Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > June 1998 Decisions > G.R. Nos. 124449-51 June 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL ALITAGTAG:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 124449-51. June 29, 1999.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANUEL ALITAGTAG y DE LA CRUZ, Accused-Appellant.


D E C I S I O N


PER CURIAM:


Before the Court for automatic review, conformably with Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 22 of R.A. No. 7659, 1 is the joint decision dated November 10, 1995, of the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31, in Criminal Cases Nos. 8800-B, 8801-B, and 8802-B, finding accused-appellant Manuel Alitagtag guilty of three (3) counts of rape and sentencing him to two (2) terms of reclusion perpetua and death. 2

In three separate informations, Accused-appellant Manuel Alitagtag (hereafter MANUEL) was charged with three (3) counts of rape allegedly committed sometime in September and October 1993 and January 1994, against his thirteen-year old daughter Marilyn Alitagtag (hereafter MARILYN), which were docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 8802-B, 3 8800-B 4 and 8801-B, 5 respectively.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The informations were similarly worded, except as to the dates of the commission of the crime, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That sometime in . . ., in the municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court , Accused MANUEL ALITAGTAG Y DELA CRUZ, prompted with lewd design and by means of force, threats and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with her daughter, MARILYN F. ALITAGTAG, a thirteen (13) years [sic] old minor, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.

On 14 June 1994, MANUEL, duly assisted by counsel, entered a plea of not guilty in each of the three cases. Thereafter, joint trial of the cases proceeded. 6

The trial court’s summary of the evidence for the prosecution, with references to exhibits excluded, is as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Private complainant Marilyn Alitagtag was born on December 19, 1980 and is the eldest and only girl among the brood of spouses accused Manuel Alitagtag and Regina Alitagtag. Her brothers are Reynaldo Alitagtag (12 years old), Manuel Alitagtag, Jr. (7 years old) and Raymart Alitagtag (1 year old).

During the period from September , 1993 up to December 14, 1993 when she was almost 13 years old, she and her parents as well as her brothers were residing at Barangay Estrella, San Pedro, Laguna. Their one-room house containing an area of 5 x 5 meters had a wooden floor with its roof made of galvanized iron sheets and wall sidings, of "sawali", and is erected on a portion of the lot owned by her mother’s parents. It is about 10 to 15 meters away from the houses of her mother’s parents, aunt and uncle.

In September, 1993, Accused was working as a jeepney driver and her mother, as a saleslady in a jewelry store at Cubao, Quezon City. Both of her parents used to leave their house early in the morning but accused used to come home ahead of her mother. She was a second year high school student at the San Pedro Relocation Center in San Pedro, Laguna. Since accused would not like to see her talking to or be with any man, he used to fetch her from school and go home with her on board his passenger jeepney. Sometime in the second week of September, 1993 at about 7:00 p.m. while her mother had not yet arrived home from work and she was lying flat on her back on their wooden bed accused laid down beside her. Then he carried Manuel, Jr. who was fast asleep beside her, placed him on the floor and returned to the bed. He was touching her breast and when she was trying to remove his hands, he warned her not to make any noise. At that time, she was wearing a t-shirt and a pair of short pants. Then, he kissed her on the cheek and when she attempted to stand up, he stopped her by holding her hands and feet. She kicked him when he was removing her shorts. However, he was able to remove it completely after holding her feet. Later, he forcibly removed her panty as she just cried and kicked him. She pleaded, telling him "Ayoko po, ayoko po, po kayo sa akin" but she told her not to make noise, covered her mouth with his hand and threatened to kill her and her mother and brothers. He continuously kissed her lips and held her breast. Thereafter, he stood up and took off his pants. He laid down on his side beside her, held her and fondled her vagina with his finger. She cried and tried to stand up but he prevented her by placing himself on top of her. At that juncture, he brought out his private organ and placed it into hers while she pleaded to him not to do it to her. She felt intense pain while he continued pulling his organ in and out her private organ for about 15 minutes. After he had finished, he dressed up. She was still awake when her mother arrived but she did not tell her about what had happened to her.

