Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > May 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-13933 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

108 Phil 220:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-13933. May 25, 1960.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. PERFECTO R. PALACIO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Branch I. JOSE BADIABLE, ET AL., Respondents.

Assistant Provincial Fiscal José Nepomuceno and Private Prosecutors Navarro, Pérez and Associates for Petitioner.

Reyes & Dy-Liacco for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO HAVE LIST OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES MAY BE CALLED. — The defendant is entitled as a matter of right to be furnished by the prosecution with a list of the witnesses to be presented against him during the trial. But the prosecution may call at the trial witnesses other than those named in the complaint or information.

2. ID.; ID.; DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED IN ADVANCE TO KNOW ALL PROSECUTION WITNESSES; REASON. — While the accused in a criminal prosecution is entitled to know the nature and cause of the accusation against him, yet it does not mean that he is entitled to know in advance the names of all the witnesses for the prosecution. The success of the prosecution. The success of the prosecution might be endangered if such right be granted to an accused for the known witnesses might be subjected to pressure or coerced not to testify. The time of the accused to know all the witnesses against him is when they take the witness stand.

3. ID.; PRESENCE OF WITNESS NOT LISTED IN COURT ROOM. — The fact that some of the witnesses for the prosecution who are not listed in the information were present in the Court room and heard the testimony of the other witnesses does not disqualify them from being witnesses.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


Petition for certiorari and mandamus.

In an information dated 23 October 1956, subscribed by the Provincial Fiscal and filed in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur on 8 November 1956, José Badiable alias Cabayo, Epifanio Cornelio, Ernesto Ponciano, Lee Perfecta Ponciano Lee (Silvestre) and Jimmy Ponciano Lee were charged with murder for the death of Jaime Salinel, the first two as principals and the last three as accessories (Criminal Case No. 4814; Annex A, petition). At the trial of the case on 27 August 1957, counsel for the defense asked the Court to order the prosecution to furnish the defendants with a list of all the names of the witnesses for the prosecution (p. 2, t.s.n., Annex 1, answer). The private prosecutor answered that he had no objection to the motion and asked that he be granted fifteen days within which to submit the names of the witnesses (p. 2, t.s.n., Annex 1, answer). The Assistant Provincial Fiscal also did not object to the motion (pp. 3-4, t.s.n., Annex 1, answer). On the same day, 27 August 1957, the Court entered an order directing the prosecution to furnish the defense with a list of all the names of its witnesses within ten days therefrom (pp. 7-8, t.s.n., Annex 1, answer; Annex 2, answer).

On 11 September 1957 the defendants filed a motion inviting the attention of the Court to the fact that the prosecution had not complied with its order to furnish them with a list of all the names of the witnesses for the prosecution and prayed that the prosecution be limited to the presentation of witnesses whose names appear in the information (Annex B, petition). After hearing, on 14 September 1957 the Court entered an order granting the defendants’ motion (p. 2, t.s.n., Annex 3, answer; Annex C, petition). The Court continued the trial of the case. At the trial on 17 April 1958 the prosecution called Estelita Niebres, Soledad Abaño, José Seguerra (or Ceguera) and José Ibarando (or Juan Ibarondo), whose names do not appear as witnesses in the information, to take the witness stand and testify. Counsel for the defense objected to their taking the witness stand to testify, citing the order of the Court of 14 September 1957. The Court disallowed them from taking the witness stand and giving their testimony (pp. 16, 17, 27, 28, 29, t.s.n., 17 April 1958, Annex 1, answer). The Court continued the trial of the case on 17 June 1958 (p. 37, t.s.n., 17 April 1958, Annex 1, answer).

On 16 June 1958 the prosecution filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus in this Court praying for the annulment and setting aside of the orders of the respondent Court dated 27 August 1957 (pp. 7-8, t.s.n., Annex 1, answer; Annex 2, answer); 14 September 1957 (p. 2, t.s.n., Annex 3, answer; Annex C, petition); and 17 April 1958 (pp. 27, 28, 29, t.s.n., 17 April 1958, Annex 1, answer).

At the hearing held on 17 June 1958 the respondent Court continued the trial of the case on 5 August 1958 (p. 9, t.s.n., Annex 3, answer; Annex A, petition for injunction).

On 24 July 1958 the petitioner filed in this Court a petition to restrain the respondent Court from holding the resumption of the trial of the case set for 5 August 1958, until this proceeding is finally decided by this Court. On 29 July 1958 this Court granted the writ of injunction prayed for and on 30 July 1958 issued the writ.

The petitioner did not seek from the respondent Court a reconsideration of the orders complained of. Following the established rule that before an aggrieved party could file a petition for a writ of certiorari in any appellate tribunal against an inferior court, he should first call the court’s attention to its error and ask for the correction thereof, the instant petition should be dismissed. 1 It appearing, however, that at the hearing of the case on 17 April 1958 the private prosecutor informed the respondent Court that a special civil action would be brought to this Court to question and test the legality of the orders complained of (pp. 34, 36, 37, t.s.n., Annex 1, answer); that the respondent Court suggested to the prosecution to bring a case for mandamus to establish a precedent (p. 34, t.s.n., Annex 1, answer); that at the hearing on 17 June 1958 the fiscal informed the respondent Court that the petition for certiorari and mandamus already had been filed in this Court (p. 3, t.s.n., Annex 3, answer); and that the Judge presiding over the respondent Court made the following remark: "I want that the Supreme Court pass upon my order, but I don’t want to sacrifice the interest of the parties in the question of expediency" (p. 8, t.s.n., Annex 3, answer), which indicated and meant that the respondent Court would deny any motion for reconsideration of his order, the filing of a motion for reconsideration would have been useless.

SECTION 1, Rule 112, provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The defendant must be arraigned before the court in which the complaint or information has been filed unless the cause shall have been transferred elsewhere for trial. The arraignment must be made by the court or clerk, and shall consist in reading the complaint or information to the defendant and delivering to him a copy thereof, including a list of witnesses, and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty as charged. The prosecution may, however, call at the trial witnesses other than those named in the complaint or information. (Italics supplied.)

Arraignment consists of reading the complaint or information by the Court or clerk to the defendant and delivering to him a copy thereof, including a list of witnesses, and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty to the charge. The defendant is entitled as a matter of right to be furnished by the prosecution with a list of the witnesses to be presented against him during the trial. But the prosecution may call at the trial witnesses other than those named in the complaint or information. 2 Therefore, the prosecution need not furnish the defendant with a list of all its witnesses. That is the meaning of the last sentence of the above quoted provision of the Rule. While the accused in a criminal prosecution is entitled to know the nature and cause of the accusation against him, 3 yet it does not mean that he is entitled to know in advance the names of all the witnesses for the prosecution. The success of the prosecution might be endangered if such right be granted to an accused, for the known witnesses might be subjected to pressure or coerced not to testify. The time for the accused to know all the witnesses against him is when they take the witness stand.

The fact that some of the witnesses for the prosecution who are not listed in the information were present in the courtroom and heard the testimony of the other witnesses does not disqualify them from being witnesses. Counsel for the defense should have asked for the exclusion of all witnesses who have not testified under and pursuant to section 14, Rule 115. 4

The writ prayed for is granted; the orders complained of are set aside; and the respondent Court is directed to allow the witness or witnesses called by the prosecution, whose names do not appear in the information as witnesses, to testify in criminal case No. 4814 of the respondent Court, without pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Barrera, and Gutiérrez David, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Herrera v. Barretto & Joaquin, 25 Phil., 245; Uy Chu v. Imperial & Uy Du, 44 Phil., 27; Amante v. Sison, 60 Phil., 949, 951- 953; Dongon Vda. de Manzaneres v. Court of First Instance of Batangas, 61 Phil., 850; Manila Post Publishing Co. v. Judge Sanchez, 81 Phil., 614; 46 Off. Gaz. [Suppl. 1] 412; Alvarez v. Ibañez, 83 Phil., 104; Nicolas v. Castillo, 97 Phil., 336; Coll. of Internal Revenue v. Reyes, 100 Phil., 822; Ricafort v. Judge Fernan, 101 Phil., 575; 54 Off. Gaz. 2534.

2. Section 1, Rule 112; People v. Santos, G. R. No. L-7315, 27 July 1955; People v. Manabat, 100 Phil., 603, 53 Off. Gaz., 6090; People v. Namoc, G. R. No. L-11877, 23 November 1959.

3. Section 1(17), article III of the Constitution; section 1(b), Rule 111.

4. Cf. People v. Sandal, 54 Phil., 883.




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






May-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12007 May 16, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SERREE INVESTMENT COMPANY

    108 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-13831 May 16, 1960 - DIOSDADO CHAVEZ v. BUENAVENTURA GANZON

    108 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. L-13092 May 18, 1960 - EMILIA MENDOZA v. CAMILO BULANADI

    108 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. L-13208 May 18, 1960 - OREN IGO v. NATIONAL ABACA CORP.

    108 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-13783 May 18, 1960 - FRANCISCO CAPALUNGAN v. FULGENCIO MEDRANO

    108 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. L-15300 May 18, 1960 - MANUEL REGALADO v. PROVINCIAL CONSTABULARY COMMANDER OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL

    108 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. L-10948 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO MORTERO

    108 Phil 31

  • G.R. Nos. L-11795-96 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RECARIDO JARDENIL

    108 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. L-12446 May 20, 1960 - ELISEO SILVA v. BELEN CABRERA

    108 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-12546 May 20, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS P. PAREDES

    108 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-12726 May 20, 1960 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. VISITACION CONSUNTO

    108 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-13046 May 20, 1960 - EGMIDIO T. PASCUA v. PEDRO TUASON

    108 Phil 69

  • G.R. No. L-13372 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO SABUERO

    108 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-13484 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR CAMERINO

    108 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-13836 May 20, 1960 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-13846 May 20, 1960 - PANGASINAN EMPLOYEES, LABORERS AND TENANTS ASSN. v. ARSENIO I. MARTINEZ

    108 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. L-14332 May 20, 1960 - KAPISANAN SA MRR CO. v. CREDIT UNION

    108 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-14355 May 20, 1960 - JOSE D. DACUDAO v. AGUSTIN D. DUEÑAS

    108 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-14388 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIANO DAYRIT

    108 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-14426 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FROILAN BAYONA

    108 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-9651 May 23, 1960 - POLICARPIO MENDEZ v. SENG KIAM

    108 Phil 109

  • G.R. Nos. L-10046-47 May 23, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON RODRIGUEZ

    108 Phil 118

  • G.R. Nos. L-13803 & L-13400 May 23, 1960 - JOSE DE LA PAZ v. MD TRANSIT AND TAXICAB CO., INC.

    108 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-13806 May 23, 1960 - PRICE STABILIZATION CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-13965 May 23, 1960 - CONSTANTINO LEDUNA, ET., AL. v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ

    108 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. L-14981 May 23, 1960 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. MARCELINO SARMIENTO

    108 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-15339 May 23, 1960 - LUZON SURETY CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. L-15485 May 23, 1960 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-16445 May 23, 1960 - VICENTE ACAIN v. BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CARMEN

    108 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. L-12624 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GANTANG KASIM

    108 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-12690 May 25, 1960 - ARCADIO M. QUIAMBAO v. ANICETO MORA

    108 Phil 174

  • G.R. No. L-12766 May 25, 1960 - PHILIPPINE SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. S. JACALA, ET., AL.

    108 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. L-12916 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELECIO AQUIDADO

    108 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-13296 May 25, 1960 - SOFRONIO T. UNTALAN v. VICENTE G. GELLA

    108 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-13391 May 25, 1960 - AUREA MATIAS v. PRIMITIVO L. GONZALES

    108 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-13464 May 25, 1960 - PHILIPPINE SUGAR INSTITUTE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-13651 May 25, 1960 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF JARO v. HIGINO MILITAR

    108 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. L-13711 May 25, 1960 - GREGORIO SALAZAR v. JUSTINIANA DE TORRES

    108 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-13819 May 25, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BLAS GUTIERREZ

    108 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. L-13933 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

    108 Phil 220

  • G.R. No. L-14115 May 25, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SUPERIOR GAS AND EQUIPMENT CO.

    108 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-14134 May 25, 1960 - BISHOP OF LEGASPI v. MANUEL CALLEJA

    108 Phil 229

  • G.R. No. L-14214 May 25, 1960 - RICHARD VELASCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. L-14500 May 25, 1960 - QUIRINA PACHOCO v. AGRIPINA TUMANGDAY

    108 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. L-14515 May 25, 1960 - ENRIQUE ZOBEL v. GUILLERMO MERCADO

    108 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-14590 May 25, 1960 - FERNANDO DATU v. DOMINGO M. CABAÑGON

    108 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-14619 May 25, 1960 - MIGUEL YUVIENGCO v. PRIMITIVO GONZALES

    108 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-14722 May 25, 1960 - IGNACIO MESINA v. EULALIA PINEDA VDA. DE SONZA

    108 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. L-15132 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFO B. CRUZ

    108 Phil 255

  • G.R. Nos. L-16341 & L-16470 May 25, 1960 - ADRIANO RABE v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    108 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-12150 May 26, 1960 - BENJAMIN CO., v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-12876 May 26, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BOHOL UNITED WORKERS, INC.

    108 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-13847 May 26, 1960 - DOMINADOR BORDA v. ENRIQUE TABALON

    108 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. L-14319 May 26, 1960 - EDUARDO G. BAUTISTA v. SUSANO R. NEGADO

    108 Phil 283

  • G.R. No. L-15073 May 26, 1960 - OPERATOR’S INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    108 Phil 290

  • G.R. No. L-15144 May 26, 1960 - ALFREDO A. AZUELO v. RAMON ARNALDO

    108 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. L-15777 May 26, 1960 - ANTONIO NIPAY v. JOSE M. MANGULAT

    108 Phil 297

  • G.R. Nos. L-14254 & L-14255 May 27, 1960 - STA. CECILLA SAWMILLS CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 300

  • G.R. Nos. L-10371 & L-10409 May 30, 1960 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. DANIEL RAYALA

    108 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. L-11551 May 30, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ALFONSO FAVIS

    108 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. L-12260 May 30, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. FARM IMPLEMENT

    108 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. L-12627 May 30, 1960 - ALFONSO TIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. L-12798 May 30, 1960 - VISAYAN CEBU TERMINAL CO., INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    108 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. L-12907 May 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MORO AMBAHANG

    108 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-12958 May 30, 1960 - FAUSTINO IGNACIO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    108 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. L-12963 May 30, 1960 - MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC. v. ALFONSO YUCHENGCO

    108 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-13034 May 30, 1960 - GREGORIO ARONG v. VICTOR WAJING

    108 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. L-13153 May 30, 1960 - GLICERIO ROMULO v. ESTEBAN DASALLA

    108 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. L-13223 May 30, 1960 - OSCAR MENDOZA ESPUELAS v. PROVINCIAL WARDEN OF BOHOL

    108 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. L-13412 May 30, 1960 - DESTILLERIA LIM TUACO & COMPANY, INC. v. GUSTAVO VICTORIANO

    108 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-13419 May 30, 1960 - CASIANO SALADAS v. FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY

    108 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. L-13662 May 30, 1960 - CEFERINO ESTEBAN v. CITY OF CABANATUAN

    108 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. L-13793 May 30, 1960 - PACIFIC LINE, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    108 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. L-13845 May 30, 1960 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. INTERNATIONAL OIL FACTORY

    108 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. L-13910 May 30, 1960 - MANILA YELLOW TAXI-CAB, INC. v. EDMUNDO L. CASTELO

    108 Phil 394

  • G.R. Nos. L-14069 & L-14149 May 30, 1960 - UY HA v. CITY MAYOR OF MANILA

    108 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. L-14280 May 30, 1960 - JUAN YSMAEL & COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. L-14342 May 30, 1960 - CIRIACO L. MERCADO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. L-14391 May 30, 1960 - GENARO SENEN v. MAXIMA A. DE PICHAY

    108 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. L-14392 May 30, 1960 - ALBERTO FERNANDEZ v. PABLO CUNETA

    108 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-14459 May 30, 1960 - AGRINELDA N. MICLAT v. ELVIRA GANADEN

    108 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-14681 May 30, 1960 - ROSARIO PO v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

    108 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. L-14691 May 30, 1960 - GUILLERMO N. TEVES v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. L-14700 May 30, 1960 - BENITO R. GUINTO v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    108 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. L-14800 May 30, 1960 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. CITY OF MANILA

    108 Phil 462

  • G.R. No. L-14949 May 30, 1960 - COMPAÑIA MARITIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 469

  • G.R. Nos. L-14991-94 May 30, 1960 - JAIME T. BUENAFLOR v. CAMARINES SUR INDUSTRY CORP.

    108 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-15044 May 30, 1960 - BELMAN COMPAÑIA INCORPORADA v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. L-15198 May 30, 1960 - EDUARDO J. JALANDONI v. NARRA

    108 Phil 486

  • G.R. No. L-15344 May 30, 1960 - JOSE R. VILLANUEVA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    108 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-15550 May 30, 1960 - AMADO TAGULAO v. FORTUNATA PADLAN- MUNDOK

    108 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-15614 May 30, 1960 - GSISEA v. CARMELINO ALVENDIA

    108 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-15696 May 30, 1960 - ELPIDIO LLARENA v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    108 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. L-15792 May 30, 1960 - ELENA PERALTA VDA. DE CAINA v. ANDRES REYES

    108 Phil 513

  • G.R. Nos. L-16837-40 May 30, 1960 - EUSTAQUIO R. CAWA v. VICENTE DEL ROSARIO

    108 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. L-10843 May 31, 1960 - EVANGELINE WENZEL v. SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, INC.

    108 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. L-11555 May 31, 1960 - DELFIN CUETO v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    108 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. L-11805 May 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PIO BARRETTO SONS, INC.

    108 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. L-12068 May 31, 1960 - EUFROCINA TAMISIN v. AMBROCIO ODEJAR

    108 Phil 560

  • G.R. Nos. L-13033 & L-13701 May 31, 1960 - LU DO & LU YM CORPORATION v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. L-13295 May 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO MARIO

    108 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-13523 May 31, 1960 - ANICETO MADRID v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    108 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-13578 May 31, 1960 - MARCIANO A. ROXAS v. FLORENCIO GALINDO

    108 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. L-13858 May 31, 1960 - CANUTO PAGDAÑGANAN v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

    108 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 13946 May 31, 1960 - MARSMAN AND COMPANY, INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-14015 May 31, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO

    108 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. L-14020 May 31, 1960 - MANILA LETTER CARRIER’S ASSN. v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    108 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. L-14201 May 31, 1960 - OLEGARIO BRITO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-14595 May 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. GREGORIO MONTEJO

    108 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. L-14749 May 31, 1960 - SILVESTRE PINGOL v. AMADO C. TIGNO

    108 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. L-14885 May 31, 1960 - MAPUA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. MARCELINO S. MANALO

    108 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-14907 May 31, 1960 - PURA M. DE LA TORRE v. VENANCIO TRINIDAD

    108 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. L-15074 May 31, 1960 - CARMEN FUENTES v. CECILIA MUÑOZ-PALMA

    108 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. L-15122 May 31, 1960 - PAQUITO SALABSALO v. FRANCISCO ANGCOY

    108 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. L-15130 May 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLIMACO DEMIAR

    108 Phil 651