Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > March 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-31245 March 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLARO LAURETA, JR.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-31245. March 25, 1988.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CLARO LAURETA, JR., alias TITUS, Defendant-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Arturo B. Atienza, Peregrino Andres & Jose C. Laureta, for Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE TRIAL COURT GENERALLY ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT AND RESPECT. — We have repeatedly upheld the time-honored doctrine that the findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight and respect and should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that the findings are not supported by the evidence or the court failed to consider material facts and circumstances in its evaluation of the evidence, which is not the case here.

2. ID.; ID.; ANTE-MORTEM STATEMENT, EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE; SERIOUSNESS OF INJURY JUSTIFY CONCLUSION THAT DECLARANT WAS CONSCIOUS OF IMPENDING DEATH. — The argument by the defense that there was no showing that the ante-mortem declaration by the victim was made under the consciousness of impending death is likewise without merit. For an ante-mortem statement to qualify as such, it is not necessary for the declarant to expressly state that he believes that death is inevitable. A declaration made by the deceased while suffering from serious wounds, as in this case, is admissible as dying declaration. 1 Seriousness of victim’s wounds justify the conclusion that the declarant was conscious of his impending death.

3. ID.; ID.; NON-PRESENTATION OF OTHER WITNESSES DOES NOT DETRACT FROM PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE. — The established rule in this jurisdiction is that non-presentation by the prosecution of certain witnesses is not a sufficient defense. If the accused believes the testimonies of said witnesses are important to his cause, he should avail of them even by compulsory judicial process if necessary. The non-presentation of other witnesses does not detract from the prosecution’s evidence, the number of witnesses called to testify being left largely to the sound discretion of the prosecuting officers.

4. CRIMINAL LAW; MOTIVE; FAILURE TO ESTABLISH IS NOT FATAL. — As for non-establishment of motive, while evidence of motive is useful, lack of its proof is not fatal to the prosecution’s case. Moreover, the absence of motive does not preclude the commission of the crime considering that nowadays it is of judicial knowledge that others have been killed or assaulted for lesser or no reason at all.

5. ID.; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE; TREACHERY; CONSIDERED WHERE ATTACK ALTHOUGH FRONTAL WAS SO SUDDEN AND UNEXPECTED. — On the fourth assignment of error, we agree with appellant that no aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime. The crime was committed with treachery, for although the attack was frontal, it was sudden and unexpected, thus, depriving the victim of any means to retaliate or defend himself.

6. ID.; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE; NOCTURNITY; ABSORBED IN TREACHERY. — With this finding, it necessarily follows that nocturnity cannot be appreciated as said aggravating circumstance is inherent in treachery.

7. ID.; MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE; VOLUNTARY SURRENDER; CANNOT BE CONSIDERED; IN CASE AT BAR. — Voluntary surrender does not simply mean non-flight. As a matter of law, it does not matter if the accused never avoided arrest and never hid or fled. What the law considers as mitigating is the voluntary surrender of an accused before his arrest, showing either acknowledgment of his guilt or an intention to save the authorities from trouble and expense that his search and capture would require. Voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated where petitioner gave himself up to the police upon receipt, or only after the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

8. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; ALIBI; A DISTANCE OF 500 METERS FROM THE SCENE OF THE CRIME DOES NOT NEGATE POSSIBILITY OF COMMISSION OF CRIME. — We have held that the distance of one (1) or two (2) kilometers from the scene of the crime does not exclude the possibility of the commission of the crime by the accused. More so in this case where the crime scene is only about 500 meters away from the house where appellant was allegedly sleeping at the time of the crime. Appellant’s failure to prove that it was impossible for him to be at the scene of the shooting at the time of its execution is fatal to his defense.

9. ID.; ID.; ID.; CANNOT PREVAIL OVER POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION. — Alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimony and identification of the victim’s widow.


D E C I S I O N


YAP, J.:


Claro Laureta, Jr., alias "Titus", appealed from the decision of the then Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, finding him guilty of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of Aparicio Albuera, Jr. in the amount of P12,000.00, with no subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.

As found by the trial court, the facts of this case are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the evening of June 28, 1968, Dedicacion Albuera, wife of the victim, retired to her room as usual and went to bed. Her husband, Aparicio Albuera, Jr. was conversing with Ismael Javelona on the road. After a while, silence ensued. Moved by curiosity as to what was afoot, she stood up and peeped out of the door which was slightly opened to look for her husband. As she was standing at the door, she heard the droning sound of the motor of a jeep emerging from Rodriguez Street. It came to a halt and forthwith, she heard a voice from one in the jeep: "Jun-Jun." She turned her face to the left towards their poultry house where she saw her husband touching the gate of the poultry and as he was called, he turned and proceeded towards the jeep aiming the beam of the flashlight he was holding in his hands to the persons in the jeep. At this precise moment, she saw the accused Claro Laureta (known as Titus in the community of Gingoog) seated beside the driver with outstretched arm holding a firearm pointed at her husband. Three shots were fired in succession after which the vehicle rushed away passing through Sanchez Street or the National Highway. There were three other passengers in the jeep, but she recognized only the accused. Her first reaction was to reach the telephone to call the police, but she hesitated for a moment because she heard her husband calling: "Darl, Darl, help me because I was shot by Titus." Finally, she decided to call the police after which she went to her husband’s side. She found her husband lying on his side on the three boards that served as a foot bridge. He said: "Darl, raise my head because I feel that my lungs have been hit." She made an attempt to raise his head but he was too heavy for her so she yelled for help. In a short while, she saw a car coming. She leaped on her foot to meet the car. Guillermo Ababon who was known to her was driving the car. She requested him to help but the two of them could not carry him and he suggested to call the police to which she replied that she already did. It did not take long, the help came. She saw Dario Ubalde, Steven Ubalde, Dodong Camocamo and others she cannot remember, who with some policemen arrived almost the same time, loaded Aparicio Albuera, Jr. in a jeep and took him to the Mission Clinic of Dr. Poblador. She changed her clothes and followed them to the Mission Clinic. When her husband reached the hospital, he was still with life. Dr. Poblador gave him an injection and placed the patient under oxygen. Then Guillermo Ababon asked him: "Jun, do you think you will die out of these wounds?" Albuera did not answer. Then it was followed by the following question: "Who shot you, Jun?" He answered: "Titus" — "What did you quarrel about?" There was no answer. Patrolman Marban took notes, Exh. C. (translation Exh. C-1) After the ante-mortem declaration was accomplished, he expired at about 12:10 after midnight."cralaw virtua1aw library

After trial, the lower court rendered a decision dated April 7, 1969, convicting the accused of murder primarily on the basis of the widow’s testimony and the alleged ante-mortem statement purportedly executed by the deceased.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

From the said decision, the accused appealed and assigned the following errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I


"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE VICTIM’S WIDOW, DEDICACION ALBUERA WAS AN EYEWITNESS TO HER HUSBAND’S SHOOTING AND IN NOT FINDING THAT AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING, THE WIDOW WAS INSIDE THE HOUSE LYING IN BED.

II


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE VICTIM’S ALLEGED ANTE-MORTEM STATEMENT (EXH. "C"), WAS EXECUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW AND IN NOT FINDING THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE VICTIM TO HAVE EXECUTED SAID STATEMENT PRIOR TO HIS DEATH.

III


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

IV


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE CRIME CHARGED WAS NOT ATTENDED BY ANY AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE AND IN NOT FINDING THAT APPELLANT VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED HIMSELF UPON KNOWING THAT POLICE AUTHORITIES WERE LOOKING FOR HIM.

V


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE APPELLANT BY UPHOLDING HIS ALIBI."cralaw virtua1aw library

In support of the first assignment of error, appellant claims that at the time of the crime, the widow was inside their house and could not have witnessed her husband’s shooting; that the accused was never identified as the assailant by the victim or his widow on the night of the shooting; and that her account of the shooting was full of contradictions and inconsistencies. The issues posited in the first assignment of error boils down to one of credibility. We have repeatedly upheld the time-honored doctrine that the findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight and respect and should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that the findings are not supported by the evidence or the court failed to consider material facts and circumstances in its evaluation of the evidence, which is not the case here.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

Under his second assignment of error, appellant assails the validity of the ante-mortem statement by the deceased, contending that it was physically impossible for the victim to have executed the same as he was not able to talk after he was shot. The evidence adduced by the prosecution belie this contention. Testimonies of witnesses Dedicacion Albuera, Cresdomer Camocamo and Dario Ubalde clearly show that the victim was still alive when brought to the Mission Clinic. It was there when, asked by Guillermo Ababon about the identity of his assailant, the victim mentioned "Titus."

The argument by the defense that there was no showing that the ante-mortem declaration by the victim was made under the consciousness of impending death is likewise without merit. For an ante-mortem statement to qualify as such, it is not necessary for the declarant to expressly state that he believes that death is inevitable. A declaration made by the deceased while suffering from serious wounds, as in this case, is admissible as dying declaration. 1 Seriousness of victim’s wounds justify the conclusion that the declarant was conscious of his impending death. 2

Under his third statement of error, appellant contends that vital prosecution witnesses who could have established what actually transpired were not presented. The established rule in this jurisdiction is that non-presentation by the prosecution of certain witnesses is not a sufficient defense. If the accused believes the testimonies of said witnesses are important to his cause, he should avail of them even by compulsory judicial process if necessary. 3 The non-presentation of other witnesses does not detract from the prosecution’s evidence, the number of witnesses called to testify being left largely to the sound discretion of the prosecuting officers. 4

Appellant decries that no effort was exerted to locate or produce the death weapon, nor any motive established for the alleged killing of the victim by the accused. Failure to submit the gun used in killing is not a fatal omission. 5 As for nonestablishment of motive, while evidence of motive is useful, lack of its proof is not fatal to the prosecution’s case. 6 Moreover, the absence of motive does not preclude the commission of the crime considering that nowadays it is of judicial knowledge that others have been killed or assaulted for lesser or no reason at all. 7

On the fourth assignment of error, we agree with appellant that no aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime. The crime was committed with treachery, for although the attack was frontal, it was sudden and unexpected, thus, depriving the victim of any means to retaliate or defend himself. 8 With this finding, it necessarily follows that nocturnity cannot be appreciated as said aggravating circumstance is inherent in treachery. 9

On the other hand, contrary to appellant’s contention, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated in his favor. Voluntary surrender does not simply mean non-flight. As a matter of law, it does not matter if the accused never avoided arrest and never hid or fled. What the law considers as mitigating is the voluntary surrender of an accused before his arrest, showing either acknowledgment of his guilt or an intention to save the authorities from trouble and expense that his search and capture would require. 10 Defense witness Emeterio Collado, PC Captain and Company Commander of the 421st PC Company stationed at Camp Alagar, Cagayan de Oro, testified that the appellant was only turned over to the Chief of Police when the warrant of arrest was served by an officer of the court upon the Office of the City Mayor. Clearly, there is no voluntary surrender since our jurisprudence is to the effect that voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated where petitioner gave himself up to the police upon receipt, 11 or only after the issuance of a warrant of arrest. 12

In his fifth assignment of error, appellant bewails the trial court’s failure to uphold his alibi. He contended it was impossible for him to have been the gunman since at the time of the shooting, he was at home asleep. We have held that the distance of one (1) or two (2) kilometers from the scene of the crime does not exclude the possibility of the commission of the crime by the accused. 13 More so in this case where the crime scene is only about 500 meters away from the house where appellant was allegedly sleeping at the time of the crime. 14 Appellant’s failure to prove that it was impossible for him to be at the scene of the shooting at the time of its execution is fatal to his defense. 15 Finally, alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimony and identification of the victim’s widow. 16

Considering the above discussion, we hold that appellant is guilty of murder without any modifying circumstance. In view of the abolition of the death penalty under the 1987 Constitution, the penalty which may be imposed for the crime of murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. In this case, there being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the penalty should be imposed in its medium period, which is eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. For the purpose of the indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower in degree is prision mayor, maximum, to reclusion temporal, medium, or from ten (10) years and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months (Article 61, par. 3, Revised Penal Code).chanrobles.com : virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo convicting the appellant for murder is affirmed, with the modification that the appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and the civil indemnity due the heirs of the victim is increased to P30,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. People v. Sarabia, 127 SCRA 100.

2. People v. Aquino, 133 SCRA 283.

3. People v. Ombao, 103 SCRA 233.

4. People v. Martinez, 127 SCRA 260.

5. People v. Atanacio, 128 SCRA 22.

6. People v. Pascual, Jr., 127 SCRA 179.

7. People v. Basadre, 128 SCRA 641.

8. People v. Mozar, 130 SCRA 568.

9. People v. Pacada, 142 SCRA 427, 437.

10. People v. Radomes, 141 SCRA 548.

11. Quial v. CA, 126 SCRA 28.

12. People v. Rodriguez, 19 SCRA 254.

13. People v. Araja, 105 SCRA 133.

14. T.S.N., October 18, 1963, p. 87.

15. People v. De Las Pinas, 141 SCRA 379.

16. Ibid; People v. Valentino, 141 SCRA 397.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-59118 March 3, 1988 - JUAN DIZON, ET AL. v. VICENTE EDUARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24054 March 7, 1988 - IN RE: MARTIN NG

  • A.C. No. 140-J March 8, 1988 - AMBROSIO SABAYLE v. TEODULO C. TANDAYAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62089 March 9, 1988 - PASCUAL MENDOZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38999 March 9, 1988 - OSCAR HONORIO v. GABRIEL DUNUAN

  • G.R. No. L-37707 March 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIQUITA J. CAPARAS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-612-MTJ March 10, 1988 - ARNULFO F. LIM, ET AL. v. SIXTO S. SEGUIBAN

  • G.R. No. 78470 March 11, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 34313 March 11, 1988 - SALVADOR ASCALON, ET v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77188 March 14, 1988 - CELSO BONGAY, ET AL. v. CONCHITA J. MARTINEZ

  • G.R. No. L-57204 March 14, 1988 - FORTUNATO BORRE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56613 March 14, 1988 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55222 March 14, 1988 - LILIA CAÑETE, ET AL. v. GABRIEL BENEDICTO

  • G.R. No. L-53194 March 14, 1988 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ROMULO S. QUIMPO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47398 March 14, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN CAYAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42964 March 14, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ESCABARTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39383 March 14, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CATALINO B. GUTIERREZ, JR.

  • G.R. No. 77194 March 15, 1988 - VIRGILIO GASTON, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74122 March 15, 1988 - GUILLERMO NACTOR, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2756 March 15, 1988 - PRUDENTIAL BANK v. JOSE P. CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77869 March 16, 1988 - EMILIO ENRIQUEZ v. FORTUNA MARICULTURE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-61553 March 16, 1988 - PONCIANO ESMERIS v. RODOLFO A. ORTIZ

  • G.R. No. L-52824 March 16, 1988 - REYNALDO BAUTISTA v. AMADO C. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48594 March 16, 1988 - GENEROSO ALANO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-48157 March 16, 1988 - RICARDO QUIAMBAO v. ADRIANO OSORIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47148 March 16, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FABIAN QUILO

  • G.R. No. L-41358 March 16, 1988 - ABELARDO APORTADERA, SR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39083 March 16, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ANIÑON

  • G.R. No. L-36388 March 16, 1988 - COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS v. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-36220 March 16, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO MA. CHANCO

  • G.R. No. L-36136 March 16, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AVELINO B. ISAAC

  • G.R. No. L-28141 March 16, 1988 - HONORATA B. MANGUBAT v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS

  • G.R. No. L-75160 March 18, 1988 - LEONOR FORMILLEZA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-54159 March 18, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GLICERIO V. CARRIAGA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-53776 March 18, 1988 - SILVESTRE CAÑIZA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-34959 March 18, 1988 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-34500 March 18, 1988 - MOISES OLIVARES v. CARLOS V. GONZALES