Sometime in the last week of October, 1993 when her mother was still in her place of work, and while she was lying down on their bed with Manuel, Jr., Accused brought her sleeping brother down the floor. Then he touched her breast so firmly that despite her efforts she was unable to remove his hands. She cried and kicked him as he was undressing her. He was on a squat position when he was able to pull down her shorts together with her panty just above her ankle. When he was taking off his shorts, she tried to stand but he prevented her. He was separating her thighs but could not do so because of the presence of her shorts on her ankle. However, he succeeded in separating her legs after her shorts was forcibly torn. Then, he placed himself on top of her. She boxed him on his breast but he slapped her on both cheeks for four times, cursed her and threatened to kill her. Later, he inserted his private organ into her private organ although it took time for him to make a full penetration because she was kicking him. Again, he pulled his organ in and out her private organ and stood up after 15 minutes. He warned her not to report the incident to her mother.

On December 15, 1993, Accused surreptitiously took her and her brother Manuel, Jr. away from their house at Barangay Estrella and brought them to the house of his mother at Barangay Magsaysay, San Pedro, Laguna after he and her mother quarelled about his burning her right temple near the eye with a cigarette butt. The quarrel resulted to the hacking of her mother by the accused with a scythe hitting her arm. Her mother did not follow them to Barangay Magsaysay. While there, she used to sleep on a bed with Manuel, Jr. located at the second floor of the house. Accused used to fetch her too from her same school on board his jeepney every day. Sometime in the second week of January, 1994 at about 8:00 p.m., she went to bed with Manuel, Jr. At that time, her uncle and aunt together with their family were occupying the ground floor of said house. Accused went to their room and brought down the sleeping Manuel, Jr. on the floor. After turning off the light, he took off his shorts and went near her. He pushed her back to the bed when she attempted to stand up. Then, he touched her breast and forced her to remove her short pants. He succeeded in removing the same after slapping her and threatening to kill her and the family. Then he parted her legs, placed himself on top of her, kissed her lips, inserted his private organ into hers, and pulled his private organ in and out of hers for about 15 minutes.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

It was nighttime on February 6, 1994 when accused wanted to rape her again. He had removed her shorts already but when he was undressing, she succeeded in getting loose from him. She was about to go down with her back towards him when he took a hot flat iron that she had just used and pressed it at the back of her thigh. She felt so much pain that he did not rape her that night. Her mother fetched her and her brother Manuel, Jr. from the house at Barangay Magsaysay. At that time, Accused was in Indang, Cavite where his services as a jeepney driver was hired. She told her mother that accused burned her thigh with a hot flat iron. Her mother got mad and both of them went to the house of her grandparents in Sta. Cruz, Manila. While there, she told them about the burning incident and thereafter, the rape committed to her by accused. She and her mother returned to San Pedro, Laguna and filed a complaint against accused for rape. They also executed their respective sworn statement relative to these cases.

It was on February 8, 1994, when she submitted to a physical and genital examination at the National Bureau of Investigation in Manila where Medico-Legal Ludivino Lagat found an old healed deep laceration on her hymen which could have occurred a month or even 2 or 3 months prior to said examination but definitely not within the period of from January 8, 1994 to February 8, 1994. However, the medico-legal officer opined that it is possible that she could have sexual intercourse immediately before his examination without showing any laceration except the old, healed and deep laceration. 7

On the other hand, the defense interposed the defense of denial and alibi. MANUEL claimed that the did not rape his daughter MARILYN. According to him he was not in good terms with his in-laws and had frequent quarrels with his wife Regina, with whom he has four (4) children. He and Regina had, in fact, separated from each other many times after a quarrel. 8 Their residence in Barangay Magsaysay, San Pedro Laguna, is a two-storey affair, with the upper floor as the bedroom. 9 Their one-storey, one-room house in Barangay Estrella, San Pedro, Laguna, was made of sawali, whose walls have holes such that the occupants inside can be seen from the outside. 10

MANUEL also testified that in October of 1993 he and his wife had another quarrel. He hacked her. They separated. He stayed with his mother in Magsaysay together with MARILYN and his son Manuel, Jr. 11 His mother, his brother Antonio with his family, and his sister Carmelita were residing in that house. MARILYN and Manuel, Jr., stayed there until February 1994. 12 According to MANUEL sometime in that month MARILYN was "allegedly taken by her mother," 13 and MARILYN stopped going to their residence in Magsaysay. When pressed for the reason why she no longer did, MANUEL answered: "Pinagsamantalahan ko raw siya." 14

