Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > July 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-31682 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO NACUSPAG:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-31682. July 20, 1982.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VIRGILIO NACUSPAG, PABLO NACUSPAG, ERNESTO SARADOLLA and ARISTEDES SALAZAR, Defendants-Appellants.

Assistant Solicitor General Ricardo L. Pronove, Jr. for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Emilio C. Nabor, for Defendant-Appellant.

SYNOPSIS


For the fatal stabbing of one Iniego Nala, defendants-appellants were charged with murder qualified by treachery and taking advantage of superior strength. On trial, two prosecution witnesses testified that Virgilio Nacuspag gave Iniego Nala a fist blow on the right jaw, followed by appellant Pablo Nacuspag who gave another fist blow on Nala’s left side; then Aristedes Salazar approached Nala and with his arm squeezed Nala’s neck from the back; and in such position appellant Pablo Nacuspag stabbed Nala on the left nipple with a "siyaw." The trial court, rejecting the qualifying circumstance of treachery but considering abuse of superior strength, found Pablo Nacuspag guilty as principal of the crime of murder and sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua. The other three accused were convicted as accomplices to the murder. All four accused appealed but Virgilio Nactapag, Ernesto Saradolla and Aristedes Salazar withdrew their respective appeals. Appellant Pablo Nacuspag maintains his claim of self-defense and assails the credibility of the two prosecution eyewitnesses as well as the partiality of one of the said witnesses who is a nephew of the victim.

On review, the Supreme Court held that: (a) appellant failed to prove with certainly by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence his claim of self-defense; (b) appellant we positively identified by prosecution eyewitnesses as the one who together with the three other accused ganged up on their victim and during the fight appellant stabbed the deceased; (c) mere relationship of a witness to the victim does not necessarily vitiate the former’s otherwise credible testimony nor does it impair his positive and clear evidence; and (d) the contradictions and inconsistencies pointed out by appellant in the testimony of prosecution witnesses as to who were present in the room during the melee or fight, refer merely to minor details and do not affect their credibility.

Appealed judgment of conviction affirmed in toto.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; SELF-DEFENSE; PROOF REQUIRED. — It is well-settled that self-defense is an affirmative allegation that must be proven with certainty by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it. (People v. Lebumfacil, Jr., No. L-32910, March 28, 1980, 96 SCRA 573, See also People v. Davis, L-13337, Feb. 16, 1961, 1 SCRA 473; People v. Solaña, L-13967, Sept. 29, 1962, 6 SCRA 60; People v. Mendoza, L-16392, Jan. 30, 1965, 13 SCRA 11; People v. Libed, L-20431, June 23, 1965, 14 SCRA 410, People v. Tesorero, G. R. Nos. L-34828-31, June 30, 1976, 76 SCRA 579).

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; BURDEN OF EVIDENCE SHIFTS TO ACCUSED. — Where the accused had admitted that he was the author of the death of the victim, it is incumbent upon the accused, in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him — self-defense — to the satisfaction of the court. To do so, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution, for even if that were weak it could not be disbelieved after the accused himself had admitted the killing. (People v. Ansoyon, 75 Phil. 772; People v. Jamero, G.R. No. L-32256, January 31, 1977, 75 SCRA 137; People v. Tesorero, G.R. Nos. L-44828-31, June 30, 1976, 76 SCRA 579; People v. Kindo, G.R. No. L-35781, January 28, 1980, 95 SCRA 553).

3. ID.; ID; ID.; OVERTHROWN BY POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED AS PERPETRATOR OF THE OFFENSE. — The accused-appellant’s claim of self-defense cannot succeed where the record bears out that prosecution’s eyewitnesses, in clear, concise language, positively and steadfastly maintained that the accused-appellant together with his three companions (who all withdrew their appeal in this case) ganged up on the deceased and during the fight appellant stabbed the deceased.

4. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; NOT VITIATED BY MERE RELATIONSHIP OF WITNESS TO VICTIM. — Mere relationship of a prosecution witness to the victim does not necessarily vitiate his otherwise credible testimony nor does it impair his positive and clear evidence. (People v. Ruiz, Et Al., G. R. Nos. L-33604-05, October 30, 1979, 93 SCRA 739.)

