Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1941 > April 1941 Decisions > G.R. No. 47126 April 8, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR MEDINA, ET AL.

071 Phil 383:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 47126. April 8, 1941.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MELCHOR MEDINA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

Marcelo P. Karaan, for Appellants.

Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Solicitor Kapunan, Jr., for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE AND PHYSICAL INJURIES; ALIBI. — Appellants sought to offer an alibi, pretending that even since 9 o’clock of the night in question they were in the house of E. de O. where they were boarding, and that they never left the house until morning of the next day. It has been held, however, that an alibi must be proved by positive, clear, and satisfactory evidence. (U. S. v. Olais, 36 Phil. 828; People v. Limbo, 49 Phil., 94; People v. Pili, 51 Phil., 965.) The reason is that "oral evidence of alibi is so easily manufactured and usually so unreliable that it can rarely be given credence." (People v. Padilla, 48 Phil., 718.) It has been held, further, that, when the defendants are identified by the witnesses for the prosecution by clear, explicit and positive testimony, the alibi will not be credited. (U. S. v. Hudieres, 27 Phil., 45; People v. Cabantug, 49 Phil., 482; People v. Palamos, 40 Phil., 501; People v. Medina, 59 Phil., 330; People v. De Asis, 61 Phil., 384; People v. Cinco, 37 Off. Gaz., 2740.)


D E C I S I O N


MORAN, J.:


Pursuant to their plan of robbery concocted in the morning of the day previous, appellants Melchor Medina, Hilarion Holgado, Regino Garcia, Benigno Tenorio and Jose Agojo, together with one Veronico Oriola, equipped with a carata, rope and flashlight, entered, at about midnight of June 29, 1938, the house of Modesto Bastasas and his sister Aniceta, in the barrio of Olingan, municipality of Dipolog, Zamboanga. The entry was effected through one of the windows, the main and kitchen doors being then locked. After putting out the light on the altar in the living room, three of the malefactors, at the indication of Oriola who was standing on guard at the main door, entered the room of Modesto, and the two others, the room of Aniceta. They bound and gagged Aniceta in her bed, but in her vain effort to extricate herself, she fell to the floor after which one of them kicked her and gave her a blow on the head. She thereupon feigned unconsciousness undoubtedly to save herself from further injuries. One of the malefactors who entered Modesto’s room came out, approached one Romana Troyo, the Bastasas’ maid who was then having her quarters in the living room, and held her by the hands. She awoke and screamed for help, and her assailant held her by the neck and clamped her mouth with one of his hands. Attracted by her screams, another man came out of Aniceta’s room, and as he focused a flashlight which accidentally caught his companion’s face, Romana saw the person gagging her as one with curly hair and whom she identified at the trial as Melchor Medina. Thereafter, the malefactors pulled out two trunks from the room of Aniceta and rifled them of their contents. With their loot, they left the house taking exit through the main door.

When the malefactors were gone, the maid, who in the meantime succeeded in freeing herself, went immediately to Aniceta’s room and there found her on the floor be-smeared with blood. At the instance of the latter, the maid went to the room of Modesto whom she found also bound and gagged and was limp and cold. She notified their neighbor Laylay who repaired to the house and upon entering the living room, he saw the trunks open and their remaining contents scattered around. He also saw Aniceta in her room still on the floor and bleeding, and Modesto in his room, already dead.

Laylay called the chief of police and at about 7 o’clock in the morning of that day, the latter, accompanied by Dr. Jose de las Penas of the sanitary division and other policemen, immediately repaired to the scene of the crime. The physician found stuffed inside the mouth of the deceased Modesto, a handkerchief which completely covered his glottis pillow case and a part of one of the pants. Death, according to him, was due to asphyxia or to strangulation the deceased showing finger marks around his neck. Aniceta sustained injuries by friction with the rope with which she was bound and certain contusions on the head which were cured after twenty days of medical treatment.

The evidence discloses that in the smaller trunk which was forced open by the malefactors, Aniceta kept P300 in bills of different denominations, delivered into three packages of P100 each, folded lengthwise and were wrapped with papers and old cloths. It also contained jewelries and fancy trinkets valued at P805, old foreign coins and a piece of stone. All these valuables disappeared. In the larger trunk, Aniceta kept P464, also divided into packages and folded lengthwise. Of this sum, P114 .was looted away! and the package containing P350 which was kept at the bottom of the trunk remained. The sum of P93 which Modesto himself was keeping also disappeared.

