Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > March 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 111704 March 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE DE LA CRUZ:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 111704. March 17, 1999.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GEORGE DE LA CRUZ Y CERCADA, Accused-Appellant.


D E C I S I O N


PURISIMA, J.:


This is an appeal from the Decision of Branch 95 1 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, convincing appellant George de la Cruz y Cercada of the crime of robbery with homicide.

At about 8:00 p.m. of February 28, 1993, Branch Cashier Liza Sebastian of Andersons Group, Inc. was in the cashier’s office and had just concluded counting the money and checks representing the day’s remittances when she heard footsteps coming her way. Realizing that she was the only person left at the office aside from security guard Jaime Fabian, she inquired if there was anybody else in the office but nobody answered. Moments later, two armed men barged into her office and immediately announced a hold-up. One of the armed men, the herein appellant, held a bag, a jacket, and a bladed weapon, while the other had a gun. They advised Liza not to shout while asking her where the money was kept. Appellant then aimed his knife at Liza’s neck and threatened her, "Putang-ina mo! Makisama ka sa amin kung ayaw mong mangyari and nangyari sa guardiya nyo" while his companion poked his gun to her head with the following threat, "O, ano pare, pasabugin na natin ang ulo nito."cralaw virtua1aw library

Liza pleaded for her life and pointed to the vault where the money was kept. Immediately, the two men took the money amounting to not less than P139,669.00 (as evidenced by Exhibits "C" to "C-45" 2 "H" to "H-15" 3 , "I" to I-21" 4 , and "J" to "J-9" 5) and after placing it in their bag, tied Liza’s hands behind her back with two electric cords (Exhibits "A" and "B" 6). She was warned not to make any noise or shout unless she wanted to suffer the same fate as the security guard. The appellant also threatened that he would definitely go back for her. What appellant did next was to cover Liza’s head with a jacket he was holding. Liza would later recount that it was the same jacket which she saw Jaime Fabian was wearing when she saw the latter at 7:00 p.m. of that day.

After the two armed men had fled, Liza tried to untangle herself from the electrical cords tied around her back and hollered for security guard Jaime Fabian to come to her aid. Having loosened herself from the cords, she ran to the guard’s post and found no one so she proceeded to the guardhouse where she saw the lifeless body of Jaime Fabian lying in a pool of blood with hands and feet hogtied. Liza then sought police assistance.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

On March 1, 1993, while being shown by the police pictures of possible suspects, Liza saw the picture of appellant herein. Liza was therefore brought by policemen to Caloocan City where in a vacant lot, she found and identified the herein appellant himself who was immediately arrested.

On March 3, 1993, appellant was charged with the crime of robbery with homicide, under an Information 7 filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, alleging:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 28th day of February, 1993, in Quezon City Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating with other person, whose true name, identity and whereabout has not as yet been ascertained and mutually helping each other, with intent to kill, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and employ personal violence upon the person of JAIME FABIAN Y BATOON, security guard of ANDRESONS GROUP, INC. located at the corner of EDSA and Quezon Avenue, this City, by then and there shooting him on his head, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his instantaneous death; and thereafter, said accused armed with a gun and knife rob the ANDRESONS GROUP, INC. in the following manner to wit: the said accused barged inside the cashier’s room and once inside announced a hold-up and with the use of electrical cord hogtied LIZA SEBASTIAN, a cashier of said establishment, and emptied the company’s vault amounting to P139,669.31 Philippine Currency, after which fled with their loot, to the damage and prejudice of the ANDRESONS GROUP, INC. herein represented by PAUL S. ITURRALDE, and the heirs of JAIME FABIAN Y DATOON.

CONTRARY TO LAW."cralaw virtua1aw library

With the accused pleading not guilty upon arraignment thereunder, trial ensued.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

On August 24, 1993, the trial court came out with its Decision 8 , convicting appellant of the crime of robbery with homicide, and sentencing, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused George de la Cruz y Cercada guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide charged herein, defined and punished in Arts. 293 and 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as principal in the commission thereof and, accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; to indemnify the Andresons Group, Inc. in the sum of P139,669.00 as actual damages and the heirs of the deceased Jaime Fabian in the sum of P342,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages and the further sum of P50,000.00 as death indemnity; and, to pay the costs, without prejudice to the application of Rep. Act No. 6127.

SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

In convicting appellant, the trial court gave full credence to the eyewitness account of Liza Sebastian positively identifying the appellant as one of the persons who perpetrated the crime of robbery at her office. Appellant’s defense of alibi did not convince the trial court in the face of Liza’s clear and categorical eyewitness account.

Appellant placed reliance on the assignment of errors, that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION EYEWITNESS LIZA SEBASTIAN THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT COMMITTED THE CRIME CHARGED AND IN DISREGARDING THE TESTIMONY OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

II


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT ON THE GROUND OF REASONABLE DOUBT.

III


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE THE ATTENDANT HOMICIDE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

In support of the first and second assigned errors, appellant invites attention to what he branded as "inconsistencies and improbabilities" in the testimony of Liza Sebastian, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. That it was Liza Sebastian’s first time to see the appellant on February 28, 1993 at 8:00 p.m. Appellant contends that it was not the first time as he was formerly connected with the Andresons Group, Inc. as a security guard from July 12, 1991 up to February 17, 1993 when Liza Sebastian was already an employee of the company, having been employed since August 9, 1990.

2. That only she and security guard Jaime Fabian were left at the office at around 8.00 p.m. of February 28, 1993. Yet, the witness also testified that a few minutes before the robbery there were still five (5) salesmen together with Boy Corrales who were in the basketball court.

3. That Jaime Fabian was wearing the jacket (Exhibit "R") the last time she saw him before the hold-up. Yet the jacket is not even tainted with blood.

4. That she cannot remember the number of times she appeared and failed to appear before the trial court. Yet she recalls the exact number of times that she saw security guard Jaime Fabian.

5. That she claimed to have counted only about P140,000.00 when the Marketing Manager of Andresons Group, Inc. testified that the amount lost was P139,669.00.

6. That Liza Sebastian could not remember the denominations of the P140,000.00.

7. The fact that Liza Sebastian took three (3) hours to count the sum of P140,000.00 is unusual for a business graduate.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Appellant’s contentions are untenable. The alleged inconsistencies and improbabilities aforestated are too minor to deserve consideration. They cannot adversely affect the witness credibility. 9 Minor lapses even enhance the veracity of the testimony of a witness as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed declaration. 10 Absent evidence to show any reason or motive why a witness should testify falsely, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and his testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. 11 In the case under scrutiny, the Court cannot fathom why Liza Sebastian should testify falsely against Accused-Appellant. As a victim, her only motivation was certainly to tell the truth of what happened in her office on February 28, 1993. Then, too, appellant failed to show any reason or motive why Liza should give a false testimony against him. Having failed to show proof, we can only surmise that the witness had nothing against the appellant when she testified for the prosecution.

Liza Sebastian’s testimony is clear and categorical. There is no indication that she ever wavered in her identification of George de la Cruz y Cercada as one of the perpetrators of the crime. On the other hand, the trial court found her positive identification of appellant reliable and straightforward.

Liza Sebastian’s credibility is not diminished by her admission that she saw the appellant for the first time during the commission of the crime. On the contrary, it appears that she had sufficient time to clearly see appellant’s face at a distance of only about an arm’s length when the latter poked his weapon at her and when she was being hogtied. What is more, the perpetrators were in her room for several minutes so that there was sufficient time for the said witness to develop familiarity with the face of Appellant.

Even the stressful condition of the witness when the crime was committed did not dilute the accuracy of her testimony. In fact, a violent incident such as the one sued upon may even serve as a catalyst to one’s memory. As was said in People v. Campa, 12 "their faces would in the very nature of things, also have been forcefully impinged upon and etched into the witnesses’ memories by the acts of ferocity perpetrated before their eyes." chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

Appellant relied upon the defense of alibi in disowning liability for the commission of the crime. According to him, when the crime charged was perpetrated, he was in the house of a cousin at 169 Susano Road, Novaliches Quezon City, and before that, he was at the place of Jaharra Muhamad, a labor recruiter. The court believes, and so rules, that the alibi theorized upon by appellant cannot hold against his positive identification by the witness that he (appellant) was one of the perpetrators of the crime. 13 Alibi is a weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused. 14

For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was not at the locus delicti at the time the crime was committed, and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. 15 Accused utterly failed to meet such requirement as his own evidence indicated that it would take him only 35 to 40 minutes to negotiate the distance from his house to the crime scene 16 , and 45 minutes from his cousin’s house to the crime scene 17 . Appellant failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of its commission.

Under the third assigned error, appellant argues that the crime of homicide was not proven beyond reasonable doubt as no witness was presented to identify the assailant of security guard Jaime Fabian and witness Liza Sebastian admitted that she did not see the shooting or killing of Jaime Fabian; that Liza Sebastian said that she had no personal knowledge that the jacket worn by Jaime Fabian was the same jacket used by the appellant to cover her; and she was not sure whether the victim was wearing a jacket.

The issue for resolution is whether there is ground to hold appellant guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide. Appellant maintains that even if found guilty, he is only liable for robbery. We hold otherwise.

Even if there is no direct evidence that the accused shot the victim, his guilt may be established by the attendant circumstances constituting an unbroken chain which leads to only one fair and reasonable conclusion — that the accused is guilty of the killing of the victim. 18 There is sustainable basis for the submission by the Solicitor General that the following circumstances lead to no other conclusion than that the accused killed the security guard, Jaime Fabian, on the occasion of the robbery, to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

1. After appellant announced a hold-up, he poked a bladed weapon at Liza with the warning: "Putang ina mo makisama ka sa amin kung ayaw mong mangyari ang nangyari sa gwardiya niyo." 19

2. The jacket which was worn by Jaime Fabian and which was used by appellant to cover Liza’s head shows that when appellant and his companion entered the cashier’s office, they were already able to disarm and immobilize the security guard.

3. The security guard was himself hogtied in the same fashion that Liza was tied up.

The aforementioned circumstances constitute an unbroken chain evidencing appellant’s culpability for the death of the said Jaime Fabian. Appellant having acted in conspiracy with his companion robber, there is no more need to establish the identity of the triggerman. What is important and decisive is that the said circumstances established that the appellant and his companion disarmed the security guard, Jaime Fabian, took away his jacket, and shot him before they entered the office of Liza Sebastian where they committed the robbery.

Resort to circumstantial evidence is essential to insist on direct testimony would result in setting felons free and deny proper protection to the community. 20 As in the present case, with the presence of the following requisites, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict, to wit: (1) There is more than one circumstance; (2) The facts from which inferences are derived are proven; and (3) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. 21chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

It bears stressing that the actual and compensatory damages awarded below are well substantiated and borne out by the evidence on record.

WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the judgment appealed from AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against the Appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Romero, Vitug, Panganiban and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Presided by Judge Aloysius C. Alday.

2. Folder of Exhibits, pp. 1-46.

3. Ibid., pp. 52-68.

4. Ibid., pp. 69-90.

5. Ibid., pp. 91-100.

6. See envelope containing Exhibits "A" and "B" .

7. Rollo, pp. 6-7.

8. Ibid., pp. 21-25.

9. People v. Benitez, 264 SCRA 586.

10. People v. Verano, 264 SCRA 546.

11. People v. Malazarte, 261 SCRA 482.

12. 230 SCRA 431, 442.