5. ID.; ID.; ID; NOT AFFECTED BY CONTRADICTIONS AND INCONSISTENCIES ON MINOR DETAILS. — The contradictions and inconsistencies pointed out by appellant in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, such as who were present in the room during the melee or fight, refer merely to minor details and are not of such magnitude and character as to lead the Court to believe that these witnesses were coached or tutored. (People v. Abejuela, G.R. No. L-32702, August 6, 1979, 92 SCRA 503).

6. ID.; ID.; FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF TRIAL COURT GENERALLY RESPECTED ON APPEAL; CASE AT BAR. — Appellate courts generally accept the findings of the trial court. The findings and conclusions of the trial court on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses should not be disturbed where these is no proof that in making the findings the trial court had failed to appreciate facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have altered the results of the case.


D E C I S I O N


BARREDO, J.:


Originally an appeal by all four accused, Virgilio Nacuspag, Pablo Nacuspag, Ernesto Saradolla and Aristedes Salazar, three of them, namely, Virgilio Nacuspag; 1 Ernesto Saradolla; 2 and Aristedes Salazar; 3 withdrew their appeal, thus leaving Pablo Nacuspag, who had been found guilty as the "principal" of murder under an information which alleged:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses VIRGILIO NACUSPAG, PABLO NACUSPAG, ERNESTO SARADOLLA and ARISTEDES SALAZAR of the crime of MURDER committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 7th day of September, 1966, in the municipality of Madalag, Province of Aklan, Republic of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused Virgilio Nacuspag, Pablo Nacuspag, Ernesto Saradolla and Aristedes Salazar, armed with knives, with intent to kill, taking advantage of superior strength, with evident premeditation and treachery, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping with each other, did then and there willfully, intentionally, criminally unlawfully and feloniously attack and stab one INIEGO NALA, thereby inflicting injuries on the body or person of said Iniego Nala, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘wound, punctured, transverse, two inches in length, one inch in width, 5.3 inches in depth through and through at the level of the 4th and 5th rib, 3 inches from mid-sternal line to the lateral side to the left, traversing the pleura, left lung and apex of the heart.’

as per Autopsy Report by Dr. Eugenio I. Rondario, Rural Health Physician of Madalag, Aklan, attached hereto and considered integral part hereof, which injuries caused the death of said Iniego Nala;

"That in the commission of the offense, the following aggravating circumstances were present:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

QUALIFYING — treachery and taking advantage of superior strength.

"CONTRARY TO LAW.

Kalibo, Aklan, February 22, 1967." (Pp. 5-6, Record.)

After hearing, the trial court rendered judgment, dispositive portion of which reads:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"WHEREFORE, the accused PABLO NACUSPAG is found guilty as principal of the crime of Murder and sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua, together with the accessory penalties provided by law; the other accused, namely: Virgilio Nacuspag, Aristedes Salazar and Ernesto Saradolla are found guilty as accomplices to the crime of Murder and each of said accomplices is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of not less than eight (8) years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum and not more than seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum, together with the accessory penalties provided by law. All the said four accused shall indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased Iniego Nala in the amount of P12,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment, in case of insolvency, and pay the costs. Being detention prisoners, they shall be credited with one-half (1/2) of the preventive imprisonment undergone by them." (Page 18, Record)

Appellant has opted not to make any specific assignment of errors in his brief. He has simply discussed what he claims is sufficient proof of his claim of self-defense, assailing at the same time alleged weakness of the state’s evidence.chanrobles law library : red

After a careful review of the record, however, We are convinced of the participation of the appellant in the offense charged. As summarized in the People’s brief, the circumstances of the commission of the offense were as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the night of September 7, 1966, there was a reunion and celebration in the house of Teodoro Nala at barrio Cabangahan, Madalag, Aklan, wherein his son and the latter’s bride were brought to his house (p. 10, t.s.n., Isberto). In that reunion, many people attended, both invited and uninvited and among the persons invited were Dioscoro Nala, cousin of Teodoro Nala, and Dioscoro’s son, Iniego Nala, who helped in the kitchen in the preparation of the food for the guests (pp. 19-21, t.s.n., id.). Also present at the celebration were the accused Virgilio Nacuspag, Ernesto Saradolla, Aristedes Salazar and their two companions, Deo and Lydio Saradolla, brothers of the accused Ernesto Saradolla, and cousins of the accused Virgilio and Pablo Nacuspag, who were not invited by Teodoro Nala (pp. 14-15, t.s.n., id.). Once the guests were assembled, a dance took place with the music being furnished by a banjo player and after some time, supper was served at which, the accused with the Saradolla brothers, ate with the bride and other guests in the room (pp. 13-15, t.s.n.). When the accused, including the Saradolla brothers, arrived in the house of Teodoro Nala, all had knives (siyaw) whose handles protruded from their respective pockets (p. 13, t.s.n., Fadullon).

