Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > June 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 59738 June 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOROTEO BASLOT, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 59738. June 8, 1992.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DOROTEO BASLOT and QUIRINO LLANO, Defendants-Appellants.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Efipanio P. Pansoy for Quirino Llano.

Luceniano Lancin for Doroteo G. Baslot.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER; GUILT OF ACCUSED ESTABLISHED TO A MORAL CERTAINTY; ACCUSED POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED BY WITNESSES WHOSE TESTIMONIES REVEAL VITAL DETAILS OF THE CRIME; CASE AT BAR. — The appellant counters the testimonies of the abovementioned prosecution witnesses by saying that according to their declarations they could not identify the persons who actually hacked the deceased. However, going through the records, one can see that these people who were gold panners were actually familiar with the face of the accused because they saw the latter gold-panning days before the incident. Moreover, the appellant was recognized by the witnesses when the flashlight was focused on his group. This positive identification of the accused by the witnesses established the guilt of the accused to a moral certainty (see People v. Eswan, 186 SCRA 174 [1990]). He was there at the scene of the crime as an active participant. More important, the testimonies of the witnesses reveal vital details of the crime which could not have been mere concoctions by them.

2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT ACCORDED GREAT RESPECT AND WILL NOT BE DISTURBED UNLESS UNDISPUTED FACTS SUFFICIENT TO ALTER RESULT OF CASE WERE OVERLOOKED. — This Court has oft-repeated the principle that it will not interfere with the findings of the trial court on the issue of credibility of witnesses unless the lower court has plainly overlooked the undisputed facts of substance and value which if properly considered would have altered the result of the case (People v. Baysa 172 SCRA 706 [1989]). These findings of the trial court are generally accorded great respect (See People v. Ligon, 152 SCRA 419 [1987]) by an appellate tribunal for the latter can only read in cold print the testimony of the witnesses which commonly is translated from the local dialect into English. In the process of converting into written form the statements of living human beings, not only fine nuances but a world of meaning apparent to the judge present, watching, and listening may escape the reader of the translated words (People v. Arroyo and Mina, G.R. No. 99258, September 13, 1991, citing People v. Taduyo, 154 SCRA 349 [1987]).


D E C I S I O N


GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:


This is an appeal from the decision of the trial court finding the accused Doroteo Baslot and Quirino Llano guilty of the crime of murder allegedly committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about January 11, 1981, at around 3:00 o’clock in the morning, more or less, in Barangay Mat-i, City of Surigao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together and with mutual understanding with one another, with abuse of superior strength and taking advantage of nighttime, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack and assault one ROBERTO B. BALINAS, JR., a minor 15 years of age, by then and there hacking the latter with the use of their sharp-pointed bolos, thereby inflicting upon him various serious and mortal wounds which mutilated the body of said Roberto B. Balinas, Jr. and caused his instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the deceased in such amount as may be allowed them under the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

"Contrary to Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code with the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength, nighttime and cruelty." (Rollo, p. 8).

Only Baslot and Llano were arraigned on June 5, 1981 since Payao was still at large. Both the accused entered separate pleas of not guilty.

Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued and a decision was rendered by the lower court on September 24, 1981, finding them guilty of the crime charged.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

The dispositive portion of the assailed decision reads:red:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused DOROTEO BASLOT AND QUIRINO LLANO guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals of the crime of Murder defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and there being no modifying circumstances hereby sentences each of them to RECLUSION PERPETUA together with all the accessory penalties and to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the deceased the sum of P12,000.00 for the death of the deceased, plus P30,000.00 as actual and moral damages, aside from proportionately paying the costs.

"The bolos Exhibits F and G are hereby ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government.

SO ORDERED." (Rollo, p. 27).

From the said decision, only Quirino Llano appealed to this court.

Evidence presented by the prosecution showed the following facts to have attended the commission of the crime:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sometime in the evening of January 10, 1981, Quirino Llano went to a beerhouse/disco located at Barangay Mat-i, Surigao City to collect money from a person who was indebted to him. He was accompanied by Doroteo, Rodrigo and Epifanio all surnamed Baslot, and one Bello Payao, solely for entertainment purposes (tsn, August 28, 1981, p. 23).

"Upon reaching the place, Llano met the group of Roberto Balinas, Jr. and conversed with them (p. 4, id.). After he was paid by his debtor Lapure, Llano decided to go home ahead of his group (August 27, 1981, p. 24).

"At around 3:00 o’clock in the morning of January 11, 1981, when Llano’s companions were about to leave the beerhouse/disco premises, a commotion ensued between them and Balinas’ group which resulted in the disappearance of Rodrigo Baslot. A search for the latter was made by his brothers together with Payao and when they failed to locate him, they proceeded to the house of Rosa Lasia where Llano and his wife were sleeping. Llano was awakened by the noise outside and after being informed of what transpired, he decided to go with Baslot’s group to search for Rodrigo. In the process, Baslot’s group encountered Balinas and Ramos who had just accompanied Palomo to the latter’s house. A chase ensued whereby Balinas and Ramos, in confusion, went in separate directions (tsn, July 13, 1981, p. 16). Unfortunately, Balinas was chanced upon by Doroteo Baslot and Quirino Llano who were both armed with a bolo and they successively took turns in hacking and stabbing him to death (Exh. "H", I-4). Balinas’ mutilated body was discovered by Ampater just outside the latter’s house at around 5:00 o’clock in the morning of January 11, 1981 and was subsequently brought to Funeraria Aldonza, Surigao City (Exh. "D", List of Exhibits for the prosecution and defense). Dra. Cabarrubias, the City Health Officer who conducted the autopsy on Balinas subsequently issued a medical certificate, the findings of which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘1. Wound (stab) 14 cm. x 4 cm. located at the frontal portion of the head affecting skin, subcutaneous tissues and skull superficially.

2. Wound (stab) 14 cm. x 4 cm. from the right outer portion of the forehead directed downward laterally to the left, traversing the inner portion of the right eye, middle of the nose and face, left, affecting skin, subcutaneous tissues, eyeball, right and nasal cartilage.

3. Wound (stab) cutting the right hand through the wrist joint, leaving the right hand hanging with only the skin connecting it to the forearm.

4. Wound, incised, 7 cm. x 1/2 cm. located at the anterior lower portion of the forearm right, 12 cm. above the wrist joint, affecting skin, subcutaneous muscles and vein.

5. Wound (stab) 10 cm. x 3 cm., located at the palmar portion of the left hand, separating the little ring and middle fingers, affecting skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscles, blood vessels and bones.

POSTERIORLY:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

6. Wound (stab) 15 cm. x 5 cm. horizontally located at the upper portion of the occiput affecting skin, subcutaneous tissues and skull superficially.

7. Wound (stab) 16 cm. x 4 1/2 cm. horizontally, located 4 cm. below wound #6, affecting skin, subcutaneous tissues, skull and brain.

8. Wound, incised, 3 cm. x 1 1/2 cm. located at the lateral portion of the back, left, 12 cm. from the mid-shoulder affecting skin, subcutaneous tissues and muscles at the back.

9. Wound (stab) 13 cm. horizontally located at the lower back, right 24 cm. from the mid-shoulder, affecting skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscles and veins.

10. Wound (stab) 18 cm. x 7 cm. horizontally located at the midlumbar region affecting skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscle, blood vessels, completely separating the 1st and 2nd lumbar vertebra.

11. Wound, incised, 6 cm. x 2 1/2 cm. located at the lower dormal portion of the forearm, left, 2 cm. from the wrist joint, affecting skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscles and veins.

12. Wound, incised, 6 cm. x 2 1/2 cm. located 2 cm. above wound #11 affecting skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscles and veins." (Appellee’s Brief, pp. 3-6).

In an effort to exculpate himself, the accused-appellant assigns the following as errors committed by the trial court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE THE ALLEGED EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT QUIRINO LLANO.

II


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HIS BELIEF THAT THE INQUIRY OF DOROTEO BASLOT: "HEPE, IS RODRIGO IN THE HOUSE?", WAS ADDRESSED TO THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT QUIRINO LLANO.

III


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT QUIRINO LLANO ON THE STRENGTH OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED DOROTEO BASLOT.

IV


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE TESTIMONIES OF JIMMY PALOMO AND ARTURO MAHINAY AS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT QUIRINO LLANO.

VI


THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT APPELLANT QUIRINO LLANO WAS A GOLD PANNER AT MAT-I, SURIGAO CITY. (Appellant’s Brief, pp. 4-5).

Quirino Llano, specifically questions the validity of his extrajudicial confession saying that the same was obtained from him through a promise that he will be released immediately because the officer taking his statement believes he is innocent.

We find no need to discuss the admissibility of the extrajudicial confession inasmuch as the same was taken without the presence of a counsel. Nevertheless, even without the assailed extrajudicial confession, there are several circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

First and foremost is his being positively identified by Palomo and Mahinay and to a certain extent, the barangay policeman Ricardo Gonzales, who while not knowing their names testified that Doroteo Baslot and Quirino Llano were among the five persons upon whom he directed his flashlight while they were running away. Vicente Ampater corroborated the incident regarding the five persons, with two of them carrying bolos.

The appellant counters the testimonies of the abovementioned prosecution witnesses by saying that according to their declarations they could not identify the persons who actually hacked the deceased. However, going through the records, one can see that these people who were gold panners were actually familiar with the face of the accused because they saw the latter gold-panning days before the incident. Moreover, the appellant was recognized by the witnesses when the flashlight was focused on his group. This positive identification of the accused by the witnesses established the guilt of the accused to a moral certainty (see People v. Eswan, 186 SCRA 174 [1990]). He was there at the scene of the crime as an active participant. More important, the testimonies of the witnesses reveal vital details of the crime which could not have been mere concoctions by them.

This Court has oft-repeated the principle that it will not interfere with the findings of the trial court on the issue of credibility of witnesses unless the lower court has plainly overlooked the undisputed facts of substance and value which if properly considered would have altered the result of the case (People v. Baysa, 172 SCRA 706 [1989]). These findings of the trial court are generally accorded great respect (See People v. Ligon, 152 SCRA 419 [1987]) by an appellate tribunal `for the latter can only read in cold print the testimony of the witnesses which commonly is translated from the local dialect into English. In the process of converting into written form the statements of living human beings, not only fine nuances but a world of meaning apparent to the judge present, watching, and listening may escape the reader of the translated words (People v. Arroyo and Mina, G.R. No. 99258, September 13, 1991, citing People v. Taduyo, 154 SCRA 349 [1987]).

Anent the second alleged error committed by the trial court, we likewise find no merit in the argument of the appellant that only the brothers of the missing Rodrigo Baslot shared the belief that he had been killed, that they alone were looking for the group suspected of killing Rodrigo and that the query was addressed to Epifanio Baslot, not Quirino Llano.

The argument of the appellant is obviously self-serving and a mere afterthought because when Baslot’s group was inquiring for Rodrigo, Epifanio Baslot was with them. Why should he then still be asked about Rodrigo? Moreover, only the appellant and his wife were in the house. The query can, therefore, be directed to Llano only and not to one of the Baslot brothers. The circumstances surrounding this incident are substantiated by the testimony of his wife.

It is not impossible that somebody aside from the immediate members of a family would share in the sentiment regarding what might have happened to a friend. As noted from the records, Llano and the Baslot family were friends so that concern for the safety of a member of the other family is a natural reaction which is very much in keeping with Filipino cultural values.

The accused-appellant further questions his conviction which he claims was made largely on the basis of the sworn statement of Doroteo Baslot, his co-accused.

It must be noted that the conviction of the appellant was not made on the basis of a co-conspirator’s statement out on the basis of the evidence adduced by both parties and the testimonies of the witnesses. There is a dovetailing of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the accused themselves on the sequence of events from the time the groups were at the beer house, to the accosting of the victim and his companions by Doroteo Baslot, Quirino Llano, and Bello Payao until the chase and killing of the victim.

The last alleged error raised by the accused boils down to one of credibility of witnesses. Llano maintains that he was a mere visitor and not a gold panner as claimed by the prosecution witnesses.

Regardless, however, of whether or not he was a gold panner or a casual visitor, this is immaterial because the substantial aspects of the crime have been duly proved.

On the basis of the above findings, we affirm the lower court’s finding the appellant guilty as charged.

WHEREFORE premises considered, we hereby AFFIRM the decision of the trial court with the modification that the indemnity for death is raised to P50,000.00 in accordance with recent rulings of this court but the P30,000.00 actual and moral damages are DELETED as being without any basis in the records.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, Bidin, Davide, Jr. and Romero, JJ., concur.




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






June-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45828 June 1, 1992 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46370 June 2, 1992 - ANTONIO AVECILLA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80436 June 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAGANI BOLASA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84433 June 2, 1992 - ALEXANDER REYES, ET AL. v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88268 June 2, 1992 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 28883 June 3, 1992 - LOURDES G. SUNTAY v. HEROICO M. AGUILUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 67279 June 3, 1992 - VICENTE IBAY v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85044 June 3, 1992 - MACARIO TAMARGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100257 June 8, 1992 - FELIPE C. NAVARRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1769 June 8, 1992 - CESAR L. LANTORIA v. IRINEO L. BUNYI

  • G.R. No. 59738 June 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOROTEO BASLOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62391 June 8, 1992 - SAFIRO CATALAN, ET AL. v. TITO F. GENILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88938 June 8, 1992 - LA TONDEÑA DISTILLERS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92957 June 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ENANORIA

  • G.R. Nos. 95903-05 June 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCILLE SENDON

  • G.R. No. 97020 June 8, 1992 - CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CORP. v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101666 & 103570 June 9, 1992 - ELISEO L. RUIZ v. FRANKLIN DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69073 June 9, 1992 - ALFREDO BOTULAN, JR. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 74193-94 June 9, 1992 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88498 June 9, 1992 - GENEROSO R. SEVILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89452 June 9, 1992 - EDUARDO V. BENTAIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90311 June 9, 1992 - HI CEMENT CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90359 June 9, 1992 - JOHANNES RIESENBECK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91378 June 9, 1992 - FIRST MALAYAN LEASING AND FINANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95229 June 9, 1992 - CORITO OCAMPO TAYAG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99336 & 100178 June 9, 1992 - MELANIO S. TORIO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 41903 June 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF QUEZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51009 June 10, 1992 - LUZON POLYMERS CORP. v. JACOBO C. CLAVE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94457 June 10, 1992 - VICTORIA LEGARDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83929 June 11, 1992 - ANTONIO GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88705 June 11, 1992 - JOY MART CONSOLIDATED CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91757 June 11, 1992 - NUEVA ECIJA III ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102370-71 June 15, 1992 - PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53820 June 15, 1992 - YAO KA SIN TRADING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88402 June 15, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNPET C. MACALINO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-90-383 June 15, 1992 - VENUSTIANO SABURNIDO v. FLORANTE MADRONO

  • G.R. No. 92850 June 15, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO B. ANGELES

  • G.R. No. 93712 June 15, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO B. WILLIAM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95231 June 15, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO C. DIMAANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98363 June 15, 1992 - NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85043 June 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLENN HATTON

  • G.R. No. 87584 June 16, 1992 - GOTESCO INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. GLORIA E. CHATTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87678 June 16, 1992 - DEL BROS HOTEL CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96928 June 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO GONZALES

  • G.R. No. 96160 June 17, 1992 - STELCO MARKETING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48162 June 18, 1992 - DOMINADOR L. QUIROZ, ET AL. v. CANDELARIA MANALO

  • G.R. No. 58327 June 18, 1992 - JESUS C. BALMADRID, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 92279 June 18, 1992 - EDMUNDO C. SAMBELI v. PROVINCE OF ISABELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94309 June 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE PACIENTE

  • G.R. No. 95630 June 18, 1992 - SPS. LEOPOLDO VEROY, ET AL. v. WILLIAM L. LAYAGUE

  • G.R. No. 96296 June 18, 1992 - RAFAEL S. DIZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100728 June 18, 1992 - WILHELMINA JOVELLANOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100733 June 18, 1992 - PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66020 June 22, 1992 - FLAVIO DE LEON, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. 72786-88 June 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO TELIO

  • G.R. No. 87059 June 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO T. MENGOTE

  • G.R. No. 93064 June 22, 1992 - AGUSTINA G. GAYATAO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94298 June 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN P. MADRID

  • G.R. Nos. 94531-32 June 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO BACALSO

  • G.R. No. 97917 June 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO DACQUEL

  • G.R. Nos. 101181-84 June 22, 1992 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHIL., INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103372 June 22, 1992 - EPG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96444 June 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEANDRO F. PAJARES

  • G.R. No. 99287 June 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101538 June 23, 1992 - AUGUSTO BENEDICTO SANTOS III v. NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101900 June 23, 1992 - PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING CO., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103877 June 23, 1992 - BENJAMIN F. ARAO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 53546 June 25, 1992 - HEIRS JESUS FRAN, ET AL. v. BERNARDO LL. SALAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62999 June 25, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARCADIO CABILAO

  • G.R. No. 88957 June 25, 1992 - PHILIPS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56169 June 26, 1992 - TRAVEL-ON, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 56465-66 June 26, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO GALENDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62634 June 26, 1992 - ADOLFO CAUBANG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 82263 June 26, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO T. YABUT

  • G.R. No. 88392 June 26, 1992 - MANUEL ANGELO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92276 June 26, 1992 - REBECCO E. PANLILIO, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93941 June 26, 1992 - NICEFORO S. AGATON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94279 June 26, 1992 - RAFAEL G. PALMA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94422 June 26, 1992 - GUILLERMO MARCELINO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95542 June 26, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TERESITA DEL MAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96132 June 26, 1992 - ORIEL MAGNO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96271 June 26, 1992 - NATIVIDAD VILLOSTAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96318 June 26, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO L. ABELITA

  • G.R. No. 96525 June 26, 1992 - MERCURY DRUG CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96674 June 26, 1992 - RURAL BANK OF SALINAS, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97430 June 26, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GOMER P. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 97463 June 26, 1992 - JESUS M. IBONILLA, ET AL. v. PROVINCE OF CEBU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100123 June 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX J. BUENDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100571 June 26, 1992 - TERESITA VILLALUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93045 June 29, 1992 - TENANTS OF THE ESTATE OF DR. JOSE SISON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93983 June 29, 1992 - DAVAO INTEGRATED PORT AND STEVEDORING SERVICES CORP. v. ALFREDO C. OLVIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95364 June 29, 1992 - UNION BANK OF THE PHIL. v. HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100158 June 29, 1992 - ST. SCHOLASTICA’S COLLEGE v. RUBEN TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100959 June 29, 1992 - BENGUET CORPORATION v. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 90-11-2697-CA June 29, 1992 - IN RE: JUSTICE REYNATO S. PUNO