Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1990 > April 1990 Decisions > G.R. No. 78527 April 25, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN K. GUIAGUI:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 78527. April 25, 1990.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN GUIAGUI y KOTENG, Defendant-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ramon U. Ampil, for Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; ENTERTAINMENT; PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR. — We find that entrapment, and not instigation, prevailed in this case. "In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the law breakers in the execution of their criminal plan. On the other hand, in instigation, the instigator practically induces the would-be defendant into the commission of the offense, and himself becomes a co-principal. Entrapment is no bar to prosecution and conviction, while in instigation, the defendant would have to be acquitted. There was entrapment in this case, because it would appear that the accused was already engaged in the illicit trade of marijuana and all that the NARCOM agents did was to catch him in the act. He was not induced to sell marijuana to the NARCOM agents. M/Sgt. Arsenio Carlos categorically denied that he prodded the accused to sell him marijuana.

2. ID.; INDUCEMENT; NOT ESTABLISHED IN CASE AT BAR. — The testimony of M Sgt. Carlos, relied upon by the appellant, that he "needed three (3) kilos of marijuana" cannot also be considered as proof that he had induced the appellant to commit the offense. As we see it, the statement was but a quantification of the amount of marijuana that Sgt. Carlos desired to buy from the accused. Neither could the appellant’s testimony about Vic be considered as proof that the NARCOM agents had induced him to commit the offense since there is no proof that the said Vic was a NARCOM agent. Besides, the appellant testified that the said Vic merely told him to look for somebody from whom he could buy marijuana. If there was any inducement in this case, the inducement did not come from the NARCOM agents, but from the appellant’s own greed and cupidity. He wanted to live the life-style of the rich who have plenty of ready cash and fat bank accounts.

3. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; SELLING OF PROHIBITED DRUGS; PROVED IN CASE AT BAR. — The trial court correctly found the accused, John Guiagui y Koteng, guilty of the crime with which he is charged. The witnesses for the prosecution who actively took part in the "buy-bust" operation, M/Sgt. Arsenio Carlos and P/Lt. Casimiro Llanes, are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in the regular manner, and there is nothing in the record which would suggest any reason that would motivate them to testify falsely against the said accused. Besides, as the trial court found, their testimonies were straightforward, credible and bore all the earmarks of truth.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


This is an appeal interposed by the accused John Guiagui y Koteng from the judgment ** rendered in Criminal Case No. Q-42795 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, finding him guilty of violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P30,000.00, with costs.

The record of the case shows that on 4 November 1985, the PC Narcotics Command (NARCOM, for short), based in Camp Crame, Quezon City, was told by one of its confidential informants that he (informer) was to meet that afternoon at the Uniwide Sales Center in Cubao, Quezon City, one Johnny, a notorious drug pusher from Baguio City who was in Manila looking for a buyer of marijuana. M/Sgt. Arsenio Carlos of the NARCOM unit was instructed by his superiors to take appropriate action on the matter and to conduct an "intelligence build-up." M/Sgt. Carlos agreed to pose as a buyer of marijuana and went with the informer to the designated place to meet Johnny. They proceeded to the restaurant at the second floor of the store and occupied a table. Soon thereafter, Sgt. Carlos was introduced to Johnny as a buyer of marijuana. Sgt. Carlos talked with Johnny in Ilocano. He told Johnny that he needed three (3) kilos of marijuana. After he and Johnny had agreed on the price, P1,500.00 per kilo, Johnny promised to come back with the marijuana the following Saturday, 9 November 1985, Johnny told Sgt. Carlos to wait for him at the back exit of the store. 1

On 9 November 1985, M/Sgt. Carlos and a back-up team headed by P/Lt. Casimiro Llanes went to the Uniwide Sales Center at about 6:00 o’clock in the evening. M/Sgt. Carlos went directly to his meeting place with Johnny, while the back-up team took up strategic positions nearby. Not long thereafter, M/Sgt. Carlos saw Johnny coming towards him. Johnny was carrying a travelling bag. He approached Johnny and asked him if the latter had brought his order (of marijuana) and Johnny pointed at the travelling bag. M/Sgt. Carlos opened the bag and examined its contents. Finding the contents to be marijuana, he gave the pre-arranged signal to the back-up team by scratching his head. Soon thereafter, P/Lt. Llanes and his men arrived and placed Johnny under arrest. A receipt for the bag and its contents, 2 was then prepared and duly signed by M/Sgt. Carlos and the appellant John Guiagui. 3

The articles were sent to the PC Crime Laboratory and after examination, P/Lt. Nelly Carriaga attested that the contents of the bag were marijuana fruiting tops. 4

The accused, John Guiagui, however, while admitting that he was arrested by NARCOM agents on 9 November 1985, denied that the bag and its contents belonged to him. He also denied that he was arrested in the manner testified to by witnesses for the prosecution. According to him, he and an acquaintance, named Vic, were drinking in the restaurant at the second floor of the Uniwide Sales Center in Cubao, Quezon City at about 6:00 o’clock in the evening of 9 November 1985, when M/Sgt. Carlos and P/Lt. Llanes suddenly arrived and placed handcuffs on their hands. They were then brought out of the store and loaded in a car. Vic, however, was separated from him and probably released, while adhesive tape (plaster) was placed over his eyes. After about thirty (30) minutes, the car stopped and more plaster was placed over his eyes. His shirt and pants were then removed and he was maltreated when he could not tell them the persons who deal in marijuana. Water was poured over him and he was repeatedly electrocuted.

After two (2) hours of intensive grilling, he was asked if he could pay them P5,000.00 and when he told them that he had no money, he was maltreated again. After a while, he was brought to Camp Crame where his blindfold was removed. The following morning, he was brought to a room where he was made to sign a receipt. He was also told to point to a thing on the table and a picture was taken of him. 5

Renan Liselo, a security guard at the Uniwide Sales Center at Cubao, Quezon City, testified for the accused. He declared that he was posted at the Fast Food section of the store at about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of 9 November 1985 when he saw two (2) persons, one of whom is the appellant herein, being handcuffed. He was only three (3) meters away from them and he was about to approach them when he noticed that the men who placed the handcuffs had guns. He further stated that he noticed earlier that the appellant and his companion were not carrying anything except a jacket. He also stated that it was the policy of the store not to allow any person or customer to bring bags or packages inside the store. 6

Counsel for the appellant, in this appeal, contends that the accused was induced into committing the crime by NARCOM M/Sgt. Arsenio Carlos and urges the reversal of the judgment. In support thereof, he quotes a portion of the testimony of M/Sgt. Arsenio Carlos of the NARCOM, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A . . . he is an Ilocano so we talked in Ilocano because I am also Ilocano, telling him that I needed three kilos of marijuana.

Q After you intimated this alias Johnny your intention of buying three kilos of marijuana, what did he tell you?

A He told me that he will be back at the Saturday of that week and he will deliver to me the three kilos of marijuana. I will just wait for him at the back exit of the Uniwide Sales." (tsn of February 3, 1986, p. 5)

There is no merit in the appeal. We find that entrapment, and not instigation, prevailed in this case.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

"In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the law breakers in the execution of their criminal plan. On the other hand, in instigation, the instigator practically induces the would-be defendant into the commission of the offense, and himself becomes a co-principal. Entrapment is no bar to prosecution and conviction, while in instigation, the defendant would have to be acquitted." 7

There was entrapment in this case, because it would appear that the accused was already engaged in the illicit trade of marijuana and all that the NARCOM agents did was to catch him in the act. He was not induced to sell marijuana to the NARCOM agents. M/Sgt. Arsenio Carlos categorically denied that he prodded the accused to sell him marijuana. His testimony reads, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q And after you were introduced, you asked the accused and prodded him to get some marijuana and give it to you, correct?

A No, sir.

Q What did you do then after meeting the accused?

A He asked the confidential informant if I am also a buyer and the confidential informant told him yes and then and there, I ordered 3 kilos." 8

The testimony of M Sgt. Carlos, relied upon by the appellant, that he "needed three (3) kilos of marijuana" cannot also be considered as proof that he had induced the appellant to commit the offense. As we see it, the statement was but a quantification of the amount of marijuana that Sgt. Carlos desired to buy from the accused.

Neither could the appellant’s testimony about Vic be considered as proof that the NARCOM agents had induced him to commit the offense since there is no proof that the said Vic was a NARCOM agent. Besides, the appellant testified that the said Vic merely told him to look for somebody from whom he could buy marijuana. His testimony reads, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q You said there were about two meetings in October. What did this Vic talk about in the second meeting in October, if you can recall?

A He convinced me to look for somebody from whom he could buy marijuana.

Q And what did you say to him?

A I thought of not answering his request but he bragged of his wealth and showed to me his bank account so I decided to tell him that I know of people if I could look for them." 9

If there was any inducement in this case, the inducement did not come from the NARCOM agents, but from the appellant’s own greed and cupidity. He wanted to live the life-style of the rich who have plenty of ready cash and fat bank accounts.chanrobles law library : red

The trial court correctly found the accused, John Guiagui y Koteng, guilty of the crime with which he is charged. The witnesses for the prosecution who actively took part in the "buy-bust" operation, M/Sgt. Arsenio Carlos and P/Lt. Casimiro Llanes, are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in the regular manner, and there is nothing in the record which would suggest any reason that would motivate them to testify falsely against the said accused. Besides, as the trial court found, their testimonies were straightforward, credible and bore all the earmarks of truth. However, for accuracy, the designation of the penalty imposed upon the accused should be changed from reclusion perpetua, as ordered by the trial court, to life imprisonment, the latter being the penalty specifically provided for by law. 10

WHEREFORE, with the modification that the accused appellant is sentenced to life imprisonment, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects, with costs.

SO ORDERED.

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

Endnotes:



** Penned by Judge Bernardo P. Abesamis, Branch 85, Quezon City.

1. tsn of February 3, 1986, pp. 3-5, 9; tsn of March 17, 1986, pp. 3-4.

2. Exhibit F.

3. tsn of February 3, 1986, pp. 7-9.

4. Exhibit E; tsn of March 17, 1986, pp. 21-22.

5. tsn of June 11, 1986, pp. 4-18.

6. tsn of July 30, 1986, pp. 2-4.

7. People v. Lapatha, G.R. Nos. 63074-75, November 9, 1988, 167 SCRA 159 citing People v. Natipravat, G.R. No. 69876, November 13, 1986, 145 SCRA 483.

8. tsn of March 17, 1986, p. 3.

9. tsn of June 11, 1986, p. 6.

10. Sec. 4, Art. II, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.




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






April-1990 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 47991 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ALDEGUER

  • G.R. No. 49856 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR BAYBAYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59154 April 3, 1990 - MERIDIAN ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. ABELARDO M. DAYRIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61965 April 3, 1990 - NUEVA ECIJA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63225 April 3, 1990 - ELEAZAR V. ADLAWAN v. VALERIANO P. TOMOL

  • G.R. No. 75619 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO DINGLASA

  • G.R. No. 77397 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALDO P. JOMAO-AS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81026 April 3, 1990 - PAN MALAYAN INSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81493 April 3, 1990 - SUPERSTAR SECURITY AGENCY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82112 April 3, 1990 - ROSA SABADLAN VALENCIA, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 90, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86164 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR SIMENE

  • G.R. No. 88724 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CEILITO ORITA

  • G.R. No. 89318 April 3, 1990 - MARIANO R. SANTIAGO v. K. CASIANO P. ANUNCIACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91096 April 3, 1990 - CAPRICORN INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL AND TOURS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69386 April 4, 1990 - ARMANDO DE GUZMAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46208 April 5, 1990 - FIDELITY SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. PEDRO D. CENZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63735 April 5, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO MALINAO

  • G.R. No. L-64735 April 5, 1990 - ATLAS DEVELOPER & STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC. v. SARMIENTO ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72194 April 5, 1990 - HEIRS OF CLARO L. LAURETA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75640 April 5, 1990 - NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 83843-44 April 5, 1990 - IN RE: ROSITA LABRADOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84324 April 5, 1990 - SANTIAGO AQUINO, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO R. LUNTOK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42281 April 6, 1990 - GODOFREDA B. SUMALINOG v. CORAZON Q. DORONIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46364 April 6, 1990 - SULPICIA JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. VICENTE FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47422 April 6, 1990 - ILDEFONSA CERDON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57025 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO C. ARSENIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62021 April 6, 1990 - FLORA LAURON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63630 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MEDEL B. TANGLIBEN

  • G.R. No. 76028 April 6, 1990 - SPS. JOSE R. LANSANG, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76213 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBY RONQUILLO

  • G.R. No. 85611 April 6, 1990 - VICTORIANO ZAMORAS v. ROQUE SU, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86728 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS VARGAS, JR.

  • G.R. No. 87203 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GABRIEL DAWANDAWAN

  • G.R. No. 87245 April 6, 1990 - UNIVERSAL TEXTILE MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87617 April 6, 1990 - JOE HODGES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88400 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMMANUEL GUINTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88602 April 6, 1990 - TOMASA VDA. DE JACOB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51973 April 16, 1990 - ELY CHAN SA VELASCO v. RODOLFO A. ORTIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35205 April 17, 1990 - NATIVIDAD VILLAFLOR v. JOSE JUEZAN

  • G.R. No. L-47916 April 17, 1990 - HOME INSURANCE COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60323 April 17, 1990 - MAGDALENA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69816 April 17, 1990 - POLICARPIO Y. FAUSTO v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70393 April 17, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO LATI

  • G.R. No. 71889 April 17, 1990 - SOCORRO VDA. DE MONDRAGON, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74203 April 17, 1990 - JOSE T. TAYOTO, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF CABALO KUSOP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75773 April 17, 1990 - TOMAS JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76838 April 17, 1990 - LUALHATI A. COJUANGCO v. PURIFICACION VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88537 April 17, 1990 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-89-425 April 17, 1990 - OSCAR PALMA PAGASIAN v. CESAR P. AZURA

  • G.R. No. 76100 April 18, 1990 - SALEM ALEX T. PALO v. FRANCIS J. MILITANTE

  • G.R. No. 77755 April 18, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONORIO P. CONSUELO

  • G.R. No. 82375 April 18, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83260 April 18, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN G. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88550 April 18, 1990 - INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85742 April 19, 1990 - JESUS F. SALAZAR, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70835 April 20, 1990 - ROGELIO P. CELI, ET AL. v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78750 April 20, 1990 - PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. JOSE V. NEPOMUCENO

  • G.R. No. 86220 April 20, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO P. CIOBAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88561 April 20, 1990 - HERMAN ARMOVIT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89604 April 20, 1990 - ROQUE FLORES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89879 April 20, 1990 - JAIME PABALAN, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57308 April 23, 1990 - GREAT PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66683 April 23, 1990 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44905 April 25, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL MONEGRO TORRE

  • G.R. No. 68152 April 25, 1990 - CEFERINO ZAIDE, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78527 April 25, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN K. GUIAGUI

  • G.R. No. 88092 April 25, 1990 - CITADEL LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88538 April 25, 1990 - ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION v. DIONISIO C. DELA SERNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89431 April 25, 1990 - ERIBERTO G. VALENCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43277 April 26, 1990 - STANDARD MINERAL PRODUCTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49298 April 26, 1990 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. DELGADO SHIPPING AGENCY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56838 April 26, 1990 - GENARO NAVERA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70008 April 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALITO MOLINA

  • G.R. No. 79311 April 26, 1990 - PAPER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80298 April 26, 1990 - EDCA PUBLISHING & DISTRIBUTING CORP. v. LEONOR SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81564 April 26, 1990 - ACTING REGISTRARS OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS OF PASAY, ET AL. v. RTC, BRANCH 57, IN MKT., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82362 April 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO C. CLORES

  • G.R. No. 84313 April 26, 1990 - HEIRS OF DECEASED COSME RABE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85822 April 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONILO ALBURO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85840 April 26, 1990 - SERVANDO’S INCORPORATED v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86163 April 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO SALVILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87958 April 26, 1990 - NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURG, ET AL. v. STOLT-NIELSEN PHIL., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46845 April 27, 1990 - PEDRO T. SANTIAGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47281 April 27, 1990 - JUAN SALA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NEGROS ORIENTAL (Branch V), ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-49241-42 April 27, 1990 - RINCONADA TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. v. CARLOS R. BUENVIAJE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68997 April 27, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO C. LIBAG

  • G.R. No. 73010 April 27, 1990 - REVA RAZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88586 April 27, 1990 - CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.