Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > August 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 90036 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO GONZAGA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 90036. August 21, 1992.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAYMUNDO GONZAGA y LANDA, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor-General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Oscar L. Karaan for Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; WHEN SUFFICIENT FOR CONVICTION. — Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. In one case, this Court had stated: "According to Moran further, `the circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion,’ that is, that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, the circumstances themselves, or a combination thereof, should point to overt acts of the accused that would logically point to the conclusion, and no other, that he is guilty of the crime charged." It has been held that "a conviction may rest upon circumstantial testimony alone, but the facts and circumstances must be such as are absolutely incompatible upon any reasonable hypothesis with the innocence of the accused, and incapable of explanation upon any reasonable hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused." This is so because "crimes are usually committed in secret and under conditions where concealment is highly improbable. To require direct testimony in all cases would result in the acquittal of guilty parties leaving them free to once more wreak havoc on society."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ID.; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; NOT DESTROYED BY CONFLICT ON MINOR DETAILS OF TESTIMONIES; RULE THAT POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED BY WITNESSES GIVEN GREATER WEIGHT THAN ACCUSED’S DENIAL WELL-SETTLED. — The alleged conflicting testimonies of the prosecution witnesses Cris Ong and Agustin Fabro refers only to minor details which do not destroy the credibility of said witnesses. Furthermore, Accused-appellant’s version of the incident deserves scant attention since he was positively identified to be the assailant of the victim by the prosecution witnesses. It is well-settled that greater weight is given to the positive identification of the accused-appellant by the prosecution witnesses than to the accused-appellant’s denial and explanation regarding the commission of the crime.

3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL; WAIVER THEREOF; CONSEQUENCE OF WAIVER NOT IN WRITING. — While accused-appellant had a written confession which was freely and voluntarily given, the same cannot be considered and given weight in ascertaining his guilt, as the waiver of his constitutional right to be represented by counsel was not in writing.


D E C I S I O N


NOCON, J.:


This is an appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, 1 Branch XVIII in Criminal Case No. 85-39642 wherein accused-appellant Raymundo Gonzaga was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of ROBBERY with HOMICIDE in an Information 2 which read as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about April 18, 1985, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating with others whose true names, identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and helping one another, with intent of gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation, to wit: by then and there entering the residence of Ernesto Marcelino y Villarama, and once inside, did then and there wilfully, [sic] unlawfully and feloniously, at knifepoint [sic], take, rob and carry away cash money in the amount of P6,750.00 and assorted jewelry and gold crown and necklace[s] of the Sto. Niño valued at P20,000.00, all in the total amount of P26,750.00, belonging to said Ernesto Marcelino y Villarama, against his will, to the damage and prejudice of said owner in the aforesaid amount of P26,750.00, Philippines Currency; that by reason of and on the occasion of the commission of the crime of robbery, the accused, in furtherance of their conspiracy, with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of said Ernesto Marcelino y Villarama, by then and there stabbing him with bladed weapons at the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal stab wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.

Contrary to law."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon arraignment, Accused-appellant pleaded "NOT GUILTY" to the offense charged and after trial on the merits, the court a quo rendered a judgment against him, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused, Raymundo Gonsaga y Landa, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, with the aggravating circumstances of aid of armed men and evident premeditation, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the accessory penalties provided by law and to pay the costs.

As to the civil liability of the accused, he is further sentenced to indemnify the legal heirs of the victim, Ernesto Marcelino, the sum of P12,000.00, for the victim’s death, and moral damages in the sum of P50,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of default."cralaw virtua1aw library

The facts as found by the trial court are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The victim Ernesto Marcelino was the president of Wall Paper Philippines engaged in the business of selling and installing wallpaper. Said victim conducted his business on the ground floor of his house and occupied the second floor of said house as his residence with his six live-in employees namely: Cris Ong, Ernesto Altamera, Roger Satur, Cresente Serna, Agustin Fabro and Randy Rempillo. 3 Accused-appellant, a wallpaper installer, was employed by the victim on a contractual basis since 1974 until he was dismissed by the victim on March 30, 1985 when the latter learned that the accused-appellant had been accepting wallpaper installing jobs without coursing said jobs through his office.

