Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > March 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-34845 March 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO ESPINOSA

198 Phil. 147:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-34845. March 15, 1982.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BERNARDO ESPINOSA, alias "Boy," defendant-appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Amado G. Salazar, for Defendant-Appellant.

SYNOPSIS


Defendant-appellant was charged with murder for the death of Mario Bonrostro. At the trial he interposed a denial and an alibi but two prosecution witnesses pointed to him as the one who repeatedly hit and shoot the victim with an air rifle that fatal afternoon. Convicted with murder, qualified by treachery, he appealed.

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction ruling that the, clear and convincing testimonies of the two prosecution witnesses, both of whom had known reason to falsely testify against appellant, cannot be overthrown by the latter’s weak alibi; that it was not clearly shown that the accused could not be physically present at the scene of the crime as the alleged place where he claimed he was to catch cows, was just a matter of 15 minutes walk from the scene of the crime; that the presence of treachery was clear as the attack, as described by the two eyewitnesses, was from behind, sudden and unexpected without the victim having any chance to defend himself. Judgment affirmed.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; TESTIMONIES OF WITNESSES; CLEAR AND CONVINCING TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION’S WITNESSESS CANNOT BE OVERTHROWN BY THE WEAK ALIBI OF THE APPELLANT. — The clear and convincing testimonies of Romeo Carreon and Alejandra Balason, both of whom had no known reason to falsely testify against appellant, that they saw appellant repeatedly hit and shoot with an air rifle the victim in the afternoon of March 27, 1970, cannot be overthrown by the weak alibi of the Appellant.

2. ID.; ID.; ALIBI; DEFENSE CANNOT STAND AGAINST THE POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF THE CREDIBLE WITNESSES. — Appellant’s defense to the effect that he was helping his father and their tenant catch cows at the time the crime was committed cannot stand against the positive identification of two credible witnesses that appellant was the one who suddenly attacked the victim with the use of an air rifle in that afternoon of March 27, 1970.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; TO BE CONSIDERED IT MUST BE CLEARLY SHOWN THAT THE ACCUSED COULD NOT BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME. — For an alibi to be considered as a defense, it must be clearly shown that the accused could not be physically present at the scene of the crime. In this case, the alleged place where the appellant claimed he was to catch cows is a matter of 15 minutes walk from the scene of the crime.

4. CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER; TREACHERY; SUDDEN ATTACK FROM BEHIND. — The presence of treachery in the attack cannot be disputed. The two eyewitnesses both described the attack in clear terms. There can be no doubt that it was from behind, sudden and unexpected. The victim did not have any chance whatsoever to defend himself. Treachery qualifies the killing to murder.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, JR., J.:


In the early afternoon of March 27, 1970, a Good Friday, at Sitio Banaba, Barrio Concordia, Municipality of Burgos, Pangasinan Province, the victim Mario Bonrostro was suddenly attacked and shot with an air rifle, causing various wounds on his head, face and neck, that resulted in his death at 12:05 a.m. on March 28, 1970, at the Pangasinan Provincial Hospital. 1

As a result of the investigation conducted, a criminal complaint for murder, dated April 1, 1970, was filed against Bernardo Espinosa, alias "Boy" in the Municipal Court of Burgos, Pangasinan. 2

An information dated October 9, 1970, was filed in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan as Criminal Case No. 55-A, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned Assistant Provincial Fiscal hereby accuses BERNARDO ESPINOSA alias "Boy" of the crime of MURDER committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about March 27, 1970, in the municipality of Burgos, province of Pangasinan, Republic of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, wound and shot with an air rifle one MARIO BONROSTRO inflicting on the latter the following injuries, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Penetrating wound, 2 inches depth, left lower jaw, with severely damaged jugular vein;

2. Extensive hematoma, left parietal region, with marked congestion of the brain and petechial hemorrhage;

3. Stabbed wound 1.5 cms. cheek, left;

4. Extensive orbital hematoma, left;

5. Gunshot wound, subcutaneous, rt., occipital region;

6. Lacerated wound, sutured, upper and lower lips;

7. Fracture, lower jaw (wired);

8. Avulsion, teeth, incissors, anterior;

9. Penetrating wound, .5 cm., sutured left deltoid;

10. Abrasion, left deltoid;

11. Lacerated wound, 2 cm. rt., chin sutured;

12. Tracheatomy wound, sutured, 2.5 cms.

and as a result thereof, said Mario Bonrostro died to the damage and prejudice of his Heirs in the sum of P12,000.00.

"With the attendance of the qualifying circumstance of alevosia and the generic aggravating circumstance of known premeditation.

"CONTRARY TO LAW." 3

After arraignment, plea of not guilty, 4 and trial, the lower court rendered a decision dated November 24, 1971, with dispositive portion as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, the Court finds and so holds the accused Bernardo Espinosa, alias "Boy", guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as charged and he is therefore hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for life (reclusion perpetua); to pay the heirs of the victim Mario Bonrostro the sum of P12,000.00 as indemnity and moral damages, plus the sum of P10,000.00 as exemplary damages and the costs.

"SO ORDERED." 5

The accused appealed the decision to this Court on November 25, 1971. 6

The evidence for the prosecution discloses that on March 27, 1970 at about past 10:00 a.m., the victim Mario Bonrostro, together with Ilustre Espinosa, Flaviano Balason and Romeo Carreon were on their way to Sitio Banaba, Barrio Concordia, Burgos, Pangasinan, to pick up "duhat." They were followed and joined later by the appellant Bernardo Espinosa, Ruben Balason and Borromeo Necesito. After gathering "duhat", these seven persons proceeded to the house of Jacinto Bernal and Alejandra Balason, arriving there at past 11:00 a.m. The seven of them took their lunch at said house. After eating, Ruben Balason, Ilustre Espinosa, and Romeo Carreon rested in the sala. Bernardo Espinosa, Borromeo Necesito and Flaviano Balason rested on the "balcon" (porch) of the house. Victim Mario Bonrostro was in the kitchen talking with some relatives. 7

Romeo Carreon and Ilustre Espinosa heard appellant Bernardo Espinosa invite the victim Mario Bonrostro to go to the cockpit. Both Carreon and Ilustre Espinosa advised the victim Mario not to go. Carreon told Mario that "he might suffer the same fate as that of Santos Aquino who was killed in Uli, Dasol, Pangasinan." Appellant Bernardo Espinosa then stated — "We better go because if anybody will be touched, I am responsible to defend you." Victim Bonrostro replied — "You may have a plan against me." Appellant Espinosa added — "We better go so that we can catch up in the fighting of my cock in the cockpit." 8

Appellant Bernardo Espinosa then started pumping air into his air rifle which he had with him since that morning. Appellant Espinosa was finally able to convince Mario to go with him and the two left the house on their way to the cockpit. 9

Romeo Carreon had an apprehension or premonition that something dreadful might happen to Mario Bonrostro, so he decided to follow the two. Carreon’s apprehension was based on his knowledge of an existing controversy over a parcel of land between the uncle of the victim Mario and the father of appellant Bernardo Espinosa. Carreon’s suspicions were confirmed.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

Carreon saw the victim Mario Bonrostro walking ahead of appellant Espinosa. Suddenly, appellant Espinosa hit Mario at the left back side of his head with the butt of the air rifle. Mario turned around. Espinosa hit him several times more until he fell down. With Mario on the ground, Espinosa pounded the former’s head with the barrel’s end of the rifle and shot Mario once on the head with the same air gun. Romeo Carreon hurriedly returned to the house of Bernal. As he looked back, Carreon could still see the victim Mario being hit by appellant Espinosa. Then Espinosa ran away from the scene. Carreon, upon reaching the house of Bernal, informed his companions about the incident he witnessed. 10

When Carreon left the house of Bernal to follow the appellant and the victim surreptitiously, Alejandra Balason who lived in the same house, left to sell vegetables. Alejandra Balason earlier also saw the seven persons while they were taking their lunch. On her way while passing the road of Sitio Banaba, Barrio Concordia, Burgos, Alejandra Balason saw appellant Espinosa walking behind the victim Mario at a distance of about one meter. Suddenly, Espinosa hit Mario at the back of his head with the butt of an air rifle. Alejandra was about fifty meters from the two. She clearly saw the appellant hit the victim many times on the head and face. Mario fell down. Alejandra returned hurriedly to her house. She informed Ruben Balason, Ilustre Espinosa, Necesito, Pepe Balason and Romeo Carreon of the incident. She told them to help the victim Mario Bonrostro as he was being hit by appellant Espinosa. 11