  • G.R. No. L-33924 March 18, 1988 - MARIA BALAIS v. BUENAVENTURA BALAIS

  • A.M. No. R-66-RTJ March 18, 1988 - CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION v. DIONISIO M. CAPISTRANO

  • G.R. No. L-80879 March 21, 1988 - HONORIO SAAVEDRA, JR. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-73380 March 21, 1988 - MARTE SACLOLO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. Nos. L-72335-39 March 21, 1988 - FRANCISCO S. TATAD v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-63155 March 21, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASTULO CORECOR

  • G.R. No. L-45785 March 21, 1988 - EDUARDO LAGINLIN v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-35506 March 21, 1988 - CHRISTOFER TEJONES v. LEOPOLDO B. GIRONELLA

  • G.R. No. L-71413 March 21, 1988 - D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. v. SEVERO M. PUCAN

  • G.R. No. L-82082 March 25, 1988 - INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA v. EPIFANIA SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. L-78671 March 25, 1988 - TIRZO VINTOLA v. INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA

  • G.R. Nos. L-77850-51 March 25, 1988 - JUAN L. DUNGOG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-75390 March 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-74331 March 25, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-74211 March 25, 1988 - P.E. DOMINGO & CO., INC. v. REMIGIO E. ZARI

  • G.R. No. L-73564 March 25, 1988 - CORNELIA CLANOR VDA. DE PORTUGAL v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-73534 March 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. L-71122 March 25, 1988 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ARNOLDUS CARPENTRY SHOP, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-57268 March 25, 1988 - MANILA MIDTOWN COMMERCIAL CORP. v. NUWHRAIN (Ramada Chapter)

  • G.R. No. L-52008 March 25, 1988 - LEONOR G. CASTILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-51777 March 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO B. MUSTACISA

  • G.R. No. L-45772 March 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO MONTENEGRO

  • G.R. No. L-44587 March 25, 1988 - AMADO BUENAVENTURA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-41970 March 25, 1988 - CENON MEDELO v. NATHANAEL M. GOROSPE

  • G.R. No. L-31245 March 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLARO LAURETA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-30240 March 25, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JAIME DE LOS ANGELES

  • G.R. No. L-77049 March 28, 1988 - MANUEL B. OSIAS v. JAIME N. FERRER

  • G.R. No. L-74992 March 28, 1988 - HEIRS OF LUISA VALDEZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-74799 March 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIVENCIO D. TUAZON

  • G.R. No. L-73451 March 28, 1988 - JUANITA YAP SAY v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-47203 March 28, 1988 - LUCIO MUTIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-39810 March 28, 1988 - CARLOS LLORAÑA v. TOMAS LEONIDAS

  • G.R. No. L-38569 March 28, 1988 - B.F. GOODRICH PHILIPPINES, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-35696 March 28, 1988 - ARSENIO OFRECIO v. TOMAS LISING

  • G.R. No. L-34568 March 28, 1988 - RODERICK DAOANG v. MUNICIPAL JUDGE, SAN NICOLAS, ILOCOS NORTE

  • G.R. No. L-34492 March 28, 1988 - MIGUEL GUERRERO v. AUGUSTO M. AMORES

  • G.R. No. L-32339 March 29, 1988 - PHOENIX PUBLISHING HOUSE, INC. v. JOSE T. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-76185 March 30, 1988 - WARREN MANUFACTURING WORKERS UNION v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-59913 March 30, 1988 - NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. MANUEL E. VALENZUELA

  • G.R. No. L-50884 March 30, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO SALUFRANIA

  • G.R. No. L-50320 March 30, 1988 - PHILIPPINE APPAREL WORKERS UNION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-49536 March 30, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX RESAYAGA

  • G.R. No. L-45770 March 30, 1988 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-34672 March 30, 1988 - UNITED CHURCH BOARD FOR WORLD MINISTRIES v. ALEJANDRO E. SEBASTIAN

  • G.R. No. L-33492 March 30, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN MERCADO

  • G.R. No. L-26348 March 30, 1988 - TRINIDAD GABRIEL v. COURT OF APPEALS