Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1993 > March 1993 Decisions > G.R. No. 101333 March 2, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS SAMSON, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 101333. March 2, 1993.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LUIS SAMSON Y CAMON and GIL CAMPORAZO, Accused-Appellants.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Joselito R. Enriquez for Accused-Appellants.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY; TESTIMONY OF A SINGLE WITNESS, SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT; REQUISITE. — The testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive and if it satisfies the court as to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is sufficient to convict.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ABSENCE OF SURVEILLANCE AND FAILURE TO PRESENT POSEUR-BUYER, SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED CREDIBILITY OF ARRESTING OFFICER. — No evidence was presented to show that a surveillance was conducted on the two accused before their arrest. Even the identity of the informant-poseur-buyer is shady. He was never presented in court. Neither was his affidavit taken to attest to the circumstances surrounding the said buy-bust operation. In addition thereto, Pat. Zamora cannot even recall the desk officer who had recorded the marked money and twelve (12) sticks of marijuana in the police blotter and to whom he gave the said sticks of marijuana. We agree with the accused’s contention that the failure to present the informant in Court in order that he could testify as to the details of the buy-bust operation seriously impaired the credibility of the lone witness for the prosecution.


D E C I S I O N


CAMPOS, JR., J.:


This is an appeal from the decision ** of the Regional Trial Court, 6th Judicial Region, Branch 63, of La Carlota City, in Criminal Case No. 340 finding the accused LUIS SAMSON and GIL CAMPORAZO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the "Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972", and sentencing both accused to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to each pay a fine of P25,000.00 with cost de oficio.

The information charging both accused is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned City Fiscal accuses LUIS SAMSON Y CAMON and GIL CAMPORAZO of "VIOLATION OF SEC. 8 R.A. 6425 AS AMENDED", committed as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about the 9th day of March, 1987, in the City of La Carlota, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused without being authorized by law, did, then and there, wilfully, feloniously and unlawfully jointly sell and possess twelve (12) sticks of dried marijuana leaves.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

AN ACT CONTRARY TO LAW." 1

On September 17, 1987, both accused, assisted by their counsel, pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. 2

After due trial, the trial court rendered its decision convicting both accused of the offense charged, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused LUIS SAMSON and GIL CAMPORAZO, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling marijuana or Indian Hemp, a prohibited drug, in violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drug (sic) Act of 1972, and sentences each of the said accused to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P25,000.00 with cost de officio.

SO ORDERED." 3

Feeling aggrieved, both accused appealed to Us attributing to the trial court the following assignment of errors 4 :chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I


THE COURT A-QUO COMMITTED TOO SERIOUS AND OBVIOUS ERROR IN CONVICTING BOTH APPELLANTS, WITHOUT THE INFORMANT-TURNED POSEUR-BUYER BEING PRESENTED IN COURT, CONSIDERING THAT BOTH APPELLANTS VEHEMENTLY DENIED HAVING SOLD MARIJUANA TO ANYONE.

II


THE COURT A-QUO COMMITTED TOO SERIOUS AND OBVIOUS ERROR IN GIVING MUCH WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE HEARSAY, SELF-SERVING AND UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY OF PATROLMAN ROLANDO ZAMORA.

III


THE COURT A-QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING BOTH APPELLANTS ON GROUNDS OF REASONABLE DOUBTS.

The People’s version, as culled from the testimony of Patrolman Rolando Zamora of the then Integrated National Police, La Carlota City, tends to establish that on March 9, 1987, he was the duty guard of Agora Market located at Yungue Street. 5 At around 4:45 in the afternoon of that same day, his informant told him that somebody was selling marijuana at San Agustin Street. 6 Upon being informed, he brought the informant to the police station, gave him a marked P20.00 bill with Serial No. 279556 and told him to buy marijuana. The informant told him that it was Luis Samson and Gil Camporazo who were selling marijuana. 7 After which the informant proceeded to San Agustin Street while he followed the former. Upon reaching the said street, the informant bought marijuana from Luis Samson in front of the house of a certain Ms. Guera. It was Luis Samson who received the marked P20.00 bill from the informant, while Gil Camporazo was the one who gave the dried marijuana leaves to the informant. 8 He witnessed the transaction at a distance of about 30 meters from where the sale took place. After the sale, he waited for his informant to get the marijuana and thereafter he apprehended Luis Samson and Gil Camporazo. 9 Before bringing the two to the police station, he made a body search. Recovered from the pocket of Luis Samson was money including the marked P20.00 bill. 10 On the other hand, recovered from the person of Gil Camporazo were dried marijuana leaves which were already rolled. 11 He was able to take possession of the marijuana from his informant. After which, he brought Luis Samson and Gil Camporazo to the police station. 12

Sgt. Mariano P. Palmes, assistant of Forensic Chemist P/Lt. Zenaida Sinfuego testified that the twelve (12) sticks of suspected marijuana cigarettes which were subjected to chemical analysis were found positive for marijuana. 13

Accused Luis Samson’s version of the event which was materially corroborated by accused Gil Camporazo is as follows: On March 9, 1987 at more or less 4:45 p.m., Accused Luis Samson together with accused Gil Camporazo has just finished working on the roof of the former’s house. Because they were tired, they went to the store nearby and asked the owner of the store for a credit of 1/2 gallon of tuba. After having consumed one (1) glass of tuba each, 14 they saw Pat. Rolando Zamora approach them and suddenly searched them. They asked the reason for searching their persons but got no reply. Pat. Zamora looked into their pockets but did not get anything. The act of searching them was observed by several onlookers. 15 Pat. Zamora immediately got something from his pocket and told them that those things came from theirs. 16 They resisted being brought to the police station because they did not know what their mistake was. 17

Both accused pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.cralawnad

After a careful analysis of the evidence, We find that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that both accused indeed sold or possessed marijuana leaves.

In convicting the accused, the trial court merely relied on the testimony of Pat. Zamora, the lone prosecution witness. We have held that the testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive and if it satisfies the court as to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is sufficient to convict. 18 However, We find his testimony replete with details that rule out a judgment of conviction for both accused.

Pat. Zamora contradicted himself in the following instances:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. As to what Pat. Zamora found in the possession of accused Gil Camporazo when he made a body search, he testified on direct examination, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

FISCAL MANALO: What about Jill (sic) Camporazo, What did you do to him?

A: I also searched him.

Q: Let us make this clear, you said that before you rode in the tricycle towards the police station you made search on Jill (sic) Camporazo, what did you find out?

A: Question was already answered there was nothing in the body of Jill (sic) Camporazo.

Court: There was no statement, witness may answer.

A: Dried marijuana leaves which was (sic) already rolled.

FISCAL MANALO: Where did you find it in what part of the body did you find the marijuana leaves from the body of Camporazo?

A: There was no more marijuana leaves from Camporazo because he delivered it to the informant (TSN, p. 9-10, October 13, 1987).

2. As to what he did after the informant received the marijuana leaves, he testified on direct examination, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

ATTY. LOBRIDO: When you saw Luis Samson received (sic) P20 from you informant and Jill (sic) Camporazo delivered the marijuana leaves, what did you do?

A: I wait (sic) for the informant to get the marijuana after that I apprehended the two. (TSN, p. 8, October 13, 1987).chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Doubts have also been cast on the following testimony of Pat. Zamora during the cross examination:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

ATTY. LOBRIDO: I am asking, what makes you certain that what was given to you are marijuana?

A: Because when I opened it the physical appearance of marijuana which was taken from Jill (sic) Camporazo was the same specimen from my marijuana. (TSN, p. 20, October 17, 1987).

From the above-quoted testimony, Pat. Zamora revealed that he had in his possession marijuana prior to his search of the accused to which he compared the marijuana allegedly given by the informant-poseur-buyer to him. It is highly suspicious of a peace officer to be carrying marijuana during the buy-bust operation which he himself will conduct.

Aside from the contradictory statements of Pat. Zamora, there is reasonable doubt as to whether the alleged buy-bust operation ever took place. Pat. Zamora testified that he was a duty guard at Agora Market when an informant approached him and told him that somebody was selling marijuana. Immediately, Pat. Zamora accompanied him to the police station and gave him the marked P20.00 bill. If it were true that a buy-bust operation took place, why did Pat. Zamora not inform his co-police officers about the said operation when he went to get the marked money? Why did he not inform his superior officer about such operation?

