Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1990 > February 1990 Decisions > G.R. No. 71838 February 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAMBERTO M. BORJA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 71838. February 26, 1990.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAMBERTO BORJA Y MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

The Office of the Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Quasha, Asperilla, Ancheta, Peña, & Nolasco, for Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS; TESTIMONIES OF POLICEMEN CARRY WITH THEM PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS. — The alleged maltreatment of the accused is contradicted by the positive testimony of the arresting officers regarding the circumstances of his arrest. The trial court, having had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the prosecution witnesses and of the accused and his witnesses on the witness stand, and to listen to their respective testimonies, gave more credence to the statements of the arresting officers, Sgt. David and Pat. Estamo. It noted that these policemen had no known motive or reason to impute falsely a serious and unfounded charge against the accused and that the testimonies of the same carry with them the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. In addition, the Court notes that the accused had stated that he had not personally known Pat. Estamo prior to the "buy-bust" operation, which statement supports the trial court’s conclusion that the arresting officers did not have an evil motive to harass and implicate the accused.

2. ID.; ID.; TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES; DISCREPANCY THEREIN DOES NOT MATERIALLY AFFECT PROSECUTION’S CASE. — We note further that the only noteworthy discrepancy in the testimony of the two (2) arresting officers relates to their statements on who, as between them, had actually recovered the marked money from the person of the accused. Each claimed to have done so. The trial court, without elaborating, found that it was Sgt. David who had recovered the money. We hold, as in People v. Macuto, that this discrepancy does not materially affect the prosecution’s case.

3. CRIMINAL LAW; EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES; ENTRAPMENT; ACTS OF ARRESTING OFFICERS CONSTITUTIVE THEREOF, A PROCESS OR OPERATION NOT PROHIBITED BY REVISED PENAL CODE. — The testimony of Pat. Estamo, the poseur-buyer, was clear and straightforward and demonstrated that the accused needed no instigation or prodding to commit a crime he would not otherwise have committed. The record shows that the accused had a ready supply of marijuana for sale and disposition to anyone willing to pay the price asked for the prohibited material. Thus, it appears that the crime of illegal possession of prohibited drugs had already been committed by the accused when the policemen resolved to entrap him into revealing such possession and selling of the prohibited drug. The acts of the arresting officers here constituted entrapment, a process or operation not prohibited by the Revised Penal Code.

4. ID.; DANGEROUS DRUGS AT; SALE AND DELIVERY OF PROHIBITED DRUGS; AGREEMENT BETWEEN BUYER AND SELLER AND ACTS CONSTITUTING SALE AND DELIVERY OF MARIJUANA LEAVES, MATERIAL. — In respect of the defense contention that a marijuana seller would not normally sell his stock to a person unknown to him, this Court said in People v. Tejada: ". . . what matters is not an existing familiarity between the buyer and seller but their agreement and the acts constituting the sale and delivery of the marijuana leaves.

5. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE; NO RULE OF EVIDENCE REQUIRES FORENSIC CHEMISTRY REPORT TO SET DOWN MICRO-DETAILS THE DEFENSE DEMANDS. — There is no rule of evidence which requires a forensic chemistry report to set down the micro-details which the defense is apparently demanding. Such details are appropriately matters for cross-examination of the person presented as the forensic chemist who had performed the tests, especially where the defense may have doubts as to the technical competence of the witness presented.

6. ID.; ID.; DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS; NBI FORENSIC CHEMIST PRESUMED TO HAVE REGULARLY PERFORMED HER OFFICIAL DUTY. — In the case at bar, the defense has not asserted that Forensic Chemist De la Cruz was not technically competent to carry out or that she had not actually carried out, microscopic, chemical and chromatographic examination of the suspected sticks of marijuana. In fact, the defense did ask De la Cruz about the "standard procedure in which the NBI conducts its examination of drugs submitted for laboratory tests. Will you please tell the Honorable Court?" The trial court asked her to so do "step by step." Witness De la Cruz started to do so. She was promptly sidetracked by defense counsel who was at that time far more interested in the bureaucratic procedure by which the suspected marijuana cigarettes actually reached Forensic Chemist De la Cruz. If she did not go to specific, detailed operating procedures in her cross-examination, it was up to the defense to compel her to do so by appropriate questioning if the defense really thought those detailed scientific procedures material and important for its case. The defense did not do so; indeed, the defense did not give her a chance to do so. Finally, and in any event, NBI Forensic Chemist De la Cruz also has in her favor the presumption that she had regularly performed her official duty, which was to carry out those tests in accordance with standard accepted procedures.


D E C I S I O N


FELICIANO, J.:


A Decision of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 41, Manila, dated 12 July 1985, convicting the accused Lamberto Borja y Martinez of the crime of violation of Article II, Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425 known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is before us on appeal.

The information, dated 3 June 1988, against the accused reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"INFORMATION

The undersigned accuses LAMBERTO BORJA y MARTINEZ of a violation of Sec. 4, Article II, in relation to section 21 (b) of Article IV, Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended by PD 1675, committed as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about June 26, 1984, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, without being authorized by law to sell, administer, deliver, distribute, transport, or give away any prohibited drugs, did then and there wilfully and unlawfully sell, deliver, and transport five (5) sticks of marijuana cigarettes for ten pesos to Pat. Estamo who acted as poseur-buyer, well-knowing that the same is a prohibited drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon arraignment on 27 August 1984, the accused, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty.

After trial, the trial court rendered a decision dated 12 July 1985, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused LAMBERTO BORJA Y MARTINEZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the violation of Section 4, Art. II, in relation to Section 21(b) of Art. IV, R.A. No. 6425, as amended by P.D. 1675 and hereby sentences the said accused to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of twenty thousand pesos (20,000). Costs against the accused.

The Branch Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to turn over Exhibits ‘C-2’ to ‘C-56’ to the Dangerous Drugs Board for disposition in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

The present appeal assigns the following as errors allegedly committed by the trial court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"First Assignment of Error

The trial court erred in failing to consider that accused-appellant was induced to commit the crime solely upon instigation of police patrolman poseur-buyer Bernardo Estamo.

Second Assignment of Error

The lower court erred in not holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt." 1

The evidence for the prosecution consisted principally of the testimonies of Sergeant Enrique David, Patrolman Bernardo Estamo and of Forensic Chemist Demelen De la Cruz as well as the real evidence consisting of the five (5) sticks of marijuana cigarettes given by the accused before his arrest and the two 5-peso bills representing the marked money used to purchase the marijuana cigarettes.

The testimonies of Sgt. David and Pat. Estamo, both members of the Drugs Enforcement Section of the Western Police District, may be summarized as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

At about 3:30 P.M. on 26 June 1984, Lt. Agapito Linga, officer-in-charge of said section, received a telephone call from the Chairman of Barangay 527, Zone 52, Sampaloc, Manila, Tomas Holgado. The latter advised Lt. Linga that one "Totong" was selling marijuana cigarettes in their barangay. Lt. Linga sent Sgt. David, Pat. Estamo, Pat. Honorio Cruz and Pat. Mario Lizaret to confer with Holgado at the Barangay hall. There, they were met by Holgado, who introduced them to a confidential informant (whose identity does not appear in the record), who knew "Totong" personally. During the conference, David decided to apprehend "Totong" through a "buy-bust" operation and Estamo was designated the poseur-buyer. The policemen and the informant then proceeded to the residence of "Totong" located at No. 857 Jaime St. "Totong" was found standing in front of his house. Estamo and the informant approached him while the other policemen positioned themselves some eight (8) to ten (10) meters away from "Totong." The informant and "Totong" greeted each other; after Estamo was introduced, he asked "Totong" to sell him ten pesos’ worth of marijuana. "Totong" silently took the marked money, went back into his house, returned and handed over to Estamo five (5) sticks of marijuana cigarettes wrapped in a piece of paper. Estamo then took off his hat and lighted an ordinary cigarette. This was the pre-arranged signal signifying to the other policemen that the purchase had been completed. They closed-in on Estamo’s group, identifying themselves as policemen, and arrested "Totong." Estamo gave the marijuana cigarettes to David. The marked money was recovered from the person of "Totong." The team then carried out a consented search of "Totong’s" house, conducted in the presence of Barangay Chairman Holgado and Barangay Tanod Ruperto Cruz, where they found and confiscated an additional fifty-five (55) sticks of marijuana cigarettes. The team then brought "Totong" to their police station for proper investigation. There, "Totong" identified himself as the accused Lamberto Borja y Martinez. 2

Demelen De la Cruz, Forensic Chemist of the National Bureau of Investigation, testified that she had received and examined sixty (60) sticks of marijuana cigarettes (Exhibit "C") seized from the accused. She stated that microscopic, chemical and chromatographic tests conducted on the same yielded positive results for marijuana and she submitted a Chemistry Report (Exhibit "B") setting forth the results of her laboratory examination. 3

The accused had a different version of the events of 26 June 1984. In his testimony, the accused said that at about 4:00 P.M. on that day, he was at home with his two small children. He then went downstairs to turn the fish he was sun-drying. While there, he was suddenly grabbed by a policeman and brought back upstairs, where four (4) other policemen were waiting. He did not know these policemen personally. They ordered him to bring out marijuana they claimed he possessed and, when he refused, he was beaten up. The policemen then took out sixty (60) sticks of marijuana cigarettes from their bag whose wrappings were reluctantly signed by the accused because he could no longer bear the pain of further beating. One of the policemen then took out a 2-peso bill and two marked 5-peso bills. The 2-peso bill was given to his crying children while he was forced to sign the 5-peso bills. He was likewise forced to sign a document entitled "Consent to Search" (Exhibit "F"). Afterwards, Holgado and Cruz were summoned to his house by the policemen, Holgado merely countersigned Exhibit "F" and deferred to the policemen with regard to the plight of the accused. 4

The accused’s version of the facts was corroborated by the testimony of Estrella Borja, a sister of the accused.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Another defense witness, Cecilia Casingal, also a sister of the accused, testified that Barangay Chairman Holgado harbored a grudge against the accused because the latter had voted for a candidate different from that endorsed by Holgado during the last local government elections. In rebuttal, prosecution witness Holgado denied Cecilia Casingal’s story. Holgado stated that he had been aware from some time that accused and his sister had been smoking marijuana; and that he had warned them that should the police apprehend them, they could not expect any help from their Barangay Chairman. 5

The alleged maltreatment of the accused is contradicted by the positive testimony of the arresting officers regarding the circumstances of his arrest. The trial court, having had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the prosecution witnesses and of the accused and his witnesses on the witness stand, and to listen to their respective testimonies, gave more credence to the statements of the arresting officers, Sgt. David and Pat. Estamo. It noted that these policemen had no known motive or reason to impute falsely a serious and unfounded charge against the accused and that the testimonies of the same carry with them the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. 6 In addition, the Court notes that the accused had stated that he had not personally known Pat. Estamo prior to the "buy-bust" operation, which statement supports the trial court’s conclusion that the arresting officers did not have an evil motive to harass and implicate the accused. 7

The trial court found the credibility of the defense witnesses, including the accused, to be doubtful, their testimony being laced with allegations of conduct which on the part of normal people appeared implausible. Thus, the trial court wondered why neither the accused nor his sister reported the alleged maltreatment by the arresting police to independent authorities. 8 They did not ask for physical examination or treatment of the accused after he was placed in detention. 9

The defense allegation that Holgado had a motive — resentment over the accused’s failure to vote for a local political candidate endorsed by Holgado — to cause the instigation of the accused to commit a crime is, even assuming it were true, simply too tenuous and taken alone would not be sufficient to support the implicit suggestion that the arresting officers had willingly colluded with the former. We note that those officers were not subject to the authority of Holgado.

We note further that the only noteworthy discrepancy in the testimony of the two (2) arresting officers relates to their statements on who, as between them, had actually recovered the marked money from the person of the accused. Each claimed to have done so. 10 The trial court, without elaborating, found that it was Sgt. David who had recovered the money. 11 We hold, as in People v. Macuto, 12 that this discrepancy does not materially affect the prosecution’s case:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"By itself, how the marked money was recovered is of no great significance for us in establishing the guilt of the appellant. What is important is the fact that the poseur-buyer received the marijuana from the appellant and that the contents were presented as evidence in court. Proof of the transaction suffices.

x       x       x"

The accused pleads instigation as a defense. He contends that the prosecution failed to establish that he had voluntarily accepted the marked money as consideration for selling marijuana. 13

The testimony of Pat. Estamo, the poseur-buyer, was clear and straightforward and demonstrated that the accused needed no instigation or prodding to commit a crime he would not otherwise have committed. The record shows that the accused had a ready supply of marijuana for sale and disposition to anyone willing to pay the price asked for the prohibited material. Thus, it appears that the crime of illegal possession of prohibited drugs had already been committed by the accused when the policemen resolved to entrap him into revealing such possession and selling of the prohibited drug. The acts of the arresting officers here constituted entrapment, a process or operation not prohibited by the Revised Penal Code. 14

In respect of the defense contention that a marijuana seller would not normally sell his stock to a person unknown to him, this Court said in People v. Tejada. 15

". . . what matters is not an existing familiarity between the buyer and seller but their agreement and the acts constituting the sale and delivery of the marijuana leaves.

x       x       x"

The accused claimed the prosecution failed to establish that the marked bills 16 were marked prior to and not after the "buy-bust" operation. This claim is simply erroneous. The marking of the bills prior to the operation was adequately proven by the testimony of the two arresting officers, which testimony had not been shaken on cross-examination. 17

Finally, the accused assails Exhibit "B" and complains that Forensic Chemist De la Cruz did not set out either in her Report (Exhibit "B") nor in her testimony before the trial court the facts upon which her conclusion — "positive results for marijuana" — were based. Hence, the accused argues, the truth or falsity of her conclusion cannot be verified by the defense for it had no idea how she had arrived at her inculpatory conclusion. The accused appears to be looking for the detailed operating procedures which comprise the microscopic, chemical and chromatographic tests carried out on the suspected marijuana material. In his brief, he said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"x       x       x

50. Said report does not state the facts upon which the alleged ‘positive results for marijuana’ are based.

51. The report does not state how the alleged microscopic examination was conducted, how much material of the cigarettes was subjected to said examination, under what power of magnification was the material subjected, and what was seen under microscopic magnification. Without these steps and the results of the magnification being reported, how can one believe that the microscopic examination gave positive results for marijuana.

52. The alleged chemical examination is likewise suspect. How much of the material was subjected to chemical analysis? Was the tobacco fresh or dried? What was its color? How was the analysis made? How much material from the cigarette was placed if any in a text tube? What reagents and how much of them were used? What was the reaction obtained?

53. Moreover, how was the chromatographic examination made? What type of chromatography was resorted to? What reagents were used? What results were obtained?

54. The report of the Chemist (Exhibit ‘B’) is silent on all these questions. The report states only a conclusion, and whether the conclusion is correct or not cannot be verified.

55. Of course, the said forensic chemist testified regarding her report but the oral testimony did not shed any light on the questions asked

above . . ." 18

The accused’s argument is not persuasive. There is no rule of evidence which requires a forensic chemistry report to set down the micro-details which the defense is apparently demanding. Such details are appropriately matters for cross-examination of the person presented as the forensic chemist who had performed the tests, especially where the defense may have doubts as to the technical competence of the witness presented. In the case at bar, the defense has not asserted that Forensic Chemist De la Cruz was not technically competent to carry out or that she had not actually carried out, microscopic, chemical and chromatographic examination of the suspected sticks of marijuana. In fact, the defense did ask De la Cruz about the "standard procedure in which the NBI conducts its examination of drugs submitted for laboratory tests. Will you please tell the Honorable Court?" 19 The trial court asked her to so do "step by step." 20 Witness De la Cruz started to do so. She was promptly sidetracked by defense counsel who was at that time far more interested in the bureaucratic procedure by which the suspected marijuana cigarettes actually reached Forensic Chemist De la Cruz. 21 If she did not go to specific, detailed operating procedures in her cross-examination, it was up to the defense to compel her to do so by appropriate questioning if the defense really thought those detailed scientific procedures material and important for its case. The defense did not do so; indeed, the defense did not give her a chance to do so. Finally, and in any event, NBI Forensic Chemist De la Cruz also has in her favor the presumption that she had regularly performed her official duty, which was to carry out those tests in accordance with standard accepted procedures.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

We conclude that the trial court did not commit any error in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the trial court convicting the accused and sentencing him to suffer reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P20,000.00, plus costs, is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Fernan (C.J.), took no part.

Endnotes:



1. Appellant’s Brief, p. 1.

2. TSN, 5 February 1985, p. 4; TSN, 8 November 1984, p. 3; TSN, 5 February 1985, p. 4; TSN, 8 November 1984, p. 14; TSN, 5 February 1985, pp. 10-11; Id., p. 5; TSN, 8 November 1984, p. 14; Id., p. 15; TSN, 5 February 1985, p. 4; Id., p. 5; Id., p. 11; TSN, 8 November 1984, p. 15; TSN, 5 February 1985, p. 12; Id., p. 5; Id., p. 8; TSN, 8 November 1984, pp. 15-16; TSN, 5 February 1985, p. 13; TSN, 8 November 1984, p. 21; and Affidavit of Arresting Officers, p. 72, Record.

3. TSN, 6 November 1984, pp. 5-6.

4. TSN, 25 February 1985, pp. 1-5; Id., p. 11; TSN, 12 March 1985, p. 4; and TSN, 25 February 1985, pp. 6-7.

5. TSN, 1 April 1985, p. 4; and TSN, 8 May 1985, p. 5.

6. People v. Patog, 144 SCRA 429 at 437 (1986).

7. Appellant’s Brief, p. 25.

8. Decision, p. 5; Rollo, p. 16.

9. TSN, 25 February 1985, p. 16.

10. TSN, 8 November 1984, p. 18; and TSN, 5 February 1985, p. 6.

11. Decision, p. 3; Rollo, p. 14.

12. G.R. No. 80112, promulgated 25 August 1989, slip op., p. 5.

13. Appellant’s Brief, pp. 21-22.

14. People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 77588, promulgated 12 May 1989, slip op., pp. 8-9.

15. G.R. No. 81520, 21 February 1989, slip op., p. 7.

16. Exhibits "E-2" and "E-3."cralaw virtua1aw library

17. TSN, 8 November 1984, p. 17; and TSN, 5 February 1985, p. 13.

18. Brief for Accused-Appellant, pp. 32-33.

19. TSN, 6 November 1984, p. 8.

20. Ibid.

21. TSN, 6 November 1984, pp. 8-11.




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






February-1990 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 48494 February 5, 1990 - BRENT SCHOOL, INC., ET AL. v. RONALDO ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66394 February 5, 1990 - PARADISE SAUNA, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO NG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75909 February 6, 1990 - RAMON FRANCISCO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77457 February 5, 1990 - ANITA LLOSA-TAN v. SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77777 February 5, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BAGANO

  • G.R. No. 81322 February 5, 1990 - GREGORIO D. CANEDA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86603 February 5, 1990 - ACTIVE WOOD PRODUCTS CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86647 February 5, 1990 - VIRGILIO P. ROBLES v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88623 February 5, 1990 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MALABON, ET AL. v. RTC, MALABON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 40399 February 6, 1990 - MARCELINO C. AGNE, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 44980 February 6, 1990 - VIRGINIA MARAHAY v. MENELEO C. MELICOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 75154-55 February 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER VICTOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76707 February 6, 1990 - RICARDO MEDINA, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77050 February 6, 1990 - TOMAS BAYAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77713 February 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO AGAN

  • G.R. No. 77867 February 6, 1990 - ISABEL DE LA PUERTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80157 February 6, 1990 - AMALIA NARAZO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-88-272 February 6, 1990 - RAUL H. SESBREÑO v. PEDRO T. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 72129 February 7, 1990 - FILIPRO, INC. v. BLAS F. OPLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74621 February 7, 1990 - BROKENSHIRE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77401 February 7, 1990 - SUZANO F. GONZALES, JR. v. HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81100-01 February 7, 1990 - BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81344 February 7, 1990 - IRENE BENEDICTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82272 February 7, 1990 - PONCIANO M. LAYUG v. LOURDES QUISUMBING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84392 February 7, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO A. NABUNAT

  • G.R. No. 84448 February 7, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR T. BADUYA

  • G.R. Nos. 78432-33 February 9, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO CALDITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61570 February 12, 1990 - RUPERTO FULGADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62024 February 12, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GINA M. SAHAGUN

  • G.R. No. 72742 February 12, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO OBANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83308 February 12, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO ECLARINAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83484 February 12, 1990 - CELEDONIA SOLIVIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85642 February 12, 1990 - EMILIO C. MACIAS, II v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87335 February 12, 1990 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CRISTINA DE KNECHT, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 1625 February 12, 1990 - ANGEL L. BAUTISTA v. RAMON A. GONZALES

  • G.R. No. L-54305 February 14, 1990 - ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 78732-33 February 14, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVENIANO C. SOLIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31065 February 15, 1990 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PIO R. MARCOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45618 February 15, 1990 - MARIA C. ROLDAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-47747 February 15, 1990 - TAN ANG BUN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49833 February 15, 1990 - JUANITO RAMOS, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO A. EBARLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50373 February 15, 1990 - MANILA LIGHTER TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52295 February 15, 1990 - GUINOBATAN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSO., ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ALBAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53585 February 15, 1990 - ROMULO VILLANUEVA v. FRANCISCO TANTUICO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59670 February 15, 1990 - LEONARDO N. ESTEPA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61293 February 15, 1990 - DOMINGO B. MADDUMBA, ET AL. v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 62572-73 February 15, 1990 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69580 February 15, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73382 February 15, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO CAPILITAN

  • G.R. Nos. 75005-06 February 15, 1990 - JOSE RIVERA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79011 February 15, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEMION L. MANGALINO

  • G.R. No. 79672 February 15, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSENDO DELGADO

  • G.R. No. 81450 February 15, 1990 - JOHNSON G. CHUA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84048 February 15, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LETICIA SANIDAD DE DEL SOCORRO

  • G.R. No. 84193 February 15, 1990 - DIOSDADO V. RUFFY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85519 February 15, 1990 - UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86408 February 15, 1990 - BETA ELECTRIC CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88442 February 15, 1990 - FELIX A. VELASQUEZ v. UNDERSECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44409 February 1, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO O. GONZALES, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-50889 February 21, 1990 - MAXIMINO QUILISADIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54411 February 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELECIO BIAGO

  • G.R. No. L-61113 February 21, 1990 - RICARDO MAXIMO, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAPIZ, BRANCH III, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66574 February 21, 1990 - ANSELMA DIAZ, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76922 February 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO A. CORRALES

  • G.R. No. 80728 February 21, 1990 - PEARL S. BUCK FOUNDATION, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83613 February 21, 1990 - FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE CO. v. METRO PORT SERVICE, INC.

  • G.R. No. 85448 February 21, 1990 - BANCO DE ORO SAVINGS & MORTGAGE BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87439 February 21, 1990 - ODIN SECURITY AGENCY v. DIONISIO C. DE LA SERNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90639 February 21, 1990 - ESTATE OF CONCORDIA T. LIM, v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25660 February 23, 1990 - LEOPOLDO VENCILAO, ET AL. v. TEODORO VANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52018 February 23, 1990 - EFREN I. PLANA v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52482 February 23, 1990 - SENTINEL INSURANCE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55854 February 23, 1990 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. OTILIO G. ABAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60211 February 23, 1990 - PERSEVERANDO N. HERNANDEZ v. GREGORIO G. PINEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75093 February 23, 1990 - DELIA R. SIBAL v. NOTRE DAME OF GREATER MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76042 February 23, 1990 - JOSE M. BELEN v. FELICIDARIO M. BATOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79160 February 23, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO P. BUSTARDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84685 February 23, 1990 - ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85733 February 23, 1990 - ENRIQUE LIM, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46613 February 26, 1990 - SILLIMAN UNIVERSITY v. LUCIO BENARAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71838 February 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAMBERTO M. BORJA

  • G.R. No. 73722 February 26, 1990 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. K.M.K. GANI, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76338-39 February 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO H. TAC-AN

  • G.R. Nos. 76493-94 February 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO URIBE

  • G.R. No. 76590 February 26, 1990 - MARIA G. DE LA CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76607 February 26, 1990 - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL. v. ELIODORO B. GUINTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78885 February 26, 1990 - FILINVEST LAND, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79434 February 26, 1990 - DEOCRECIO DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80738 February 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LYDIA T. RAMA

  • G.R. No. 81356 February 26, 1990 - REYNOSO B. FLOREZA v. JAIME ONGPIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85333 February 26, 1990 - CARMELITO L. PALACOL, ET AL. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86147 February 26, 1990 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86250 February 26, 1990 - ALBERTO F. LACSON, ET AL. v. LUIS R. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88190 February 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. URIEL TABLIZO

  • G.R. No. 88232 February 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENEDINO P. EDUARTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89132 February 26, 1990 - LEONCIA BACLAYON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77830 February 27, 1990 - VICTOR TALAVERA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80270 February 27, 1990 - CITY MAYOR OF ZAMBOANGA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90641 February 27, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 26539 February 28, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO VERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48362 February 28, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO RAFANAN

  • G.R. No. 70261 February 28, 1990 - MAURO BLARDONY, JR. v. JOSE L. COSCOLLUELA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70997 February 28, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL JAVIER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72145 February 28, 1990 - MA. EPPIE EDEN, ET AL. v. MINISTRY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72805 February 28, 1990 - FILIPINAS MANUFACTURERS BANK v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73741 February 28, 1990 - TEOFILO LINAZA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 77042-43 February 28, 1990 - RADIOWEALTH FINANCE CO., INC. v. INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78903 February 28, 1990 - SEGUNDO DALION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79385 February 28, 1990 - STASA INCORPORATED v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82488 February 28, 1990 - VICENTE ATILANO v. DIONISIO C. DE LA SERNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83768 February 28, 1990 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL. v. RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ

  • G.R. No. 85284 February 28, 1990 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.