Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > June 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 96318 June 26, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO L. ABELITA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 96318. June 26, 1992.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REYNALDO ABELITA y LUQUIAS, Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; DANGEROUS DRUG ACT (R.A. 6425); SALE OF PROHIBITED DRUGS; FAILURE TO PRESENT THE FORINSIC EXPERT; NOT FATAL TO THE PROSECUTION THEREOF. — The failure of the prosecution to present the forensic expert who prepared the NBI report to establish the corpus delicti of the crime is not fatal. The records show that the accused and his counsel admitted the due execution and genuineness of the evidence submitted by the prosecution witness Forensic Chemist Felicisima M. Francisco during the pre-trial conference. Thereafter, the trial court issued an Order dated April 11, 1990 which embodied the manifestation of the prosecution that since the accused and his counsel admitted the genuineness and due execution of the forensic chemist report, it is dispensing with the testimony of the forensic expert.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; NON-PRESENTATION OF INFORMER; NOT FATAL TO THE PROSECUTION THEREOF. — In attacking the sufficiency of the evidence, the accused-appellant avers that the informer should have been presented before the lower court. The fact that the informer was never presented in court by the prosecution is of no moment. His testimony, if it were given, would at best be corroborative or cumulative. This Court has ruled in several cases that non-presentation of the informer, where his testimony would be merely corroborative or cumulative , is not fatal to the prosecution’s case. (People v. Tangliben, G.R. No. 63630, April 6, 1990, 184 SCRA 220 citing People v. Asis, G.R. No. 84960, September 1, 1989; People v. Viola, G.R. No. 64262, March 16, 1989; People v. Capulong, 160 SCRA 533 [1988]’ People v. Cerelegia, 147 SCRA 538).

3. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; PRE-TRIAL; FAILURE TO INTERPOSE OBJECTIONS TO THE FACTS STIPULATED THEREIN; EFFECT; CASE AT BAR. — We agree with the position of the Solicitor General that if the matters taken up and embodied in the pre-trial order were not in accordance with what was really stipulated upon, then accused-appellant should have interposed his objections earlier or as soon as the pre-trial order was issued. Hence, it is clear that upon the accused-appellant’s failure to interpose objections, the facts stipulated during a pre-trial conference and embodied in a pre-trial order bind the parties.

4. ID.; EVIDENCE; WITNESSES; LONE TESTIMONY OF A SINGLE WITNESS THEREOF IF POSITIVE AND CLEAR; MAY BE SUFFICIENT FOR CONVICTION. — The testimony of the lone prosecution witness is positive and sufficiently clear to show that the accused-appellant committed the offense herein charged. The prosecution witness was not actuated by improper motive to fabricate the facts and to foist a very serious offense against the Accused-Appellant. His knowledge was acquired in the performance of his official duty and there being no showing that he is prejudiced against the accused-appellant, his testimony deserves full credit.


D E C I S I O N


MEDIALDEA, J.:


This is an appeal from the decision dated November 19, 1990 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 170, Malabon, Metro Manila in Criminal Case No. 8970-MN entitled "People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Abelita y Luquias" finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 4, Article II, Republic Act No. 6425 and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, to pay a fine of P20,000.00 and the costs of the suit.

The Information under which he was charged with violation of the aforesaid section and article of Republic Act No. 6425 read as follows:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"That on or about the 16th day of February, 1990, in the Municipality of Navotas, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused in consideration of P10.00 bill with Serial No. HB116649 received from poseur-buyer and without being authorized by law, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously SELL, deliver and distribute three (3) handrolled cigarette sticks wrapped in a small white paper and which cigarette sticks when subjected to laboratory examination were found positive Indian Hemp commonly known as ‘Marijuana’, a prohibited drug.

"On the same occasion (sic), Accused who as aforestated is not authorited (sic) by law was likewise found to be in possession of thirty seven (37) handrolled cigarette sticks contained in a Bonna milk can for the purpose of dispatch in transit or transporting the same, and which when subjected to laboratory examination were likewise found positive for indian hemp, commonly known as marijuana.

"CONTRARY TO LAW." (Rollo. p. 4)

Upon arraignment, Accused, duly assisted by counsel de oficio entered a plea of "not guilty." (see Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee. p. 2).

Accused filed a motion to dismiss by way of demurrer to evidence contending among others that the failure of the prosecution to present the informant who allegedly bought the three (3) sticks of marijuana from him is fatal.

In an Order dated August 23, 1990, the motion to dismiss was denied.

After trial, the lower court rendered a decision on November 19, 1990, the dispositive portion thereof states.

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Reynaldo Abelita y Luquias guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 4, Article II, Republic Act No. 6425 and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, to pay a fine of P20,000.00 and the costs of this suit.

"Let the accused be credited with whatever preventive imprisonment he has undergone by reason of this case, pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.

SO ORDERED." (Rollo, p. 23)

Hence, this appeal from the lower court’s decision raising the following assignment of errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

"I


"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED ON THE GROUND OF INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE FOR THE REASON THAT THE NBI FORENSIC EXPERT WAS NOT PRESENTED TO TESTIFY ON THE NBI REPORT OF ITS FINDINGS.

"II


"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED ON THE STRENGTH ALONE OF THE IMPROBABLE AND HEARSAY TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS P/SGT. WILFREDO MENDOZA." (Rollo, p. 38)

The antecedent facts of this case as recounted by the prosecution’s lone witness Sgt. Wilfredo V. Mendoza are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"x       x       x

"(A)t about 12:15 o’clock in the morning of February 16, 1990, he (Sgt. Wilfredo V. Mendoza) and co-policemen, Pfc. Reynaldo Castil, Pat. Jaime Acusin, Pat. Paulino Almazan, Pat. Jesus Echavez, Cpl. Eduardo Sablay and Police Aide Diosdado Tubig, were patrolling the fishport compound at Northbay Boulevard, Navotas when they were approached by a man who told them that a certain ‘Toto’ was selling marijuana at Gilmar Beerhouse inside the fishport. He then planned to have Toto arrested and asked the informant if he could buy marijuana from Toto. When the informant agreed to the suggestion, he gave the former a P10.00 bill on which he placed his initial (Exh. "E"). The policemen and the informant proceeded to Gilmar Beerhouse and the latter entered inside while the policemen positioned themselves outside where they could see the interior of the beerhouse through the open spaces on the wall of said beerhouse. The policemen saw the informant approach Toto, who was occupying a table at a distance of four (4) arms’ length from where they were positioned, and give the money to the latter who, in turn, handed to the informant a small white package. The policemen then entered the beerhouse and met the informant, who handed the package to Sgt. Mendoza, Pfc. Castil recovered from Toto a blue can of Bonna milk which, when opened, was found to contain thirty seven (37) sticks of marijuana and the P10.00 marked bill (Exhs. "D", "D-1" to "D-37" and "E"). The small white package handed by the informant to Sgt. Mendoza, on the other hand, contained three (3) sticks of marijuana (Exh. "C"). Toto, whom Sgt. Mendoza identified in open court as herein accused, was brought to the Navotas Police Station for investigation. The forty (40) sticks of marijuana were brought to the National Bureau of Investigation for laboratory examination, which gave positive result for marijuana (Exh. "B")" (Rollo, pp. 20-21).cralawnad

Accused-appellant vehemently denied the charge particularly that of ownership of the marijuana found inside the ‘Bonna’ milk can. He claimed that while he and his friend Jun were drinking inside Gilmar Beerhouse at about midnight of February 16, 1990, three policemen arrived and arrested them allegedly for owning the marijuana placed in a can of milk being held by one of the policemen. He and Jun were brought to the Navotas Police Station where they were asked to admit ownership of the marijuana which they denied (Rollo, pp. 22-22).

The lower court found the testimony of the lone prosecution witness, Sgt. Mendoza more credible and presumed that he performed his duty in a regular manner, in the absence of any evidence showing that he was actuated by improper motive.

Furthermore, the lower court in finding the accused guilty of the crime charged, noted that the accused did not deny the testimony of Sgt. Mendoza that he (accused) delivered a small white package containing three (3) sticks of marijuana to the informant in exchange of the P10.00 marked bill which was subsequently recovered inside the can of milk.

Accused-appellant maintains that the failure of the prosecution to present the forensic expert who prepared the NBI report of its findings that the confiscated materials are indeed marijuana is fatal to its cause. Hence, in the absence of a clear and conclusive evidence that such materials were prohibited drugs, the accused stands to be acquitted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.

Furthermore, appellant stresses that the fact that the prosecution did not present the confidential informer as witness casts serious doubt on appellant’s guilt because without the testimony of the poseur-buyer, there is no convincing evidence to show that appellant sold marijuana.

After a careful examination of the records of the case. We find no error to warrant the reversal of the finding of facts and conclusion of the trial court.

The failure of the prosecution to present the forensic expert who prepared the NBI report to establish the corpus delicti of the crime is not fatal. The records show that the accused and his counsel admitted the due execution and genuineness of the evidence submitted by the prosecution witness Forensic Chemist Felicisima M. Francisco during the pre-trial conference. Thereafter, the trial court issued an Order dated April 11, 1990 which embodied the manifestation of the prosecution that since the accused and his counsel admitted the genuineness and due execution of the forensic chemist report, it is dispensing with the testimony of the forensic expert. The trial court’s Order dated April 11, 1990 is hereunder quoted as follows, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Order

"x       x       x

"At the pre-trial today, the accused and his counsel admitted the due execution and genuineness of the evidence submitted by the prosecution witness Forensic Chemist Felicisima M. Francisco, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Exh. A — Letter request dated February 16, 1990

Exh. B — Report No. DDM90-265

Exh. C — Three sticks of marijuana wrapped on a white paper

Exh. D — Empty Bona Milk can

Exh. D-1 — Thirty seven (37) sticks of marijuana cigarettes.

"In view thereof, the prosecution manifested that it is dispensing with the testimony of F.M. Francisco and it is presenting two (2) witnesses. The defense counsel manifested, he will present two (2) witnesses. (p. 26, Record)" (Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee, p. 6)

As pointed out by the Solicitor General, the accused-appellant must have overlooked his admission as to the due execution and genuineness of the forensic chemist report when he raised this first assignment of error.

We agree with the position of the Solicitor General that if the matters taken up and embodied in the pre-trial order were not in accordance with what was really stipulated upon, then accused-appellant should have interposed his objections earlier or as soon as the pre-trial order was issued. Hence, it is clear that upon the accused-appellant’s failure to interpose objections, the facts stipulated during a pre-trial conference and embodied in a pre-trial order bind the parties.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

In attacking the sufficiency of the evidence, the accused-appellant avers that the informer should have been presented before the lower court. The fact that the informer was never presented in court by the prosecution is of no moment. His testimony, if it were given, would at best be corroborative or cumulative.

This Court has ruled in several cases that non-presentation of the informer, where his testimony would be merely corroborative or cumulative, is not fatal to the prosecution’s case. (People v. Tangliben, G.R. No. 63630, April 6, 1990, 184 SCRA 220 citing People v. Asis, G.R. No. 84960, September 1, 1989; People v. Viola, G.R. No. 64262, March 16, 1989; People v. Capulong, 160 SCRA 533 [1988]’ People v. Cerelegia, 147 SCRA 538).

The testimony of the lone prosecution witness is positive and sufficiently clear to show that the accused-appellant committed the offense herein charged. The prosecution witness was not actuated by improper motive to fabricate the facts and to foist a very serious offense against the Accused-Appellant. His knowledge was acquired in the performance of his official duty and there being no showing that he is prejudiced against the accused-appellant, his testimony deserves full credit.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, there is a clear indication that the trial court did not commit any error in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425.

ACCORDINGLY, the judgment of the trial court dated November 19, 1990 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Griño-Aquino and Bellosillo, 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