Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > July 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-38440 July 20, 1982 - DOMINGO V. FLORES, JR. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-38440. July 20, 1982.]

ATTY. DOMINGO V. FLORES, JR., Petitioner, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, HON. MILITARY COMMISSION, NO. 13, and Military Trial Counsel Capt. SOTERO SORIANO and Prosecuting Fiscal LILIA LOPEZ, Respondents.

Lumen Policarpio for Petitioner.

Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Asst. Solicitor General Vicente V. Mendoza and Trial Atty. Edgar Y. Chua for Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Petitioner and four (4) other persons were charged before the respondent Military Commission with Estafa Through Falsification of Commercial Documents and Falsification of Commercial Documents. The prosecution concluded the presentation of its evidence which started after the petitioner and his co-accused pleaded not guilty. On the day scheduled for the presentation of defendants’ evidence, counsel for one of the accused presented before the respondent Commission the Memorandum of the Secretary of National Defense and the letter of the Judge Advocate General directing the withdrawal of the case against them which the prosecution deplored, claiming that it has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the respondent Commission adjourned the hearing, holding itself without discretion on the matter. After a full consideration of all the aspects of the case, the Defense Secretary withdrew his previous order and directed the respondent Commission to proceed with the that of the accused. Petitioner moved to quash the case against him, pleading double jeopardy on the ground that the previous withdrawal order of the Defense Secretary amounts to his acquittal. Respondent Commission denied his motion.

On certiorari, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner cannot invoke double jeopardy because the order of the respondent military commission terminating the hearing pursuant to the withdrawal order of the Secretary of National Defense it not a final order of acquittal or dismissal, and therefore, has none of the attributes of a final judgment.

Petition denied.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; DOUBLE JEOPARDY; ESSENTIAL REQUISITE. — The rule on double jeopardy is contained in Article IV, Section 22 of the 1973 Constitution, restated in Article 39 of the Articles of War (Commonwealth Act No. 408) and in Section 70-C of the Manual on Courts Martial. For double jeopardy to exist, it is essential that the first judgment of conviction or acquittal or dismissal is final, otherwise, there is no judgment of conviction or acquittal to speak of, and, therefore, the accused can not claim double jeopardy.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DECISION OF A MILITARY TRIBUNAL; NATURE; DOUBLE JEOPARDY CANNOT BE INVOKED IN CASE AT BAR. — Under military law, a decision of a military tribunal, be it of acquittal or conviction or dismissal it merely recommendatory and subject to review by the convening authority, the review boards, and the reviewing authority. Hence, in the instant case, the petitioner cannot invoke double jeopardy because the order of the respondent Military Commission No. 13, terminating the hearing on March 26, 1974 pursuant to the Memorandum of the Secretary of National Defense to the Judge Advocate General and of the letter of the latter to the respondent Commission it not a final order of acquittal or dismissal since it was not passed upon by the convening and reviewing authorities and confirmed by the President

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BY THE MILITARY, WITH THE MILITARY COMMISSION ACTING MERELY AS A COMMISSIONER; COMPARED WITH THE SYSTEM OF REVIEW UNDER THE SPANISH REGIME. — It is apparent under Presidential Decree No. 39 and Implementing Rules issued on November 7, 1972, that in the administration of justice by the military, a military commission acts merely as a Commissioner who takes the evidence and reports thereon to the convening and reviewing authorities with his recommendation. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, this system of administration of justice is similar to the system of review under the Spanish regime where the cases have to be passed upon by the Audiencia and then by the Supreme Court of Spain in Madrid before the sentence becomes final.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; JEOPARDY WHICH HAD ATTACHED BUT NOT YET DETERMINED; NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTION; CASE AT BAR. — Where jeopardy had attached, but the hearing has not yet terminated, the constitutional mandate against putting a person twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense was not violated when the Secretary of National Defense withdrew his previous memorandum and directed that further proceedings be had in the case, as the action of the Secretary of National Defense is but a continuation of the proceedings. The constitutional mandate against putting a person twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense is to protect the accused from going through a trials second time. But, since the first proceedings has not yet been terminated, there is no second proceeding to speak of, and, therefore, no double jeopardy.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, JR., J.:


Petition for certiorari, with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, to annul and set aside the order of the respondent Military Commission No. 13 which denied the petitioner’s motion to quash Criminal Case MC No. 13-2, entitled: "People of the Philippines, plaintiff, versus Capt. Rodolfo Magpantay, Et Al., Accused", and to restrain the said respondents from further proceeding with the case.

The record shows that on October 19, 1973, Capt. Rodolfo Magpantay alias "Honorato D. Castro", alias "Rolando Moreno", alias "Norberto de Ramos" ; Corazon R. Serrano, and the herein petitioner, Domingo V. Flores, Jr., and two other "John Does" were charged before the respondent Military Commission No. 13 with estafa through falsification of commercial documents, and falsification of commercial documents. The case was docketed therein as Criminal Case No. MC 13-2. 1

The petitioner and his co-accused were arraigned on October 25, 1973 and all pleaded not guilty. The case was thereafter set for trial.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

The presentation of evidence for the prosecution which started on October 25, 1973 was concluded on January 24, 1974, and the reception of the evidence for the defendants was set for March 26 and 27, 1974. On March 25, 1974, however, the respondent Secretary of National Defense, in a memorandum to the Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, directed the withdrawal of the charges against Capt. Rodolfo V. Magpantay, Et Al., from Military Commission No. 13, thusly —

"The withdrawal from Military Commission No. 13 of the charges against accused Capt. Rodolfo V. Magpantay 0-97692, PAF (NAC), Et Al., in line with paragraph 4 (3) of Presidential Decree No. 39, dated 7 November 1972 is hereby directed for immediate implementation.

"Please submit to this Office your corresponding early report implementing action taken hereon."cralaw virtua1aw library

It would appear that early in the day, Mrs. Milagros Magpantay, wife of one of the accused therein, saw the Secretary of National Defense about the petition for withdrawal of charges which her husband had earlier filed 2 and to enable himself to go over the petition for withdrawal of charges and avoid the possibility of unjustly putting the accused on trial the said Secretary of National Defense ordered the withdrawal of the case from the respondent Commission. 3 The order was implemented by the Judge Advocate General on that same day. 4

The next day, March 26, 1974, the day scheduled for the reception of the evidence for the defendants, counsel for the accused Magpantay handed to the respondent Commission the memorandum of the Secretary of National Defense and the letter of the Judge Advocate General, directing the withdrawal of the case from the Commission. The prosecution deplored the withdrawal of the case, claiming that they have proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the respondent Military Commission held itself to be without discretion on the matter. For her part, counsel for the herein petitioner manifested that —

". . . this representation prepared her objections in writing to the written offer of evidence of the state prosecutor in this case. When the prosecution has submitted a formal written offer of evidence, we also prepared and submitted a written objection to the said formal written offer of evidence. Considering the fact that the memorandum of the Secretary of National Defense has quoted par. 3 of Presidential Decree 39 where at any stage the case can be withdrawn from the commission, it does not however show that there was already a promulgation of the findings and sentence by your Honors. In that light, if your Honors please, it will not prevent the filing a case before the civil courts in order to go back from the beginning of the hearing of this case. In this connection, if Your Honors please, this representation has already submitted my written objection to the formal offer of evidence of the prosecution for and in behalf of my client Domingo Flores, Jr. and we do not know at that time when this written objection to the formal offer of evidence of the Prosecution is supposed to be presented and the said memorandum was relayed only this morning and I think it is within the competency of this commission to resolve my motion for a finding of Not Guilty of my client Domingo Flores, Jr. based on the reasons and objections stated in our written objection to the formal offer of the evidence of the prosecution. So, in that light, we appeal to your sense of judgment and indulgence to at least consider our prayer, so if ever the case will have to be terminated, I want to get a ruling from your Honors that the case is ended and the case is closed in connection with the offer of evidence and also the written objection to the said formal offer of evidence." chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

The Law Member of the Commission replied: "This Commission understands the prayer in your motion, Atty. Policarpio. However, for the moment, all that this Commission will say is, ‘We would if we could but we can’t.’" Thereafter, the hearing was adjourned. 5

On March 28, 1974, however, the Secretary of National Defense, after a full consideration of all the aspects of the case, withdrew his previous order and directed the respondent Commission forthwith to proceed with the trial of the accused. 6 Pursuant thereto, the respondent Military Commission scheduled the continuation of the trial and reception of the evidence for the defendants to April 1, 1974.

Pleading double jeopardy, in that the "Withdrawal Order of the Honorable Secretary of the Department of National Defense dated March 25, 1974 operates as an acquittal of the accused Flores and a revocation and reinstatement of the case against the accused Domingo V. Flores, Jr. constitutes ‘DOUBLE JEOPARDY’", the herein petitioner moved to quash the case against him, 7 but the respondent Military Commission denied his petition to quash. Hence, the present recourse.

The other accused, Capt. Rodolfo Magpantay, upon the other hand, started presenting his evidence on April 2, 1974. But, the proceedings were suspended upon the filing of the instant petition for certiorari with this Court. 8

The petitioner maintains that the withdrawal of the charges against Capt. Rodolfo Magpantay and his co-accused, including petitioner, on March 26, 1974, after the prosecution had rested its case, amounted to a dismissal or termination of the case, and its referral anew to the respondent Military Commission No. 13 violates the constitutional right of the petitioner not to be twice placed in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.