"After the first group had taken supper, the dancing stopped because somebody took the banjo and they had to look for it. After a little while, Iniego Nala went up the house holding the banjo, with a bolo in its scabbard tucked in the waist of his trousers at the back (p. 16, t.s.n., id.). Scarcely had Iniego Nala taken two steps from the end of the stairs when without any warning or provocation, Virgilio Nacuspag gave Iniego Nala a fist blow on the right jaw, followed by the accused Pablo Nacuspag who gave Iniego another fist blow on the left side (p. 16, t.s.n., id.). Then, the accused, Aristedes Salazar, approached Iniego Nala and with his arm, squeezed the neck of Nala from the back (pp. 12-13, t.s.n., Isberto). Thereafter, Pablo Nacuspag stabbed Iniego on the left side, somewhere below the left nipple (pp. 13-29, t.s.n., id.). Iniego, thereupon, fell on the floor and died. (p. 12, t.s.n., id.)

"In the meanwhile, Dioscoro Nala stood up and asked, ‘Why do you box a person who has no fault?’ (p. 15, t.s.n., id.) But Lydio Saradolla put his arm around the neck of Dioscoro Nala and Deo Saradolla pushed them both outside of the house, causing them to fall to the ground (pp. 5-6, t.s.n., Fadullon). Once downstairs, Lydio Saradolla and Deo Saradolla struck Dioscoro Nala who was beaten from behind with the back of a bolo (p. 6. t.s.n., id.). At this juncture, Dioscoro heard the voice of Teodoro saying, ‘Manong Caroy, Iniego Nala is dead because he was stabbed by Pablo Nacuspag.’ (p. 6, t.s.n., id.). And, upon hearing that, Dioscoro Nala went up the house of Teodoro Nala and saw his son, Iniego, lying on the floor dead with a wound on his left chest (pp. 12-13, t.s.n., id.). Later on, Dioscoro Nala reported the stabbing incident to the chief of police at the municipal building (pp. 13-14, t.s.n., id.)."cralaw virtua1aw library

On September 8, 1966, the day following the stabbing incident, the Madalag Rural Health Physician, Dr. Eugenio I. Rondario, conducted an autopsy on the body of the victim, Iniego Nala. His autopsy report showed:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Wound, punctured; transverse, two inches in length, one inch in width, 5.3 inches in depth through and through at the level of the 4th and 5th rib, 3 inches from raid-sternal line to the lateral side of the left, transversing the pleura, left lung and apex of the heart.

Cause of death:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Hemorrhage secondary to cutting wound." (Exhibit "A")

On the witness stand, Dr. Rondario declared that a sharp-pointed instrument, locally known as "siyaw", could have caused the wound described in his autopsy report (p. 4, t.s.n., id.)

The trial court accepted the veracity of the prosecution’s version although it rejected the presence of conspiracy. It adjudged accused Pablo Nacuspag to be principal and the other accused as mere accomplices of the crime of murder and sentenced them in the manner already stated above.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

Appellant Pablo Nacuspag does not deny that he stabbed Iniego Nala and that the wound he inflicted was so fatal that it caused the victim’s death. As already stated earlier, he claims the exempting circumstance of self-defense.

It is at once obvious from the facts as related above that appellant has failed to show unlawful aggression, the first requisite of self-defense.

His testimony runs thus: On the night of September 7, 1966, he and the other accused were invited to the party held at the house of Teodoro Nala in honor of the latter’s new daughter-in-law; the bride was the first cousin of the accused Pablo and Virgilio Nacuspag (pp. 48-50, t.s.n., Regalado); he saw the guests dancing to the strains of a banjo and later on he played the instrument (p. 51, t.s.n., id.); later on, he returned the instrument to the person playing it since he was invited by the host to take supper and he want to the dining room, being joined thereat by Virgilio Nacuspag, Ireneo Saradolla, Aristedes Salazar and Editha Nacuspag (p. 52, t.s.n., id.); after eating he retired to the old sala while Ireneo Saradolla went down since it was warm upstairs (p. 55, t.s.n., id.); he was again invited Susan Nam-ay to take supper and he accompanied her to the dining room but did not eat (p. 55, t.s.n., id.); after three minutes, he heard shouts for help and he went back to the old sala where he tried to pacify Filoteo Nacional and Lydio Saradolla who were fighting but was unable to do so, since he saw Virgilio Nacuspag being held at bay on the other side of the room by Dioscoro Nala who was holding a knife (p. 56, t.s.n.); he immediately rushed to the rescue of Virgilio and wrested the knife from Dioscoro Nala (pp. 56-57, t.s.n. id.); then he started retreating towards the kitchen but his path was blocked by Iniego Nala who was armed with a bolo (p. 57, t.s.n., id.); he therefore retreated to a corner with Iniego Nala pursuing him; when he reached the corner, Iniego Nala tried to hit him with the bolo but he managed to escape the blow by ducking behind a post and "when his bolo passed over me I thrust the knife to (sic) him and hit him on his left side of the stomach" (p. 58, t.s.n., id); he and Iniego Nala then grappled for possession of the bolo and he was able to wrest it from Nala (p. 59, t.s.n., id.); and, thereafter, he went down the house and went home (p. 59, t.s.n., id.).

Such version does not inspire credence. In the first place, it is difficult to believe that Dioscoro Nala collared appellant’s brother Virgilio Nacuspag with a knife and that appellant rushed to his rescue and wrested the knife from said Dioscoro. Both appellant Pablo and his brother Virgilio admitted that Dioscoro Nala was much older than they are, Dioscoro being past 60 years old, (63 to be exact) while they were in their prime age of 30. They also admitted that Dioscoro is much weaker than they are. (Pp. 61-62, t.s.n.; pp. 79-80, Isberto) So, how could such an old and weak man corner and attack a much younger man? And then, as declared by appellant Pablo Nacuspag, he was able to wrest possession of the knife from the old man Dioscoro Nala and then retreated to the kitchen. But why would appellant retreat to the kitchen when he and his brother were already free of the supposed aggression of the old man? Furthermore, his claim that he retreated because he also saw the deceased approaching cannot be given any iota of credit because when he retreated, the deceased (according to him) was still far from them. At any rate, what need was there for him to retreat when he has on his side his brother Virgilio and he was also armed. All these circumstances taken together render weak appellant’s claim that the victim attacked him first thus rendering it necessary for him to use a knife in self-defense.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Appellant declared also that he was unable to retreat towards the kitchen because the deceased Iniego Nala blocked his path and he was forced to retreat towards another part of the house behind a post. But instead of retreating towards another corner, why did he not go back to where his brother Virgilio was then standing? And, if it were true that the deceased Iniego Nala tried to hit him with a bolo after he went behind a post, it is incredible that he could have thrust the knife he was holding at the deceased, Iniego Nala, and hit the latter on the left side of his stomach. Because if appellant Pablo Nacuspag had sought cover behind a post, he would have been out of balance and could not have been in a position to make a swift knife thrust at the deceased and be able to mortally wound the latter.

In any event, when the deceased Iniego Nala was supposedly attacking appellant Pablo Nacuspag, where was his brother Virgilio? Why did he not come to his aid? We have tried to search for an explanation in the record, specially in the testimonies, but none appeared. Both Pablo and Virgilio Nacuspag cannot account for Virgilio’s actuations at the time of the supposed unlawful aggression by the deceased upon appellant Pablo Nacuspag.

It is well-settled that self-defense is an affirmative allegation that must be proven with certainty by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it. (People v. Lebumfacil, Jr., No. L-32910, March 28, 1980, 96 SCRA 573, See also People v. Davis, L-13337, Feb. 16, 1961, 1 SCRA 473; People v. Solaña, L-13967, Sept. 29, 1962, 6 SCRA 60; People v. Mendoza, L-16392, Jan. 30, 1965, 13 SCRA 11; People v. Libed, L-20431, June 23, 1965, 14 SCRA 410, People v. Tesorero, G.R. Nos. L-34828-31, June 30, 1976, 76 SCRA 579).