Defendants-appellants were held guilty by the trial court of the complex crime of robbery with homicide and less serious physical injuries, and each of them was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with the accessories of the law, to indemnify, jointly and solidarily, the heirs of the deceased Modesto Bastasas in the sum of P2,000, and Aniceta Bastasas in the amount of P100, to return the articles stolen or pa! their value of P805, together with the unrecovered amount in cash of P11.51, and the pay the costs. Part of the money stolen and found in the possession of defendants-appellants was ordered returned to Aniceta Bastasas.

The case rests basically upon the sole question of the identity! of the criminals. That the appellants are the authors of the crime is established by the positive testimony of Oriola who was with them in the perpetration of the crime; by a similarly positive testimony of the maid who definitely identified Melchor Medina as the one who gagged her and clamped her mouth with one of his hands; and by a chain of extrinsic circumstantial evidence.

Appellants sought to impugn Oriola’s veracity on the ground, among others, that it is improbable for them, being complete strangers to Oriola, to propose to him the commission of the robbery on the day they first met. But Oriola is a poor man, earning P4 a month as rig driver, with meager education, and has hardly been five days in the employ of the Bastasas. Having attained knowledge of these facts from Oriola himself through appropriate questioning, appellants undoubtedly thought then that, under such personal circumstances, Oriola, with an offer of a share in the loot, might be tempted to fall in, as in fact he did.

Appellants sought to cast suspicion on the general credibility of Oriola on the circumstance of his having been kept for six months in the constabulary barracks. The evidence, however, discloses not even the slightest clue of official pressure upon Oriola in a way as to make him testify falsely against the appellants. It might have been possible that Oriola, out of fear, would have refused to testify at all but for the fact of his having been thus kept in the custody of the constabulary. But this is legally no ground for discrediting him. In the absence of any evidence of illegitimate official pressure, no inference to that effect can be drawn. The presumption in favor of the official integrity cannot be overthrown by mere conjecture

The trial court, commenting on the credibility of this witness (Veronico Oriola), said the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"El Juzgado, consciente de la gravedad del crimen de que estan acusados los aqui acusados, declara que considera veraz a este testigo. Consideramos inverosimil hasta imposible que este testigo haya podido dar la profusion de detalles que ha dado sobre la comision del crimen que nos ocupa si no fuera verdad todo lo que el ha declarado y que realmente el era uno de los que subieron a la casa del occiso Modesto Bastasas en la noche de autos. Durante su largo interrogatorio, solo ha flaqueado en un detalle, o sea, cuando al principio de su testimonio confundio las fechas del dia en que comenzo a servir al occiso como cochero y del dia en que se encontro en la carretera provincial con los acusados Melchor Medina y Regino Garcia. En vez de decir que este ultimo dia era el dia 28 del mencionado mes de junio de 1938, dijo que era el Pero es evidente que esto no es mas que una mera confusion de fechas en la que suelen incurrir muchos que declaran por primera vez en los Juzgados. Este testigo, acostumbrado a recordar fechas mediante la mencion los dias de la semana, ha asegurado que el dia de la comision del crimen era un miercoles (que corresponde al 29 de junio) y tambien ha asegurado que este dia de la comision del crimen era el dia siguiente al dia aquel en que se encontro con los acusados Melchor Medina y Regino Garcia en la carretera provincial.

"La veracidad de este testigo se pone de manifiesto ademas si se tiene en cuenta que algunos dias despues de la comision del crimen, o sea, el 4 de julio de 1938 (lunes), no sabiendo aun que los aqui cinco acusados habian sido arrestados por el teniente Diosdado Rodriguez de la Constabularia el dia 1. � de dicho mes, suscribio y juro voluntariamente ante el Juez de Paz de Dipolog Sr. Venancio Mendoza un affidavit o declaracion jurada (Exhibito 1) en la que hizo constar sustancialmente todo lo declarado por el ante el Juzgado. Cuando presto esa declaracion jurada ni siquiera conocia aun los nombres de los aqui acusados, pues solo les conocia de cara, asi es que al referirse a ellos solo hizo constar que eran comerciantes ambulantes. Por otro lado, tampoco tenemos el menor motivo para dudar de la honestidad y buena fe del teniente Rodriguez ante quien este testigo Oriola admitio por primera vez su participacion en la comision del crimen ni del Juez de Paz Sr. Mendoza ante el cual se juro por el testigo dicha declaracion jurada. Al ser investigado este testigo por el teniente Rodriguez en la casa del Juez de Paz Sr. Mendoza el dia 3 de junio, este testigo aun no revelo lo que sabia y el teniente Rodriguez le dejo que se retirara a su casa. Al dia siguiente el teniente Rodriguez io investigo otra vez y fue cuando confeso y este testigo dice que el volvio al dia siguiente y confeso porque no podia dormir pensando en lo que aquellos hombres a quienes habia acompahado habian hecho, dando de entender indl dablemente — y creemos que esto es lo mas probable —que el no tenia ninguna idea que aquellos hombres iban a mata a Modesto Bastasa y a hacer daño a su hermana y que solo creia que se limitarian a robar."cralaw virtua1aw library

Nothing can be found in the record which may be a g~ ground for disturbing these findings of fact of the trial court.

As elsewhere adverted to, the maid identified her a sailant, on the night of the robbery, as Melchor Medina The statement of the defense to the effect that the beam of the flashlight would have temporarily blinded her an thus rendered her unable to identify her malefactor, is no supported by the evidence. The flashlight, as focused b one of the appellants who came out of the room of Aniceta caught not her face, but that of the person who w gagging her from behind. Besides, that was not the fir time she met Melchor Medina. She had the opportunity to see him for the first time two days before the robbery when the latter approached her in the premises of the Batasas pretending to be inquiring about a certain widow.

The extrinsic circumstances pointing to the appellant as the authors of the crime are their possession of the properties looted; the fact that the rope with which the tied their trunks is identical with the rope with which the deceased Modesto was bound; and their frustrated at tempts at escape.

The bank notes which were recovered from the appellants exhibited two distinguishing characteristics which identified them as the money of the Bastasas. They we folded lengthwise, exactly the unusual way the Bastasa folded their paper bills. Their odor is one peculiar only to bills which had been kept for a long time among wearing apparels. Similarly, the old foreign coins recovered from the appellants substantially met Aniceta’s description thereof.

Among those also found in appellants’ possession wasrope with which they tied their trunks. It is one of maguey fibers, a kind of rope which, according to a reliable witness for the prosecution, is not to be found in Dipolog or nearby municipalities. This rope is exactly identical with the rope with which the deceased Modesto Bastasas was bound.

The last ]ink in the chain of circumstances identifying the appellants with the crime is their attempts at escape. 11l the morning of June 30, 1938, appellants were about to bark in a boat that was to sail from Dipolog to Cebu and if they were unable to leave, it was because a constabulary sergeant detained them for investigation before the boat sailed. This attempt at escape is corroborated the testimony of Estrella Ocampo, daughter of Elena de Ocampo in whose house appellants were boarding. She testified that at about 4 o’clock in the morning of June 30, 1938, she was instructed by Hilarion Holgado to prepare their breakfast earlier as they were decided to leave that date.

Appellants attempted to escape for the second time on July 1, by embarking on the motorboat "Pilar" which was then about to sail for Dumaguete. It appears that when the were called by the chief of police on that day for investigation, they were allowed to go home with instruction to return at 2 o’clock in the afternoon. Having failed to return, appellants were fetched by a policeman who found them already on the motorboat "Pilar." They sought to explain that after the investigation in the morning of that d~, they were allowed by the chief of police to leave Dipolog. This is, however, flatly denied by the chief of police Besides, the hurry with which they attempted to embark on the motorboat "Pilar" is hardly consistent with their pretended innocence. Flight from justice has always been deemed indicative of a consciousness of guilt. "The wicked flee, even when no man pursueth; but the righteous are bold as a lion." (U. S. v. Alegado, 25 Phil., 510; U. S v. Sarikala, 37 Phil., 486; U. S. v. Virrey, 37 Phil. . 618; People v. Manalo & Atienza, 46 Phil., 572; People v. Wilson Et. Al., 52 Phil., 907).

Appellants sought to offer an alibi, pretending that even since 8 o’clock of the night in question they were in the house of Elena de Ocampo where they were boarding, and that they never left the house until morning of the next day. It has been held, however, that an alibi must be proved by positive, clear, and satisfactory evidence. (U. S. v. Olais, 36 Phil., 828; People v. Limbo, 49 Phil., 94; People v. Pili, 51 Phil., 965.) The reason is that "oral evidence of alibi is so easily manufactured and usually so unreliable that it can rarely be given credence." (People v. Badilla, 48 Phil., 718). It has been held, further, that, when the defendants are identified by the witnesses for the prosecution by clear, explicit and positive testimony, the alibi will not be credited. (U. S. v. Nudieres, 27 Phil, 45; People v. Cabantug, 49 Phil., 482; People v. Palamos, 49 Phil., 601; People v. Medina, 58 Phil., 330; People v. De Asis, 61 Phil., 384; People v. Cinco Et. Al., 37 Off. Gaz., 2740.)

The crime committed by appellants is one of robbery with homicide and physical injuries, attended by the aggravating circumstance of treachery, appellants having bound and gagged their victims when the latter were asleep, thereby insuring the accomplishment of their purpose without risk to themselves, and by the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and of disregard to the age and sex of the offended parties, the Bastasas being 65 and 62 years of age and two of the victims being women. None of these aggravating circumstances is offset by any mitigating circumstance.

With respect to the doubt entertained by the trial court as to the possibility of absence of intention to kill Molesto Bastasas, the evidence to the effect that appellants introduced into Modesto’s vocal cavity a handkerchief and thereafter a pillow case and a portion of the pants resulting into the suffocation of the deceased, is hardly consistent with the absence of homicidal intent. The case, therefore, calls for the application of the maximum penalty provided for by law — death. In view, however, of the absence of unanimity among all the members of this Court in the imposition of the death penalty, judgment is affirmed, with costs against appellants.

Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.




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






April-1941 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45706 April 8, 1941 - EL GOBIERNO DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. FLORENCIO GONZALEZ DIEZ

    071 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. 46894 April 8, 1941 - FRANCISCA NADAYAG v. PABLO R. PADILLA, ET AL.

    071 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. 46944 April 8, 1941 - PARSONS HARDWARE CO., INC. v. EL COMMONWEALTH DE FILIPINAS

    071 Phil 375

  • G.R. No. 47068 April 8, 1941 - PEDRO JOYA, ET AL. v. PEDRO TIONGCO

    071 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. 47126 April 8, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR MEDINA, ET AL.

    071 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 47280 April 8, 1941 - JUAN KABIGTING v. POTENCIANO PECSON, ET AL.

    071 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 47301 April 8, 1941 - PEDRO ADIARTE v. PASTOR DOMINGO

    071 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 47346 April 8, 1941 - FRANCISCO B. REYES v. JAIME HERNANDEZ

    071 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 47381 April 8, 1941 - PEDRO S. MARTINEZ v. JAIME HERNADEZ

    071 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 47404 April 8, 1941 - AURORA HERNADEZ v. JOSE AUGUSTO IMPERIAL, ET AL.

    071 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. 47408 April 8, 1941 - POTENCIANA REBOTOC v. JUAN A. BENITEZ

    071 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 47428 April 8, 1941 - ALFONSO ALBORNOZ v. DOLORES ALBORNOZ, ET AL.

    071 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 47442 April 8, 1941 - JOSEPH K. ICARD v. CLARO MASIGAN, ET AL.

    071 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 47456 April 8, 1941 - ASUNCION PEREZ VDA. DE DE LA VIÑA v. SIMON BUENAVENTURA

    071 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 47461 April 8, 1941 - TIRSO GARCIA v. ARSENIA ENRIQUEZ

    071 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 47493 April 8, 1941 - VICTOR AGUILAR v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    071 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 47521 April 8, 1941 - PEDRO REMOCAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    071 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 47525 April 8, 1941 - FORTUNATO MAGLEO v. FELIPE VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

    071 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. 47578 April 8, 1941 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ESTEBAN I. VAZQUEZ

    071 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 47725 April 8, 1941 - JOSE GAVINO v. EL MUNICIPIO DE CALAPAN, MINDORO

    071 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. 47763 April 8, 1941 - JOSE ARCE, ET AL. v. ROMAN AFABLE

    071 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 47830 April 8, 1941 - PLACIDO SUMINTAC v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL

    071 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. 47869 April 8, 1941 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY COMPANY v. CO KIM, ET AL.

    071 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. 47896 April 8, 1941 - AURELIO MONTINOLA v. JOSE P. BANTUG

    071 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 47919 April 8, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. AMADO JORGE

    071 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 47960 April 8, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN MEMPIN

    071 Phil 457

  • G.R. No. 47398 April 14, 1941 - RAYMUNDA SANTOS v. BENITO STO. DOMINGO, ET AL.

    071 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. 47413 April 14, 1941 - MARIANO MOLO v. ALFREDO L. YATCO

    071 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 47459 April 14, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. GERALD J. MASSE, ET AL.

    071 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. 47516 April 14, 1941 - MARIANO A. DE CASTRO v. CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO.

    071 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 45769 April 14, 1941 - CORAZON VELOSO DE TORRES v. TREASURER OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    071 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 47625 April 14, 1941 - AURELIO REYES v. EUGENIO EVANGELISTA

    071 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. 47709 April 14, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID C. SANTOS

    071 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 47723 April 14, 1941 - CORNELIO EBRO v. FERNANDO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    071 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 47743 April 14, 1941 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. BIÑAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

    071 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. 47806 April 14, 1941 - LEONCIO GABRIEL v. MONTE DE PIEDAD, ET AL.

    071 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. 47828 April 14, 1941 - CRISTOBAL OLAIVAR v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.

    071 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 47882 April 14, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICASIO NERIA, ET AL.

    071 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 46936 April 18, 1941 - GREGORIO REYES UY UN v. MAMERTA PEREZ, ET AL.

    071 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 46937 April 18, 1941 - MANILA GAS CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    071 Phil 513

  • G.R. Nos. 46999 y 47000 April 18, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. PRICILA LAUREANO, ET AL

    071 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. 47022 April 18, 1941 - F. C. SOMBITO v. MAMERTO FERARIS, ET AL.

    071 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 47249 April 18, 1941 - CANDIDA SAN JOSE, ET AL. v. TEODORA A. RUIZ

    071 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 46817 April 18, 1941 - TEODORO KALAW NG KHE v. LEVER BROTHERS CO.

    083 Phil 947

  • G.R. No. 47252 April 18, 1941 - APOSTOLIC PREFECT OF THE MOUNTAIN PROVINCE v. EL TESORERO DE LA CIUDAD DE BAGUIO

    071 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 47261 April 18, 1941 - GUILLERMO AMANTE, ET AL. v. ROSARIO MANZANERO

    071 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. 47351 April 18, 1941 - DOLORES BUENDIA DE ALCALA v. LORENZO DE VILLA

    071 Phil 561

  • G.R. No. 47386 April 18, 1941 - VIVENCIA LAGUNA v. AMBROSIA LEVANTINO, ET AL.

    071 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. 47438 April 18, 1941 - ANDRES B. ESPINA v. MARGARITA R. VIUDA DE ESPINA

    071 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. 47523 April 18, 1941 - LUY LAM & CO. v. MERCANTILE BANK OF CHINA

    071 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 47653 April 18, 1941 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY COMPANY v. PHILIPPINE LABOR UNION

    071 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. 47736 April 18, 1941 - COSME PROFETA, ET AL. v. JOSE GUTIERREZ DAVID

    071 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 47784 April 18, 1941 - LEVY HERMANOS v. PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO.

    071 Phil 587

  • G.R. No. 47962 April 18, 1941 - MONTE DE PIEDAD v. TOMAS ROBERTO, ET AL.

    071 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. 47557 April 22, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MARTIN CONWI

    071 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 47583 April 22, 1941 - RUFINO REYES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    071 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. 47658 April 22, 1941 - CLEMENTE TANJANGCO v. JOSE DE BORJA

    072 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 47677 April 22, 1941 - INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. v. MIGUEL VARELA CALDERON

    072 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 47796 April 2, 1941 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY COMPANY v. PHILIPPINE LABOR UNION

    072 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 46946 April 25, 1941 - PETER JOHNSON v. MOISES UBAÑA

    072 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 47033 April 25, 1941 - JOSE DINGCONG v. HALIM KANAAN

    072 Phil 14

  • G.R. No. 47076 April 25, 1941 - SALUD BALUYUT v. EL BANCO DE LAS FILIPINAS

    072 Phil 17

  • G.R. No. 47101 April 25, 1941 - GODOFREDO BUCCAT v. LUIDA MANGONON DE BUCCAT

    072 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. 47127 April 25, 1941 - ISABEL BIBBY VIUDA DE PADILLA v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    072 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. 47213 April 25, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FIL. v. EL JUEZ DEL JUZGADO DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA DE MASBATE

    072 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. 47215 April 25, 1941 - LA MANCOMUNIDAD DE FILIPINAS v. JOSE COROMINAS

    072 Phil 29

  • G.R. No. 47217 April 25, 1941 - JOAQUIN J. GONZALES, ET AL. v. PROCESO SEBASTIAN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 47281 April 25, 1941 - ALEJANDRO MALLARI v. MANUEL ESTIPONA

    072 Phil 35

  • G.R. No. 47283 April 25, 1941 - CRISOGONO JERREOS v. CONSTANTINO Z. CANTO

    072 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. 47315 April 25, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TERESO DUMON

    072 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 47320 April 25, 1941 - W. R. GIBERSON v. JUAN POSADAS

    072 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 47379 April 25, 1941 - AMADA DACANAY v. LA MANCOMUNIDAD DE FILIPINAS

    072 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 47483 April 25, 1941 - H. HAHN, ET AL. v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

    072 Phil 53

  • G.R. No. 47551 April 25, 1941 - VICENTE LOPEZ, ET AL. v. ROMUALDO F. VIJANDRE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. 47590 April 25, 1941 - ARCADIO DUMLAO, ET AL. v. SIMEON RAMOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. 47606 April 25, 1941 - FERNANDO VILLAABRILLE, ET AL. v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. 47626 April 25, 1941 - GREGORIA R. DE MESA v. CIPRIANO V. DE GALICIA

    072 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. 47631 April 25, 1941 - CO HO v. QUIRICO ABETO

    072 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 47705 April 25, 1941 - CONCORDIA GO v. ANGELA REDFERN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. 47760 April 25, 1941 - NEGROS TRANSPORTATION CO. v. CARLOS JAYME, ET AL.

    072 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 47821 April 25, 1941 - SOFIA CABUCO v. JOHN C. BEYERSDORFFER

    072 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. 47856 April 25, 1941 - EDUARDA TAPANG v. EL TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES, ET AL.

    072 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. 48024 April 25, 1941 - PAGSANJAN AGRICULTURAL ASS’N INC. v. SOR JOSEFA SORIANO

    072 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 47373 April 28, 1941 - ÑGO HOK CHEF v. VICENTE AQUINO

    072 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 47655 April 28, 1941 - H. H. STEINMETZ v. JOSE VALDEZ

    072 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. 47690 April 28, 1941 - IRINEO YUMUL v. ANTONIO JULIANO

    072 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 47741 April 28, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SANTIAGO S. VELASQUEZ

    072 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. 47788 April 28, 1941 - DIEGO MARIANO, ET AL. v. EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS

    072 Phil 101

  • G.R. No. 47639 April 30, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. VALENTIN NICOLAS

    072 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 47645 April 30, 1941 - DOMINGO MABUNAY v. MODESTO BALLEZA

    072 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. 47721 April 30, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. TEODORO RULL Y OTRO

    072 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. 47732 April 30, 1941 - CORNELIO BALMACEDA v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. 47791 April 30, 1941 - JOSE S. DE OCAMPO v. AMBROSIO SANTOS

    072 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. 47836 April 30, 1941 - ANICETO ALEJANDRO v. DIEGO LOCSIN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 124

  • G.R. No. 47898 April 30, 1941 - MANILA MOTOR CO., INC. v. P. M ENDENCIA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. 47914 April 30, 1941 - JUAN S. RUSTIA v. QUIRICO ABETO ET AL.

    072 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. 47920 April 30, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. SERGIO M. SILO

    072 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 47921 April 30, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. ENCARNACION ESCUDERO

    072 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 47959 April 30, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MAXIMO TACAD, ET AL.

    072 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 47961 April 30, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MANUEL CONCORDIA

    072 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. 47991 April 30, 1941 - SISENANDO MACALINDOG v. MARIANO L. DE LA ROSA

    072 Phil 163