Romeo Carreon and the others proceeded to the scene, and saw the victim Mario lying prostrate on the ground with a bleeding face and with his head turned on its side. Rufino Balason called for the Barrio Captain. Barrio Captain Notario, Councilor Sixto Abella and other barrio councilmen arrived. The Barrio Captain ordered the victim to be brought to the hospital. 12

The victim was rushed to Dr. Guiang at the Western Pangasinan Emergency Hospital. Dr. Guiang saw the victim in serious condition so he advised that the victim be brought to the Provincial Hospital at Dagupan City. The victim expired at the latter hospital. 13

Dr. Lucresia Agbanlog Martinez performed an autopsy on the cadaver of the victim, with the following findings:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Penetrating wound, 2 inches depth, left lower jaw, with severely damaged jugular vein;

"2. Extensive hematoma, left parietal region, with marked congestion of the brain and petechial hemorrhage;

"3. Stabbed wound 1.5 cms. cheek, left, through and through;

"4. Extensive orbital hematoma, left;

"5. Gunshot wound, subcutaneous, right, occipital region;

"6. Lacerated wound, sutured, upper and lower lips;

"7. Fracture, lower jaw (wired);

"8. Avulsion, teeth, incissors, anterior;

"9. Penetrating wound, .5 cm. sutured left deltoid;

"10. Abrasion, left deltoid;

"11. Lacerated wound, 2 cm., right chin, sutured;

"12 Tracheatomy wound, sutured, 2.5 cms." 14

Dr. Martinez opined that wound No. 1 was caused by sharp instrument and proved fatal. Wound No. 2 was caused by a hard object and blunt instrument, and also caused the death of the victim due to profuse hemorrhage. Wounds Nos. 3, 6, 8, 9 and 10 were caused by a sharp instrument. Wounds Nos. 4, 7 and 11 were caused by blunt or dull instruments. Wound No. 5 was caused by a rifle. Death of the victim was due to shock, secondary to hemorrhage. 15

On April 4, 1970, Sgt. Iluminado Apostol of the 154th P.C. Company, together with P.C. companions and local policemen, went to the residence of the appellant at Barrio Uli, Dasol, Pangasinan, to serve a warrant of arrest for him. Failing to see appellant at his residence and upon information given by his mother, the law enforcers proceeded to Dasol and to Burgos, but again they failed to find him. Later, Sgt. Apostol was informed that appellant went to Zambales province. 16

On June 15, 1970, more than 2 months after the issuance of the warrant for his arrest, appellant appeared before Municipal Judge Herminio Beltran of Infanta, then acting as Municipal Judge of Burgos, and posted a bail bond for his provisional release. 17

The defense interposed a denial and an alibi. It is not disputed that in the morning of March 27, 1970, between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m., appellant was with the group of seven persons who went to gather "duhat" fruits. The victim Mario Bonrostro carried a bolo, while appellant Bernardo Espinosa had an air rifle with him. After gathering "duhat" they proceeded to the house of Jacinto Bernal at Banaba, Concordia, Burgos, Pangasinan. They ate lunch in said house, and then rested. Before eating, the group drunk "basi" (wine). Appellant Espinosa declined to drink because he was going to catch cows that afternoon at the place of farmer Leocadio Sawayway, upon instructions previously given by appellant’s father. 18

After the Bernal family had finished their eating, appellant asked permission to leave the group and he left the Bernal house for Leocadio Sawayway’s place. He arrived at the latter place at 12:30 in the afternoon. Appellant, his father, and their tenant Leocadio Sawayway were able to catch their 3 cows at about 2:30 p.m. They rested in their hut and listened to the radio up to 5:00 p.m. as it was a Holy Friday. 19

Appellant denied he was with the victim at the time of the crime. He denied having invited the victim to go to the cockpit on that afternoon. He claimed he was a friend of the victim. 20

At about 2:00 p.m. on that same afternoon of March 27, 1970, defense witness Servillano Abella claimed he saw a person groaning on the road at Sitio Banaba, Concordia, where many people passed on that day as it was cockpit day. Abella proceeded to the nearest house, the Bernal residence. On his way, he met Alejandra Balason who was on her way to the cockpit to sell vegetables. Abella told Alejandra that somebody met an accident and that Abella was going to inform the Barrio Captain Notario of Concordia. Barrio Captain Notario arrived at the scene and saw the victim lying on his back, speechless and bleeding. 21

The clear and convincing testimonies of Romeo Carreon and Alejandra Balason, both of whom had no known reason to falsely testify against appellant, that they saw appellant repeatedly hit and shoot with an air rifle the victim in the afternoon of March 27, 1970, cannot be overthrown by the weak alibi of the appellant. 22

Appellant’s defense to the effect that he was helping his father and their tenant Leocadio Sawayway catch cows at the time the crime was committed cannot stand against the positive identification of two credible witnesses that appellant was the one who suddenly attacked the victim with the use of an air rifle in that afternoon of March 27, 1970. Besides, for an alibi to be considered as a defense, it must be clearly shown that the accused could not be physically present at the scene of the crime. In this case, the alleged place where the appellant claimed he was to catch cows is a matter of 15 minutes walk from the scene of the crime.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

While the evidence to establish evident premeditation is not convincing, the presence of treachery in the attack cannot be disputed. The two eyewitnesses both described the attack in clear terms. There can be no doubt that it was from behind, sudden and unexpected. The victim did not have any chance whatsoever to defend himself. Treachery qualifies the killing to murder.

WHEREFORE, the decision dated November 24, 1971, in Criminal Case No. 55-A, of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch XI, is hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects, with costs against Appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo (Chairman), Aquino, Abad Santos, De Castro, Ericta and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. pp. 2-3, Appellee’s Brief; Exh. "A", p. 2, List of Exhibits.

2. p. 1, Original Record, Criminal Case No. 55-A, CFI Pangasinan, Branch XI, Alaminos, Pangasinan.

3. p. 48, Original Record.

4. p. 58, Id.

5. p. 288, Id.

6. p. 292, Id.

7. pp. 2-7, t.s.n., Jan. 12, 1971.

8. pp. 5-6, t.s.n., Feb. 2, 1971; pp. 7-8, t.s.n., Jan. 12, 1971.

9. p. 9, t.s.n., Jan. 12, 1971.

10. pp. 9-13, t.s.n., January 12, 1971.

11. pp. 5-9, 18-20, t.s.n., Jan. 11, 1971.

12. pp. 14-16, 24, t.s.n., Jan. 12, 1971.

13. Exh. "F", p. 4, Original Record.

14. Exh. "A", Folder of Exhibits.

15. pp. 5-7, 9-11, t.s.n., Dec. 8, 1970.

16. pp. 5-6, 7, 10, t.s.n., Feb. 3, 1971; Exh. "G", p. 9, Original Record.

17. Exh. "H", pp. 20-42, Original Record.

18. pp. 2-7, t.s.n., Carreon; pp. 4-7, t.s.n., Ilustre Espinosa.

19. pp. 2-3, Appellant’s Brief.

20. pp. 16, 19, 22, 23, t.s.n., Oct. 20, 1971.

21. p. 3, Appellant’s Brief.

22. pp. 4-8, t.s.n., Jan. 11, 1971; pp. 11-13, t.s.n., Jan. 12, 1971.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 57883 March 12, 1982 - GUALBERTO J. DE LA LLANA, ET AL. v. MANUEL ALBA, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 1

  • G.R. No. L-30205 March 15, 1982 - UNITED GENERAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v. JOSE PALER, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 130

  • G.R. No. L-30314 March 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 134

  • G.R. No. L-34845 March 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO ESPINOSA

    198 Phil. 147

  • G.R. No. L-37603 March 15, 1982 - CONSUELO LAZARO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    198 Phil. 156

  • G.R. No. L-37687 March 15, 1982 - PICEWO, ET AL. v. PINCOCO, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 166

  • G.R. No. L-38100 March 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LITO VARROGA, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 183

  • G.R. Nos. L-38507-08 March 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GABRIEL S. MEMBROT, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 200

  • G.R. No. L-41302 March 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MODESTO BOSTON, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 212

  • G.R. No. L-44063 March 15, 1982 - VICTORIANO F. CORALES v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 224

  • G.R. No. L-44972 March 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO M. MARTIJA

    198 Phil. 250

  • G.R. No. L-49858 March 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE ABING

    198 Phil. 257

  • G.R. No. 52741 March 15, 1982 - SALUD RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 263

  • G.R. Nos. L-55243-44 March 15, 1982 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 273

  • G.R. No. L-55538 March 15, 1982 - IN RE: DIONESIO DIVINAGRACIA, JR., ET AL.