13. People v. Trilles, 254 SCRA 633; People v. Ferrer, 255 SCRA 19.

14. People v. Patrolla, Jr. 254 SCRA 467.

15. People v. Batulan, 253 SCRA 52.

16. Transcript of Stenographic Notes, July 20, 1993, p. 6.

17. See Decision, p. 4.

18. People v. Sumaoy, 263 SCRA 460.

19. TSN, April 2, 1993, p. 8.

20. People v. Prado, 263 SCRA 460.

21. People v. Bracamonte, 257 SCRA 380.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





March-1998 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 99266 March 2, 1998 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117105 March 2, 1998 - TIMES TRANSIT CREDIT COOP. INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124320 March 2, 1998 - HEIRS OF GUIDO YAPTINCHAY, ET AL. v. ROY S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125138 March 2, 1998 - NICHOLAS Y. CERVANTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125683 March 2, 1998 - EDEN BALLATAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126134 March 2, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JOVEN DE LA CUESTA

  • G.R. No. 131047 March 2, 1998 - TOYOTA AUTOPARTS, PHILS., INC. v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1178 March 3, 1998 - COMELEC v. BUCO R. DATU-IMAN

  • A.M. No. P-94-1107 March 3, 1998 - CARMELINA CENIZA-GUEVARRA v. CELERINA R. MAGBANUA

  • G.R. No. 93090 March 3, 1998 - ROMEO CABELLAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127575 March 3, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONORIO CANTERE

  • G.R. No. 127801 March 3, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMUEL YU VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 130347 March 3, 1998 - ABELARDO VALARAO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134096 March 3, 1998 - JOSEPH PETER S. SISON v. COMELEC

  • A.M. No. P-99-1286 March 4, 1998 - CONCEPCION L. JEREZ v. ARTURO A. PANINSURO

  • G.R. No. 108027 March 4, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISTINA M. HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 111676 March 4, 1998 - SILVINA TORRES VDA. DE CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117213 March 4, 1998 - ARMANDO DE GUZMAN v. MARIANO ONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122539 March 4, 1998 - JESUS V. TIOMICO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123936 March 4, 1998 - RONALD SORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132648 March 4, 1998 - GSIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133563 March 4, 1998 - BRIDGET BONENG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 123792 March 8, 1998 - MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125537 March 8, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JOSE MAGLANTAY

  • A.C. CBD No. 167 March 9, 1998 - PRUDENCIO S. PENTICOSTES v. DIOSDADO S. IBAÑEZ

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-99-1175 March 9, 1998 - VICTORINO CRUZ v. REYNOLD Q. YANEZA

  • G.R. No. 108532 March 9, 1998 - PABLITO TANEO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115741 March 9, 1998 - HEIRS OF JOAQUIN ASUNCION v. MARGARITO GERVACIO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121587 March 9, 1998 - SOLEDAD DY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126123 March 9, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO PLATILLA

  • G.R. No. 128721 March 9, 1998 - CRISMINA GARMENTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-94-1106 March 10, 1998 - ADALIA B. FRANCISCO v. ROLANDO G. LEYVA

  • Adm. Matters No. RTJ-98-1423 March 10, 1998 - ROMAN CAGATIN, ET AL. v. LEONARDO N. DEMECILLO

  • G.R. No. 95815 March 10, 1998 - SERVANDO MANGAHAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120163 March 10, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATUKON BANSIL

  • G.R. No. 120971 March 10, 1998 - TAGGAT INDUSTRIES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123426 March 10, 1998 - NAT’L. FEDERATION OF LABOR v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA

  • G.R. No. 126874 March 10, 1998 - GSIS v. ANTONIO P. OLISA

  • G.R. No. 127123 March 10, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH LAKINDANUM

  • G.R. No. 129442 March 10, 1998 - FEDERICO PALLADA, ET AL. v. RTC OF KALIBO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129824 March 10, 1998 - DE PAUL/KING PHILIP CUSTOMS TAILOR, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1293 March 11, 1998 - EMILIO DILAN, ET AL. v. JUAN R. DULFO

  • G.R. No. 95326 March 11, 1998 - ROMEO P. BUSUEGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106518 March 11, 1998 - ABS-CBN SUPERVISORS EMPLOYEES UNION MEMBERS v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108440-42 March 11, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 109721 March 11, 1998 - FELIX A. SAJOT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109979 March 11, 1998 - RICARDO C. SILVERIO, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119157 March 11, 1998 - GOLDEN THREAD KNITTING INDUSTRIES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125590 March 11, 1998 - BIOMIE S. OCHAGABIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127004 March 11, 1998 - NAT’L. STEEL CORP. v. RTC OF LANAO DEL NORTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127663 March 11, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 132250 March 11, 1998 - ROSALIA P. SALVA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 123982 March 15, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO K. JOYNO

  • G.R. No. 134188 March 15, 1998 - NUR G. JAAFAR v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61508 March 17, 1998 - CITIBANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111704 March 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 115693 March 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVERIANO BOTONA

  • G.R. No. 119347 March 17, 1998 - EULALIA RUSSELL, ET AL. v. AUGUSTINE A. VESTIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120751 March 17, 1998 - PHIMCO INDUSTRIES v. JOSE BRILLANTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125311 March 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ONYOT MAHINAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129695 March 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO TABONES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130380 March 17, 1998 - HEIRS OF GAUDENCIO BLANCAFLOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115006 March 18, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 119756 March 18, 1998 - FORTUNE EXPRESS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127542 March 18, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHENG HO CHUA

  • G.R. No. 128682 March 18, 1998 - JOAQUIN T. SERVIDAD v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 97-6-182-RTC March 19, 1998 - RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN RTC, BRANCH 68

  • G.R. No. 96262 March 22, 1998 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. EMBROIDERY AND GARMENTS INDUSTRIES (PHIL.)

  • G.R. No. 116738 March 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO DOMOGOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126286 March 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER VAYNACO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126714 March 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MARCELO

  • G.R. No. 127523 March 22, 1998 - LEONCIA ALIPOON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1296 March 25, 1998 - DANIEL CRUZ v. CLERK OF COURT, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1297 March 25, 1998 - LUDIVINA MARISGA-MAGBANUA v. EMILIO T. VILLAMAR V

  • G.R. No. 96740 March 25, 1998 - VIRGINIA P. SARMIENTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103953 March 25, 1998 - SAMAHANG MAGBUBUKID NG KAPDULA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112088 March 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALDO ALMADEN

  • G.R. Nos. 116741-43 March 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN MONTEFALCON

  • G.R. No. 117154 March 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO A. BORROMEO

  • G.R. No. 119172 March 25, 1998 - BELEN C. FIGUERRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120505 March 25, 1998 - AIUP, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122966-67 March 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR S. ALOJADO

  • G.R. No. 123160 March 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS BATION

  • G.R. No. 124300 March 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENANTE ROBLES

  • G.R. No. 125053 March 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHRISTOPHER CAÑA LEONOR

  • G.R. Nos. 126183 & 129221 March 25, 1998 - LUZVIMINDA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126916 March 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLINO BACONG MANAGAYTAY

  • G.R. No 127373 March 25, 1998 - ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127662 March 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO V. ERIBAL

  • G.R. No. 127708 March 25, 1998 - CITY GOVERNMENT OF SAN PABLO, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO V. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128386 March 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUDITO ALQUIZALAS

  • G.R. No. 130491 March 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO MENGOTE

  • G.R. No. 130872 March 25, 1998 - FRANCISCO M. LECAROZ, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131108 March 25, 1998 - ASIAN ALCOHOL CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132980 March 25, 1998 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GLADYS C. LABRADOR

  • G.R. No. 133107 March 25, 1998 - RCBC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-96-1082 & 98-10-135-MCTC March 29, 1998 - MARCELO CUEVA v. OLIVER T. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. P-94-1015 March 29, 1998 - JASMIN MAGUAD, ET AL. v. NICOLAS DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93291 March 29, 1998 - SULPICIO LINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113150 March 29, 1998 - HENRY TANCHAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122827 March 29, 1998 - LIDUVINO M. MILLARES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125129 March 29, 1998 - JOSEPH H. REYES v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 129058 March 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO SEVILLENO

  • G.R. No. 131124 March 29, 1998 - OSMUNDO G. UMALI v. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123540 March 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN AYO