Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > August 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 91160 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX FULGARILLAS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 91160. August 4, 1992.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FELIX FULGARILLAS y DURAN @ "KOLOT’, Accused-appellee.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Public Attorney’s Office for Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; PROSECUTION OF DANGEROUS DRUG CASES; FAILURE TO PRESENT POSEUR-BUYER; FATAL FLAW THERETO. — The trial court gave much weight to the testimonies of the police members of the buy-bust operation. However, the prosecution did not present as witness the supposed poseur-buyer. Such omission casts serious doubt on appellant’s guilt because without the testimony of the poseur-buyer, there is no convincing evidence to show that appellant sold marijuana. The testimonies of the rest of the buy-bust operation are hearsay in view of the fact that the poseur-buyer was never presented at the trial. There was even no testimony that when the accused-appellant handed the stuff to the poseur-buyer that the latter in turn handed the marked money. The failure of the prosecution to present the alleged buyer of the marijuana was a fatal flaw in the case against the accused.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; MARKED-MONEY MUST BE PREVIOUSLY BLOTTERED. — The incriminating evidence presented by the prosecution, aside from the testimonial, consisted only of the two (2) marked five-peso bills and six (6) handrolled sticks of marijuana. These could be easily fabricated. Witnesses Biñan, Remetiera and Redulla were members of the Tagbilaran NARCOM detachment. Records do not show that the markings on the two (2) five peso bills were previously blottered. This definitely weakens the case of the prosecution. The act of blottering is the correct and regular procedure by which the regularity of the preparation of marked money may be established. Without such blotter, all attempts at establishing regularity remains dubious.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; COURT MUST BE EXTRA VIGILANT IN TRYING DRUG CASES; REASON THEREFOR. — Considering the harshness of the penalty for criminal violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law this Court had occasion to state in People v. Ale as follows: "At the same time, we cannot close our eyes to the many reports of evidence being planted on unwary persons either for extorting money or exacting personal vengeance. By the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great. Courts must also be extra vigilant in trying drug charges lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalty for drug offenses."cralaw virtua1aw library

4. ID.; ID.; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS; MAY BE AFFECTED BY INCONSISTENCIES AND MATERIAL DISCREPANCIES IN THEIR TESTIMONIES. — Inconsistencies and material discrepancies in the testimony of a witness engenders serious doubt as to its reliability and veracity. Thus, no conviction can be had on the basis of contradictory statements.

5. ID.; ID.; CONVICTION; PROSECUTION MUST RELY ON THE STRENGTH OF ITS EVIDENCE AND NOT ON THE WEAKNESS OF THE DEFENSE. — Samuel Lagumbey, another defense witness, corroborated the testimony of the accused that the latter was with him immediately prior to the alleged buy-bust operation, thereby belying the assertion of Sgt. Remetiera that when their poseur-buyer approached the accused-appellant for the purchase of marijuana at the corner of Torralba and Visarra Street, the accused went home and came back about ten minutes later with the six sticks of marijuana. The saddening detail of this case is that when the mother of the accused-appellant went to see his son, she saw accused-appellant all bruised up. She requested that her son be brought to a doctor but her request was disregarded. According to the accused-appellant, Amistoso and Manique had a grudge against him because on one occasion, when both of them invited him to share with them a stick of marijuana being passed around in the company of other people, he refused. Instead, Accused-appellant chided them for smoking marijuana when they are NARCOM agents. The evidence of the prosecution is sorely wanting to justify conviction. Settled is the rule that the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense.


D E C I S I O N


NOCON, J.:


This is an appeal from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial Region, Tagbilaran City, Bohol, where appellant Felix Fulgarillas was found guilty for violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the "Dangerous Drug Act", under an information which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That, on or about the 21st day of August, 1987, in the City of Tagbilaran, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused without having been authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly, without any legal purpose, sell, transfer, deliver and give away six (6) pieces hand-rolled marijuana cigarettes to a NARCOM Confidential informant for and in consideration of the sum of ten (10) Pesos in two (2) pieces of marked Five Pesos paper bills bearing Serial Number EH 953679 and AF 377979, Philippine Currency, without having licensed nor authorized by law.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

"Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) as amended." 1

Upon arraignment, Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged against him.

As borne out from the records, the facts of the case are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On August 21, 1987, the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) Team of Tagbilaran City, composed of Sgt. Renato M. Remetiera, Sgt. Alejandro Biñan, Patrolman Luisito Redulla and other civilian agents, upon receipt of confidential information and after months of surveillance conducted on herein appellant, hurriedly called for a briefing for a buy-bust operation. The team prepared marked money consisting of two (2) P5.00 bills to be used in buying sticks of marijuana from the appellant. The marked money bills were entrusted to a civil agent who would act as a poseur-buyer. 2

At about 7:00 o’clock in the evening, of the same day, the NARCOM team proceeded to the designated place located at the corner of Torralba and Visarra Streets, Tagbilaran City. The subject was Felix Fulgarillas, an alleged pusher of marijuana. Upon arrival thereat, the team members positioned themselves within the vicinity and there they saw Fulgarillas. The purchase of marijuana took place inside a carinderia located at the corner of Torralba and Visarra streets, Sgt. Remetiera was a Torralba Street, while Pat. Redulla was at Visarra Street. Both of them were five meters away from the carinderia as the transaction was going on. The poseur-buyer then approached the suspect and after a brief conversation, the accused-appellant returned and handed the "stuff" over to the poseur-buyer. The NARCOM operatives immediately rushed in, identified themselves, and arrested the suspected pusher, identified as appellant Felix Fulgarillas. 3

The NARCOM agents brought appellant together with the six (6) sticks of marijuana taken from him to the police station for investigation. During the interview, appellant admitted having engaged in selling drugs. 4

Sgt. Remetiera conducted a field test on the six (6) hand -rolled marijuana sticks and found the same definitely to be MARIJUANA. He likewise indorsed the subject marijuana to the PC Crime Laboratory, Cebu City, for laboratory examination. 5

Myrna Arreola, a Forensic Analyst of the PC-INP Crime Laboratory in Cebu City, who conducted a laboratory examination on the six (6) marijuana sticks submitted by the Local Narcom Office of Tagbilaran City, found the six (6) hand-rolled sticks positive for marijuana. 6

The defense however, presented a different set of facts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On the evening of August 21, 1987, the accused-appellant was invited by a friend by the name of Samuel Lagumbay for a drink. Together with them are Lagumbay’s father and the latter’s co-worker. They had a drinking spree inside Peping’s store which was a long Torralba Street. An hour later, Accused Fulgarillas was requested by Lagumbay to buy caldereta from a carinderia owned by Librada Umali located at the corner of Torralba and Visarra Streets which is approximately seventy meters away from Peping’s store. Lagumbay gave the accused ten pesos for that purpose. 7

At the carinderia, Fulgarillas was told by Umali that she had no caldereta because there was no delivery of goat that day. He then checked all the food containers lined up in the counter of the carinderia to see if there could be a "pulutan" substitute for caldereta. As there was none, Accused-appellant left.

About six feet away from the carinderia, mark Amistoso and Mike Manique suddenly rushed to him. Manique pulled him while Amistoso boxed him in the stomach and poked a gun on his right side. Fulgarillas then was made to lie down and was handcuffed causing injury to his right wrist. He was then dragged to the police station at the Municipal Hall. On the way to the police station he was continually being mauled by Manique and Amistoso together with four other persons one of whom he recognized as Luisito Redulla.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

At the police station, he was undressed and slapped on the face with Amistoso poking a gun at him with warning that if he would kick back, he would be shot.

He was further shown his wallet and six (6) sticks of marijuana as well as two (2) marked five-peso bills. He was forced to admit possession of the two (2) five-peso bills and of having sold the sticks of marijuana.

From the police station, Fulgarillas was brought to the NARCOM Office where he was again mauled and forced to admit receiving the marked bills in exchange for his delivery of the six (6) sticks of marijuana. When he refused, three drops of melted wax from a burning candle were made to drop on his lips.

After trial, the lower court rendered judgment finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused GUILTY as charged and he is hereby sentence, pursuant to Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act to undergo the penalty of life imprisonment, to pay a fine of P20,000.00 and to pay the costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

SO ORDERED." 8

Hence, this appeal.

The trial court gave much weight to the testimonies of the police members of the buy-bust operation. However, the prosecution did not present as witness the supposed poseur-buyer. Such omission casts serious doubt on appellant’s guilt because without the testimony of the poseur-buyer, there is no convincing evidence to show that appellant sold marijuana. The testimonies of the rest of buy-bust operation are hearsay in view of the fact that the poseur-buyer was never presented at the trial. 9 There was even no testimony that when the accused-appellant handed the stuff to the poseur-buyer that the latter in turn handed the marked money. The failure of the prosecution to present the alleged buyer of the marijuana was a fatal flaw in the case against the accused. 10

The incriminating evidence presented by the prosecution, aside from the testimonial, consisted only of the two (2) marked five-peso bills and six (6) handrolled sticks of marijuana. These could be easily fabricated.

Witnesses Biñan, Remetiera and Redulla were members of the Tagbilaran NARCOM detachment. Records do not show that the markings on the two (2) five peso bills were previously blottered. This definitely weakens the case of the prosecution. The act of blottering is the correct and regular procedure by which the regularity of the preparation of marked money may be established. Without such blotter, all attempts at establishing regularity remains dubious.

The evidence against the accused rests mainly on the oral testimonies of the three members of the raiding team, namely: Alejandro Biñan, Renato Remetiera and Luisito Redulla. These witnesses contradicted each other on material and substantial points.

The scene of the buy-bust operation was sketched by the prosecution with labels indicating the respective positions of the members of the raiding team. The sketch was marked as Exhibit "B" and the respective positions of the raiding team as Exhibits "B-2", "B-3" and "B-4." Sgt. Biñan testified that Exhibit "B-2" denoted the position of Sgt. Remetiera. 11

This was contradicted by Pat. Redulla in his testimony:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q This Exhibit "B-2" who is this Rex?

A That is Remetiera.

Q Exhibit "B-3" marked as E.M. what is this?

A I made a mistake in my former statement this AM B-3 is the place where Remetiera was positioned.

Q Exh. "B-2" ?

A The place where Allan Biñan was positioning this Allan Biñan. 12

At another instance, all three policemen stubbornly insisted that there was no investigation conducted at the police station. This, was however, denied by Sgt. Remetiera when he was recalled to testify:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q Now, after that you brought the accused to the station?

A Yes, sir.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Q And then investigated him?

A Yes, sir, we investigated him.

Q Did you not ask him to sign a receipt of the six sticks of marijuana you took from him?

A Not yet he denied does not belong to him.

Q Right in that investigation?

A Yes, sir." 13

This was corroborated by one of the defenses witness, Leocadio Suacillo, a fireman, who testified that while he was at the fire station, his attention was caught by a commotion in the nearby police station. He went to the police station and saw the accused being undressed, slapped, and threatened by Mark Amistoso. 14

The unreliability of Sgt. Remetiera’s statement that the accused did not resist arrest but instead went peacefully with them to the police station becomes more apparent in the face of the testimony of Librada Umali, the owner of the carinderia, that accused-appellant came to her carinderia to look for caldereta and that shortly after he left her counter and only at a distance of about six feet, some people rushed unto him and a commotion ensued. 15 This, corroborates the testimony of the accused. 16

The most revealing testimony of the prosecution witnesses is that which pertains to the confiscation of the marijuana sticks. While the prosecution witnesses maintain in their joint affidavit that the six sticks of marijuana were turned over to them by the poseur-buyer, Sgt. Remetiera impliedly admitted in his testimony that the six handrolled marijuana cigarettes were taken from the body of the accused:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q How about the six handrolled marijuana cigarettes according to you was taken from the body of the accused where is it now?

A We have indorsed to the PC Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination I brought myself [six] the receipt I have here the files copies of the receipt of the indorsement." 17

Inconsistencies and material discrepancies in the testimony of a witness engenders serious doubt as to its reliability and veracity. 18 Thus, no conviction can be had on the basis of contradictory statements. 19

Samuel Lagumbay, another defense witness, corroborated the testimony of the accused that the latter was with him immediately prior to the alleged buy-bust operation, 20 thereby belying the assertion of Sgt. Remetiera that when their poseur-buyer approached the accused-appellant for the purchase of marijuana at the corner of Torralba and Visarra Street, the accused went home and came back about ten minutes later with the six sticks of marijuana. 21

The saddening detail of this case is that when the mother of the accused-appellant went to see his son, she saw accused-appellant all bruised up. She requested that her son be brought to a doctor but her request was disregarded.

According to the accused-appellant, Amistoso and Manique had a grudge against him because on one occasion, when both of them invited him to share with them a stick of marijuana being passed around in the company of other people, he refused. Instead, Accused-appellant chided them for smoking marijuana when they are NARCOM agents. 22

The evidence of the prosecution is sorely wanting to justify conviction. Settled is the rule that the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. 23

Considering the harshness of the penalty for criminal violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law this Court had occasion to state in People v. Ale as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"At the same time, we cannot close our eyes to the many reports of evidence being planted on unwary persons either for extorting money or exacting personal vengeance. By the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great. Courts must also be extra vigilant in trying drug charges lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalty for drug offenses." 24

Incidentally, the Ale Case treats of incidents taking place in the same locality (Tagbilaran City) and involving the same police agency (NARCOM detachment at Tagbilaran City). There is great possibility that members of the Tagbilaran NARCOM detachment have the propensity of hiding behind the mantle of regularity of official functions in the pursuit of dubious personal motives of their own.

WHEREFORE, the guilt of the accused not having been proved beyond reasonable doubt, Accused Felix Fulgarillas is hereby ACQUITTED for the crime charged against him.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Records, p. 1.

2. T.S.N., April 12, 1988, pp. 1-12; T.S.N., August 8, 1988, pp. 2-3.

3. T.S.N., April 22, 1988, pp. 2-3.; T.S.N., August 8, 1988, pp. 3-4.

4. T.S.N., April 22, 1988, pp. 5-7.; T.S.N., October 5, 1988, p. 4.

5. Exhibit "C", Records, p. 4.

6. Exhibit "G", Folder of Exhibits; T.S.N., October 12, 1988, pp. 2-4.

7. T.S.N., December 14, 1988, pp. 5-6.

8. Records, p. 56.

9. People v. de Luna, G.R. No. 82180, 179 SCRA 245, (1989).

10. People v. Rojo, G.R. No. 82737, 175 SCRA 119, (1989).

11. T.S.N., August 8, 1988, p. 4.

12. T.S.N., October 5, 1988, p. 3.

13. T.S.N., October 12, 1988, p. 5.

14. T.S.N., December 15, 1988, p. 3.

15. T.S.N., October 28, 1988, p. 2, 5.

16. T.S.N., December 15, 1988, p. 11.

17. T.S.N., April 22, 1988, p. 6.

18. People v. Flores, No. L-65647, 165 SCRA 71, (1988).

19. People v. Albior, No. L-75134, 163 SCRA 332, (1988).

20. T.S.N., December 14, 1988, pp. 2-3.

21. T.S.N., April 22, 1988, p. 8.

22. T.S.N., April 3, 1989, pp. 8-9.

23. People v. Domingo, No. L-68993, 165 SCRA 620, (1988).

24. No. L-70998, 145 SCRA 50, (1986).




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






August-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 78341 August 3, 1992 - TURIANO M. SAN ANDRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 85962-63 August 3, 1992 - ROSARIO GACOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95703 August 3, 1992 - RURAL BANK OF BOMBON (CAM. SUR), INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97306 August 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO TUBURO

  • G.R. No. 75363 August 4, 1992 - FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. v. FIRESTONE TIRE EMPLOYEES’ UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83190 August 4, 1992 - CEBU SEAMEN’S ASSOCIATION, INC. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86436 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVENCIO DE PAZ

  • G.R. No. 90802 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOM CHANAS

  • G.R. No. 91160 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX FULGARILLAS

  • G.R. No. 91695 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT MALONZO

  • G.R. No. 93143 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO R. RACE, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-95757 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO RAÑOLA

  • G.R. No. 97319 August 4, 1992 - GODOFREDO T. SWAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98251 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO CRUDA

  • G.R. No. 100399 August 4, 1992 - TEKNIKA SKILLS AND TRADE SERVICES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100511 August 4, 1992 - SPS. BENITO TRINIDAD and SOLEDAD TRINIDAD v. SPS. LUIS CABRERA and DELIA CABRERA

  • G.R. No. 100752 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 102869 August 4, 1992 - SEN PO EK MARKETING CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47158 August 5, 1992 - ANGUSTIA M. IBAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57127 August 5, 1992 - RHODORA DEL CASTILLO v. CANDIDO AGUINALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82782 August 5, 1992 - JOSE B. TIONGCO, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87434 August 5, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INS., ET AL. v. SWEET LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97291 August 5, 1992 - RUFINO MISA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100138 August 5, 1992 - FIVE J TAXI, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101148 August 5, 1992 - TERRY LYN MAGNO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101428 August 5, 1992 - ISABELITA VITAL-GOZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102448 August 5, 1992 - RICARDO CUARTERO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60506 August 6, 1992 - FIGURACION VDA. DE MAGLANA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94490 August 6, 1992 - JOSE DE LUNA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96635 August 6, 1992 - ATLANTIC, GULF AND PACIFIC CO. v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97952 August 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALVIN LIQUEN

  • G.R. No. 101279 August 6, 1992 - PHIL. ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC. v. RUBEN D. TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105628 August 6, 1992 - RODULFO SARMIENTO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-90-408 August 7, 1992 - RICHARD M. HOUGHTON, ET AL. v. ANTONIO D. VELASCO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-91-660 August 7, 1992 - UNKNOWN MUN. COUNCILOR OF STO. DOMINGO, NUEVA ECIJA v. MARIO V. ALOMIA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 72001 August 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO BECHAYDA

  • G.R. No. 76966 August 7, 1992 - CAFFCO INT’L. LTD. v. OFF. OF THE MINISTER-MIN. OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91797 August 7, 1992 - WIDOWS & ORPHANS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95431 August 7, 1992 - FLORENCIA DE LA CALZADA-CIERRAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95838 August 7, 1992 - MARCELINO LAURETO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 101127-31 August 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENIA C. REYES

  • G.R. No. 101512 August 7, 1992 - NILDA GABRIEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95832 August 10, 1992 - MAYNARD R. PERALTA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 96126 August 10, 1992 - ESTERIA F. GARCIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97611 August 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO TALENTO

  • G.R. No. 97753 August 10, 1992 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97764 August 10, 1992 - LEVY D. MACASIANO v. ROBERTO C. DIOKNO

  • G.R. No. 102549 August 10, 1992 - ERWIN B. JAVELLANA v. DEPT. OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVT., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102795 August 10, 1992 - DAMIAN OGBURN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79664 August 11, 1992 - ANDRES VILLAVILLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99431 August 11, 1992 - GOLDLOOP PROPERTIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64019 August 12, 1992 - BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80491 August 12, 1992 - J. ARTIE VERGEL DE DIOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91491 August 12, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO ALMENARIO

  • G.R. No. 93516 August 12, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BASILIO DAMASO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95583 August 12, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO WENCESLAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98325 August 12, 1992 - LUCINO DIAZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100490 August 12, 1992 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT LINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100942 August 12, 1992 - LUCIO TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62556 August 13, 1992 - VENANCIO GONZALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100285 August 13, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON DUQUE

  • Adm. Case No. 3187 August 14, 1992 - MYRNA D. ROQUE, ET AL. v. FELICIANO B. CLEMENCIO

  • G.R. No. 100643 August 14, 1992 - ADEZ REALTY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100969 August 14, 1992 lab

    CARLOS RANARA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75112 August 17, 1992 - FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94555 August 17, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHlL. v. EDUARDO LABALAN OCIMAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101566 August 17, 1992 - FLORENCIO A. RUIZ, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-90-496 August 18, 1992 - MARCELO B. ASUNCION, ET AL. v. K. CASIANO P. ANUNCIACION, JR.

  • G.R. No. 85997 August 19, 1992 - HORTENSIA L. STARKE v. PHILIPPINE SUGAR COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96182 August 19, 1992 - MARCELO FERNANDO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80739 August 2, 1992 - GRACIA R. JOVEN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91004-05 August 20, 1992 - JOSEPH TAY CHUN SUY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95305 August 20, 1992 - ELENA LINDAIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90036 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO GONZAGA

  • G.R. No. 90107 August 21, 1992 - DOMINGO A. TUZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91646 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMIL MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 91846 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO MACLID, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94115 August 21, 1992 - RODOLFO E. AGUINALDO v. LUIS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94299 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO MALLARI

  • G.R. No. 96810 August 21, 1992 - THE HEIRS OF JESUS AMADO ARANETA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101858 August 21, 1992 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85286 August 24, 1992 - BASILIO A. BALASBAS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100401 August 24, 1992 - CONSOLIDATED DAIRY PRODUCTS CO., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101630 August 24, 1992 - VICTOR DE JESUS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91129 August 25, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO D. PABLO

  • G.R. No. 94374 August 27, 1992 - PHIL. LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHIL., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59436 August 28, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN MOLINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74740 August 28, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 48532 August 31, 1992 - HERNANDO B. CONWI, ET AL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65532 August 31, 1992 - CONCEPCION PELAEZ VDA. DE TAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66253 August 31, 1992 - METRO PORT SERVICE, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75959 August 31, 1992 - VICTORIANO V. OROCIO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92758 August 31, 1992 - EMILIO VENEGAS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93238 August 31, 1992 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102131 August 31, 1992 - FRANCO GORION v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CEBU, ET AL.