Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > September 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-45679 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO MENDOZA

202 Phil. 660:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-45679. September 30, 1982.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODOLFO MENDOZA, alias RODEL, Defendant-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Antonio V. Benedicto, for Defendant-Appellant.

SYNOPSIS


Lolita Domingo was alone in a room of her house nursing her six-month old baby one early morning when she was awakened by the appellant whom he had known for the last three years. She was about to get up when appellant went on top of her, and pointing a home-made ice pick at the left side of her body, ordered her to remove her slacks which she did. When she refused to remove her panties, appellant pulled a blanket and covered her face with it. Thereafter, he forcibly pulled her panties down and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her, but all the time with his right hand holding the ice pick to the side of his victim’s body. Appellant then ran away by jumping through the window. Before the accused could jump, complainant chased him, switched on the light and shouted for help. A police officer and some neighbors came and Lolita told them that appellant had raped her. Three days later, she was examined by Dr. Makabenta who concluded,in his report, that complainant ‘had been cohabited recently.’ Charged with rape, the accused denied having raped Lolita. He interposed the defense of alibi and alleged that complainant’s story is incredible. The trial court convicted the accused of rape and sentence him to reclusion perpetua. Hence,this appeal.

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the decision of the trial court. It held that the defense of alibi does not lie when the accused has been positively identified and there is no showing of physical impossibility to be at the scene of the crime.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF TESTIMONY; VERACITY OF TESTIMONY OF COMPLAINANT IN CRIME OF RAPE. — From the evidence presented by both parties, the guilt or innocence of the appellant depends entirely upon the veracity of the testimony of complainant Lolita Domingo. Appellant contends that complainant while lying in bed beside her six-month old baby did not make any outcry nor employ effective resistance. Considering the fact that complainant and her baby were threatened by appellant who pointed a home-made icepick at them, it is understandable why she could not make any outcry nor offer effective resistance to the aggression of appellant. Neither is it incredible that Lolita was able to remove her slacks while appellant was on top of her because it was he who ordered her to remove it under threat. Moreover, at that time the hook of her slacks were already unlocked before complainant went to sleep.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; BELATED ENTRY OF MATTER IN POLICE BLOTTER, SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINED. — Relative to the claim of appellant that the matter was belatedly entered in the police blotter, the same was sufficiently explained by the defense witness, Patrolman Napoleon Advincula, who testified that he put in writing what Lotita had related to him regarding the rape on her person. When this was not entered by Pat. Teofilo Clemencio, Pat. Advincula called his attention thereto, and thereafter Pat. Clemencio added the statement "and she was raped."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. ID.; ID.; ALIBI, WEAK AGAINST POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION AND WITHOUT SHOWING OF PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY TO BE AT SCENE OF CRIME. — The trial court committed no error in rejecting the defense of alibi set up by the appellant. In the case at bar, he was positively identified by his victim who had known him for about three years before the incident. Besides, the defense of alibi was not supported by positive, clear and satisfactory evidence. Appellant failed to show that it was impossible for him to be present at the scene of the crime considering that Barrio Langit, Alang-Alang, where he was allegedly at the time was only about seven (7) kilometers away. Further, the defense of alibi depends on the credibility of witnesses and in this respect, the relative weight which the trial judge gave to the testimony of witnesses must, unless patently and clearly inconsistent with the evidence on record, be accepted (People v. Berdida, 17 SCRA 520).


D E C I S I O N


RELOVA, J.:


Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, finding the accused Rodolfo Mendoza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay the offended party Lolita Domingo the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) as moral damages.

Prosecution evidence shows that in the early morning of April 20, 1974, while complainant Lolita Domingo was alone in a room of her house in the poblacion of Tolosa, Leyte, nursing her six-month-old baby, she was awakened by the appellant whom she had known for the last three years. She was alone at the time as her husband, Alvin Domingo, was in his office at Leyte Electric Cooperative Inc. (LECI) in Barrio San Roque, about eight (8) kilometers away from the poblacion of Tolosa, and her three-year-old daughter was with her mother-in-law. Upon seeing appellant standing near the mosquito net of her bed, she was about to get up when he went on top of her and pointed a sharp instrument (home-made ice pick, Exhibit D) at the left side of her body. Appellant then ordered her to remove her slacks (Exhibit B) which she did; ordered her to remove her panties (Exhibit C) and when she would not follow appellant pulled a blanket and covered complainant’s face with it. Thereafter, he forcibly pulled her panties down to her thighs, took a pillow and put it on her face while his right hand holding a home-made ice pick was pointing it to the left side of her body. Appellant then inserted his penis into complainant’s vagina. She tried to resist by closing her legs but he succeeded in spreading her legs and in his sexual assault on her. After about three minutes, the appellant rose and ran away by jumping through the window. Before the accused could jump complainant chased him, switched on the light and shouted for help.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Patrolman Ibañez, together with her neighbors came and asked her what happened. She told the peace officer that appellant had raped her. Later in the morning of the same date, complainant went to the Chief of Police to present the ice pick that appellant pointed to her side.

On April 23, 1974, complainant was examined by Dr. Vicente B. Makabenta, Municipal Health Officer of Tolosa, Leyte and his report (Exhibit A) reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"MEDICAL CERTIFICATE

Name: PLACER-DOMINGO, LOLITA Age: 32

Address: Public Market, Tolosa, Poblacion, Leyte

Sex: Female

Occupation: Housekeeper Status: Married

Alleged Case: Robbery with Rape

Date: Time and Place of Examination:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

April 23, 1974 at 3:0(1 P.M. at the Rural Health Unit Clinic,

Tolosa, Leyte

Requesting Officer: Margarito Cavite,

Chief of Police, Tolosa, Leyte

Findings:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

External: Stenic, fairly nourished and developed, fair, married, female, Filipino.

Breast: developed, symmetrical, hemispherical in shape, soft in consistency, engorged with milk (lactating). Ariola pinkish with prominent protruding nipples.

Internal: Pubic Hair — Abundant and well distributed.

Labia Mejora — Rounded soft.

Fourchette — Rounded in appearance with retracted edge but showing a circumscribed crythematous spot, peasized in the anterior aspect, of recent origin.

Hymen Canal — Ruptured with healed laceration.

Vaginal Canal — Slightly lax, permits two fingers of examiner’s hand with slight resistance, no discharge appreciated.

Conclusion Patient had been cohabited recently."cralaw virtua1aw library

The accused denied having raped Lolita Domingo on the early morning of April 20, 1974 in Tolosa, Leyte, explaining that he could not have possibly done so as between 11:00 in the morning of April 19, 1974 until 1:00 in the afternoon of April 21, 1974, he was in the house of his father’s tenant, Matias Velarde, in his father’s farm in Barrio Langit, Alang-Alang, Leyte about seven (7) kilometers away. He was sick at the time as he was wet by the rain and he was shivering.

Further, appellant and his father Agapito Mendoza claimed that he had been falsely charged in the case because of an inheritance dispute between his father and his father’s children by his first wife, Emperatriz Lauzon, and Eleodoro Lauzon, step-father of Lolita’s husband.

Coming to this Court, appellant claimed that the trial court erred (1) in believing and basing its judgment of conviction of accused-appellant on the sole, uncorroborated, fantastic, unbelievable and incredible testimony, on the alleged rape of the complainant; (2) in discounting the facts and circumstances on the records consistent with the innocence of the accused-appellant; and (3) in not believing the defense of alibi of accused-appellant and in not acquitting Accused-Appellant.chanrobles law library

From the evidence presented by both parties, the guilt or innocence of the appellant depends entirely upon the veracity of the testimony of complainant Lolita Domingo. Appellant contends that complainant while lying in bed beside her six month old baby did not make any outcry nor employ effective resistance. Considering the fact that complainant and her baby were threatened by appellant who pointed a home-made ice pick at them, it is understandable why she could not make any outcry or offer effective resistance to the aggression of appellant. Neither is it incredible that Lolita was able to remove her slacks while appellant was on top of her because it was he who ordered her to remove it under threat. Moreover, at that time the hook of her slacks were already unlocked before complainant went to sleep.

Relative to the claim of appellant that the matter was belatedly entered in the police blotter, the same was sufficiently explained by defense witness, Pat. Napoleon Advincula, who testified that he put in writing what Lolita had related to him regarding the rape on her person. When this was not entered by Pat. Teofilo Clemencio, Pat. Advincula called his attention thereto, and, thereafter, Pat. Clemencio added the statement "and she was raped" in the blotter.

The trial court committed no error in rejecting the defense of alibi set up by the appellant. In the case at bar, he was positively identified by his victim who had known him for about three years before the incident. Besides, the defense of alibi was not supported by positive, clear and satisfactory evidence. Appellant failed to show that it was impossible for him to be present at the scene of the crime considering that Barrio Langit, Alang-Alang where he was allegedly at the time was only about seven (7) kilometers away. Further, the defense of alibi depends on the credibility of witnesses and in this respect, the relative weight which the trial judge gave to the testimony of witnesses must, unless patently and clearly inconsistent with the evidence on record, be accepted. (People v. Berdida, 17 SCRA 520).

Then Acting Solicitor General Vicente B. Mendoza, in his brief for the People, gave the following observation:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"However, we note that the trial court committed an error when it refused to impose the maximum penalty of death in spite of its finding that the aggravating circumstance of nighttime and that the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party were duly established by the prosecution. The refusal of the trial court to consider the aforesaid aggravating circumstances stems from its erroneous belief that these aggravating circumstances not having been alleged in the information the same cannot be considered in imposing the penalty. We respectfully submit that only qualifying circumstances must be alleged in order to be considered as such. Aggravating circumstances even though not alleged in the information but proved during the trial may be considered in the imposition of the penalty (People v. Bautista, 28 SCRA 184 [1969]). Hence, there being two aggravating circumstances, and no mitigating circumstance and the crime charged is a qualified rape because of the allegation in the information which was proved during the trial that the accused made use of an ice pick which is a deadly weapon, the penalty that should be imposed should be death. The indemnity for the crime of rape has been raised to P12,000.00 (People v. Abay, 70 SCRA 521[1976])."cralaw virtua1aw library

The observation of the Acting Solicitor General is tenable but for lack of the necessary votes, the extreme penalty of death cannot be imposed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that the indemnity should be raised to P12,000.00. With costs against the Appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Vasquez and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., took no part.

Separate Opinions


FERNANDO, C.J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Dissents the stage of moral certainty not having been reached.




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






September-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-31276 September 9, 1982 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 1

  • G.R. No. L-31854 September 9, 1982 - NICANOR T. SANTOS v. ROSA GANAYO

    202 Phil. 16

  • G.R. No. L-32260 September 9, 1982 - RAYMUNDA VDA. DE SAN JUAN, ET AL. v. SIXTO TAN

    202 Phil. 31

  • G.R. No. L-38579 September 9, 1982 - JULIET T. DIOQUINO v. NICANOR J. CRUZ, JR., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 35

  • G.R. No. L-39154 September 9, 1982 - LITEX EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40641 September 9, 1982 - FILOMENO ABROT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 53

  • G.R. No. L-42335 September 9, 1982 - PEDRO AMIGABLE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 64

  • G.R. No. L-52410 September 9, 1982 - FLORO ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 66

  • G.R. No. L-40791 September 11, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MALATE

    202 Phil. 74

  • G.R. No. L-41115 September 11, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48756 September 11, 1982 - K.O. GLASS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. MANUEL VALENZUELA

  • G.R. No. L-49524 September 11, 1982 - LEONARDO GONZALES, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 151

  • G.R. No. L-59825 September 11, 1982 - ERNESTO MEDINA, ET AL. v. FLORELIANA CASTRO-BARTOLOME

    202 Phil. 163

  • G.R. No. L-60368 September 11, 1982 - BEATRIZ DE ZUZUARREGUI VDA. DE REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 172

  • A.C. No. 2784-M September 21, 1982 - CECILIO P. IYOG v. LEONARDO L. SERRANO

    202 Phil. 175

  • G.R. No. L-23106 September 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO EMANENCE

    202 Phil. 179

  • G.R. No. L-28774 September 21, 1982 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 200

  • G.R. No. L-27886 September 21, 1982 - CELSO VALERA v. DOMINGO BAÑEZ

    202 Phil. 193

  • G.R. No. L-29255 September 21, 1982 - LEONARDO MIÑANO, ET AL. v. ALBERTO MIÑANO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 213

  • G.R. No. L-48547 September 21, 1982 - ALFONSO ANGLIONGTO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 215

  • G.R. No. L-55315 September 21, 1982 - WILLIAM COLE, ET AL. v. POTENCIANA CASUGA VDA. DE GREGORIO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 226

  • G.R. No. L-56014 September 21, 1982 - SANTIAGO SYJUCO, INC. v. JOSE TECSON

    202 Phil. 240

  • G.R. No. L-56902 September 21, 1982 - CONFEDERATION OF CITIZENS LABOR UNIONS, ET AL. v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 249

  • G.R. No. L-57892 September 21, 1982 - ANASTACIO AREVALO v. VALENTIN QUILATAN

    202 Phil. 256

  • G.R. No. L-59962 September 21, 1982 - RICARTE B. VILLEGAS v. RAMON MONTAÑO

    202 Phil. 265

  • G.R. No. L-22414 September 23, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BUENAVENTURA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 270

  • G.R. No. L-36850 September 23, 1982 - ROSARIO PEREZ, ET AL. v. PILAR ONG CHUA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 287

  • G.R. No. L-50905 September 23, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO JUMAWAN

    202 Phil. 294

  • G.R. No. L-52178 September 28, 1982 - DEMETRIO ERNESTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 310

  • A.C. No. 439 September 30, 1982 - IN RE: QUINCIANO D. VAILOCES

    202 Phil. 322

  • A.C. No. 681 September 30, 1982 - ELISEO GUEVARA v. MAXIMO CALALANG

    202 Phil. 328

  • A.M. No. 1879-MJ September 30, 1982 - ROSALITO FAJARDO v. GUALBERTO B. BACARRO, SR., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 332

  • A.M. No. 1888-CFI September 30, 1982 - FRANCISCO I. PULIDO v. MAGNO B. PABLO

    202 Phil. 336

  • A.M. No. 2415-CFI September 30, 1982 - TOMAS SHAN, JR. v. CANDIDO C. AGUINALDO

    202 Phil. 354

  • A.M. No. P-2710 September 30, 1982 - BARBARA PIOQUINTO v. LUCRECIA A. HERNANDEZ

    202 Phil. 360

  • G.R. No. L-25778 September 30, 1982 - JOESTEEL CONTAINER CORPORATION v. COMMONWEALTH FINANCING CORPORATION

    202 Phil. 364

  • G.R. No. L-26243 September 30, 1982 - CLARA REGALARIO v. NORTHWEST FINANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 366

  • G.R. No. L-26289 September 30, 1982 - IN RE: JUAN N. PECKSON v. GABRIEL F. ANADASE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 374

  • G.R. No. L-27695 September 30, 1982 - ANTONIO CALLANTA v. MANUEL LOPEZ ENAGE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 377

  • G.R. No. L-27819 September 30, 1982 - HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 381

  • G.R. No. L-28501 September 30, 1982 - PEDRO ARCE v. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant.

    202 Phil. 386

  • G.R. No. L-28996 September 30, 1982 - MAXIMO SANTOS, ET AL. v. GENERAL WOODCRAFT AND DESIGN CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 390

  • G.R. No. L-29086 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDILBERTO GOMEZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 395

  • G.R. No. L-29590 September 30, 1982 - PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 402

  • G.R. No. L-29636 September 30, 1982 - FILOIL MARKETING CORPORATION v. MARINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHIL.

    202 Phil. 410

  • G.R. No. L-30353 September 30, 1982 - PATRICIO BELLO v. EUGENIA UBO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 415

  • G.R. No. L-30452 September 30, 1982 - MERCURY DRUG CO., INC. v. NARDO DAYAO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 424

  • G.R. No. L-30455 September 30, 1982 - MARIA LANDAYAN, ET AL. v. ANGEL BACANI, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 440

  • G.R. No. L-30675 September 30, 1982 - HAWAIIAN-PHIL COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 445

  • G.R. No. L-30994 September 30, 1982 - OLIMPIA BASA, ET AL. v. ANDRES C. AGUILAR, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 452

  • G.R. No. L-31226 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BELLO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 456

  • G.R. No. L-32383 September 30, 1982 - BAZA MARKETING CORPORATION v. BOLINAO SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION SERVICE, INC.

    202 Phil. 478

  • G.R. No. L-32860 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO MARQUEZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 488

  • G.R. No. L-33995 September 30, 1982 - ELISEO C. DE GUZMAN v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 503

  • G.R. No. L-34200 September 30, 1982 - REGINA L. EDILLON, ET AL. v. MANILA BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 508

  • G.R. No. L-34947 September 30, 1982 - ESTEBAN MEDINA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO MA. CHANCO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 515

  • G.R. No. L-37431 September 30, 1982 - PEDRO ENTERA, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 521

  • G.R. No. L-37733 September 30, 1982 - ALMARIO T. SALTA v. JESUS DE VEYRA

    202 Phil. 527

  • G.R. No. L-38603 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIANO CHAVEZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 535

  • G.R. No. L-38728 September 30, 1982 - CONRADO V. MACATANGAY v. CHAIRMAN OF COMMISSION ON AUDIT

    202 Phil. 545

  • G.R. No. L-39026 September 30, 1982 - SOTERO RECTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 553

  • G.R. No. L-39401 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERTO SIMBRA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 558

  • G.R. No. L-39644 September 30, 1982 - EDUARDO BIEN, ET AL. v. DELFIN VIR. SUNGA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 565

  • G.R. No. L-39716 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO D. GABIANA

    202 Phil. 577

  • G.R. No. L-40842 September 30, 1982 - BENJAMIN A. G. VEGA, ET AL. v. DOMINGO D. PANIS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 587

  • G.R. No. L-41052 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY GASENDO

    202 Phil. 600

  • G.R. No. L-43783 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM BOKINGKITO TERANO

    202 Phil. 610

  • G.R. No. 44033 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO B. BESO, JR.

    202 Phil. 618

  • G.R. No. L-44408 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SAMBILI

    202 Phil. 629

  • G.R. No. L-45430 September 30, 1982 - DESA ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 639

  • G.R. No. L-45436 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PON-AN

    202 Phil. 653

  • G.R. No. L-45679 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO MENDOZA

    202 Phil. 660

  • G.R. Nos. L-46068-69 September 30, 1982 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46125 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON ALVIS, JR.

    202 Phil. 682

  • G.R. No. L-48478 September 30, 1982 - AGUSMIN PROMOTIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48727 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH D. LEONES

    202 Phil. 703

  • G.R. No. L-48747 September 30, 1982 - ANGEL JEREOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 715

  • G.R. No. L-49307 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR MALATE

    202 Phil. 721

  • G.R. No. L-49990 September 30, 1982 - UNITED STATES LINES, INC. v. AMADO INCIONG, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 729

  • G.R. No. L-50378 September 30, 1982 - FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN RELOVA

    202 Phil. 741

  • G.R. No. L-51042 September 30, 1982 - DIONISIO MALACORA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 756

  • G.R. No. L-52059 September 30, 1982 - BONIFACIA CALVERO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 774

  • G.R. No. L-52061 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALUSTIANO LOOD

    202 Phil. 792

  • G.R. No. L-53627 September 30, 1982 - CAPITAL GARMENT CORPORATION v. BLAS OPLE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 797

  • G.R. No. L-53983 September 30, 1982 - LUCIANA DALIDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54204 September 30, 1982 - NORSE MANAGEMENT CO., ET AL. v. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-54272-73 September 30, 1982 - JUAN C. CALUBAQUIB v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 817

  • G.R. No. L-54280 September 30, 1982 - ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 850

  • G.R. No. L-55225 September 30, 1982 - HEIRS OF CATALINO JARDIN, ET AL v. HEIRS OF SIXTO HALLASGO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 858

  • G.R. No. L-56624 September 30, 1982 - DARNOC REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. AYALA CORPORATION

    202 Phil. 865

  • G.R. Nos. L-56950-51 September 30, 1982 - M. F. VIOLAGO OILER TANK TRUCKS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 872

  • G.R. No. L-57387 September 30, 1982 - UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST v. UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST FACULTY ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 881

  • G.R. No. L-58187 September 30, 1982 - REMEDIOS VELASCO VDA. DE CALDITO v. ROSALIO C. SEGUNDO, ETC., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 900

  • G.R. No. L-58452 September 30, 1982 - RAZA APPLIANCE CENTER v. ROLANDO R. VILLARAZA

    202 Phil. 903

  • G.R. No. L-58610 September 30, 1982 - BABELO BERIÑA, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE MARITIME INSTITUTE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 908

  • G.R. No. L-58623 September 30, 1982 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION v. DOMINGO CORONEL REYES

    202 Phil. 912

  • G.R. No. L-58820 September 30, 1982 - BENITO E. DOMINGUEZ, JR. v. FILIPINAS INTEGRATED SERVICES CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 916

  • G.R. No. L-59234 September 30, 1982 - TAXICAB OPERATORS OF METRO MANILA, INC., ET AL. v. BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 925

  • G.R. No. L-59935 September 30, 1982 - FLORA DE GRACIA REGNER VDA. DE DAYRIT v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE

    202 Phil. 937

  • G.R. No. L-60367 September 30, 1982 - VENUSTIANO T. TAVORA v. ROSARIO R. VELOSO

    202 Phil. 943

  • G.R. No. L-60602 September 30, 1982 - IN RE: MA. DEL SOCORRO SOBREMONTE, ET AL. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 949

  • G.R. No. L-60637 September 30, 1982 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 959

  • G.R. No. L-60842 September 30, 1982 - ROLANDO DIMACUHA v. ALFREDO B. CONCEPCION

    202 Phil. 961