Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > July 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 88752 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO P. MANANSALA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 88752. July 3, 1992.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANILO MANANSALA y PALISOC, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jose P. Villanueva counsel de officio for Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; WITNESSES; CREDIBILITY THEREOF. NOT AFFECTED BY THE HESITATION TO IDENTIFY THE ACCUSED TO THE POLICE INVESTIGATOR. — Even if it be supposed that the witness had hesitated when she identified Manansala to the police investigators, such hesitation would not necessarily vitiate her credibility. After all, more than five months had elapsed when she was taken to the detention cell and then to the fiscal’s office to pinpoint Manansala from several other persons. It was necessary for her to think back on the night when her fiance died before her eyes and to focus once again on her remembrance of the face of the man who had confronted her then.

2. ID.; ID.; ALIBI; CANNOT PREVAIL OVER THE POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACCUSED BY THE EYEWITNESS. — Alibi is an inherently weak defense. And it becomes more so in the case at bar not only because of the positive identification of the accused-appellant by eyewitness Nisperos. No less importantly, the testimonies of the accused-appellant and of his lone corroborating witness are themselves so conspicuously flawed as to invite rejection.

3. CRIMINAL LAW; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; TREACHERY; PRESENT WHEN VICTIM WAS TOTALLY UNPREPARED FOR THE ATTACK THAT CAUSED HIS DEATH. — The killing was aggravated by treachery as the victim was shot from behind. Dr. Desiderio Moraleda, who performed the autopsy on the cadaver, testified that the fatal bullet entered the back of Colmo’s head and passed through his mouth. "There is alevosia when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might make." Colmo never knew what hit him and was totally unprepared for the attack that caused his death.

4. ID.; ID.; EVIDENT PREMEDITATION; NOT INHERENT IN ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE; REASON THEREFOR. — Evident premeditation is not inherent in robbery with homicide. In such an offense, the evident premeditation must relate to the killing and not to the robbery. According to Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino: Under normal conditions, where conspiracy is directly established, with proof of the attendant deliberation and selection of the method, time and means of executing the crime, the existence of evident premeditation can be taken for granted. But in the case of implied conspiracy, evident premeditation may not be appreciated, in the absence of proof as to how and when the plan to kill the victim was hatched or what time elapsed before it was carried out, so that it cannot be determined if the accused had "sufficient time between its inception and its fulfillment dispassionately to consider and accept the consequences." There should be a showing that the accused had the opportunity for reflection and persisted in effectuating his criminal design.


D E C I S I O N


CRUZ, J.:


On March 17, 1986, at about 9:30 o’clock in the evening, Pat. Hector Colmo and his girl friend, Fe Nisperos, were sitting at one end of a bench in a shed located at the Food Terminal Compound in Bicutan, Taguig, Rizal. They were waiting for a ride home. Seated at the other end of the bench were three men who were talking among themselves. Nisperos was looking at the approaching bus they were to take when suddenly she heard a shot that made her scamper in fright. She realized seconds later that she had left her boy friend behind, and so she turned back. She froze in horror. Colmo was slumped on the ground with a bleeding head. She rushed to aid him, but one of the three men jumped over the bench and pointed a gun at her. She stopped short. He took the pistol from the fallen victim. She looked at the man but he did not harm her or even speak to her. As he fled with his two companions, she started shouting for help. Some people succored her but it was too late. Colmo expired from "cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the gunshot wound in the head." 1

Danilo Manansala was in due time picked up and investigated for the offense. Subsequently, he was charged with the crime of robbery with homicide committed in conspiracy with two unidentified persons and with the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery. 2 After trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He was also required to pay the victim’s heirs P30,000.00 as civil indemnity for his death; P50,000.00 for loss of his earning capacity; P20,000.00 as moral; and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, as well as the costs of the suit. 3

The accused-appellant is now before us to challenge his conviction. He faults the trial court for giving undue credence to the evidence of the prosecution and for disbelieving his defense as bolstered by the constitutional presumption of innocence in his favor.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

The principal witness for the prosecution was Fe Nisperos, who testified on the details of Colmo’s shooting as above narrated. The defense now questions her credibility and claims that when she was taken to the detention cell and later to the fiscal’s office to identify Manansala, she hesitated and could not readily point to him as the assailant. In short, her subsequent identification of the accused-appellant at the trial was not positive enough or credible enough to dispel the doubt that should have been resolved in his favor.

The contention is not acceptable. Nisperos was quite definite when she testified that it was the accused-appellant whom she saw clearly by the several lights in the FTI compound as he aimed his gun at her and took the pistol from the dying Colmo. Thus she said in no uncertain terms:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q When you were approaching your boy friend, did you take a good look at the gunman when he came near you and took the gun of your boy friend?

"A Yes, sir.

"Q How long?

"A I cannot remember for how long I had a look at the gunman but I was able to see his face.

"Q If you are going to see the face of that gunman, will you be able to recognize him?

"A Yes, sir 4

x       x       x


"Q Was the accused Danilo Manansala one of the persons seated in the waiting shed?

"A Yes, sir.

"Q Where was he seated?

"A He was the one seated nearest to me.

"Q The one according to you who was trying to hide his face?

"A Yes, sir.

"Q And how many times were you able to look at him?

"A 3 to 4 times sir.

"Q How many seconds?

"A Not only for seconds, sir, it’s quite sometime. 5

x       x       x


"Q When you went to the jail, how many persons were present?

"A Seven (7) or eight (8), sir.

"Q Where you able to point the identity of the accused?

"A I readily pointed to him, sir. 6

x       x       x


"Q Are you positive that the person you identified earlier is the same person who shot your boyfriend?

"A I am sure, sir.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

"Q Can you not be mistaken about that?

"A Yes, sir.

"Q What was your basis when you said that he was the person who shot your boy friend?

"A His face, sir. 7

Indeed, even if it be supposed that she had hesitated when she identified Manansala to the police investigators, such hesitation would not necessarily vitiate her credibility. After all, more than five months had elapsed when she was taken to the detention cell and then to the fiscal’s office to pinpoint Manansala from several other persons. It was necessary for her to think back on the night when her fiance died before her eyes and to focus once again on her remembrance of the face of the man who had confronted her then.

For his part, Manansala testified that at the time of the incident in question, he was not in Bicutan but in Caloocan City. At eight o’clock that evening, he was in the house of Fely Bodomo with his father, his stepmother and his brothers and sisters. At ten o’clock, he went to sleep. He stated categorically that he did not leave the house from that hour until he awoke between 5 and 6 o’clock the following morning. 8

Despite the many companions he had at that time, only one of them was presented to corroborate his testimony, namely, Bienvenida Bodomo Manansala. This witness testified that at the time of the shooting in Bicutan, the accused-appellant was in her sister-in-law’s house, which was near her own house. 9 Curiously, this sister-in-law, who was in the best position to affirm this statement, was not called to the stand. Bienvenida added that Manansala returned home at 10 o’clock that night and went to bed, where he stayed until morning. Yet she herself, as she also said under oath, retired at 9:30 o’clock that evening. 10 She therefore could not have known of Manansala’s return a half-hour later, when she was already asleep.

Alibi is an inherently weak defense. And it become more so in the case at bar not only because of the positive identification of the accused-appellant by eyewitness Nisperos. No less importantly, the testimonies of the accused-appellant and of his lone corroborating witness are themselves so conspicuously flawed as to invite rejection.

The defense makes much of the fact that after the shooting of Colmo, Manansala changed his residence from Caloocan City to Bicutan. The suggestion is that he would not have done this if he were really guilty as he would be exposing himself to the danger of being recognized by the witnesses to the shooting and robbery. It is true that "the wicked flee when no man pursueth but the righteous are as bold as a lion," as the defense points out. The circumstances of this case, however, do not indicate that Manansala dared to be in Bicutan because of his "righteousness," as it appears that he had other reasons.

It is noted, to begin with, that Manansala did not really transfer but in fact returned to Bicutan, where he had grown up and was more "at home." Secondly, it was convenient for him to be in this place because it was in Bicutan where he was working; indeed, he said he was picked up there when he was walking to his place of work. 11 A third reason may be that he did not feel his presence in Bicutan would be dangerous to him, considering that none of the persons who had actually seen the shooting incident months before had dared to come forward and denounce him or his companions. Rightly or wrongly, Manansala did not feel threatened because he was in his own turf, so to speak.

It was not necessary to pinpoint Manansala as the person who actually shot Colmo because it has been established that Manansala acted in concert with his two companions in killing and robbing their victim. The culprits evidently knew Colmo to be a policeman (although he was in civilian clothes at the time) and killed him because of the firearm he was carrying. In a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, and every co-conspirator is equally liable for the offense committed. 12 Hence, even if it was not Manansala but one of his co-conspirators who fired the gun that killed Colmo, Manansala would still be subject to the penalty imposed by the Revised Penal Code for the crime they had all committed.

The killing was aggravated by treachery as the victim was shot from behind. Dr. Desiderio Moraleda, who performed the autopsy on the cadaver, testified that the fatal bullet entered the back of Colmo’s head and passed through his mouth. 13 "There is alevosia when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might make." 14 Colmo never knew what hit him and was totally unprepared for the attack that caused his death.

Evident premeditation is not inherent in robbery with homicide. 15 In such an offense, the evident premeditation must relate to the killing and not to the robbery. According to Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Under normal conditions, where conspiracy is directly established, with proof of the attendant deliberation and selection of the method, time and means of executing the crime, the existence of evident premeditation can be taken for granted. But in the case of implied conspiracy, evident premeditation may not be appreciated, in the absence of proof as to how and when the plan to kill the victim was hatched or what time elapsed before it was carried out, so that it cannot be determined if the accused had "sufficient time between its inception and its fulfillment dispassionately to consider and accept the consequences." There should be a showing that the accused had the opportunity for reflection and persisted in effectuating his criminal design. 16

Such a showing being absent in the case at bar, this aggravating circumstance should be rejected.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

We find that the guilt of the accused-appellant has been clearly established and that the penalties imposed upon him, save for the civil indemnity, are in accordance with law. The evidence of the prosecution was strong enough to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. The defense has failed to refute that evidence. Hence, the accused-appellant must remain in prison for the rest of his life unless age or sincere remorse unfastens his bonds.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the challenged decision AFFIRMED except for the civil indemnity which is increased to P50,000.00, with Costs against the Accused-Appellant. It is so ordered.

Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Orig. Rec., p. 133.

2. Ibid., p. 1.

3. Decided by Judge Maria Alicia M. Austria, Regional Trial Court, Pasig; Orig. Rec., pp. 235-240.

4. TSN, December 15, 1986; p. 20.

5. Ibid., p. 21.

6. TSN, March 25, 1987; pp. 40-41.

7. TSN, December 15, 1986; p. 23.

8. TSN, November 16, 1987; pp. 99-101.

9. TSN, May 24, 1988; pp. 110-111.

10. TSN, May 24, 1988; p. 116.

11. TSN, November 11, 1987, p. 95.

12. People v. Pasco, 181 SCRA 233; People v. Quiñones, 183 SCRA 747; People v. De la Cruz, 183 SCRA 763; People v. Baybayon, 184 SCRA 13.

13. TSN, August 10, 1987, pp. 83-84.

14. ART. 14, par. (16) of the Revised Penal Code.

15. U.S. v. Landasan, 35 Phil. 359; People v. Valeriano, 90 Phil. 15.

16. Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, Vol. I, 1976 Ed., pp. 338-339.




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






July-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 94785 July 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELPIDIO A. LOSTE

  • G.R. No. 98243 July 1, 1992 - ALEJANDRO ARADA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98432 July 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIO PLETADO

  • G.R. No. 100198 July 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHARLIE VILLORENTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100772 July 1, 1992 - ALEX GO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94588 July 2, 1992 - FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. NLRC (POEA), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96745 July 2, 1992 - MANUEL MELGAR DE LA CRUZ v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-90-490 July 3, 1992 - YOLANDA DIPUTADO-BAGUIO v. FELIPE T. TORRES

  • A.C. No. 2349 July 3, 1992 - DOROTHY B. TERRE v. ATTY. JORDAN TERRE

  • G.R. Nos. 37012-13 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERARDO NOMAT, SR.

  • G.R. No. 64284 July 3, 1992 - JOSE S. VELASQUEZ v. MARTIN NERY

  • G.R. No. 69971 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO C. LUVENDINO

  • G.R. Nos. 76818-19 July 3, 1992 - CDCP TEWU v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 88752 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO P. MANANSALA

  • G.R. No. 88912 July 3, 1992 - TIERRA INT’L. CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 90803 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO ARMENTANO

  • G.R. No. 92136 July 3, 1992 - EDGARDO DYTIAPCO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 92391 July 3, 1992 - PFVI INC. v. RUBEN D. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 93016 July 3, 1992 - UNITED ALUMINUM FABRICATORS v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON

  • G.R. No. 94566 July 3, 1992 - BA FINANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 95048 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER MONTILLA

  • G.R. No. 96054 July 3, 1992 - MARIANO M. LAZATIN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96628 July 3, 1992 - CEFERINO INCIONG v. EUFEMIO DOMINGO

  • G.R. No. 96825 July 3, 1992 - RAVA DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96865 July 3, 1992 - MARCELINO KIAMCO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96410 July 3, 1992 - NATIONAL POWER CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96915 July 3, 1992 - CONCEPCION DUMAGAT v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 97419 July 3, 1992 - GAUDENCIO T. CENA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 98440 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME LAURORA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 101208 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY R. TOMENTOS

  • G.R. No. 101273 July 3, 1992 - ENRIQUE T. GARCIA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

  • G.R. No. 101526 July 3, 1992 - RODELA D. TORREGOZA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 101703 July 3, 1992 - LUCRECIA DELA ROSA v. ROSARIO M. MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 101724 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 101808 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON BOLANOS

  • G.R. No. 101919 July 3, 1992 - RODOLFO ALCANTARA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 102342 July 3, 1992 - LUZ M. ZALDIVIA, v. ANDRES B. REYES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 102494 July 3, 1992 - MAXIMO FELICILDA v. NATHANAEL M. GROSPE

  • G.R. No. 102606 July 3, 1992 - LINO R. TOPACIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 105111 July 3, 1992 - RAMON L. LABO, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 105323 July 3, 1992 - FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 49282 July 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT PIZARRO

  • G.R. No. 88300 July 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNIE C. LAPAN

  • G.R. No. 91879 July 6, 1992 - HEIRS OF MAXIMO REGOSO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100168 July 8, 1992 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 101619 July 8, 1992 - SANYO PHIL. WORKERS UNION v. POTENCIANO S. CANIZARES

  • G.R. No. 41420 July 10, 1992 - CMS LOGGING, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 89554 July 10, 1992 - JUANITO A. ROSARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 95253 July 10, 1992 - CONSUELO ARANETA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 97144-45 July 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO "BEN" VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 98430 July 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALINO NECERIO

  • G.R. No. 98467 July 10, 1992 - NATIONAL DEV’T CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 101749 July 10, 1992 - CONRADO BUNAG, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96189 July 14, 1992 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHIL. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA

  • G.R. No. 100866 July 14, 1992 - REBECCA BOYER-ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 75879 July 15, 1992 - VIRGINIA SECRETARIO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 93752 July 15, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAROY T. BUENAFLOR

  • G.R. No. 97147 July 15, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX QUERRER

  • G.R. No. 100482 July 15, 1992 lab

    NEW VALLEY TIMES PRESS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 68102 July 16, 1992 - GEORGE MCKEE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 89265 July 17, 1992 - ARTURO G. EUDELA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 92383 July 17, 1992 - SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 94493 July 17, 1992 - ALEJANDRO ATIENZA, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 95778 July 17, 1992 - SKYWORLD CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOC. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMM.

  • G.R. Nos. 64725-26 July 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR ALACAR

  • G.R. No. 77396 July 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEO T. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 84250 July 20, 1992 - DAYA MARIA TOL-NOQUERA v. ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR

  • G.R. Nos. 93411-12 July 20, 1992 - ENCARNACION FLORES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 94534 July 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO BIGCAS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 95844 July 20, 1992 - COMMANDO SECURITY AGENCY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 96712 July 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 104678 July 20, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 95254-55 July 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCOS U. ABUYAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 96091 July 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO L. HOBLE

  • G.R. No. 73679 July 23, 1992 - HONESTO B. VILLAROSA v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO

  • G.R. No. 79903 July 23, 1992 - CONTECH CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 82293 July 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO B. MADRIAGA

  • G.R. No. 85490 July 23, 1992 - CLUB FILIPINO, INC. v. JESUS C. SEBASTIAN

  • G.R. No. 90856 July 23, 1992 - ARTURO DE GUZMAN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 95067 July 23, 1992 - GERARDO ARANAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 95900 July 23, 1992 - JULIUS C. OUANO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96914 July 23, 1992 - CECILIA U. LEDESMA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100493 July 23, 1992 - HEIRS OF JAIME BINUYA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 102070 July 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID A. ALFECHE, JR.

  • G.R. No. 90270 July 24, 1992 - ARMANDO V. SIERRA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 90318 July 24, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PORFERIO IGNACIO

  • G.R. No. 91847 July 24, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO MARTOS

  • G.R. No. 97816 July 24, 1992 - MERRILL LYNCH FUTURES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.C. No. 1129 July 27, 1992 - PERFECTO MENDOZA v. ALBERTO B. MALA

  • G.R. No. 97092 July 27, 1992 - PEPSI-COLA SALES AND ADVERTISING UNION v. HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL

  • A.C. No. 2984 July 29, 1992 - RODOLFO M. BERNARDO, JR. v. ISMAEL F. MEJIA

  • G.R. No. 40145 July 29, 1992 - SEVERO SALES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 50260 July 29, 1992 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 68037 July 29, 1992 - PARAMOUNT INSURANCE CORP. v. MAXIMO M. JAPZON

  • G.R. No. 94547 July 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID S. SAULO

  • G.R. No. 94590 July 29, 1992 - CHINA AIRLINES LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 94771 July 29, 1992 - RAMON J. VELORIA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS