1979. In payment thereof, Emilio Villeta received Traders Royal Bank Check No. 18723 also dated 4 August 1979 in the amount of P39,113.00 bearing the signatures of Cipriano Garcia and Paul Maniacop.

On 9 August 1979, private complainant Emilio Villeta deposited TRB Check No. 18723 with the Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. (Metrobank) but it was returned to him by reason of "Insufficient Funds". On 20 August 1979, Emilio Villeta once again deposited the said check with Metrobank but the same was likewise dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds.

Emilio Villeta verbally demanded that a replacement check be issued, but the same fell on deaf ears. Consequently, Emilio Villeta sent a written demand letter dated 24 August 1979. Afterwards, Emilio Villeta, accompanied by Cipriano Garcia, went to Baguio to meet petitioner whereupon Emilio Villeta was promised that the check would be paid. However, no payment was received. Another written demand letter dated 28 August 1979 was sent, but still no payment was made.

Emilio Villeta consequently filed a criminal complaint against petitioner Cesar Fianza, Cipriano Garcia and Paul Maniacop. After the trial, the court a quo rendered a Decision dated 2 October 2000 convicting herein petitioner of the crime of estafa: 

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Cesar Fianza GUILTY beyond, reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) as amended by Presidential Decree Number 818, and in view of the absence of any aggravating and mitigating circumstances, accused Cesar Fianza is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of Twelve (12) Years of Prision Mayor, as minimum, to Fourteen (14) Years, Eight (8) months and One (1) Day of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum. 

Accused Cesar Fianza is also sentenced to suffer an additional penalty of One (1) Year for the additional P17,000.00 pursuant to Section 1, paragraph 1 of the Presidential Decree No. 818. 

The accused is ordered to return the amount of P39,113.00 to Emilio E. Villeta. 

With cost against Cesar Fianza.[3]

The court a quo ratiocinated that: 

The evidence shows that the Annex Sales of which Cesar Fianza is the owner, is a sole proprietorship. It profited from the fraudulent transaction with the knowledge and approval of accused Cesar Fianza himself. With false pretenses and with intent to defraud, accused Cesar Fianza willfully, unlawfully and criminally confederated together, acted jointly and helped each other with the other accused, issued the check number B-18723 of the Traders Royal Bank, Dagupan City Branch, dated August 4, 1979 in the amount of P39,113.00 in payment of one (1) passenger jeepney purchased from the Viltrade Industries with business address at Dagupan City, thru Mr. Emilio Villeta. The accused knew-fully well that their funds deposited at the Traders Royal Bank were not sufficient to cover the face value of the check. In fact, when the check was presented by the drawee bank, the same was dishonored for the reason of "insufficient funds". The evidence also show that despite repeated demands upon the accused to deposit the equivalent amount of the check, the accused failed and refused to do so. This caused damaged to the complainant Emilio Villeta in the amount of P39,113.00. 

The firm owned by Mr. Cesar Fianza profited from the fraudulent transaction with the knowledge and approval of accused Cesar Fianza. This is supported by the letter of the accused dated April 28, 1979 which was addressed to the Traders Royal Bank, Dagupan Branch, authorizing Mr. Cipriano Garcia and Paul Maniacop "to transact and sign checks and papers for and in behalf of Annex Sales Company". The needed funds to cover the check not having been deposited within the prescribed period after the notice of dishonor, is indicative of complicity or confederacy in the issuance of the check as provided by the law. It is clear from an examination of the testimony of Emilio Villeta that they went to Baguio City in the month of August, 1979 to talk with the accused Cesar Fianza together with Mr. Cipriano Garcia. After that, they came to Dagupan and talked about the matter. Mr. Emilio Villeta waited for Cesar Fianza and company to refund to him the amount of the check. The accused kept on promising, however, he did not refund to Mr. Villeta the amount of the dishonored check. Although notices were sent to the agents and employees of the accused aside from personal demands, accused failed to deposit the corresponding amount to cover the check. This is an evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act pursuant to Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code. The check was issued on August 4, 1979. Therefore, it is covered by Presidential Decree No. 818 because it took effect on October 22, 1975.

Section 1. Any person who shall defraud another [by] means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts as defined in paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, shall be punished by:

1st. The penalty of reclusion temporal if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the later sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos but the total penalty which may be imposed shall in no case exceed thirty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty shall be termed reclusion perpetua.

Presidential Decree No. 818[4]

Petitioner coursed an appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), which court, as aforestated, affirmed the trial court's decision and found that "All the elements of estafa under Article 315, 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 818, are present in the case at bench."

The CA held thus: 

xxx. 

It is undisputed that as early as May 1979, appellant, together with Cipriano Garcia and Paul Maniacop, went to see private complainant in person for the purpose of transacting business wherein appellant would buy vehicles from private complainant and re-sell the same to his customers. To ensure the smooth operation of his business, appellant authorized Cipriano Garcia and Paul Maniacop to transact and sign checks and other pertinent documents in behalf of Annex Sales Company as evidenced by Authorization Letters dated May 23, 1979 and April 28, 1979. Not only that, he informed private complainant that he may deal with either Cipriano Garcia or Paul Maniacop in their succeeding transactions. 

Appellant could not thus feign ignorance of the subject transaction and that he has no knowledge of the same, including the issuance of the subject check which was drawn against insufficient funds. On the contrary, appellant himself, at the start of his business dealings with private complainant, took active participation in ensuring that he would be able to buy the needed vehicles which were in turn sold to his clients. In fact, the business relationship between him and private complainant went on smoothly for the previous twelve transactions, except for the last transaction involving a passenger jeepney worth P39,113.00." xxx. 

xxx. 

Anent appellant's claim that there was not estafa since a contract of sale had already been consummated and that private complainant would have still delivered and parted with the vehicle even without the prior or simultaneous issuance of the subject check, is of no moment. The same is clearly self-serving and unsupported by any evidence. It has been the business practice of the parties that Annex Sales Company sends first the check as payment of the purchase order before delivery is mad by private complainant. xxx.[5]

Hence, the present petition for review.

The issue is whether or hot petitioner is liable for estafa.

The Court rules that petitioner is liable for estafa. The prosecution evidence established petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of estafa under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by the Republic Act No. 4885. 

Art. 315(2)(d), as amended by R.A. No. 4885, states: 

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow�; 

xxx 

2. By means of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud: 

xxx 

d. By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days, from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. 

The elements of estafa, as defined, are as follows:

(1)
The offender has postdated or issued a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or issuance.
(2)
At the time of postdating or issuance of said check, the offender has no funds in the bank or the funds deposited were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check;
(3)
The payee has been defrauded.

In view of the amendment of Art 315(2)(d) by R.A. No. 4885, the following are no longer elements of estafa: 

  1. knowledge of the drawer that he has no funds in the bank or that the funds deposited by him are not sufficient.
  2. failure to inform the payee of such circumstance.[6]

The evidence on record shows that petitioner issued check No. 18723, of Traders Royal Bank-Dagupan Branch, to cover Sales Invoice No. 0930 issued on August 4, 1979. The check was issued in payment of an obligation arising from the purchase of the passenger jeep, contracted at the time of the issuance of the check. Evidently, the check was issued by petitioner not in payment of a pre-existing obligation, but in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of the issuance of the check. Private complainant would not have parted with the passenger jeep had the check not been issued on the same occasion.

Unquestionably, petitioner was the one who authorized Cipriano Garcia and Paul Maniacop to issue the check in question and we take note of such authority given to Cipriano Garcia and Paul Maniacop to transact business with Viltrade, sign checks and pertinent papers. This should be considered as a manifestation of petitioner's consent to the issuance of the check.

As to penalty, the trial court imposed Twelve (12) Years of Prision Mayor, as minimum, to Fourteen (14) Years, Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum. The CA modified the maximum period of the penalty explaining thus: 

The penalty for estafa under Article 315, 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by P.D. No. 818 is reclusion temporal if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos but the total penalty which may be imposed shall in no case exceed thirty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty shall be termed reclusion perpetua

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable penalty should range from Six (6) Years and One (1) Day to Twelve (12) Years of prision mayor as minimum, to Seventeen (17) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day to Twenty (20) Years of reclusion temporal in its maximum period, as maximum, since the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period if the amount involved exceeded P22,000.00, plus one year for each additional 10,000 pesos but in no case exceeding thirty years pursuant to P.D. No. 818. 

In line with existing jurisprudence,[7] the minimum imposable penalty should be Twelve (12) Years of prision mayor. As to the maximum imposable penalty, We deem it proper to impose upon appellant an imprisonment of Twenty-One (21) Years of reclusion perpetua, as maximum.

We find the CA's modification to be proper.cralaw

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO, including the modification as to penalty in that petitioner Cesar Fianza is sentenced to suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum to twenty-one (21) years of reclusion perpetua, as maximum.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON 
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:


[1] Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Isaias P. Dicdican, concurring. Rollo, pp. 36-52.

[2] Id. at 86-87. 

[3] Id. at 91-92. 

[4] Id. at 90-91. 

[5] Id. at 46-49. 

[6] People of the Philippines v. Ernst Georg Holzer and Merceditas D. Albiso, G.R. No. 132323, 20 July 2000; 336 SCRA 319, 324-325. 

[7] People v. Panganiban, G.R. 133028, 10 July 2000, 335 SCRA 354, 370 citing  People v. Hernando, G.R. No. 125214, 28 October 1999, 317 SCRA 617.

[8] Rollo, pp. 50-51.




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






March-2012 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 192822 : January 16, 2012] PEOPLE OE THE PHILIPPINES v. RODOLFO MONTEMAYOR Y TAMAYO

  • [G.R. No. 199796 : March 05, 2012] ROMEO M. SARMIENTO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 187571 : March 05, 2012] FILIPINO ACADEMY OF MOVIE ARTS AND SCIENCES, INC., REPRESENTED BY JUMMY A. TIU V. ART M. PADUA, ANGEL CALSO, UP THEATER, REPRESENTED BY ITS BUSINESS MANAGER VONN PERDON GOLFO, AND ABC TV-5, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ROBERTO BARRIERO AND DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM ACQUISITION VICTORINO VIANZON

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2906 (Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 10-3440-P) : March 05, 2012] LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. CESAR V. ACANCE, RECORDS OFFICER I, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, QUEZON CITY

  • [G.R. No. 200210 : March 05, 2012] BENJAMIN DE VILLA Y CANTERO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • [A.C. No. 4500 : March 06, 2012] BAN HUA U. FLORES v. ATTY. ENRIQUE S. CHUA

  • [UDK No. 14623 : March 07, 2012] SCAD SERVICES PTE. LTD. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, FORMER 14TH DIVISION, JORGE YANSON, EDDIE GOLDE, EDGAR NOCHE, ET AL.

  • [March 06, 2012] RE: HOLY WEEK RECESS

  • [G.R. No. 177292 : March 07, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. JESSIE GARBIDA Y FOSTER, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. 12-2-11-MCTC : March 07, 2012] UNAUTHORIZED EXTENSION OF TRAVEL ABROAD BY MIGUELITA D. VILLA, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT (MCTC), KIBAWE, BUKIDNON

  • [G.R. No. 176126 : March 07, 2012] OSMUND DECANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 192259 : March 07, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ROSALINDA SUMAYA Y MABALON, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 187792 : March 07, 2012] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONRADA AREVALO

  • [G.R.No. 182210 : March 07, 2012] PAZ BERNARDO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • [G.R. No. 200227 : March 12, 2012] LORENZO HIDALGO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 200353 : March 12, 2012] SOUTHERN CARRIER CO., INC. v. CARLITO MA�ACAP

  • [G.R. No. 184315 : March 12, 2012] ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO v. THE MANILA CHRONICLE PUBLISHING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2303 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3416-RTJ) : March 12, 2012] MARIO S. ROMERO, COMPLAINANT VS. MANUEL C. LUNA, JR. EXECUTIVE JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 39, CALAPAN CITY, ORIENTAL MINDORO,

  • [A.M. No. 11-1-09-RTC : March 13, 2012] RE: REQUEST FOR THE CREATION OF ADDITIONAL DRUGS COURTS IN THE RTC, DUMAGUETE CITY

  • [G.R. No. 181779 : March 13, 2012] ANDREW L. ONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, AND TEODORO DELA TORRE VILLAGRACIA, SR.

  • [G.R. No. 192070 : March 13, 2012] EDDIE "AMONG ED" T. PANLILIO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND LILIA G. PINEDA.

  • [G.R. No. 176323 : March 14, 2012] LENY B. DIAZ AND SPOUSES ANTONIO B. ESCALONA AND LEONORA ESCALONA VS. CHERRIE PINEZA AND KOJI HAMAMURA

  • [G.R. No. 189875 : March 14, 2012] NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. TRANS DIGITAL EXCEL, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 199914 : March 14, 2012] MEL MIKE GAMIN Y TARI v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 181957 : March 14, 2012] RENATO P. MENDOZA, NEGOTIATING UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF LADY LOU GENERAL MERCHANDISE V. S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 198315 : March 19, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RANNIE GULAPA Y ORDINARIO