The circumstances in the instant case do not indicate self-defense on the part of Pablo Nacuspag. Having admitted that he was the author of the death of the deceased, Iniego Nala, it was incumbent upon the appellant, in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him — self defense — to the satisfaction of the court. To do so, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution, for even if that were weak it could not be disbelieved after the accused himself had admitted the killing (People v. Ansoyon, 75 Phil. 772; People v. Jamero, G.R. No. L-32256, January 31, 1977, 75 SCRA 137; People v. Tesorero, supra; People v. Kindo, G.R. No. L-35781, January 28, 1980, 95 SCRA 553).chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Appellant contends that the trial court committed a grave error in giving weight to the version of the prosecution which it found to be credible while debunking the version of the defense. This contention is untenable. The record bears out that prosecution’s eye witnesses Teodoro Nala and Felix Nahil, in clear, concise language, positively and steadfastly maintained that the appellant Pablo Nacuspag together with his companions — Virgilio Nacuspag, Ernesto Saradolla and Aristedes Salazar (who all withdrew their appeal in this case) — ganged up on the deceased and during the fight appellant stabbed the deceased.

Appellant tries to impute unreliability to Teodoro Nala’s testimony. During cross examination (Pp. 16-34; 36-37, Tsn., Isberto) he was continuously asked if he is a relative of the deceased, Iniego Nala. As was the fact, Teodoro Nala admitted that the victim is his nephew. But mere relationship of a prosecution witness to the victim does not necessarily vitiate his otherwise credible testimony nor does it impair his positive and clear evidence. (People v. Ruiz, Et Al., G.R. Nos. L-3360405, October 30, 1979, 93 SCRA 739.)

In brief what impresses Us is that notwithstanding thorough cross-examinations of both prosecution witnesses Teodoro Nala and Felix Nahil, they came out unscathed, they stood pat on their declaration that Virgilio Nacuspag gave the deceased Iniego Nala a fist blow on the right jaw, followed by the appellant Pablo Nacuspag who gave another fist blow on the left side; then Aristedes Salazar approached Iniego Nala and with his arm squeezed the neck of said Iniego Nala from the back; and in such position appellant Pablo Nacuspag stabbed him on the left nipple with a "siyao."

The contradictions and inconsistencies pointed out by appellant in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, such as who were present in the room during the melee or fight, refer merely to minor details. These are not of such magnitude and character as to lead Us to believe that these witnesses were coached or tutored. (People v. Abejuela, G.R. No. L-32702, August 6, 1979, 92 SCRA 503).

Trite to say, appellate courts generally accept the findings of the trial court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Clearly, the focal issue presented here revolves around the credibility of witnesses, i.e., whether or not the trial court was correct in giving weight to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. And the well-established rule on this point is that the factual conclusion reached by the trial court, which had the opportunity more than the reviewing tribunal to observe and gauge the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses while testifying and to properly appreciate the same, is not to be disturbed, unless there is proof of misapprehension of evidence. (People v. Baduso, 60 SCRA 61; People v. De la Victoria, 64 SCRA 400; People v. Legones, G.R. No. L-30245, January 30, 1976, 69 SCRA 210; People v. Padiernos, L-37284, February 27, 1976, 69 SCRA 484; People v. Sarile, L-37148, June 30, 1976, 71 SCRA 593; People v. Caramonte, G.R. No. L-31866, November 7, 1979.)

". . . This then is a case where the well-settled principle as to the acceptance of the findings of the lower court which had the opportunity to see, hear and observe the witness testify and to weigh their testimonies, finds application. This Court had even gone so far as to hold in People v. Tila-on; ‘Finally, the rule is now firmly established to the point of becoming elementary in this jurisdiction and elsewhere that where there is irreconcilable conflict in the testimony of witnesses, the appellate court will not disturb the findings of the trial court when the evidence of the successful party, considered by itself, is adequate to sustain the judgment appealed from.’" (People v. Payao, G.R. No. L-29364, November 21, 1975; People v. Gumahin, 21 SCRA 729; People v. Panganiban, 22 SCRA 817; People v. Pelago, 24 SCRA 1027; People v. Manos, 36 SCRA 457: People v. Beraces, 38 SCRA 107; People v. Sabandal, 41 SCRA 179; People v. Dramayo, 42 SCRA 59; People v. Angcap, 43 SCRA 437; People v. Carandang, 52 SCRA 259; People v. Macaraeg, 53 SCRA 285; People v. De la Victoria, 65 SCRA 400; People v. Tila-on, 2 SCRA 653; See also People v. Ordonio, G.R. No. L-33829, December 19, 1975.)

The findings and conclusions of the trial court on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, specially Teodoro Nala and Felix Nahil, should not be disturbed in this appeal. We see no reason at all to do so. there is no proof that in making the findings, His Honor had failed to appreciate facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have altered the results of the case.chanrobles law library

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court, being supported by evidence proving the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt, is hereby affirmed in toto, with costs against said Appellant.

Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Withdrawal of appeal was granted by this Court on March 17, 1975. (p. 170, Rollo)

2. Withdrawal of appeal was likewise granted on October 15, 1975. (p. 175, Rollo)

3. Withdrawal was granted on March 17, 1975. (p. 170, Rollo)




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






July-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-45245 July 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO T. GABILAN

  • G.R. No. L-57573 July 5, 1982 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ERNESTO DATU

  • G.R. No. L-58268 July 5, 1982 - ENRIQUETA S. TY v. EUSTAQUIA ELALE

  • G.R. No. L-27546 July 16, 1982 - PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE v. ASSOC. OF SWEEPSTAKES STAFF PERSONNEL

  • G.R. No. L-30595 July 16, 1982 - MAGDALENA S. JOSON v. FORTUNATO CRISOSTOMO

  • G.R. Nos. L-32694 & L-33119 July 16, 1982 - FIDEL SILVESTRE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-36094 July 16, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO DELASA

  • G.R. No. L-30269 July 19, 1982 - EPITACIO BUERANO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-40432 July 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO FELIPE

  • G.R. No. L-41543 July 19, 1982 - LEANDRO SEDECO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-51458 July 19, 1982 - MANUEL YAP v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-52498 July 19, 1982 - JESUS B. PACQUING v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. 1895-CFI July 20, 1982 - LAMBERTO MACIAS v. GIBSON ARAULA

  • A.C. No. 2160 July 20, 1982 - AVELINO FRAN v. JUANITO FUERTE

  • A.M. No. 2691-CFI July 20, 1982 - ARTEMIO T. VICTORIA v. SEGUNDO M. ZOSA

  • G.R. No. L-30201 July 20, 1982 - CARMEN P. URBANO v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-31682 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO NACUSPAG

  • G.R. No. L-32661 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-34840 July 20, 1982 - MARIO RODIS MAGASPI v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE

  • G.R. No. L-35333 July 20, 1982 - FELIX M. SULIT v. JOEL P. TIANGCO

  • G.R. No. L-37751 July 20, 1982 - MANUEL LAPINIG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-38140 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABUNDIO LABINIA

  • G.R. No. L-38440 July 20, 1982 - DOMINGO V. FLORES, JR. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE

  • G.R. No. L-41399 July 20, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES v. CESAR GUY

  • G.R. No. L-41958 July 20, 1982 - DONALD MEAD v. MANUEL A. ARGEL

  • G.R. No. L-42963 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REINO P. ROLL

  • G.R. No. L-46954 July 20, 1982 - ELPIDIO YABES, ET AL. v. NAPOLEON FLOJO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47740 July 20, 1982 - LIM PIN v. CONCHITA LIAO TAN

  • G.R. No. L-47953 July 20, 1982 - LILIA B. GALCERAN v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. L-50439 July 20, 1982 - ENRIQUE T. YUCHENGCO, INC. v. CONRADO M. VELAYO

  • G.R. No. L-52435 July 20, 1982 - ELIZABETH SINCLAIR v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-56554 July 20, 1982 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-56833 July 20, 1982 - RAMON V. MERANO v. EDUARDO C. TUTAAN

  • G.R. No. L-58011-12 July 20, 1982 - VIR-JEN SHIPPING AND MARINE SERVICES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-58678 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRINEO V. MENDOZA

  • G.R. Nos. L-58973-76 July 20, 1982 - INOCENTES AMORA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-59519 July 20, 1982 - ADELA FRANCISCO v. ALFREDO M. GORGONIO

  • G.R. No. L-35726 July 21, 1982 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. CITY OF BACOLOD, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 1

  • G.R. No. L-58289 July 24, 1982 - VALENTINO L. LEGASPI v. MINISTER OF FINANCE

    201 Phil. 8

  • A.C. No. 792 July 30, 1982 - NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. JESUS M. PONCE

    201 Phil. 37

  • A.C. No. 906 July 30, 1982 - TERESITA B. TABILIRAN v. JOSE C. TABILIRAN, JR.

    201 Phil. 40

  • A.C. No. 1182 July 30, 1982 - ISABELO C. ORIJUELA v. TEMISTOCLES A. ROSARIO

    201 Phil. 45

  • A.C. No. 2343 July 30, 1982 - FACUNDO LUBIANO v. JOEL G. GORDOLLA

    201 Phil. 47

  • A.M. No. 2397-MJ July 30, 1982 - ERNESTO D. BONILLA v. LEONARDO AFABLE

    201 Phil. 52

  • A.M. No. 2681-CFI July 30, 1982 - GEORGE O. JAVIER v. MANUEL E. VALENZUELA

    201 Phil. 56

  • G.R. No. L-26676 July 30, 1982 - PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC. v. NG SAM

    201 Phil. 61

  • G.R. No. L-28692 July 30, 1982 - CONRADA VDA. DE ABETO v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC.

    201 Phil. 82

  • G.R. No. L-29376 July 30, 1982 - MARIANO WONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    201 Phil. 69

  • G.R. No. L-30279 July 30, 1982 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. NATIONAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PEMA)

    201 Phil. 89

  • G.R. No. L-30456 July 30, 1982 - VIRGILIO S. VELAZCO CAVITE v. EMILIA S. BLAS

    201 Phil. 122

  • G.R. No. L-30738 July 30, 1982 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS v. JOSE ZULUETA

    201 Phil. 131

  • G.R. No. L-31818 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO GADIANO

    201 Phil. 143

  • G.R. Nos. L-32144-45 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAÑO L. MILFLORES

    201 Phil. 154

  • G.R. No. L-32463 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE L. BATOY

    201 Phil. 179

  • G.R. No. L-32997 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETO PEDROSO

    201 Phil. 184

  • G.R. No. L-33169 July 30, 1982 - GLICERIO JAVELLANA v. CESAR KINTANAR

  • G.R. No. L-33327 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO ALMENDRAS

    201 Phil. 211

  • G.R. Nos. L-34527-28 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO MAGBANUA

    201 Phil. 219

  • G.R. No. L-35745 July 30, 1982 - JULIANA VDA. DE LICARDO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    201 Phil. 247

  • G.R. No. L-35950 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNOLD ZURBITO

    201 Phil. 256

  • G.R. Nos. L-36662-63 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO CAMANO

    201 Phil. 268

  • G.R. No. L-37270 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAGNO B. PABLO

    201 Phil. 284

  • G.R. No. L-37632 July 30, 1982 - GREGORIA VDA. DE PAMAN v. ALBERTO V. SEÑERIS

    201 Phil. 290

  • G.R. No. L-38208 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENECITO VILLASON

    201 Phil. 298

  • G.R. No. L-38544 July 30, 1982 - LUZ E. BALITAAN v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS

  • G.R. No. L-38859 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO VIZCARRA

    201 Phil. 326

  • G.R. No. L-39966 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO TABADERO

    201 Phil. 340

  • G.R. No. L-40494 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BURGOS

    201 Phil. 353

  • G.R. No. L-49401 July 30, 1982 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP. v. JOSE P. ARRO

    201 Phil. 362

  • G.R. No. L-55687 July 30, 1982 - JUASING HARDWARE v. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA

    201 Phil. 369

  • G.R. Nos. L-57601-06 July 30, 1982 - LAZARO VENIEGAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    201 Phil. 376

  • G.R. No. L-57841 July 30, 1982 - BERNARDO GALLEGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-59283 July 30, 1982 - CRISANTO MOLINO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    201 Phil. 385

  • G.R. No. L-60236 July 30, 1982 - DOMESTIC SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOC., INC. v. MILAGROS VILLAFANIA-CAGUIOA

    201 Phil. 390