Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > September 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 97918 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR E. JAPSAY:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 97918. September 18, 1992.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICTOR JAPSAY y ESCALADA, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Christine V. Nessia for Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS; NOT AFFECTED BY THE UNNATURAL BEHAVIOR DURING THE INCIDENT; CASE AT BAR. — The appellant assails the credibility of Rosemarie’s testimony, arguing: (1) that it is very unnatural that she put herself in danger of being killed just to save a new acquaintance; and (2) that it is highly incredible that Wilmar remained passive although he was held at gunpoint and threatened to be killed. We are not persuaded. There is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted with a shocking incident. (People v. Amoncio, G.R. No. 49069, June 22, 1983, 122 SCRA 686 [1983]; People v. Radomes, G.R. No. 68421, March 20, 1986, 141 SCRA 548 [1986]; People v. Catubig, G.R. No. 89732, January 31, 1992). At any rate, it is difficult to ascertain the degree of friendship existing between Rosemarie and Wilmar as would enable us to determine how exactly she would react during the incident. On the other hand, Wilmar’s passive behavior immediately before the incident was sufficiently explained by Rosemarie.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; STANDS IN THE ABSENCE OF IMPROPER MOTIVE TO INCRIMINATE THE ACCUSED; CASE AT BAR. — Rosemarie is a disinterested witness. The appellant has not shown any motive sufficient to impel her to perjure herself. There was no reason for Rosemarie to incriminate the appellant except to tell the truth as she had witnessed the incident (People v. Ballinas, G.R. No. 93300, October 4, 1991).

3. CRIMINAL LAW; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; TREACHERY; PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR. — Treachery qualified the crime to murder. The unarmed victim did not expect that he would really be killed for he must have dismissed the appellant’s warning as coming from a drunken man with whom he had no quarrel anyway. On the other hand, the herein appellant gunned down the victim at close range while the latter was about to step down the stairs following Rosemarie’s bid to avoid trouble. Clearly, at that particular time, the victim was not in a position to defend himself as he was totally unprepared for the appellant’s deadly attack (People v. Pueblas, G.R. No. 32859, February 24, 1984, 127 SCRA 746, 753 [1984]).


D E C I S I O N


MEDIALDEA, J.:


This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court Branch 44 of Negros Occidental, Bacolod City dated October 18, 1990 which convicted the appellant of murder, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused, Victor Japsay y Escalada, guilty of the crime of murder penalized under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer an imprisonment of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of deceased Wilmar Vivas the sum of P30,000.00 on account of his death, the sum of P150,000.00 for loss of earning capacity and the sum of P10,000.00 as moral damages.

"SO ORDERED." (p. 8, Decision; p. 269, Rollo)

The facts of the case, based mainly on the testimony of eyewitness Rosemarie Talde, are briefly summarized as follows:chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

In the early evening of October 25, 1988, Wilmar Vivas arrived at the J & S Tsibugan and Snack Bar situated at corner San Sebastian and Gatuslao Streets, Bacolod City. Upon seeing Rosemarie, Wilmar ordered one (1) bottle of beer then they stayed together in one table. Because he was curious about the place, Rosemarie accompanied him to the second floor where there was a sing-a-long. Later, at around 9:30 o’clock in the evening, she left Wilmar briefly to attend to the other customers but they did not order. Suddenly, on her way back to Wilmar’s table, she saw the appellant pointing a gun at Wilmar then heard the appellant say "Tindog dira kay tiruhon ta ka, indi ka magtindog?" ("Stand up there, I will shoot you, you will not stand up?"). Because Wilmar did not react, she passed by the appellant and proceeded to Wilmar. Then holding Wilmar on his right shoulder, she tried to convince him to go downstairs. As Wilmar stood up from his chair, she looked at the appellant who was still pointing his gun at Wilmar. Then, as they were about to step down the stairs, she heard a shot and saw the explosion coming from the appellant’s gun. Simultaneously, Wilmar uttered "ah" and then fell down. Two waiters helped her bring Wilmar down the stairs but they were unable to carry him outside because of his heavy weight. Rosemarie went outside to shout for help and then she collapsed. When she regained consciousness, she remembered what happened to Wilmar but as she was about to stand up, she saw the appellant and his companion board a vehicle and leave. Rosemarie went back inside the snack bar and together with her friends, they brought Wilmar to the hospital but he was pronounced dead on arrival (Rollo, pp. 66-67).

The medico legal officer who autopsied the body of the victim found that the cause of Wilmar’s death was shock and hemorrhage due to gunshot wound (Tsn, August 17, 1989, p. 6). The police investigator subsequently recovered the appellant’s clutch bag with five (5) live bullets in it and an empty shell of a .38 caliber gun at the scene of the crime (Tsn. December 13, 1989, p. 115).

Charged with murder, the appellant admitted responsibility for shooting the victim Wilmar but claimed that the shooting was purely accidental. His version of the incident, corroborated by the testimony of his companion, Larry Pura, is as follows: that as sales representative of Nestle Company. Inc., he was charged with the collection of sales, thus, he travelled everyday and was exposed to insurgents; that because of the nature of his job, he was drafted to be a civilian intelligence agent and was given a firearm by the Philippine Constabulary: that in the evening of October 25, 1988, he and his companion, Larry Pura, settled to eat at J & S Tsibugan and Snack Bar; that while they were eating and drinking beer, he remembered that he left his clutch bag containing his collections in the car; that he requested Larry to get the same and the latter complied; that Larry noticed the appellant’s gun and lifted it up from the bag; that he impulsively grabbed the gun from Larry and it suddenly exploded; that he did not know that Wilmar was hit; that he and Larry decided to leave the place because the other customers scampered away; but that before going home, he surrendered the gun to his lawyer and relayed the incident to him (Rollo, pp. 68-69).

After trial, the trial court convicted the appellant as charged. The trial court found that the shooting was not by mere accident as it was intentionally and treacherously perpetrated by the appellant.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

In this appeal, the appellant assails the credibility of Rosemarie’s testimony, arguing: (1) that it is very unnatural that she put herself in danger of being killed just to save a new acquaintance; and (2) that it is highly incredible that Wilmar remained passive although he was held at gunpoint and threatened to be killed.

We are not persuaded.

There is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted with a shocking incident. (People v. Amoncio, G.R. No. 49069, June 22, 1983, 122 SCRA 686 [1983]; People v. Radomes, G.R. No. 68421, March 20, 1986, 141 SCRA 548 [1986]; People v. Catubig, G.R. No. 89732, January 31, 1992).

At any rate, it is difficult to ascertain the degree of friendship existing between Rosemarie and Wilmar as would enable us to determine how exactly she would react during the incident. On the other hand, Wilmar’s passive behavior immediately before the incident was sufficiently explained by Rosemarie in the following manner:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WITNESS: ROSEMARIE TALDE.

ATTY. HILADO: What was the position of Wilmar Vivas at the time when Victor Japsay was pointing a gun at him?

WITNESS: He was sitting in the table and placing his two (2) hands under his chin.

x       x       x


ATTY. PANDAN: You said that you saw Victor Japsay pointing his gun at Wilmar Vivas at a distance of three (3) meters, what was Wilmar Vivas doing at that time?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

WITNESS: He just kept quiet, and did not make any move.

x       x       x


ATTY. PANDAN: Did he tell you anything?

WITNESS: He did not say anything.

ATTY. PANDAN: You did not likewise ask him?

WITNESS: No, sir.

x       x       x


ATTY. PANDAN: Do you wish to tell this Honorable Court that Wilmar Vivas did not mind the gun pointed at him?

WITNESS: Maybe he did not mind because he did not expect that he will be shot." (TSN, pp. 22, 71, 79, September 19, 1989, Tupas).

The defense of accident miserably falls. The trial court found that the appellant committed the crime in the manner testified to by Rosemarie. Thus, said the court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . [T]he manner by which the late Wilmar Vivas was unexpectedly and abruptly shot and gunned down by the accused Victor Japsay as to clearly quali(f)y the killing in this case to Murder was likewise established by the prosecution’s witness Rosemarie Talde and considering the position of the late Wilmar Vivas in relation to the accused Victor Japsay (Exh.’E’, ‘E-1’, to ‘E-5’) and the distance between them of approximately two (2) to two and a half (2 1/2) meters at the time that the accused fired his gun at the victim, hitting him at the left chest, the late Wilmar vivas was surely in no position to have possibly been able to defend himself from the treacherous assault on his person." (p. 7, Decision; p. 268, Rollo)chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

Indeed, treachery qualified the crime to murder. The unarmed victim did not expect that he would really be killed for he must have dismissed the appellant’s warning as coming from a drunken man with whom he had no quarrel anyway. On the other hand, the herein appellant gunned down the victim at close range while the latter was about to step down the stairs following Rosemarie’s bid to avoid trouble. Clearly, at that particular time, the victim was not in a position to defend himself as he was totally unprepared for the appellant’s deadly attack (People v. Pueblas, G.R. No. 32859, February 24, 1984, 127 SCRA 746, 753 [1984]).

Rosemarie is a disinterested witness. The appellant has not shown any motive sufficient to impel her to perjure herself. There was no reason for Rosemarie to incriminate the appellant except to tell the truth as she had witnessed the incident (People v. Ballinas, G.R. No. 93300, October 4, 1991).

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, save that the amount of indemnity for death payable by the appellant Victor Japsay to the heirs of the victim is hereby INCREASED to P50,000.00 conformably with recent jurisprudence.

SO ORDERED.

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

Cruz, 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






September-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. RTJ-88-22 September 1, 1992 - JOEL GARGANERA v. ENRIQUE JOCSON

  • G.R. No. 32075 September 1, 1992 - SIAO TIAO HONG v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 32657 September 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 70746-47 September 1, 1992 - BIENVENIDO O. MARCOS v. FERNANDO S. RUIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86051 September 1, 1992 - JAIME LEDESMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86844 September 1, 1992 - SPOUSES CESAR DE RAMOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 92-8-027-SC September 2, 1992 - RE: JOSEFINA V. PALON

  • G.R. No. 43747 September 2, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46025 September 2, 1992 - FLORITA T. BAUTISTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50618 September 2, 1992 - LEOPOLDO FACINAL, ET AL. v. AGAPITO I. CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51289 September 2, 1992 - RODOLFO ENCARNACION v. DYNASTY AMUSEMENT CENTER CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56865 September 2, 1992 - IRENEO TOBIAS, ET AL. v. TEMISTOCLES B. DIEZ

  • G.R. No. 61043 September 2, 1992 - DELTA MOTOR SALES CORPORATION v. NIU KIM DUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 62554-55 September 2, 1992 - REPUBLIC BANK v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70120 September 2, 1992 - CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73198 September 2, 1992 - PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74618 September 2, 1992 - ANA LIM KALAW v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75242 September 2, 1992 - MANILA RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78777 September 2, 1992 - MERLIN P. CAIÑA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80812 September 2, 1992 - LUZ E. TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84256 September 2, 1992 - ALEJANDRA RIVERA OLAC, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87318 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME G. SERDAN

  • G.R. No. 91535 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO L. DE JESUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92461 September 2, 1992 - ESTATE DEVELOPERS AND INVESTORS CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92789 September 2, 1992 - SILLIMAN UNIVERSITY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92795-96 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE B. TANTIADO

  • G.R. No. 93141 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ESTANISLAO GENERALAO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 93634 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MASALIM CASIM

  • G.R. No. 94918 September 2, 1992 - DANILO I. SUAREZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95249 September 2, 1992 - REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95843 September 2, 1992 - EDILBERTO C. ABARQUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95921 September 2, 1992 - SPOUSES ROBERT DINO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96333 September 2, 1992 - EDUARDO C. DE VERA v. ERNESTO L. PINEDA

  • G.R. Nos. 96952-56 September 2, 1992 - SMI FISH INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 97408-09 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS MORENO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 97805 September 2, 1992 - NILO H. RAYMUNDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99050 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONWAY B. OMAWENG

  • G.R. No. 99359 September 2, 1992 - ORLANDO M. ESCAREAL v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100970 September 2, 1992 - FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103269 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO VALIENTE

  • A.M. No. P-90-418 September 3, 1992 - EDILBERTO NATIVIDAD v. ALFONSO B. MELGAR

  • G.R. No. 86695 September 3, 1992 - MARIA ELENA MALAGA, ET AL. v. MANUEL R. PENACHOS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90693 September 3, 1992 - SPARTAN SECURITY & DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91284 September 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEPITO T. PEÑERO

  • G.R. No. 92310 September 3, 1992 - AGRICULTURAL AND HOME EXTENSION DEVELOPMENT GROUP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77285 September 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADEO ABUYEN

  • G.R. No. 83995 September 4, 1992 - BENJAMIN EDAÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 88788 September 4, 1992 - RESTITUTO DE LEON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89278 September 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDITO S. SICAT

  • G.R. No. 94375 September 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO A. CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 94825 September 4, 1992 - PHIL. FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97111-13 September 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MONICA P. PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 101469 September 4, 1992 - MALAYAN INTEGRATED INDUSTRIES, CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101539 September 4, 1992 - CECILE DE OCAMPO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102397 September 4, 1992 - BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105120 September 4, 1992 - SIMPLICIO C. GRIÑO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105346 September 4, 1992 - RAUL H. SESBREÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93842 September 7, 1992 - ERNANDO C. LAYNO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92988 September 9, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO TIWAKEN

  • G.R. No. 55741 September 11, 1992 - LUZ LATAGAN v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73071 September 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO S. ALVAREZ

  • G.R. No. 82586 September 11, 1992 - SALVADOR M. MISON, ET AL. v. ELI G.C. NATIVIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91159 September 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LARRY A. FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 91915 September 11, 1992 - DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY OF TACLOBAN v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97441 September 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO CASINILLO

  • G.R. No. 98062 September 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REGOBERTO YBEAS

  • G.R. No. 103903 September 11, 1992 - MELANIO D. SAMPAYAN, ET AL. v. RAUL. A. DAZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57475 September 14, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RUFO NERI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74851 September 14, 1992 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • A.C. No. 3248 September 18, 1992 - DOMINGO R. MARCELO v. ADRIANO S. JAVIER, SR.

  • G.R. No. 70890 September 18, 1992 - CRESENCIO LIBI, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73919 September 18, 1992 - NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75915-16 September 18, 1992 - SPS. GO IT BUN, ET AL. v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84917 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUEROBEN A. POLIZON

  • G.R. No. 86218 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELSIE B. BAGISTA

  • G.R. No. 91001 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILFERIO F. SILLO

  • G.R. No. 94511-13 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO C. VALENCIA

  • G.R. No. 94828 September 18, 1992 - SPOUSES ROMULO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. ASIAN CONSUMER AND INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95456 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO A. BAÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 95540 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARCHIE Q. DISTRITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96255 September 18, 1992 - HERCULES INDUSTRIES, INC. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96329 September 18, 1992 - MABUHAY VINYL CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97918 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR E. JAPSAY

  • G.R. No. 102141 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO SABORNIDO

  • G.R. No. 105227 September 18, 1992 - LEANDRO I. VERCELES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61218 September 23, 1992 - LIBERTAD SANTOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81883 September 23, 1992 - KNITJOY MANUFACTURING, INC. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83580 September 23, 1992 - ENRICO SY v. ARTURO A. ROMERO

  • G.R. Nos. 85403-06 September 23, 1992 - ANTONIO T. TIONGSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101706 September 23, 1992 - CONSOLIDATED PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102693 September 23, 1992 - SPOUSES AGOSTO MUÑOZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85086 September 24, 1991

    ARSENIO P. BUENAVENTURA ENTERPRISES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90254 September 24, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS C. FLORIDA

  • G.R. No. 97765 September 24, 1992 - KHOSROW MINUCHER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44936 September 25, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91114 September 25, 1992 - NELLY LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91359 September 25, 1992 - VETERANS MANPOWER AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58027 September 28, 1992 - GOLDEN COUNTRY FARMS, INC. v. SANVAR DEVELOPMENT CORP.

  • G.R. No. 97431 September 28, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JONATHAN J. ALABAN

  • G.R. No. 99046 September 28, 1992 - AQUALYN CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100574 September 28, 1992 - SPS. MARINO SAPUGAY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102381 September 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO H. LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 53630 September 30, 1992 - ENRIQUE KHO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82531 September 30, 1992 - DOMINGO T. MENDOZA v. MARIA MENDOZA NAVARETTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82630 September 30, 1992 - MARIA GULANG v. GENOVEVA NADAYAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94461 September 30, 1992 - INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97356 September 30, 1992 - ARTURO C. CORONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105017 September 30, 1992 - PABLO NIDOY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.