  • [A.M. No. 14219-Ret. : March 20, 2012] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE ULPIANO I. CAMPOS, RTC, BRANCH 22, NARVACAN, ILOCOS SUR; JUDGE CONRADO B. VENUS, RTC, BRANCH 22, NARVACAN, ILOCOS SUR; JUDGE ALBERTO V. BENESA, RTC, BRANCH 58, BUCAY, ABRA; JUDGE NORMELITO J. BALLOCANAG, RTC, BRANCH 41, PINAMALAYAN, ORIENTAL MINDORO, JUDGE FILOMENO A. VERGARA, RTC, BRANCH 2, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY; JUDGE EUFEMIO R. JOLINA, MTCC, SAN FERNANDO CITY, LA UNION; JUDGE JOSE V. HABALO, MTCC, LUCENA CITY; JUDGE NORBERTO GREGORIO E. TIZON, JR., MTC, SAN ISIDRO, NORTHERN SAMAR; JUDGE GREGORIO S. VIOS, MTC, KAPATAGAN, LANAO DEL NORTE; AND JUDGE PACIANO B. GALLEPOSO, MCTC, SINDANGAN, ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE

  • [A.M. No. 14218-Ret., March 20, 2012] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, RTC, BRANCH 142, MAKATI CITY AND JUDGE ANTONIO C. BAGAG�AN, MTC, GUINOBATAN, ALBAY

  • [G.R. Nos. 153304-05 : March 20, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL. RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171850 : March 21, 2012] EDGARDO BAUTISTA v. ROSITA DEPONIO

  • [A.M. No. 14210-Ret. : March 13, 2012] RE: APPLICATION FOR SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS OF MRS. VIRGINIA P. ELBINIAS, SURVIVING SPOUSE OF THE LATE HON. JESUS M. ELBINIAS, FORMER PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • [G.R. No. 160669 : March 14, 2012] SPOUSES WILFREDO SANTOS AND LUZVIMINDA SANTOS v. SPOUSES ALFREDO NEPOMUCENO AND ESTER DELA PAZ NEPOMUCENO, AND HON. MAURICIO M. RIVERA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS RTC JUDGE, 4TH JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 73, ANTIPOLO CITY.

  • [G.R. No. 176063 : March 14, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENATO MIA Y IFSOR

  • [G.R. No. 181969 : March 19, 2012] ROMAGO, INC. v. SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 191684 : March 20, 2012] ANG KAPATIRAN PARTY v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • [G.R. No. 199196 : March 20, 2012] NELLY RAMOS v. ANACLETO BALDO

  • [A.M. No. 14216-Ret. : March 20, 2012] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE RENE R. VICTORIANO, RTC, BRANCH 124, CALOOCAN CITY; JUDGE ADRIAN N. PAGALILAUAN, RTC, BRANCH 12, SANCHEZ MIRA, CAGAYAN; JUDGE IRENEO B. ESCANDOR, RTC, BRANCH 55, IROSIN, SORSOGON; JUDGE CANDIDO C. AGUINALDO, RTC, BRANCH 9, CEBU CITY; JUDGE EPIFANIO C. LLANOS, RTC, BRANCH 26, ARGAO, CEBU; JUDGE HILARIO I. MAPAYO, RTC, BRANCH 19, DIGOS CITY; JUDGE COROCOY D. MOSON, SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT, COTABATO CITY; JUDGE MARIANO P. FUENTEBELLA, MTCC, IRIGA CITY; JUDGE JAIME F. VILORIA, MCTC, NARVACAN, ILOCOS SUR; JUDGE ELPIDIO N. QUIÑON, MCTC, POTOTAN-MINA, ILOILO; AND JUDGE CIRIACO C. ARIÑO, MCTC, SAN FRANCISCO, AGUSAN DEL SUR

  • [G.R. No. 193387 : March 21, 2012] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS FLORO TECZON, NUMERIANO TABUYAN (DECEASED), AND JOSE ENOVESO, APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 174682 : March 21, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. ELMER A. BUCA AND WILLIAM B. CAINCAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175052 : March 21, 2012] DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM REPRESENTED BY OIC SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN v. MANUEL DEL ROSARIO.

  • [G.R. No. 184649 : March 21, 2012] CESAR P. FIANZA, PETITIONER VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 199430 : March 21, 2012] MEINRADO ENRIQUE A. BELLO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • [G.R. No. 186464 : March 21, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PANNER "TOTS" IDAL Y SAMPORNA A.K.A. PANOTOLAN DAUNTE Y SAMPORNA

  • [G.R. No. 171850 : March 21, 2012] EDGARDO BAUTISTA v. ROSITA DEPONIO

  • [G.R. No. 176579 : April 10, 2012] WILSON P. GAMBOA, PETITIONER, VS. FINANCE SECRETARY MARGARITO B. TEVES, ET AL. RESPONDENTS.