He also claimed that in the month of January 1994 he was on a trip — "nabiahe po ako," meaning "namamasahero," driving his vehicle. 15

When asked by his counsel what could be the motive why MARILYN charged him with rape, MANUEL speculated, thus: "Dahil po siguro doon sa pagkakapaso ko po sa kaniya, nagalit, sir." 16

On 10 November 1995, the trial court found MANUEL guilty of the crime of rape in each of the three cases and sentenced him as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Criminal Case No. 8800 *

1. to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua;

2. to indemnify private complainant Marilyn Alitagtag the amount of P50,000.00;

3. to pay private complainant Marilyn Alitagtag the sums of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages; and

4. to pay the costs of suit.

Criminal Case No. 8801 **

1. to suffer the death penalty;

2. to indemnify private complainant Marilyn Alitagtag the amount of P50,000.00;

3. to pay private complainant Marilyn Alitagtag the sums of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages; and

4. to pay the costs of suit.

Criminal Case No. 8802 ***

1. to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua;

2. to indemnify private complainant Marilyn Alitagtag the amount of P50,000.00;

3. to pay private complainant Marilyn Alitagtag the sums of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages; and

4. to pay the costs of suit. 17

Pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 22 of R.A. No. 7659, the records of Criminal Case No. 8801-B was to be forwarded to us for automatic review of the judgment. No notice of appeal was required. However, in Criminal Cases Nos. 8800-B and 8802-B where the penalty imposed in each is reclusion perpetua, notice of appeal was necessary pursuant to the first part of Section 3 (c) of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court if MANUEL wanted to appeal from the judgment therein. Nonetheless, considering that these cases were consolidated and jointly tried and only one decision was rendered, we hold that MANUEL may be considered to have appealed from the judgment in Criminal Cases Nos. 8800-B and 8802-B.

In his brief, MANUEL contends that the trial court gravely erred (a) in giving credence to the concocted and contradictory testimony of MARILYN; (b) in convicting him and in not acquitting him on the ground of failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (c) in imposing upon him an indemnity of P50,000.00 plus P50,000.00 moral damages and P25,000.00 exemplary damages for each count of rape.

The Office of the Solicitor General disagrees with MANUEL and urges the Court to affirm in toto the challenged decision.

Rape is an offense where conviction or acquittal depends almost entirely upon the word of the private complainant. Once again, credibility of the complaining victim takes center stage in resolving this issue. We have adhered to these principles in the review of rape cases: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility: it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove it; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. 18

The assessment of the credibility of witnesses is primarily the function of the trial court. It is doctrinally settled that the determination of the trial court on credibility of witnesses are usually accorded great weight and respect. The rationale for this is that the trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply; or the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or the flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, and carriage and mien. 19 The evaluation or assessment made by the trial court acquires greater significance in rape cases because from the nature of the offense the only evidence that can oftentimes be offered to establish the guilt of the accused is the complainant’s testimony. 20

With the foregoing as our touchstones, and in view of the gravity of the offense charged and the penalty of death imposed in one case, we meticulously examined the records of these cases and the transcripts of the stenographic notes of the testimonies of the witnesses. We found that the trial court left no stone unturned to determine the innocence or guilt of MANUEL in light of MARILYN’s testimony; and we are fully satisfied that MARILYN was telling the truth that she was raped by her father MANUEL not only once, but three times.chanrobles law library : red

MARILYN’s recital of the harrowing details of the rapes in plain and clear language, bereft of any embellishments, bears the indicia of truth. The fact that the three rapes did not differ in the substantial details is not an indication that her story was concocted; neither is it a compelling reason to doubt the veracity of her testimony. MARILYN, under a very determined and thorough cross-examination, maintained that her father succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her on those three occasions. She has been consistent in her story starting from her Salaysay 21 up to her testimony during trial. She has not wavered in the fundamental minutiae of the three rapes. Even under great emotional strain when she would burst in to tears as she recounted her ordeal, MARILYN stood steadfast and unwavering in her narration. MANUEL’s assertion that such a charge was made against him by his daughter because of the animosity the latter felt for him is simply incredible. His claim that the bad blood between him and his in-laws could have impelled his own daughter to accuse him of rape is likewise unbelievable and flimsy at best. To this we can only reiterate our pronouncement in People v. Gagto, 22 thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

. . . Not a few accused in rape cases have attributed the charges brought against them to family feuds, resentment, or revenge. But such alleged motives have never swayed the Court from lending full credence to the testimony of a complainant who remained steadfast throughout her direct and cross-examinations, especially a minor as in this case. Further, we simply cannot believe that a lass of tender age would concoct a tale of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts, and undergo the expense, trouble, inconvenience, not to mention the trauma, of a public trial, unless she was in fact raped. No young and decent Filipina would publicly admit that she was ravished and her honor tainted unless such was true, for it would be instinctive for her to protect her honor.

Even the failure of MARILYN to recall the precise dates of the alleged rapes is of no moment in light of the fact that she was able to recount around when it happened, how and where it occurred. Moreover, the precise date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime. 23

All the other inconsistencies and lapses pointed out by MANUEL to discredit MARILYN’s testimony, e.g. her failure to account for the whereabouts of her brothers Reynaldo and Raymart; her failure to denounce him to her relatives and friends; her continuing to live with him after the first two rape incidents; the non-presentation of her torn pair of shorts and the absence of injuries on her, are all minor and trivial details which do not touch upon the fact of the commission of the offense. These lapses, to our mind, serve to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of a witness because they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony. 24 MANUEL’s attempt to cast doubt on MARILYN’S credibility by suggesting that the rapes could not have taken place because people would have heard her shouts is unworthy of even the briefest consideration. Lust is no respecter of time or place and rape has been successfully consummated in places where people congregate, like parks or school premises, and even in a house where there are other occupants. 25 Furthermore, it is not impossible to commit rape in a small room even if there are several other persons in it. 26 In addition, MARILYN’s fear of her father effectively silenced her and made her wary in disclosing to anybody what he had done to her.

MANUEL raped his daughter MARILYN thrice as charged in Criminal Cases Nos. 8800-B, 8801-B and 8802-B. Of this we are absolutely convinced. To MANUEL who inflicted his animal greed on his daughter in a disgusting coercion of incestuous lust, thereby forsaking that which is highest and noblest in his human nature and reducing himself to lower than the lowliest animal, the full force of the law must be weighed against him, for he deserves no place in society. 27

The judgment appealed from must have to be affirmed. The rape involved in Criminal Case Nos. 8800-B and 8802-B were committed before the effectivity of R.A. No. 7659; hence, the appropriate imposable penalty under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua in each case. The rape involved in Criminal Case No. 8801-B was committed after the effectivity of R.A. No. 7659. 28 Under the seventh paragraph of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659, the penalty of death shall also be imposed if the crime of rape was committed on a victim who is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent. The information in Criminal Case No. 8801-B specifically alleges these circumstances. The trial court correctly imposed the penalty of death. As to this, while four Justices maintained their adherence to the separate opinions expressed in People v. Echegaray 29 that R.A. No. 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty, they, nevertheless, submit to the ruling of the majority to the effect that the law is constitutional and the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in Criminal Case No. 8801-B.

As to the trial court’s award of P50,000.00 as indemnity for rape in each case the same must be sustained only in Criminal Cases Nos. 8800-B and 8802-B where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, but must be increased to P75,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 8802-B pursuant to People v. Victor, 30 where we declared that the indemnity may be so increased under circumstances which justify the imposition of the death penalty. The trial court correctly awarded moral and exemplary damages in favor of the victim in light of the conviction of MANUEL. Moral damages are awarded pursuant to Article 2219(3), in relation to Article 2217, of the Civil Code; and exemplary damages are imposed to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their own daughters. 31

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, San Pedro, Laguna, finding accused-appellant MANUEL ALITAGTAG Y DE LA CRUZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of three (3) counts of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in Criminal Cases Nos. 8800-B and 8802-B and the death penalty in Criminal Case No. 8801-B is hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification that the civil indemnity in Criminal Case No. 8801-B is hereby increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00.

In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this decision, let certified true copies thereof, as well as the records of this case be forwarded without delay to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the clemency or pardoning power.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Romero, J., on official business abroad.

Endnotes:



1. Entitled An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as Amended, Other Special Laws, and for Other Purposes. It took effect on 31 December 1993. (People v. Simon, 234 SCRA 555 {1994})

2. Original Record (OR), 425-432; Rollo, 48-55. Per Judge Stella Cabuco-Andres.

3. Id., 5.

4. Id., 1.

5. Id., 3.

6. Id., 27.

7. OR, 426-428; Rollo, 49-51.

8. TSN, 28 June 1995, 14-22.

9. TSN, 11 July 1995, 7-9.

10. Id, 12-15.

11. TSN, 11 July 1995, 24.

12. TSN, 18 July 1995, 7-10.

13. Id., 13.

14. Id., 15.

15. Id., 20.

16. TSN, 11 July 1995, 32.

* Should be 8800-B.

** Should be 8801-B.

*** Should be 8802-B.

17. OR, 431-432.

18. People v. De Guzman, 265 SCRA 228, 241 (1996)

19. People v. Quijada, 259 SCRA 191, 212-213 (1996)

20. People v. Lao, 249 SCRA 137, 145-146 (1995)

21. OR, 13-14.

22. 253 SCRA 455 (1996)

23. People v. Quiñones, 222 SCRA 249, 254 (1993)

24. People v. Pamor, 237 SCRA 462, 475 (1994); People v. Padilla, 242 SCRA 629, 642 (1995); People v. Conde, 252 SCRA 681, 691 (1996)

25. People v. Cura, 240 SCRA 234, 242 (1995); People v. Dones, 254 SCRA 696, 707 (1996); People v. Leoterio, 264 SCRA 608, 615 (1996)

26. People v. Abordo, 258 SCRA 571, 578 (1996)

27. People v. Agbayani, 284 SCRA 315, 343 (1998)

28. See footnote 1.

29. 267 SCRA 682 (1997)

30. G.R. No. 127903, 9 July 1998.

31. Supra note 20 at 148.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





June-1998 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 90419 June 1, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMANO VIDAL ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124491 June 1, 1998 - ROQUE VICARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122107 June 2, 1998 - CMP FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119359 June 8, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELESTINO D. PAYOT

  • G.R. No. 128899 June 8, 1998 - AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 121462-63 June 9, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIPRIANO DE VERA

  • G.R. No. 127815 June 9, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. STEPHEN SANTILLANA

  • A.C. No. 4411 June 10, 1998 - JAIME CURIMATMAT v. FELIPE GOJAR

  • A.C. - CBD No. 471 June 10, 1998 - LT. LAMBERTO P. VILLAFLOR v. ALVIN T. SARITA

  • G.R. No. 115794 June 10, 1998 - ANASTACIO MANANGAN v. ANGEL DELOS REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122909-12 June 10, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR REÑOLA

  • G.R. No. 123417 June 10, 1998 - JAIME MORTA, SR. v. JAIME OCCIDENTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126143 June 10, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO BADON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128181 June 10, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO RADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131692 June 10, 1998 - FELIPE YULIENCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118985 June 14, 1998 - COCA COLA BOTTLERS v. JOSE S. ROQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121739 June 14, 1998 - PNB v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 121930 June 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOREDO REAL

  • G.R. No. 137172 June 15, 1998 - UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO. v. MASAGANA TELAMART

  • G.R. No. 118423 June 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESARIO SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 120270 June 16, 1998 - MANOLITO BARLES, ET AL. v. BENEDICTO ERNESTO BITONIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126768 June 16, 1998 - ELISEO FAVILA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103949 June 17, 1998 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104319 June 17, 1998 - CAROLINA CASTILLO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106648 June 17, 1998 - AUDION ELECTRIC CO. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122423 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO PUERTOLLANO

  • G.R. No. 123109 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN TACLAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124097 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS BONGHANOY

  • G.R. No. 126367 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO S. MONFERO

  • G.R. No. 127452 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAGANI LUARTES

  • G.R. No. 128222 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHUA HO SAN

  • G.R. No. 128818 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO U. SAGAYSAY

  • G.R. Nos. 130206-08 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO PALMA

  • G.R. No. 130514 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABUNDIO TOLENTINO

  • G.R. No. 131104 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RIZALINO P. REBOSE

  • G.R. No. 132024 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO BIHISON

  • G.R. No. 124605 June 18, 1998 - ENRIQUITO SERNA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-98-1165 June 21, 1998 - EXEQUIEL P. DOMINGO v. LUIS ENRIQUEZ REYES, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1445 June 21, 1998 - VENTURA B. AYO v. LUCIA VIOLAGO-ISNANI, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 99-1-16-RTC June 21, 1998 - REQUEST OF JUDGE IRMA ZITA V. MASAMAYOR

  • G.R. No. 101439 June 21, 1998 - GSIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106060 June 21, 1998 - EMILIE T. SUMBAD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112539 June 21, 1998 - NATIONAL SUGAR REFINERIES CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117685 June 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO R. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. 121646 June 21, 1998 - CLARO L. MONTECER, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126116 June 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERLINDO YAM-ID

  • G.R. No. 128892 June 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEPITO TEJERO

  • G.R. No. 128986 June 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130379 June 21, 1998 - GSIS v. ANGELITA L. GABRIEL

  • G.R. No. 130640 June 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SHAREFF ALI EL AKHTAR

  • G.R. No. 130652 June 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL S. DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 132774 June 21, 1998 - RODOLFO E. AGUINALDO v. COMELEC

  • G.R. No. 132841 June 21, 1998 - CARMEN ALIPAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134293 June 21, 1998 - KAISER B. RECABO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116196-97 June 23, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO ADOVISO

  • G.R. No. 120473 June 23, 1998 - ULTRA VILLA FOOD HAUS v. RENATO GENISTON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121345 June 23, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SY BING YOK

  • G.R. No. 129676 June 23, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS BOCO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1314 June 25, 1998 - ROSANNA V. CASALME, ET AL. v. MARVIN S. RIVERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100812 June 25, 1998 - FRANCISCO MOTORS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127105 June 25, 1998 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. S.C. JOHNSON AND SON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127969 June 25, 1998 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129033 June 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HIPOLITO BERMUDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130030 June 25, 1998 - EXPERTRAVEL & TOURS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130189 June 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO R. MULETA

  • G.R. No. 132593 June 25, 1998 - PHIL. INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORP. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 105912 June 28, 1998 - TEOFILO C. VILLARICO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 110855-56 June 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEWING V. CAÑETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112451 June 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE BITOON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124005 June 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS ABLOG

  • G.R. No. 125212 June 28, 1998 - EUGENIO BALUGO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130421 June 28, 1998 - AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO. v. ANTONIO CHUA

  • A.M. No. P-96-1183 June 29, 1998 - LUCINA L. REGALADO v. LILIA S. BUENA

  • A.M. Nos. RTJ-96-1347 & RTJ-96-1348 June 29, 1998 - LEO C. TABAO v. PEDRO S. ESPINA

  • G.R. No. 95405 June 29, 1998 - SEMIRARA COAL CORP. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 121205-09 June 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR LARENA

  • G.R. Nos. 124449-51 June 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL ALITAGTAG

  • G.R. No. 125465 June 29, 1998 - AUGUSTO HONTIVEROS, ET AL. v. GREGORIO HONTIVEROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125473 June 29, 1998 - CONSTANCIO ESPIRITU v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127356 June 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID SILVANO

  • G.R. No. 128315 June 29, 1998 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PASCOR REALTY AND DEV’T. CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128384 June 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO SAHOR BAÑAGO

  • G.R. No. 129449 June 29, 1998 - CISELL A. KIAMCO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129691 June 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE LOMBOY

  • G.R. No. 130800 June 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO NEPOMUCENO

  • G.R. No. 131109 June 29, 1998 - INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132369 June 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMEGIO RUIZ

  • G.R. No. 133317 June 29, 1998 - ANTONIO R. AGRA, ET AL. v. PNB

  • G.R. No. 119974 June 30, 1998 - RUPERTO L. VILORIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124049 June 30, 1998 - RODOLFO P. VELASQUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.