We have ruled in the case of People v. Honrada y Joben, 19 that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In buy-bust operations, a surveillance is usually conducted to identify the drug-pusher who would be the subject of the entrapment. In other cases of buy-bust operations, the police team who conducts the operation does so after a reliable informant point (sic) to a particular place where the sale of prohibited drugs by notorious drug pusher is rampant."cralaw virtua1aw library

No evidence was presented to show that a surveillance was conducted on the two accused before their arrest. Even the identity of the informant-poseur-buyer is shady. He was never presented in court. Neither was his affidavit taken to attest to the circumstances surrounding the said buy-bust operation.

In addition thereto, Pat. Zamora cannot even recall the desk officer who had recorded the marked money and twelve (12) sticks of marijuana in the police blotter and to whom he gave the said sticks of marijuana. 20

We agree with the accused’s contention that the failure to present the informant in Court in order that he could testify as to the details of the buy-bust operation seriously impaired the credibility of the lone witness for the prosecution.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

It will be noted that Pat. Zamora was never privy to the conversation between the informant-poseur-buyer and the two accused. Considering his distance of 30 meters from the place where the transaction took place, what he saw were only physical movements of the parties which are not conclusive as to what actually transpired. It was therefore incumbent upon the prosecution to present the informant-poseur-buyer because Pat. Zamora has no personal knowledge of the transaction that transpired between the informant-poseur-buyer and the two accused. The informant-poseur-buyer was the only one who could "provide the most accurate account of the transaction" 21 and "speak convincingly about the purported sale." 22 We have ruled in the case of People v. Salcedo 23 that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Considering appellant’s outright denial and totally different version of the events resulting in his arrest, it became incumbent upon the prosecution to rebut appellant’s allegations by presenting . . ., the alleged poseur-buyer. This it failed to do, giving rise to the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced [Rule 131, Sec. 5(e)]. This failure which as ruled by this Court constitutes a fatal flow in the prosecution’s evidence since the so-called informant who was never presented as a witness and never identified, is the best witness for the prosecution."cralaw virtua1aw library

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused LUIS SAMSON AND GIL CAMPORAZO are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged. Their immediate release from prison is hereby ordered unless they are being held for some other cause.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado and Nocon, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



** Penned by Judge Alfonso V. Combong, Jr.

1. Rollo, p. 6.

2. Records, p. 19.

3. Decision, p. 8; Rollo, p. 16.

4. Appellants’ Brief, p. 5; Rollo, p. 28.

5. TSN, October 13, 1987, p. 3.

6. Ibid., p. 4.

7. Ibid., pp. 5-6.

8. Ibid., p. 7.

9. Ibid., p. 8.

10. Ibid., p. 9.

11. Ibid., p. 10.

12. Ibid., p. 11.

13. TSN, March 21, 1988, pp. 14-16.

14. TSN, November 13, 1989, p. 5.

15. Ibid., p. 8.

16. Ibid., p. 6.

17. Ibid., p. 8.

18. People v. Consuelo, 184 SCRA 406 (1990); People v. Javier, 182 SCRA 830 (1990).

19. 204 SCRA 858, 866 (1991).

20. TSN, October 13, 1987, p. 12.

21. People v. Queroben y Acla, G.R. No. 84917, September 18, 1992.

22. People v. Caponpon, 204 SCRA 116 (1991).

23. 195 SCRA 345, 353 (1991), citing People v. Rojo, 175 SCRA 119 (1989).




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-1993 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-88-216 March 1, 1993 - BEN MEDINA v. LETICIA MARIANO DE GUIA

  • G.R. No. 79253 March 1, 1993 - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL. v. LUIS R. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94471 March 1, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO VILLAGRACIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94528 March 1, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PETER CADEVIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94542 March 1, 1993 - FRANCISCO JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. CATALINO MACARAIG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95322 March 1, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLITO DOMASIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95770 March 1, 1993 - ROEL EBRALINAG, ET AL. v. SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF CEBU

  • G.R. No. 97505 March 1, 1993 - RAMON U. VILLAREAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98182 March 1, 1993 - PASTOR FERRER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98457 March 1, 1993 - AMADOR B. SURBAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98933 March 1, 1993 - EGYPT AIR LOCAL EMPLOYEES ASSO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105409 March 1, 1993 - MASTER TOURS and TRAVEL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106971 March 1, 1993 - TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., ET AL. v. NEPTALI A. GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73246 March 2, 1993 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96969 March 2, 1993 - ROMEO P. FLORES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100658 March 2, 1993 - WYETH-SUACO LABORATORIES, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101333 March 2, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS SAMSON, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-92-698 March 3, 1993 - CHITO VALENTON, ET AL. v. ALFONSO MELGAR

  • G.R. No. 83851 March 3, 1993 - VISAYAN SAWMILL COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86941 March 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO BASAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90027 March 3, 1993 - CA AGRO-INDUSTRIAL DEVT. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 91711-15 March 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DINO ALFORTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94125 March 3, 1993 - JESUS MIGUEL YULO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96053 March 3, 1993 - JOSEFINA TAYAG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103396 March 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO DEOCARIZA

  • G.R. No. 95849 March 4, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCIO MARTINEZ

  • G.R. No. 57312 March 5, 1993 - LEONOR DELOS ANGELES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60501 March 5, 1993 - CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78115 March 5, 1993 - DOMINGA REGIDOR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 81852-53 March 5, 1993 - ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84847 March 5, 1993 - HENRY KOA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85534 March 5, 1993 - GENERAL BAPTIST BIBLE COLLEGE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90349 March 5, 1993 - EDWIN GESULGON v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95918 March 5, 1993 - LUCIO M. CAYABA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97068 March 5, 1993 - FIL-PRIDE SHIPPING CO., INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97957 March 5, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO LASE

  • G.R. No. 98147 March 5, 1993 - NIMFA G. RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101766 March 5, 1993 - DANIEL S.L. BORBON II, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO B. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101897 March 5, 1993 - LYCEUM OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106556 March 5, 1993 - AURORA P. CRISPINO v. FORTUNATO V. PANGANIBAN

  • G.R. No. 106847 March 5, 1993 - PATRICIO P. DIAZ v. SANTOS B. ADIONG, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-92-655 March 8, 1993 - LICERIO P. NIQUE v. FELIPE G. ZAPATOS

  • G.R. No. 74678 March 8, 1993 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94960 March 8, 1993 - IMPERIAL TEXTILE MILLS, INC. v. VLADIMIR P.L. SAMPANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96123-24 March 8, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO MANALO

  • G.R. No. 96949 March 8, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO NARITO

  • G.R. Nos. 101202, 102554 March 8, 1993 - RAMON A. DIAZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101256 March 8, 1993 - PEPITO LAUS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104523 & 104526 March 8, 1993 - ARMS TAXI, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104583 March 8, 1993 - DEVELOPERS GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85273 March 9, 1993 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INS. SYSTEM v. GENARO C. GINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85419 March 9, 1993 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RIZAL v. SIMA WEI , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89373 March 9, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YOLANDA GESMUNDO

  • G.R. No. 95847-48 March 10, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GABRIEL GERENTE

  • G.R. No. 100594 March 10, 1993 - BINALBAGAN TECH. INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102704 March 10, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORDENCIO CHATTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106982 March 11, 1993 - SYNDICATED MEDIA ACCESS CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-91-666 March 12, 1993 - ANTONIO DONATA F. SABADO, ET AL. v. NOVATO T. CAJIGAL

  • G.R. No. 102126 March 12, 1993 - ANGELICA LEDESMA v. INTESTATE ESTATE OF CIPRIANO PEDROSA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-89-329 March 17, 1993 - RODOLFO T. ALLARDE v. PEDRO N. LAGGUI

  • G.R. No. 75295 March 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESRAEL AMONDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88802 March 17, 1993 - FROILAN C. GERVASIO, ET AL. v. ROLANDO V. CUAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94053 March 17, 1993 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO NOLASCO

  • G.R. No. 97393 March 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO S. BERNARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101004 March 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL PONFERADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101689 March 17, 1993 - CARLITO U. ALVIZO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 102045 March 17, 1993 - LUZ CARPIO VDA. DE QUIJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102300 March 17, 1993 - CITIBANK. N.A. v. HON. SEGUNDINO CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102722 March 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMIN BESANA

  • G.R. No. 102826 March 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO LABAO

  • G.R. No. 68555 March 19, 1993 - PRIME WHITE CEMENT CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82829 March 19, 1993 - JAM TRANSPORTATION, CO. INC. v. LUIS HERMOSA FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84607 March 19, 1993 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. EDILBERTO G. SANDOVAL

  • G.R. No. 93476 March 19, 1993 - A’ PRIME SECURITY SERVICES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95450 March 19, 1993 - HOME INSURANCE AND GUARANTY CORPORATION v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95771 March 19, 1993 - LAWRENCE BOWE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96721 March 19, 1993 - OCCIDENTAL LAND TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., ET AL., v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97070 March 19, 1993 - ARTURO GRAVINA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97749 March 19, 1993 - SALVADOR BUAZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99041 March 19, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR N. TAPIC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102132 March 19, 1993 - DAVAO INTEGRATED PORT STEVEDORING SERVICES v. RUBEN V. ABARQUEZ, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-89-296 March 22, 1993 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. LETICIA VILLAR-NOOL

  • A.M. No. P-90-512 March 22, 1993 - CRISPIN CARREON, ET AL. v. EDUARDO MENDIOLA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-91-622 March 22, 1993 - MANUEL T. URADA v. LUZVIMINDA M. MAPALAD

  • A.M. No. P-92-697 March 22, 1993 - MAXIMO A. SAVELLANO, JR. v. ALBERTO D. ALMEIDA

  • G.R. No. 68464 March 22, 1993 - FRANCISCO D. YAP, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82457 March 22, 1993 - INOCENTE LEONARDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88632 March 22, 1993 - TEODULO GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91133 March 22, 1993 - ROMINA M. SUAREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91228 March 22, 1993 - PUROMINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92049 March 22, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN U. MORENO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100332 March 22, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIA DAGDAGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102351 March 22, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO S. LIBUNGAN

  • G.R. No. 102955 March 22, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADRIAN G. ENRIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 95455 March 23, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDY ABEJERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97612 March 23, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO AMANIA

  • G.R. No. 100913 March 23, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN CASAO

  • G.R. No. 101451 March 23, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX V. REGALADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101741 March 23, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADLY HUBILO

  • G.R. No. 70451 March 24, 1993 - HENRY H. GAW v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85951 March 24, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALVARO SUITOS

  • G.R. No. 90391 March 24, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALIH S. JUMA

  • G.R. No. 95029 March 24, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADOLFO NARVAS PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. 101761 March 24, 1993 - NATIONAL SUGAR REFINERIES CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105851 March 24, 1993 - MYRENE PADILLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101742 March 25, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ASTERIO A. ESCOSIO

  • G.R. No. 101566 March 26, 1993 - FLORENCIO A. RUIZ, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-88-263 March 30, 1993 - MARIANO R. NALUPTA, JR. v. HONESTO G. TAPEC

  • A.C. No. 3923 March 30, 1993 - CONCORDIA B. GARCIA v. CRISANTO L. FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. L-48359 March 30, 1993 - MANOLO P. CERNA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72200 March 30, 1993 - SANPIRO FINANCE CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76118 March 30, 1993 - CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87214 March 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO SADIANGABAY

  • G.R. No. 91734 March 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR BORMEO

  • G.R. Nos. 92793-94 March 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO A. BAGANG

  • G.R. No. 96090 March 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY LAGO

  • G.R. No. 96770 March 30, 1993 - HERMENEGILDO AGDEPPA, ET AL. v. EMILIANO IBE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100993 March 30, 1993 - CONCEPCION MUÑOZ DIVINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101268 March 30, 1993 - MEHITABEL FURNITURE COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102358 March 30, 1993 - VICENTE MANALO v. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102918 March 30, 1993 - JOSE V. NESSIA v. JESUS M. FERMIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104044 March 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEXANDER NAVAJA

  • G.R. No. 104189 March 30, 1993 - AMELIA LAROBIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104315 March 30, 1993 - SAMUEL MARTINEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104782 March 30, 1991

    NELY T. RASPADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58010 March 31, 1993 - EMILIA O’LACO, ET AL. v. VALENTIN CO CHO CHIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91014 March 31, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMER G. MAPA

  • G.R. No. 97609 March 31, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE R. MIÑANO

  • G.R. No. 97747 March 31, 1993 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99886 March 31, 1993 - JOHN H. OSMEÑA v. OSCAR ORBOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103038 March 31, 1993 - JULIA ANG ENG MARIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104266 March 31, 1993 - PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107987 March 31, 1993 - JOSE M. BULAONG v. COMELEC, ET AL.