Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1991 > September 1991 Decisions > G.R. No. 94313 September 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO V. COMO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 94313. September 30, 1991.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REYNALDO COMO y VALENZUELA, alias "ANDO", Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS; FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT; RULE. — The long established rule that the matter of assessing the credibility of witnesses is the province of the trial court. It is stressed that this court is enjoined from casually modifying or rejecting the trial court’s factual findings. Such factual findings, particularly the trial judge’s assessment of the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses, are accorded great respect on appeal for the trial judge enjoys the advantage of directly and at first hand observing and examining the testimonial and other proofs as they are presented at the trial and is, therefore, better situated to form accurate impressions and conclusions on the basis thereof.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT AFFECTED BY MINOR INCONSISTENCIES. — Imperfections, if any there be, may in fact bolster rather than emasculate a person’s credibility as one cannot be expected to remember a particular aspect, in this case the markings, with unerring accuracy in every minute detail. Also, although may be some inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, such inconsistencies relate to minor details and the fact remains that there is no disagreement among them as to the identity of the malefactor. Suc inconsistencies, if at all, demonstrate that their testimonies are spontaneous and unrehearsed. These inconsistencies can be attributed to the treachery of the human memory and the rigor of examination during trial.

3. ID.; ID.; SALE OF PROHIBITED DRUGS; MAY BE COMMITTED AT ANY TIME AND AT ANY PLACE. — Anent the contention that it is impossible that Como would act so openly and in a public place in selling the marijuana, when it can be done surreptitiously with the least detection by the police officers, it has many times been held and with good reason that pushers, especially small quantity dealers or retailers, sell their prohibited wares to customers, usually unwary of people and circumstances around them.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESENTATION OF THE INFORMANT AT THE TRIAL; NOT INDISPENSABLE TO THE CONVICTION. — The presentation of the informant at the trial was not indispensable to the conviction of appellant because the sale of marijuana had been sufficiently proved by the testimony of the NARCOM agents. As long as the marijuana actually sold by appellant had been submitted as an exhibit, the failure to present informant, where her testimony would be merely corroborative or cumulative, would not be fatal to the case at bar. The positive and categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who had personal knowledge of the happening, together with the physical evidence submitted, clearly prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of appellant for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; FAMILIARITY BETWEEN THE SELLER AND BUYER; NOT ESSENTIAL. — Appellant’s claim that it was improbable for him to have sold marijuana to Sgt. Manglo whom he knows to be a NARCOM agent is clearly self-serving. Indeed, it would be the height of folly for Sgt. Manglo to act as the poseur-buyer if it were true that he and appellant had known each other since 1985. Granting, however, that they knew each other at that time, what matters in drug pushing is not the existing familiarity between the seller and the buyer but their agreement and the acts constituting the sale and delivery of the marijuana leaves.

6. ID.; ID.; DEFENSE THAT ACCUSED WAS FRAMED UP BY THE POLICE OFFICERS; REQUIRES STRONGER PROOF. — The defense that accused was framed up by the police officers requires stronger proof because of the presumption that public officers acted in the regular performance of their official duties. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the police officers were compelled by any motive other than to accomplish their mission to capture a drug pusher in the execution of the crime. The claim of appellant that the informer framed him up because the latter harbored a grudge against him, when he refused to extend her a mortgage loan, is not credible. Obviously, it is just as easy on the part of an accused to concoct the defense of an alleged frame-up. At all times, the police, the prosecutor and the courts must always be on guard against these hazards in the administration of criminal justice.


D E C I S I O N


REGALADO, J.:


This is an appeal from the decision, 1 dated May 30, 1990, of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas, Branch 2, in Criminal Case No. 4452, finding accused-appellant guilty of a violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, to pay a fine of P30,000.00 and to pay the costs. The judgment credited him with the preventive imprisonment he had undergone, and directed the confiscation and forfeiture of the marijuana cigarettes subject of the offense. 2

The information against appellant alleges that at around 6:30 in the evening of October 25, 1989, at Barangay Sta. Clara, Batangas City, appellant wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously delivered, gave away to another, distributed, transported or otherwise acted as a broker and sold more or less eight (8) sticks of Indian Hemp, more commonly called "marijuana", in violation of said law. 3 Upon arraignment, appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty, 4 and trial on the merits forthwith ensued.chanrobles law library : red

The following are the antecedent facts of the case as found by the trial court and adopted by the Solicitor General with corresponding page references to the transcripts of the proceedings:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"During the trial, it was established that on or before October 25, 1989 and subsequent thereto, Sergeants William E. Manglo, Gregorio Caraig and Isidro Malabanan are PC soldiers and members of the 4th Narcotics Regional Unit, Narcom Batangas District, with office at Laurel Park, Batangas City. Their main duty as Narcom agents is to conduct operations against violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. (p. 2, TSN, February 28, 1990).