    198 Phil. 287

  • G.R. No. 57068 March 15, 1982 - JOSEPH HELMUTH, JR. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    198 Phil. 292

  • G.R. No. L-58877 March 15, 1982 - PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, ET AL. v. ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 296

  • G.R. No. 59070 March 15, 1982 - PHIL. PACIFIC FISHING CO., INC., ET AL. v. ARTEMON D. LUNA, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 304

  • G.R. No. 59713 March 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO F. ARIZALA, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 314

  • G.R. No. L-28256 March 17, 1982 - SEVERO DEL CASTILLO v. LORENZO JAYMALIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37050 March 17, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. SALVADOR C. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44943 March 17, 1982 - SOCORRO MONTEVIRGEN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49436 March 17, 1982 - IRENEO SALAC, ET AL. v. RICARDO TENSUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-45283-84 March 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCILA V. VALERO

  • G.R. No. 57735 March 19, 1982 - LUIS ESTRADA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-2599 March 25, 1982 - HON. ALICIA V. SEMPIO-DIY v. AMELIA GARCIA SUAREZ

  • G.R. No. L-37223 March 25, 1982 - IN RE: CHUA SIONG TEE, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-40005 March 25, 1982 - IN RE: JOSE NGO, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-46001 March 25, 1982 - LUZ CARO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49659 March 25, 1982 - RUBEN L. ROXAS v. FERNANDO S. ALCANTARA

  • G.R. No. 51122 March 25, 1982 - EUGENIO J. PUYAT v. SIXTO T. J. DE GUZMAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 53869 March 25, 1982 - RAUL A. VILLEGAS v. VALENTINO L. LEGASPI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58265 March 25, 1982 - DIONISIO EBON, ET AL. v. FELIZARDO S.M. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 58854 March 25, 1982 - BELEN MAZO v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF TAMBULIG, ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57540 March 26, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REGINO T. VERIDIANO II

  • G.R. No. 58133 March 26, 1982 - MERCEDES AGUDA, ET AL. v. AMADOR T. VALLEJOS

  • A.M. No. P-2390 March 29, 1982 - LUCAS D. CARPIO v. FRANCISCO M. GONZALES

  • A.M. No. P-2694 March 29, 1982 - MARCOS JUMALON v. CLODUALDO L. MONTES

  • G.R. No. L-25771 March 29, 1982 - URBANO JACA, ET AL. v. DAVAO LUMBER COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30849 March 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MABINI GARACHICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33427 March 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS GABIERREZ, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-33488 March 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIFICO MATIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33757 March 29, 1982 - BAYANI QUINTO, ET AL. v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ

  • G.R. No. L-35474 March 29, 1982 - HONORATO C. PEREZ v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF NUEVA ECIJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36099 March 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENITO S. TABIJE

  • G.R. No. L-39333 March 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO R. SACAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-39400 March 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO G. SY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45650 March 29, 1982 - CRESENCIO ANDRES v. BONIFACIO A. CACDAC, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-47069 March 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ORSAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49061 March 29, 1982 - PEDRO YUCOCO, ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50238 March 29, 1982 - CEBU INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 52091 March 29, 1982 - TERESO V. MATURAN v. SANTIAGO MAGLANA

  • G.R. No. 57460 March 29, 1982 - FILIPINAS GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC. v. PHIL TRANS. & GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 2680-MJ March 30, 1982 - CORPORATE MANAGERS AND CONSULTANTS, INC. v. MANUEL B. ACOSTA

  • G.R. Nos. L-26915-18 March 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO BALADJAY

  • G.R. Nos. L-31901-02 March 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO M. HILARIO

  • G.R. No. L-33582 March 30, 1982 - OVERSEAS BANK OF MANILA v. VICENTE CORDERO

  • G.R. No. L-36553 March 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLASCO FAMADOR

  • G.R. No. L-37309 March 30, 1982 - RAMON AGTON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37494 March 30, 1982 - MANUEL SY Y LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38960 March 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO DEMATE

  • G.R. No. L-49430 March 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BELINDA V. LORA

  • G.R. No. 52188 March 30, 1982 - MD TRANSIT & TAXI CO., INC. v. FRANCISCO L. ESTRELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 52363 March 30, 1982 - OFELIA G. DURAN v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53560 March 30, 1982 - PETRA GABAYA v. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA