Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > August 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 94299 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO MALLARI:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 94299. August 21, 1992.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICARDO MALLARI, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Edgardo Sorca Arias for Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO COUNSEL; NOT DENIED IN CASE AT BAR. — The records belie accused-appellant’s contention. He was duly represented by a member of the Bar and was accorded all the opportunities to be heard and present evidence to substantiate his defense during the entire trial proceedings. As aptly pointed out by the Solicitor General: "Initially, appellant and his-co-accused were represented in court by Atty. Demaala, Sr. At said session, Atty. Demaala entered his appearance as counsel for both accused for purposes of direct examination, to be conducted by the prosecution. On cross-examination, Atty. Demaala appeared as counsel for both accused. On the trial court’s sessions of June 1, 1988 and July 11, 1988 wherein Dr. Fabellon testified on his Autopsy Report and the deceased’s mother on the expenditures incurred relative to her son’s death, Atty. Demaala appeared for appellant Mallari while Atty. Rocamora appeared for accused Ramos. In the trial court’s session of November 12, 1989, Atty. Rocamora entered his appearance as counsel "for the accused" without any qualification. The same appearance was again entered by Atty. Rocamora in the court’s session of February 9, 1990. "Since afore-named counsels had, at one court session or another, interchangeably appeared in court as counsel either for both accused or for a named accused, it is safe and logical to assume that both are corroborating counsels for both accused. Such that, when one counsel enters his court appearance in the absence of the other, such appearance was meant for both accused. This was evidently the court’s perception, in the absence of any qualification of counsels’ court appearances. In fine, there was an understanding between both counsels in this regard, consented to by both accused as shown by their silence. Moreover, if there is any truth that appellant Mallari was not represented or properly represented by counsel of his choice, why did he fall to immediately inform the court of it. Why did appellant wait until his conviction to raise this question? The inevitable conclusion is that he knew that he was properly represented by a counsel of his own choice."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ID.; DUE PROCESS; DEEMED OBSERVED WHEN ACCUSED WAS DULY ACCORDED ALL THE OPPORTUNITIES TO BE HEARD AND PRESENT EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS DEFENSE. — As to the accused-appellant’s contention that he was denied due process when the trial court considered the case submitted for decision thereby depriving him of presenting further evidence for his defense, We simply find the same to be untrue. The trial court was merely following the continuous trial method mandated by the Supreme Court on certain pilot courts. Accused-appellant, was not, in any way, deprived of his substantive and constitutional right to due process as he was duly accorded all the opportunities to be heard and to present evidence to substantiate his defense but he forfeited this right, through his own negligence for not appearing in court together with his counsel at the scheduled hearings.

3. CRIMINAL LAW; CONSPIRACY; ESTABLISHED IN CASE AT BAR. — Trial court found that the minibus driven by the accused-appellant stopped a foot away from the victim who was standing on the road when accused Ramos, who was seated inside the bus, suddenly stabbed the latter. Thereafter, Accused-appellant responding to the accused Ramos order "let’s go" or "sibat na tayo" speedily drove the minibus away from the scene of the crime. These acts of the accused Ramos and accused-appellant Mallari positively indicate the existence of a common unlawful purpose to kill and both were united in seeing to its fulfillment by consciously and purposely adopting means and method to ensure its commission. Thus, a person may be convicted for the criminal act of another where, between them, there was conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime charged. Once the assent is established, each and everyone of the conspirators is made criminally liable for the crime actually committed by anyone of them," as in the case at bar. Furthermore, the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses show clear indicia of conspiracy.

4. ID.; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; TREACHERY; ELEMENTS; CONSTRUED IN CASE AT BAR. — To constitute treachery, two conditions must be present, to wit; (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. In the present case, the position of accused Ramos, who was inside the minibus, from the victim, who was standing a foot away from the minibus, gave undue advantage to the former since the latter was not in a position to defend himself or to retaliate. Moreover, the location of the lone stab wound on the victim indicates that accused Ramos deliberately and consciously aimed for the victim’s vital organ to ensure the commission of the offense without any risk to himself which the victim might make.


D E C I S I O N


NOCON, J.:


This is an appeal by accused-appellant Ricardo Mallari from the decision 1 dated April 11, 1990 of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City, 4th Judicial Region, Branch 47 in Criminal Case No. 6334, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the two (2) herein accused JOSINO RAMOS and RICARDO MALLARI guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals, of the crime of MURDER charged against them by the Provincial Prosecution Office in this case as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and there being no modifying circumstance that attended the commission of this offenses, hereby sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA; each to pay the heirs or family of the victim, EDMUNDO TUYAK, moral, exemplary and actual damages of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) and to pay the costs.

"With this conviction, the bailbonds posted for the provisional liberty of the accused are hereby ordered revoked, cancelled and terminated, and both accused should immediately be placed behind bars and shipped to the national penitentiary, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, for imprisonment and to serve their sentences there." 2

On June 5, 1986, an information was filed against Josino Ramos and Ricardo Mallari for the crime of MURDER committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 7th day of May, 1956 at barangay Rio Tuba, Municipality of Bataraza, Province of Palawan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another with evident premeditation, treachery and with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully [sic], unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with a bladed weapon [,] to wit: a Batangas knife [sic], one Edmundo Tuyak [,] hitting him in a vital part of his body and inflicting upon him mortal injuries which was the direct and immediate caused [sic] of his death shortly thereafter. 3

Upon arraignment accused Josino Ramos and accused-appellant Ricardo Mallari pleaded "Not Guilty" to the offense charged.cralawnad

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

At around 5:00 p.m. of May 7, 1986, the victim Edmundo Tuyac and his companion Danilo Culaban left the store at Rio Tuba in Bataraza, Palawan where they were celebrating their basketball championship with their teammates. As they were walking towards the townsite, a Mazda minibus driven by accused-appellant Ricardo Mallari suddenly stopped beside the victim and accused Josino Ramos, who was the lone passenger in said bus, and who was seated at the back of the driver stabbed the victim once with a Batangas knife on his clavicular area while the latter was in a standing position and a foot away from the vehicle.

The stabbing incident was seen by Silvino dela Peña, who was about five (5) arms length away from the victim, and heard one of the accused say "sibat na tayo."cralaw virtua1aw library

Quirico Bañadera, a teammate of the victim, likewise saw Ramos stab the victim Edmundo Tuyac as he was just coming out of a house which is about seven (7) meters away from the scene of the stabbing incident. Thereafter, Accused-appellant Mallari speedily drove away from the scene of the crime. Bañadera rushed to the victim, who fell to the ground after being stabbed by the accused Ramos, and with the assistance of Edgar Galvero brought the latter to the hospital on board a Gumba jeep which was parked nearby.

On their way to the hospital and upon reaching the military checkpoint, Bañadera and dela Peña saw the minibus used by the accused and accordingly shouted at the personnel manning said checkpoint to stop said minibus. Immediately, the military officer stopped the bus and, after a search found a bloodied knife under one of the seats of the bus.

At 11:30 a.m. of May 8, 1986, an autopsy of the victim was conducted by Medico Legal Officer Joaquin B. Fabellon at Brooke’s Point District Hospital, who stated in his Partial Autopsy Report that the victim incurred a wound at the clavicular area of his body hitting the thoracic cavity and perforating the left upper portion of his lung and that the probable weapon used in inflicting said wound is a Batangas knife. 4

Accused Ramos, however, disputes the foregoing facts and stated that what actually happened on that fateful afternoon is as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

At around 6:20 p.m. of May 7, 1986, while he and accused-appellant Mallari were on their way to the pier terminal at Rio Tuba, Bataraza, with the latter driving the Mazda minibus with two (2) passengers, a group of about 20 drunk men started stoning their vehicle. The victim Edmundo Tuyac boxed his face several times, and as Tuyac was pulling him out of the vehicle by his left hand, he got hold of a tool from the opened tool box inside the minibus and hit the victim with it without any intention of killing him since he never met the victim before nor had he any motive to kill the latter. Thereafter, he and accused-appellant Mallari went to the Marine Detachment to ask for assistance.

On the other hand, Accused-appellant Mallari testified that at around 6:00 p.m. of May 7, 1986, he and accused Ramos were at the lower portion of the pier to unload cargoes. As they were about to leave, the two (2) passengers inside the minibus said "Takbo." Instinctively, he immediately drove the minibus and proceeded to the Marine Detachment for assistance although he noticed no unusual incident happening inside or outside the bus while driving from the pier to the Marine Detachment since an iron backrest separates the driver’s compartment from the other passengers of the bus. Accused-appellant contends that he has no reason to conceive of a plot to kill the victim whom he never knew nor met before the incident in question mush less to have any ill-feeling against him.

For the failure of the accused and his counsel to appear in court on February 12, 1990 without justification or explanation despite notice that the defense has to terminate its case that day, the trial court issued an Order submitting the case for decision.

We find no merit in the appeal.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Accused-appellant contends that there was a mistrial since he was not represented by a counsel of his own choice during the latter stage of the trial and that he was denied due process of law for not being allowed to present further evidence considering that it was the accused Ramos and his counsel who were absent during the trial held on February 12, 1990.

The records belie accused-appellant’s contention. He was duly represented by a member of the Bar and was accorded all the opportunities to be heard and present evidence to substantiate his defense during the entire trial proceedings. As aptly pointed out by the Solicitor General:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Initially, appellant and his-co-accused were represented in court by Atty. Demaala, Sr. (p. 2, tsn March 28, 1988 a.m.). At said session, Atty. Demaala entered his appearance as counsel for both accused for purposes of direct examination, to be conducted by the prosecution. On cross-examination, Atty. Demaala appeared as counsel for both accused (p. 2, March 28, 1988 P.M.). On the trial court’s sessions of June 1, 1988 and July 11, 1988 wherein Dr. Fabellon testified on his Autopsy Report and the deceased’s mother on the expenditures incurred relative to her son’s death, Atty. Demaala appeared for appellant Mallari while Atty. Rocamora appeared for accused Ramos. In the trial court’s session of November 12, 1989, Atty. Rocamora entered his appearance as counsel "for the accused" (p. 2, tsn, November 13, 1989) without any qualification. The same appearance was again entered by Atty. Rocamora in the court’s session of February 9, 1990.

"Since afore-named counsels had, at one court session or another, interchangeably appeared in court as counsel either for both accused or for a named accused, it is safe and logical to assume that both are corroborating counsels for both accused. Such that, when one counsel enters his court appearance in the absence of the other, such appearance was meant for both accused. This was evidently the court’s perception, in the absence of any qualification of counsels’ court appearances. In fine, there was an understanding between both counsels in this regard, consented to by both accused as shown by their silence. Moreover, if there is any truth that appellant Mallari was not represented or properly represented by counsel of his choice, why did he fall to immediately inform the court of it. Why did appellant wait until his conviction to raise this question? The inevitable conclusion is that he knew that he was properly represented by a counsel of his own choice." 5

As to the accused-appellant’s contention that he was denied due process when the trial court considered the case submitted for decision thereby depriving him of presenting further evidence for his defense, We simply find the same to be untrue. The trial court was merely following the continuous trial method mandated by the Supreme Court on certain pilot courts. Accused-appellant, was not, in any way, deprived of his substantive and constitutional right to due process as he was duly accorded all the opportunities to be heard and to present evidence to substantiate his defense but he forfeited this right, through his own negligence for not appearing in court together with his counsel at the scheduled hearings.

Both accused are deemed to have waived their right to present other evidences considering that the trial court had repeatedly admonished them to resume the presentation of their defense as can be gleaned from the trial court’s Order of November 13, 1989, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The parties are advised that this being a continuous trial, the ninety-day (90) period to terminate this case starts today, November 13, 1989. . . . ." 6

And the trial court’s Order of February 9, 1990, which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"AS PRAYED FOR, let this hearing be continued on February 12, 1990, at 8:30 o’clock in the morning. The defense is reminded that its time to terminate its case is on the 12th of February, 1990, so it must be ready to close its case on that date." 7

but which both accused ignored. It cannot be said then that they were denied due process as they were given ample opportunity to be heard during the trial of the case but they chose not to appear in court on said dates.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

With regards to accused-appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in finding that the killing of Edmundo Tuyac was attended by the qualifying circumstances of conspiracy, evident premeditation and treachery, We find the trial court’s justification in accordance with the law and evidence. The trial court found that the minibus driven by the accused-appellant stopped a foot away from the victim who was standing on the road when accused Ramos, who was seated inside the bus, suddenly stabbed the latter. Thereafter, Accused-appellant responding to the accused Ramos order "let’s go" or "sibat na tayo" speedily drove the minibus away from the scene of the crime.

These acts of the accused Ramos and accused-appellant Mallari positively indicate the existence of a common unlawful purpose to kill and both were united in seeing to its fulfillment by consciously and purposely adopting means and method to ensure its commission. Thus, a person may be convicted for the criminal act of another where, between them, there was conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime charged. Once the assent is established, each and everyone of the conspirators is made criminally liable for the crime actually committed by anyone of them," 8 as in the case at bar. Furthermore, the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses show clear indicia of conspiracy. Indeed, the trial court was of the same opinion that conspiracy and treachery attended the killing of the victim. Said the Court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . The way the crime was executed gives a clear indication that this was the result of a pre-arranged or pre-planned killing that was neatly and precisely carried out. The Court takes into account that the two (2) accused had always been together as driver and conductor of the passenger jeepney of Mrs. Magura."cralaw virtua1aw library

x       x       x


"The Court also believes and holds that the stabbing of the victim was attended by treachery because while the victim was walking on the left side of the road, the passenger jeepney driven by accused Ricardo Mallari suddenly stopped without turning off its engine right in the place where he (victim) was and in that precise moment, the other accused, Josino Ramos fatally stabbed the victim. The assault was sudden and unexpected because nobody, let alone the victim knew or even anticipated subject passenger jeepney [minibus] would stop right beside him and he would be suddenly stabbed." 9

To constitute treachery, two conditions must be present, to wit; (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. 10 In the present case, the position of accused Ramos, who was inside the minibus, from the victim, who was standing a foot away from the minibus, gave undue advantage to the former since the latter was not in a position to defend himself or to retaliate. Moreover, the location of the lone stab wound on the victim indicates that accused Ramos deliberately and consciously aimed for the victim’s vital organ to ensure the commission of the offense without any risk to himself which the victim might make.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

As regards the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation, we agree with the accused-appellant that the same may not be appreciated against them absent proof as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or what time elapsed before it was carried out. 11

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against Accused-Appellant.

SO ORDERED.

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

Melo, J., No part.

Endnotes:



1. Penned by Judge Eustaquio Z. Gacott, Jr.

2. Rollo, p. 63.

3. Original Record, p. 2.

4. T.S.N., June 1, 1988, pp. 3-7.

5. Rollo, p. 316.

6. Original Record, p. 231.

7. Id., at p. 272.

8. People v. Talla, 181 SCRA 133 [1990].

9. Rollo, p. 85.

10. People v. Mabubay, 185 SCRA 675 [1990].

11. People v. Peñones, 200 SCRA 624 [1991].




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.