At around 6:15 a.m. of April 18, 1985, Accused-appellant and his three male companions, all armed with knives, poked a knife at Roger Satur while the latter was cleaning the alley in front of the victim’s house and dragged him inside the house. Upon entering the house, Accused-appellant and his companions cut off the telephone cord of the telephone located on the ground floor and dragged Satur with them as they proceeded to the second floor.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Once accused-appellant and his companions reached the second floor of the house, they saw Cris Ong and Agustin Fabro in the kitchen and told them not to move. After tying Ong’s hands with a telephone cord, Accused-appellant knocked and entered the room of the victim while his companions waited outside and herded all the other live-in employees of the victim in the kitchen.

Thereafter, the employees of the victim heard a commotion and a groaning sound from the victim’s room. A few minutes later, Accused-appellant came out from the victim’s bedroom holding a knife dripping with blood and exchanged his blood-stained shoes for the slippers of Ernesto Altamero.

As soon as the accused-appellant and his companions left said place, Ong and his co-employees immediately went inside the victim’s bedroom and saw the bloodied and lifeless body of the victim lying on his belly. They also noticed that the victim’s room was ransacked and upon further investigation, it was discovered that a gold crown, two pearl necklaces of a Sto. Niño image as well as an undetermined amount of money, assorted jewelries and other personal belongings of the victim were missing.

Based on the postmortem findings of the Medico-Legal Division of the NBI, Exhibits "C" and "C-1", the victim sustained seven stab wounds in his neck, chest (left and right side), abdomen, back (left and right side), right forearm and right thigh as indicated in the sketches prepared by the Medico-Legal Division of the NBI, Exhibit "E" and "E-1." 4

Recovered from the scene of the crime were the four knives left by the accused-appellant and his companions. The police also found in a travelling bag left by the accused-appellant a letter addressed to his wife containing his former address in Punta, Sta. Ana. Proceeding to said address, the police officers were able to intercept accused-appellant’s letter addressed to his wife in Bao, Camarines Sur. They also learned that the accused-appellant’s three companions were hiding in a certain barrio in Trece Martires City (Cavite). 5 Acting on said information, Pat. Benjamin C. Boco together with some police officers proceeded to said place, and found Filomena Alba, one of the suspects’ wife, who voluntarily turned over to them one of the stolen necklaces of the victim.

On the evening of September 7, 1985, the police arrested accused-appellant in the latter’s house in Bao, Camarines Sur and brought him to the headquarters of Bao Police Force where accused-appellant verbally admitted his participation in said crime and revealed the place where the pearl necklace of the victim was hidden, which was retrieved by the police inside a bamboo post of the accused-appellant’s house. 6

On September 9, 1985, Accused-appellant was brought to the Western Police District Headquarters for further investigation. Upon the request of the police authorities, Atty. Juanito Formes of the CLAO assisted the accused-appellant, who confided to the former his desire to make a confession. Atty. Formes tried to dissuade the accused-appellant from confessing by warning him that his confession would be used as evidence against him in court and that he might be sentenced to death but the accused-appellant answered: "never mind, Attorney, I will just confess to bring in all my companions in this case so that I will not be the only one to suffer but I will also enter a plea of guilty in court because I’m afraid to die and if I will not enter a plea of guilty it will be litigated and my sentence would be life imprisonment." 7 Consequently, upon the request of the accused-appellant, Atty. Formes verbally waived the right of the accused-appellant to be assisted by counsel and left the accused-appellant who executed under oath a written declaration narrating in detail his participation in the commission of said crime.chanrobles law library

During trial, Accused-appellant denied stabbing the victim and alleged that he was only forced to execute said extrajudicial statement by the victim’s brother Danilo Marcelino, police officers Mario Maglutac and Ramon Alulod. His version of the incident was that at around 6 a.m. of April 18, 1985, he and his helper, Jimmy Briyoso, were in the office of the victim to collect from the latter his unpaid salary totalling P900.00. Briyoso got mad at the victim when the latter refused to pay said amount of money to the accused-appellant and a heated argument ensued. Suddenly, a certain Edel, armed with a knife, entered the room and stabbed the victim’s neck. Accused-appellant tried to stop Edel from stabbing the victim who pleaded through his eyes for accused-appellant to help him. However, while accused-appellant tried to separate them, his right biceps and upper right thigh were stabbed by Edel and the latter shouted at the accused-appellant not to meddle and continued stabbing the victim until the latter fell on the floor. Thereafter, Accused-appellant was coerced by Edel and his companions to leave with them.

Accused-appellant contends that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt since no eyewitness to the stabbing incident was presented by the prosecution and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses Cris Ong and Agustin Fabro are contradictory and inconsistent.

We do not agree.

Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) There is more than one circumstance;

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and

(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

In one case, this Court had stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"According to Moran further, `the circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion,’ that is, that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, the circumstances themselves, or a combination thereof, should point to overt acts of the accused that would logically point to the conclusion, and no other, that he is guilty of the crime charged." 8

In the case at bar, the incriminating circumstantial evidence that point to the accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the offense are the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Accused-appellant was dismissed by the victim on March 30, 1985.

2. Cris Ong saw accused-appellant dragging Roger Satur at knife point towards the second floor of the victim’s house with his three companions who were also similarly armed.

3. The victim was stabbed with a sharp-pointed instrument inside his bedroom after the accused-appellant entered his bedroom.

4. Accused-appellant was the only one who entered the victim’s bedroom.

5. Cris Ong and Agustin Fabro heard groans coming from the victim’s bedroom.

6. Thereafter, Cris Ong and Agustin Fabro saw accused-appellant come out from the victim’s bedroom holding a knife dripping with blood.

7. Accused-appellant entered the kitchen and exchanged his blood stained shoes for Altamera’s slippers.

8. Accused-appellant immediately took flight after the incident.

9. When accused-appellant was apprehended in Bao, Camarines Sur, he surrendered to the police officers one of the necklaces of the Sto. Niño which he had earlier hidden in the bamboo post of his house.cralawnad

The combination of all the foregoing circumstances is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It has been held that "a conviction may rest upon circumstantial testimony alone, but the facts and circumstances must be such as are absolutely incompatible upon any reasonable hypothesis with the innocence of the accused, and incapable of explanation upon any reasonable hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused." 9 This is so because "crimes are usually committed in secret and under conditions where concealment is highly improbable. To require direct testimony in all cases would result in the acquittal of guilty parties leaving them free to once more wreak havoc on society." 10

The alleged conflicting testimonies of the prosecution witnesses Cris Ong and Agustin Fabro refers only to minor details which do not destroy the credibility of said witnesses. Furthermore, Accused-appellant’s version of the incident deserves scant attention since he was positively identified to be the assailant of the victim by the prosecution witnesses. It is well-settled that greater weight is given to the positive identification of the accused-appellant by the prosecution witnesses than to the accused-appellant’s denial and explanation regarding the commission of the crime.

While accused-appellant had a written confession which was freely and voluntarily given, the same cannot be considered and given weight in ascertaining his guilt, as the waiver of his constitutional right to be represented by counsel was not in writing.

At any rate, the circumstantial evidence on record are sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty beyond reasonable doubt on Accused-Appellant. 11

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with the sole modification that the indemnity to be paid by the accused-appellant to the heirs of the victim is increased to P50,000.00 in accordance with the new policy of the Court on this matter.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

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

Endnotes:



1. Penned by Judge Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr.

2. Rollo, p. 6.

3. T.S.N., November 11, 1985, p. 4.

4. Regional Trial Court`s decision, p. 2; Rollo p. 24.

5. T.S.N., September 2, 1985, p. 4.

6. Id., at pp. 6-8.

7. T.S.N., January 27, 1986, p. 5.

8. People v. Flores, 186 SCRA 303 (1990).

9. Francisco, Vicente J., The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, Volume VII, Part II, 1991 Ed., p. 610.

10. People v. Layuso, 175 SCRA 47 [1989].

11. Article III, Sec. 12(1), 1987 Constitution.




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.