"For quite a time before October 25, 1989, said agents were already receiving information from a confidential informant that accused Reynaldo Como, alias Ando, was indulging in the sale of marijuana. On October 25, 1989 the agents formed a team with the help of a confidential informant to conduct a buy-bust operation against the accused who at the time was residing in Sta. Clara, Batangas City. The plan was (that) Sgt. William Manglo will act as poseur buyer to be introduced by the informant to the accused (not of course as a Narcom agent or PC soldier) as a friend willing to buy marijuana in the amount of P20.00. The money considered of 4 five peso bills already marked and the serial numbers of which were recorded in the logbook of the agents. And according also to the plan, Sgt. Caraig will act as the team leader and together with Sgt. Malabanan will form the backup team who will position themselves more or less 15 meter from Manglo and the accused and upon signal of Manglo would come forward and meaning to say that the buy-bust operation was accomplished. (pp. 2-3, TSN, Ibid.)chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

"As planned, the team proceeded to Sta. Clara, Batangas City at 6:30 o’clock in the afternoon of October 25, 1989. Accused was then in front of his house and the confidential informant introduced Manglo as a friend willing to buy marijuana in the amount of P20.00. Accused left, went up his house and returned handing to Manglo 8 sticks of marijuana cigarette for which Manglo gave the accused the P20.00, consisting of 4 five peso bills as planned. Then and there Manglo signalled the back-up team, Caraig and Malabanan, who came forward and identified themselves as Narcom agents by showing to the accused their identification cards. (p. 3, TSN, March 14, 1990)chanrobles.com : virtual law library

"Then and there accused was arrested and bodily searched for any weapon and the P20.00 consisting of 4 marked five peso bills were confiscated from the accused (Ibid.)

"Thereafter, Accused was brought to the Narcom office, where a booking sheet and arrest report, were prepared, signed by the accused and the arresting officer and also a receipt for the property seized from the accused consisting of 8 marijuana sticks of cigarettes and 4 five peso bills with its (sic) corresponding serial numbers signed by the Narcom agents and by the accused Reynaldo Como. (p. 4, TSN, Ibid.)

"The eight (8) marijuana sticks of cigarettes were submitted to the Chief Forensic Chemist, PCCL, Camp Crame, Quezon City upon formal request by Sgt. Caraig thru Sgt. Manglo for laboratory examination and report No. D-1176-89 submitted by Forensic Chemist Leslie B. Chambers, approved by Luena E. Layador, Asst. Chief Chemist and noted by Paulino B. Silan, Col. PC (GSC) Commanding Officer, shows a finding that qualitative examination conducted on the specimens submitted gave positive result to the test for marijuana and which finding was admitted by the defense during the trial of this case. (p. 4, TSN, February 28, 1990)" 5

The defense of appellant was narrated by the trial court as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is his version that around 6:30 o’clock in the evening of October 25, 1989 he was in his house in Barangay Sta. Clara, Batangas City, resting. Suddenly, somebody pulled him towards the outside of his house and all at once he saw these agents, Manglo, Caraig and Malabanan who handcuffed him. He protested but then these agents cocked their guns and so he became afraid and went with the agents (to) the Narcom office.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

"In the Narcom office, he was first told to sign a document but he refused but because he was threatened he later on signed said document.

"Accused claimed that he was charged in the instant case at the instance of one Tuding whom he knows to be an informant of the Narcom agents, because at one time this Tuding was mortgaging to him some jewelries but they were fake and so he refused." 6

In this appeal, appellant alleges that the trial court erred in believing the prosecution witnesses and in disbelieving the defense witnesses, and in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. 7 Said assignment of errors patently concerns the credibility of witnesses, and we shall pass upon the same jointly in the same manner as appellant did in his brief.

In this regard, we once again advert to the long established rule that the matter of assessing the credibility of witnesses is the province of the trial court. It is stressed that this court is enjoined from casually modifying or rejecting the trial court’s factual findings. Such factual findings, particularly the trial judge’s assessment of the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses, are accorded great respect on appeal for the trial judge enjoys the advantage of directly and at first hand observing and examining the testimonial and other proofs as they are presented at the trial and is, therefore, better situated to form accurate impressions and conclusions on the basis thereof. 8 This notwithstanding, we have carefully reviewed the testimonial and documentary evidence in this case, considering the gravity of the offense involved.chanrobles law library

Appellant tries to debase the credibility of the prosecution witnesses by pointing out alleged inconsistencies in their testimonies which supposedly impair the essential veracity of the prosecution’s version of the incident. As summarized by the Solicitor General, 9 appellant enumerated in his brief 10 some "contradicting and unbelievable" testimonies of prosecution witnesses which, to appellant’s mind, were fatal enough to discredit their reliability, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Sgt. Gregorio Caraig referred to the accused as a notorious drug-pusher but admitted that the day of the alleged buy-bust, October 25, 1989 was the first time they received information that Como was selling marijuana. Sgt. Caraig meant to color the proceedings and give drama to the role of Como as the infamous accused. But Sgt. Caraig was contradicted by Sgt. William Manglo who alleged that they had been hearing about Como for about a year already prior to his arrest.

2. Sgt. Caraig said that he could identify the marked money because, previously, they took down the serial numbers. But when he was asked to identify the serial numbers, he could not give them. Sgt. Manglo contradicted him by saying that the marking was his signature below the letter O in Piso. They could not even tell the court what marking was done to constitute marked money.

3. It is impossible that Como would act so openly and in a public place in selling the marijuana.

4. It is incredible that the informant would disappear from view after introducing Sgt. Manglo to the accused.

5. It is hard to believe that Como would willingly sell marijuana to Sgt. Manglo whom he knows to be a NARCOM agent.

6. The receipt of property seized (Exh. "E") which was signed by Como as owner of the marijuana seized is inadmissible in evidence as his signature therein was procured in the absence of counsel.

We are not impressed by the foregoing hypotheses of Appellant.

In the joint affidavit 11 executed by Sgts. Caraig and Malabanan, appellant was referred to as the "known notorious drug pusher", they having heard of his illegal deals of marijuana in Sta. Clara, Batangas City. The agents had known about appellant’s notoriety for almost a year before the buy-bust operation on October 25, 1989 and, on the witness stand, Sgt. Caraig 12 and Sgt. Manglo, 13 categorically established that fact.

However, appellant’s counsel lays considerable emphasis on the answer of Sgt. Caraig to the question on when for the first time they received information about his client’s prohibited dealings. The pertinent portion of said examination is reflected in the transcripts as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q Now, what was the exact information that was relayed to you by this confidential informant at 5:30 o’clock?

A That a certain Ando was selling marijuana, sir.

Q And this was the first time that you received such information about that him?

A For a long time already, sir, and we have been receiving information about him.

Q Since when have you received information about this Ando?

A On October 25, sir.

Q So that was the first time that you received that information about that Ando?

A Yes, Sir." 14

Apparently, what the defense counsel would want to impress upon the court was the prosecution’s lack of sufficient evidence in conducting the said October 25, 1989 buy-bust operation. Yet, it is evident that Sgt. Caraig merely committed an innocent lapse during his cross-examination when he was persistently asked the question on when for the first time they received such information about appellant’s illegal activities. As shown by his preceding answer, Sgt. Caraig explained that they had acquired knowledge about appellant’s illicit activities for a long time already.

It is of common knowledge that the atmosphere of the court-room during the trial can affect the accuracy and manner of a witness in answering questions, even in the case of an agent like Sgt. Caraig who apparently was temporarily confused by the line of questioning of appellant’s counsel. What Sgt. Caraig actually referred to in his second answer to the same question was the information they received on October 25, 1989 from their confidential informant which reiterated their previous information on the matter.

Appellant also argues that Sgts. Caraig and Manglo could not even identify the markings placed on the bills, hence, there was allegedly a contradiction in the testimonies concerning the marked money used in buying the marijuana sticks. This is a specious submission. Sgt. Caraig’s testimony touched upon the pre-recorded serial numbers of the marked money, while Sgt. Manglo particularized the markings he placed thereon. There can be no contradiction on statements dealing with completely different issues. On the other hand, such imperfections, if any there be, may in fact bolster rather than emasculate a person’s credibility as one cannot be expected to remember a particular aspect, in this case the markings, with unerring accuracy in every minute detail. 15

Also, although there may be some inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, such inconsistencies relate to minor details and the fact remains that there is no disagreement among them as to the identity of the malefactor. Such inconsistencies, if at all, demonstrate that their testimonies are spontaneous and unrehearsed. These inconsistencies can be attributed to the treachery of the human memory and the rigor of examination during trial. 16

Anent the contention that it is impossible that Como would act so openly and in a public place in selling the marijuana, when it can be done surreptitiously with the least detection by the police officers, it has many times been held and with good reason that pushers, especially small quantity dealers or retailers, sell their prohibited wares to customers, usually unwary of people and circumstances around them.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

In the recent case of People v. Hilario, 17 this Court had the occasion to again stress that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Small level drug-pushing may be committed at any place and at any time. It is completed clandestinely and swiftly after the offer to buy is accepted and the exchange made. The fact that the parties are in a public place and in the presence of other people does not necessarily discourage drug pushers from plying their trade as these may even serve to camouflage their illicit operations. Hence the Court has sustained convictions of drug pushers caught selling illegal drugs at a basketball court (People v. Paco, supra), in billiard halls (People v. Rubio, G.R. No. 66875, 19 June 1986, 142 SCRA 329; People v. Sarmiento, G. R. No. 72141, 12 January 1987, 147 SCRA 252), in front of a store (People v. Khan, G.R. No. 71863, 23 May 1988, 161 SCRA 406), along a street at 1:45 P.M. (People v. Toledo, G.R. No. 67609, 22 November 1985, 140 SCRA 259), and in front of a house (People v. Policarpio, G.R. No. 29844, 23 February 1988, 158 SCRA 85; all cited in People v. Paco, supra)."cralaw virtua1aw library

Appellant further dwells on the sudden disappearance of the confidential informant after introducing Sgt. Manglo to him. He expresses wonderment why the prosecution did not put the informant on the witness stand to testify, she being a material witness to the buy-bust operation. He accordingly contends that he is a victim of a frame-up. Appellant’s postulations are without merit.

The Solicitor General correctly submits that it was not unnatural for the informant to immediately leave the scene of the incident after she had introduced the poseur buyer to appellant. Having accomplished her mission in the buy-bust operation, it would not be unusual for her to disappear from the scene for her own safety. 18 The testimony of the police informer is not essential for convicting the accused and her identity may remain confidential; there are strong practical reasons for such continued secrecy, including the continued health and safety of the informer and the encouragement of others to report wrongdoing to the police authorities. 19 Suffice it to say that it is up to the prosecution to determine who should be presented as witnesses on the basis of its own assessment of their necessity. 20

Besides, the presentation of the informant at the trial was not indispensable to the conviction of appellant because the sale of marijuana had been sufficiently proved by the testimony of the NARCOM agents. As long as the marijuana actually sold by appellant had been submitted as an exhibit, the failure to present informant, where her testimony would be merely corroborative or cumulative, would not be fatal to the case at bar. The positive and categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who had personal knowledge of the happening, together with the physical evidence submitted, clearly prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of appellant for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 21

Furthermore, the defense that accused was framed up by the police officers requires stronger proof because of the presumption that public officers acted in the regular performance of their official duties. 22 There is nothing in the record to suggest that the police officers were compelled by any motive other than to accomplish their mission to capture a drug pusher in the execution of the crime. 23 The claim of appellant that the informer framed him up because the latter harbored a grudge against him, when he refused to extend her a mortgage loan, is not credible. Obviously, it is just as easy on the part of an accused to concoct the defense of an alleged frame-up. At all times, the police, the prosecutor and the courts must always be on guard against these hazards in the administration of criminal justice. 24

Appellant’s claim that it was improbable for him to have sold marijuana to Sgt. Manglo whom he knows to be a NARCOM agent is clearly self-serving. Indeed, it would be the height of folly for Sgt. Manglo to act as the poseur-buyer if it were true that he and appellant had known each other since 1985. Granting, however, that they knew each other at that time, what matters in drug pushing is not the existing familiarity between the seller and the buyer but their agreement and the acts constituting the sale and delivery of the marijuana leaves.25cralaw:red

Nevertheless, we agree with the contention of the People that the success of every buy-bust operation depends largely on the concealed identity of the poseur-buyer such that it has become a standard operating procedure to designate as poseur-buyer one who is a total stranger to suspected sellers of prohibited drugs in the area of operation. 26 This belies appellant’s pretension that the authorities involved could be so incompetent as to be oblivious of such a self-evident fact.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

On appellant’s final assertion that the receipt signed by him as the owner of the marijuana seized is inadmissible in evidence as his signature therein was procured in the absence of counsel, such supposed flaw does not overcome the prosecution’s case. No useful purpose can be served by appellant’s invoking such constitutional guarantee since it has been rendered unnecessary and inconsequential by the overwhelming evidence establishing his guilt. Where there is independent evidence, apart from the accused’s uncounselled confession, that the accused is truly guilty, he accordingly faces a conviction. 27

PREMISES CONSIDERED, with the qualification that the penalty of life imprisonment imposed in this case should not be considered as or equated with reclusion perpetua as erroneously stated by the court a quo, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

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

Endnotes:



1. Penned by Judge Irineo V. Mendoza.

2. Original Record, 66.

3. Ibid., 1.

4. Ibid., 8.

5. Rollo, 11-13.

6. Ibid., 13-14.

7. Appellant’s Brief, 1; ibid., 25.

8. People v. Umali, Et Al., G.R. No. 84450, February 4, 1991.

9. Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee, 4-13; Rollo, 55-62.

10. Appellant’s Brief, 10-12; Rollo, 34-36.

11. Original Record, 3.

12. TSN, February 28, 1990, 6.

13. Ibid., March 4, 1990, 2, 4-6.

14. Ibid., February 28, 1990, 6.

15. People v. Kalubiran, G.R. No. 84079, May 6, 1991.

16. People v. Segwaben, G.R. No. 88401, February 19, 1991.

17. G.R. No. 94037, May 6, 1991.

18. Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee, 11; Rollo, 60.

19. People v. Odicta, Et Al., G.R. No. 93708, May 15, 1991 citing People v. Sanchez, 173 SCRA 305.

20. People v. Ruedas, G.R. No. 83372, February 27, 1991.

21. People v. Umali, Et Al., G.R. No. 84450, February 4, 1991.

22. People v. Macuto, 176 SCRA 762 (1989).

23. People v. Sucro, G.R. No. 93239, March 18, 1991.

24. People v. Umali, supra.

25. People v. Rodriguez, 172 SCRA 742 (1989).

26. Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee, 12; Rollo, 61.

27. People v. Diamsoy, 178 SCRA 321 (1989).




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-1991 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. 68843-44 September 2, 1991 - MARIQUITA O. SUMAYA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73123 September 2, 1991 - LAND BANK OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO N. CAPISTRANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78700 September 3, 1991 - ALL OCEANS MARITIME AGENCY, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100113 September 3, 1991 - RENATO L. CAYETANO v. CHRISTIAN MONSOD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100710 September 3, 1991 - BENJAMIN P. ABELLA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89217 September 4, 1991 - JUANITA NITURA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93661 September 4, 1991 - SHARP INTERNATIONAL MARKETING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95244 September 4, 1991 - ELLEN AMBAS, ET AL. v. BRIGIDA BUENASEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95320 September 4, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALTAZAR LACAO, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79869 September 5, 1991 - FORTUNATO MERCADO, SR., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81909 September 5, 1991 - LETICIA C. MENDOZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85393 September 5, 1991 - ALBA PATIO DE MAKATI, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88451 September 5, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALD C. ALVAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95070 September 5, 1991 - PAN MALAYAN INSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85659 September 6, 1991 - F.E. ZUELLIG (M), INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87333 September 6, 199

    COLEGIO SAN AGUSTIN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90423 September 6, 1991 - FRANCIS LEE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96131 September 6, 1991 - CORAZON C. GONZAGA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72807 September 9, 1991 - MARILAO WATER CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75810 September 9, 1991 - KAISAHAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85161 September 9, 1991 - COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89982 September 9, 1991 - BENJAMIN GUIMOC, ET AL. v. CLEMENTE C. ROSALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78350 September 11, 1991 - SAN FELIPE NERI SCHOOL OF MANDALUYONG, INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79182 September 11, 1991 - PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85685 September 11, 1991 - LAURO CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92389 September 11, 1991 - JEJOMAR C. BINAY, ET AL. v. EUFEMIO DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94247 September 11, 1991 - DIONISIO MOJICA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-87-79 September 13, 1991 - LEONILA A. VISTAN v. RUBEN T. NICOLAS

  • G.R. No. 60269 September 13, 1991 - ENGRACIA VINZONS-MAGANA v. CONRADO ESTRELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74073 September 13, 1991 - HONESTO ONG, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86727 September 13, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO VERAS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88014 September 13, 1991 - GONZALO N. ALVAREZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90035 September 13, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADEO HANGDAAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93454 September 13, 1991 - HECTOR S. RUIZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94045 September 13, 1991 - CENTRAL NEGROS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. SEC. DOLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 95237-38 September 13, 1991 - DAVAO CITY WATER DISTRICT, ET AL. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95664 September 13, 1991 - NINA M. QUISMUNDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99258 September 13, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ARROYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 38204 September 24, 1991 - MUNICIPALITY OF SOGOD v. AVELINO S. ROSAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46296 September 24, 1991 - EPITACIO DELIMA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71832 September 24, 1991 - LEON BERNARDEZ, ET AL. v. ARSENIO REYES

  • G.R. No. 85086 September 24, 1991 - ARSENIO P. BUENAVENTURA ENTERPRISES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86083 September 24, 1991 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86302 September 24, 1991 - CASIMIRO MENDOZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87698 September 24, 1991 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89621 September 24, 1991 - PEPSI COLA DISTRIBUTORS OF THE PHIL., INC., ET AL. v. LOLITA O. GAL-LANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90294 September 24, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO RIO

  • G.R. No. 94143 September 24, 1991 - EDGAR SADIO v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ANTIQUE, BRANCH 10, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94654 September 24, 1991 - HEIRS OF AMANDO DALISAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96169 September 24, 1991 - EMPLOYEES CONFEDERATION OF THE PHIL. v. NATIONAL WAGES AND PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99434 September 24, 1991 - JOHNSON & JOHNSON (PHILS.) INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 87012-13 September 25, 1991 - REYES & LIM COMPANY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94476 September 26, 1991 - MICAELA C. ANDRES, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 97710 September 26, 1991 - EMIGDIO A. BONDOC v. MARCIANO M. PINEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64807 September 27, 1991 - BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC., ET AL. v. VICENTE R. LEOGARDO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 90786 September 27, 1991 - ESPERO SANTOS SALAW v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90983 September 27, 1991 - RAYMUNDO A. ARMOVIT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91016 September 27, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO M. MISCALA, JR.

  • G.R. No. MTJ-88-189 September 30, 1991 - SIMEON G. MACUSE v. GERVACIO A. LOPENA

  • G.R. No. 71461 September 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO CARICUNGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73462 September 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURICIO PLAGA

  • G.R. No. 73905 September 30, 1991 - MICHAEL T. DAVA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74630 September 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAIDA TOMIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75579 September 30, 1991 - TOMAS TRINIDAD v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 76101-02 September 30, 1991 - TIO KHE CHIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76281 September 30, 1991 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. WYETH SUACO LABORATORIES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 83583-84 September 30, 1991 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. RIO TUBA NICKEL MINING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90364 September 30, 1991 - VIRGILIO C. ARRIOLA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91539 September 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON SAMPAGA

  • G.R. No. 91849 September 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIORICO BUGHO

  • G.R. No. 92019 September 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIBRADO L. ARCEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92631 September 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM O. PULOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93396 September 30, 1991 - PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94313 September 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO V. COMO

  • G.R. No. 95197 September 30, 1991 - FIRST PHILIPPINE HOLDINGS CORPORATION v. SANDIGANBAYAN