The rule on double jeopardy is contained in Article IV, Section 22 of the 1973 Constitution which provides that "no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense." It is restated in Article 39 of the Articles of War (Commonwealth Act No. 408), as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART. 39. As to number. — No person shall, without his consent, be tried a second time for the same offense; but no proceeding in which an accused has been found guilty by a court-martial upon any charge or specification shall be held to be a trial in the sense of this article until the reviewing and, if there be one, the confirming authority shall have taken final action upon the case . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

and in Section 70-C of the Manual on Courts Martial which reads, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Section 70-C — One who in a competent court has been convicted, acquitted or put in jeopardy in respect to a real or supposed crime, cannot be further or again pursued for it, unless he waives his right to rely on this immunity." 9

For double jeopardy to exist, it is essential that the first judgment of conviction or acquittal or dismissal is final; otherwise, there is no judgment of conviction or acquittal to speak of, and, therefore, the accused can not claim double jeopardy.

In the instant case, the petitioner cannot invoke double jeopardy because the order of the respondent Military Commission No. 13, terminating the hearing on March 26, 1974 pursuant to the Memorandum of the Secretary of National Defense to the Judge Advocate General and of the letter of the latter to the respondent Commission, is not a final order of acquittal or dismissal. Under military law, a decision of a military tribunal, be it of acquittal or conviction, or dismissal, is merely recommendatory and subject to review by the convening authority, the review boards, and the reviewing authority. Thus, Presidential Decree No. 39 and Implementing Rules, issued on November 7, 1972, provides:chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

"4. Procedure for Military Commission. —

a. Before trial. —

x       x       x


b. During trial. —

x       x       x


c. After trial. —

(1) Action by Convening Authority. —

x       x       x


(2) Execution of Sentence. — Except as otherwise herein provided, no sentence of a military commission shall be executed unless the same is approved and ordered executed by the Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines. Where the sentence imposed by a Military Commission is death or if the Chief of Staff recommends that a penalty of death should be imposed, in a case where the sentence imposed by a military commission is less than death, the record of trial shall be forwarded to the President through the Secretary of National Defense, for confirmation or approval. No sentence of death shall be executed unless ordered executed by the President. In any case, the President shall have the power to reverse, confirm, increase the penalty imposed, or otherwise modify any decision of the military commission." (Italics supplied for emphasis)chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

It is apparent therefrom that in the administration of justice by the military, a military commission acts merely as a commissioner who takes the evidence and reports thereon to the convening and reviewing authorities with his recommendation. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, this system of administration of justice is similar to the system of review under the Spanish regime where the cases have to be passed upon by the Audiencia and then by the Supreme Court of Spain in Madrid before the sentence becomes final.

"Under that system the lower courts were regarded as examining courts, having preliminary jurisdiction, and the accused was not fully convicted or acquitted until the case has been passed upon by the Audiencia, or supreme court, whose judgment was subject to review in the supreme court in Madrid for errors of law, with power to order a new trial. The trial was regarded as one continuous proceeding, and the protection given was against a second conviction after this final trial had been concluded in due form of law . . ." 10

While the respondent Military Commission No. 13 may have ordered the termination of the hearing of Criminal Case No. MC 13-2, pursuant to the Memorandum of the Secretary of National Defense to the Judge Advocate General, and the letter of the latter to the respondent Military Commission No. 13, directing the withdrawal of the charges against Capt. Rodolfo Magpantay and his co-accused, the order has none of the attributes of a final judgment since it was not passed upon by the convening and reviewing authorities and confirmed by the President. Although jeopardy had attached, it has not yet terminated. Being so, the constitutional mandate against putting a person twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense was not violated when the Secretary of National Defense withdrew his previous memorandum and directed that further proceedings be had in the case, as the action of the Secretary of National Defense is but a continuation of the proceedings. The constitutional mandate against putting a person twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense is to protect the accused from going through a trial a second time. But, since the first proceedings has not yet been terminated, there is no second proceeding to speak of, and, therefore, no double jeopardy.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition should be, as it is hereby DISMISSED. With costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, Aquino, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, Escolin, Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Melencio-Herrera and Plana, JJ., concur in the result.

Fernando, C.J. and Makasiar, J., reserves their vote.

Teehankee, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, p. 19.

2. Id., p. 111.

3. Id., p. 842.

4. Id., p. 31.

5. Id., p. 106.

6. Id., pp. 32 and 33.

7. Id., p. 8.

8. Id., p. 809.

9. Id., p. 816; See also Claro, Handbook of Courts Martial Procedure, p. 53.

10. People v. Laguna, 17 Phil. 532, 542-543.




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