Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > March 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 101367 March 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMO CATUA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 101367. March 23, 1992.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELMO CATUA, PETER CATUA and RUBEN CATUA, Defendants-Appellants.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Public Attorney’s Office, for Defendants-Appellants.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; ALIBI; CANNOT PREVAIL OVER POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED BY TRUTHFUL WITNESS. — Both the trial court and the appellate court rejected the appellants’ alibi which is concededly a weak defense that cannot prevail over the positive testimony of truthful witnesses. The reason is that an alibi is easy to fabricate (People v. Padilla, 48 Phil. 718; People v. De Asis, 61 Phil, 384). When the defendants are identified by witnesses for the prosecution by clear, explicit and positive testimony, their alibi will not be credited (People v. Medina, 58 Phil. 330).

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; TO BE GIVEN CREDENCE; ACCUSED MUST PROVE PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY TO BE AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME. — For the defense of alibi to be given credence, it must not only appear that the accused were at some other place, but also that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime when it was committed (People v. Virgilio Pasco y Santos, 181 SCRA 235; People v. Pielago, 140 SCRA 419).

3. ID.; ID.; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS; FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT; RULE. — This Court finds no reason to disagree with the findings of the trial court on the credibility of the witnesses, to which great weight and a high degree of respect were accorded by the appellate court.

4. CRIMINAL LAW; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; TREACHERY; PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR. — The Court of Appeals found the presence of treachery in the commission of the crime, is relevant: "All told, we are convinced that the guilt of the appellants for the murderous death of the two victims has been established beyond moral certainty of doubt. Although the court below made no disquisition in its decision of the circumstance which qualified the killing to murder, a perusal of the facts of the case will readily reveal that treachery attended the killing. While the aforementioned circumstance may not be simply deduced from presumption as it is necessary that the existence of this qualifying circumstance be duly proven as the crime itself (People v. Ardisa, 55 SCRA 245), the rule does not preclude proof of its attendance by circumstantial evidence (People v. Maceda, G.R. No. 91106, May 27, 1991). By either means of proof, however, said circumstance is amply demonstrable in the case before us. Here, appellants together with two (2) other unidentified assailants with the use of rifles and shotguns, without warning, immediately fired upon the unarmed victims giving the latter no time for preparation, resistance or escape. Consequently, following a long line of cases (People v. Ompad, 26 SCRA 750; People v. Pedro, 16 SCRA 57: People v. Ablan, 1 SCRA 931; People v. Capitana, 49 Phil. 475), there can be no other conclusion than that appellants are guilty of the two (2) murders of Fernando Bautista and Marina Bautista.

5. ID.; CONSPIRACY; CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE ACTS OF THE ACCUSED. — As found by the Trial Court, "That there was conspiracy among the appellant cannot be doubted. It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence but can be inferred from the acts of the accused (People v. Alitao, G.R. No. 74736, February 18, 1991). The appellants’ actuations immediately prior to, during, and right after the shooting incident unmistakably reveal a concerted action indicative of a preconceived plan to assassinate the victims. . . .. Conspiracy having been established, the appellants, as co-conspirators, are all guilty in equal degree on the principle that the act of one is the act of all." (People v. De Guzman, 162 SCRA 145).

6. ID.; CIVIL INDEMNITY FOR DEATH OF THE VICTIM; INCREASED TO P50,000.00. — The award of P60,000 by way of civil indemnity for the death of the two victims should be increased to P100,000 or P50,000 for each of them, conformably with the latest jurisprudence on the matter (People v. Sazon, G.R. No. 75814, September 24, 1990, People v. Tezarra, G.R. No. 85531, December 10, 1990; People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 67702, January 18, 1991).


D E C I S I O N


GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:


This case was certified to this Court by the Court of Appeals pursuant to Section 13, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Court because it imposed two (2) penalties of reclusion perpetua on each of the three (3) defendants-appellants.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

The appellants were charged with the crime of Double Murder under Article 248, in relation to Article 48, of the Revised Penal Code, in an information alleging —

"That on or about February 21, 1986, in the municipality of Kapalong, Province of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping with John Doe and Peter Doe, who are still at large, with treachery and evident premeditation, with intent to kill, armed with rifles and 12 gauge shotguns, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot Fernando Bautista and Marina Agunza Bautista, thereby inflicting upon them wounds which caused their death, and further causing actual, moral and compensatory damages to the heirs of the victim." (p. 5, Rollo.)

After trial, the court a quo rendered a decision on September 4, 1989, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the guilt of the accused having (sic) proved beyond reasonable doubt, [the court] hereby sentence (sic) the accused Elmo Catua, Peter Catua and Ruben Catua, after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to an imprisonment of FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS, and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal as minimum, to TWENTY (20) YEARS of reclusion temporal [as] maximum, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased couple for P60,000.00." (p. 8, Decision, p. 15, Rollo; Emphasis supplied.)

In their appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CR No. 08932) the appellants argued that the trial court erred (1) in finding them guilty of the crime charged despite the failure of the prosecution to positively identify them as the perpetrators of the crime and (2) in finding them guilty of the crime charged despite the failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The facts of the case, as established by the evidence for the prosecution and summarized by the Solicitor General in the Brief for the People are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the morning of February 21, 1986, the spouses Fernando Bautista and Marina Bautista, together with their 14-year old son Tirso and 12-year old daughter Catalina, were planting corn in their farm in Calyawa, Kapalong, Davao. At around 10:00 o’clock, five persons, among them the appellants, appeared at the farm and shot the spouses Fernando and Marina Bautista with firearms. Tirso and Catalina Bautista who were twenty (20) meters away from the appellants and their companions saw the shooting and, in fear, were holding each other’s hands. After the shots were fired, Fernando and Marina fell to the ground groaning, and appellants and their companions ran away. Tirso and his sister Catalina, after stopping by their fallen mother, likewise ran away from the scene (TSN, T. Bautista, October 24, 1982, pp. 7-14, 19, and 22).

"Felix Remitar was sowing corn in a lot located in Baco-baco, Calyawa, Kapalong, Davao near the farm of the Bautista’s when, around 9 o’clock in his estimate, he heard rapid firing of guns. Remitar’s lot was located in the upper or elevated portion of the area, and when he looked down below, he saw the assailants firing at Fernando and Marina Bautista who then fell to the ground, Remitar recognized the appellants among the assailants because the Catua brothers were his friends having known them even before the shooting of the Bautistas (TSN, F. Remitar, November 19, 1986, pp. 6-12).

"After leaving the scene of the shooting, Tirso ran to the house of Jose Tunga, a member of the ICHDF, about a kilometer away from the scene, shouting as he approached, that his father was shot. Tunga immediately responded by calling and gathering the members of the ICHDF. Gaudioso Sobreno and Juanito Descarter, and two other ICHDF members joined Tunga and they went to the place of the incident. When they reached the place, they found Fernando and Marina Bautista motionless and dead. Fernando suffered injuries on his breast where his liver came out, and Marina was wounded in the stomach. Corn grains for sowing scattered around the corpses of the Bautistas. Tunga and his companions tried to trail the killers, whom Tirso identified as the Catua brothers, for two kilometers but they were no longer around. They returned and reported the matter to the Kapalong police (T. Bautista, p. 15; TSN, J. Tunga, April 21, 1986, pp. 10-11).

"Felix Remitar, after witnessing the shooting of the spouses Bautista, went back to the barrio where he met Tirso Bautista. He reported the incident to the ICHDF (Remitar, p. 17). The death of spouses Fernando Bautista and Marina Bautista is established by the Certificates of Death (Exhibits `B’ and `C’) showing that the victims died on February 21, 1986." (Appellee’s Brief, pp. 4-7.)

The appellants denied their participation in the crime charged and set up the defense of alibi as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Accused Ruben Catua testified that on February 21, 1986, he was in Asuncion, Davao, as he stayed in the house of an acquaintance by the name of Federico Casumanan. He was hospitalized and was treated for Malaria at the Kapalong District Hospital. From December 1985 to March of 1986, he was already in Asuncion. He had resided in barrio Callawa when he was still small. He was born in that place. At the age of seven (7), he left the place and transferred to Gupitan, Kapalong.

Federico Casumanan corroborated Ruben’s alibi.

Salvador Belave testified that at around 10:00 o’clock in the morning of February 21, 1986, he was with Elmo Catua and a certain Able Ganongan cutting grasses in his farm in Suwaon, Kapalong, Davao. Before February 21, 1986, he was at the same farm, working with the same persons. He knew Callawa. Callawa is very far from Suwaon. If one would walk, it would take about one day’s walk to reach Callawa from Suwaon because he would climb mountains. Elmo Catua and Able Ganongan worked with him in his farm for one (1) week from February 20 to February 24. His house is about fifteen (15) meters from the house of Elmo Catua.

Susan Catua testified that Peter Catua is her husband and they live in Monte Dujali, Kapalong, Davao. At around 10:00 o’clock in the morning of February 21, 1986, she was in the house together with her husband and their four (4) children. Her husband was supposed to plant on that day, but he was not able to go because one of their children was sick. They brought their child to Tagum for a doctor and they came home late in the afternoon.

Monte Dujali, Kapalong is very far from Callawa. The fare by bus to Callawa is P20.00 (TSN, July 19, 1989, pp. 16-22).

Roberto Ansero testified that on February 21, 1986, he was working on the farm of Peter Catua at Mandalingan. He was requested by Peter Catua to do the planting because his son Peter Catua, Jr. was sick and he would bring his son to a doctor. He was in the company of Julito Makna and Eleno Bustamante. His house is only 50 meters away from the house of Peter Catua.

Ansero is a resident of Mandalingan, Monte Dujali where he has stayed for more than six (6) years. He has known Peter Catua for a long time (TSN, August 9, 1990, pp. 29-34).

The twin issues to be resolved in this case are whether or not the appellants’ guilt of the crime of double murder had been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery had been properly established.

Both the trial court and the appellate court rejected the appellants’ alibi which is concededly a weak defense that cannot prevail over the positive testimony of truthful witnesses. The reason is that an alibi is easy to fabricate (People v. Padilla, 48 Phil. 718; People v. De Asis, 61 Phil, 384). When the defendants are identified by witnesses for the prosecution by clear, explicit and positive testimony, their alibi will not be credited (People v. Medina, 58 Phil. 330).chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The identity of the appellants was established by Tirso Bautista, the 14-year old son of the deceased couple, who was 20 meters from the assailants and three (3) meters from his parents when they were shot by the Catua brothers. This witness had known the assailants since he was ten (10) years old.

Jose Tunga confirmed that immediately after the shooting, Tirso ran up to him and reported that it was the Catua brothers who killed his parents. (pp. 5-6, 11, tsn, April 21, 1988.)

Another corroborating witness, Felix Remitar, who was working on his farm adjacent to that of the Bautistas, testified that when he heard rapid firing, he looked down below, because his lot is located on an elevation. He saw five (5) persons firing at the spouses Fernando Bautista and Marina Bautista (pp. 6-12, tsn, November 19, 1986). He recognized the Catua brothers because they were his friends (pp. 12-13, tsn, Nov. 19, 1986).

This Court finds no reason to disagree with the findings of the trial court on the credibility of the witnesses, to which great weight and a high degree of respect were accorded by the appellate court.

For the defense of alibi to be given credence, it must not only appear that the accused were at some other place, but also that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime when it was committed (People v. Virgilio Pasco y Santos, 181 SCRA 235; People v. Pielago, 140 SCRA 419).

The appellants alleged that when the crime was committed: Ruben Catua was at Asuncion, Davao; Peter Catua was at Monte Dujali, Kapalong, Davao, but later went to Tagum, Davao; and Elmo Catua was at Suwaon, Kapalong, Davao. The trial court found, however, that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . from Callawa, Suwaon, Kapalong to Asuncion, Davao in spite of the distance by few kilometers away the same could be reached by jeep. Some PUJ are operating these routes from Tagum vice versa. The accessibility is not impossible nor impaired. These points — Callawa, Monte Dujali, Asuncion and Tagum are covered with PUJ jeeps routes and other vehicles." (p. 280, Records.)

Appellant Ruben Catua submitted a medical certificate to prove that he was ill with malaria on the day of the shooting. However, the medical certificate (Exh. 1) showed that he was "examined/treated/confined in this hospital for malaria on December 23-25, 1986," i.e., eleven (11) months after the commission of the crime on February 21, 1986. Moreover, Dr. Elena Isidra Osorio, who signed the medical certificate, was never presented as a witness at the trial.

In this connection, the following findings of the Court of Appeals on the presence of treachery and conspiracy in the commission of the crime, are relevant:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"All told, we are convinced that the guilt of the appellants for the murderous death of the two victims has been established beyond moral certainty of doubt. Although the court below made no disquisition in its decision of the circumstance which qualified the killing to murder, a perusal of the facts of the case will readily reveal that treachery attended the killing. While the aforementioned circumstance may not be simply deduced from presumption as it is necessary that the existence of this qualifying circumstance be duly proven as the crime itself (People v. Ardisa, 55 SCRA 245), the rule does not preclude proof of its attendance by circumstantial evidence (People v. Maceda, G.R. No. 91106, May 27, 1991). By either means of proof, however, said circumstance is amply demonstrable in the case before us. Here, appellants together with two (2) other unidentified assailants with the use of rifles and shotguns, without warning, immediately fired upon the unarmed victims giving the latter no time for preparation, resistance or escape. Consequently, following a long line of cases (People v. Ompad, 26 SCRA 750; People v. Pedro, 16 SCRA 57: People v. Ablan, 1 SCRA 931; People v. Capitana, 49 Phil. 475), there can be no other conclusion than that appellants are guilty of the two (2) murders of Fernando Bautista and Marina Bautista.

"That there was conspiracy among the appellant cannot be doubted. It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence but can be inferred from the acts of the accused (People v. Alitao, G.R. No. 74736, February 18, 1991). The appellants’ actuations immediately prior to, during, and right after the shooting incident unmistakably reveal a concerted action indicative of a preconceived plan to assassinate the victims. . . .. Conspiracy having been established, the appellants, as co-conspirators, are all guilty in equal degree on the principle that the act of one is the act of all." (People v. De Guzman, 162 SCRA 145).

The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death (Art. 248, Revised Penal Code).

As there are no aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, the prescribed penalty should be imposed in its medium period, which is reclusion perpetua.

The award of P60,000 by way of civil indemnity for the death of the two victims should be increased to P100,000 or P50,000 for each of them, conformably with the latest jurisprudence on the matter (People v. Sazon, G.R. No. 75814, September 24, 1990, People v. Tezarra, G.R. No. 85531, December 10, 1990; People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 67702, January 18, 1991).

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the appellants, Elmo Catua, Peter Catua and Ruben Catua, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co-conspirators in the murder of Fernando Bautista and Marina Agunza Bautista and hereby sentences each of them to suffer two (2) penalties of reclusion perpetua and to solidarily indemnify the legal heirs of each of the victims in the sum of P50,000, or the total sum of P100,000 for both victims, plus costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., is on leave.




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






March-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 86150 March 2, 1992 - GUMAN, BOCALING & CO. v. RAOUL S.V. BONNEVIE

  • A.M. No. P-88-255 March 3, 1992 - MANUEL U. DEL ROSARlO v. JOSE T. BASCAR, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 46460-61 March 3, 1992 - DIWA NG PAGKAKAISA-PAFLU v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82511 March 3, 1992 - GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85479 March 3, 1992 - PERFECTO ESPAÑOL v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93003 March 3, 1992 - CARMELITA REYES v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94472 March 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO I. SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. 95696 March 3, 1992 - ALFONSO S. TAN v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101753 March 3, 1992 - CIPRIANO PEÑAFLORIDA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42987 March 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE REBULADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84363 March 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO B. ALILIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 88158 & 97108-09 March 4, 1992 - DANIEL GARCIA, ET AL. v. ERNESTO DE JESUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91745 March 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO MANLIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96607 March 4, 1992 - OSCAR QUILOÑA v. GENERAL COURT MARTIAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97296 March 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO B. CANCILLER

  • G.R. Nos. 102653, 102925, 102983 March 5, 1992 - NATIONAL PRESS CLUB v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 58879 March 6, 1992 - EXPEDITA LIBREA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62088 March 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMSON SAMILLANO

  • G.R. No. 66641 March 6, 1992 - FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77744 March 6, 1992 - TEODORA CLAVERIAS v. ADORACION QUINGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 89983-84 March 6, 1992 - LORENZO S. MENDIOLA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92501 March 6, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92878 March 6, 1992 - EDUARDO PATNA-AN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93851 March 6, 1992 - MARK BAYQUEN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94530 March 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE DONATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103102 March 6, 1992 - CLAUDIO J. TEEHANKEE, JR. v. JOB B. MADAYAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 95370 & 101227 March 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. EFREN O. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2405 March 11, 1992 - PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, INC., v. OLEEGARIO SANTISTEBAN

  • G.R. No. 40243 March 11, 1992 - CELESTINO TATEL v. MUNICIPALITY OF VIRAC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47815 March 11, 1992 - PEOPLE’S BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. TOMAS R. LEONIDAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84612 March 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSDADO AVILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86744 March 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO BUENAVENTURA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91662 March 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO AGUILUZ

  • G.R. No. 94129 March 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 95594 March 11, 1992 - ITALIAN VILLAGE RESTAURANT, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57630 March 13, 1992 - CLARA BADAYOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100926 March 13, 1992 - INDEPENDENT SAGAY-ESCALANTE PLANTERS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • A.M. No. 3216 March 16, 1992 - DOMINGA VELASCO ORDONIO v. JOSEPHINE PALOGAN EDUARTE

  • G.R. Nos. 74306 & 74315 March 16, 1992 - ENRIQUE RAZON v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91122 March 16, 1992 - DIONY RAPIZ, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93234 March 16, 1992 - PEDRO S. RAVELO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94803 March 16, 1992 - TALAGA BARANGAY WATER SERVICE COOPERATIVE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95692 March 16, 1992 - SUNDAY MACHINE WORKS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98030 March 17, 1992 - ALEJANDRO J. CUADRA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85469 March 18, 1992 - JOSE RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87148 March 18, 1992 - MARCIANA CONSIGNADO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94810 March 18, 1992 - EASTERN METROPOLITAN BUS CORP., ET AL. v. EDILBERTO PANGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 94929-30 March 18, 1992 - PORT WORKERS UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97357 March 18, 1992 - VIRON GARMENTS MANUFACTURING, CO., INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100727 March 18, 1992 - COGEO-CUBAO OPERATORS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71238 March 19, 1992 - LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75308 March 23, 1992 - LOPE SARREAL, SR. v. JAPAN AIR LINES CO., LTD., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75907 March 23, 1992 - FAMILY PLANNING ORGANIZATION OF THE PHIL., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 80658-60 March 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMINO TINAMPAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90519 March 23, 1992 - UNION OF FILIPINO WORKERS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90527 March 23, 1992 - RURAL BANK OF BAAO, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 92442-43 March 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 92740 March 23, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. JAIME J. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95022 March 23, 1992 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95536 March 23, 1992 - ANICETO G. SALUDO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97346 March 23, 1992 - RODOLFO YOSORES v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 101367 March 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMO CATUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 83583-84 March 25, 1992 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. RIO TUBA NICKEL MINING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84220 March 25, 1992 - BENJAMIN RODRIGUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84240 March 25, 1992 - OLIVIA S. PASCUAL, ET AL. v. ESPERANZA C. PASCUAL-BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88942 March 25, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLO S. CARPIO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-87-98 March 26, 1992 - AMELIA B. JUVIDA v. MANUEL SERAPIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93044 March 26, 1992 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. NATIONAL WAGES COUNCIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96697 March 26, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME COMPETENTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 45425 & 45965 March 27, 1992 - CELSA L. VDA. DE KILAYKO, ET AL. v. ERNESTO TENGCO, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3724 March 31, 1992 - JOAQUIN G. GARRIDO v. RAMON J. QUISUMBING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64220 March 31, 1992 - SEARTH COMMODITIES CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68319 March 31, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS DELA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76225 March 31, 1992 - ESPIRIDION TANPINGCO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87710 March 31, 1992 - ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO v. BOARD OF ADMINISTRATORS OF TELEVISION STATIONS RPN, BBC AND IBC

  • G.R. No. 94071 March 31, 1992 - NEW LIFE ENTERPRISES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96319 March 31, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO ARCEGA

  • G.R. No. 97149 March 31, 1992 - FIDENCIO Y. BEJA, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101556 March 31, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO ESTERA

  • G.R. No. 103956 March 31, 1992 - BLO UMPAR ADIONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS