Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > March 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 112088 March 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALDO ALMADEN:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 112088. March 25, 1999.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RONALDO ALMADEN, Alias "Dodong", Accused-Appellant.


D E C I S I O N


KAPUNAN, J.:


Before us is an appeal from the Judgment 1 of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City, Branch 6-A, in Criminal Case No. 91-02-107, convicting appellant Ronaldo Almaden of the crime of rape. The dispositive portion of the appealed Judgment reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds accused RONALDO ALMADEN guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE as defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, and to indemnify the offended party (Arlene Saldaña) the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000) as moral damages. 2

A complaint for "sexual assault" was filed on January 4, 1991, by the victim Arlene Saldaña against appellant Almaden with the Municipal Trial Court of Palo, Leyte. 3 The municipal trial court conducted a preliminary investigation and recommended that appellant be charged with attempted rape. 4 However, the provincial prosecutor, after review of the case, filed an information for rape that reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about the 27th day of December, 1990, in the Municipality of Palo, Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent and with lewd designs, and by means of force, threats and intimidation did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one ARLENE SALDAÑA, a 10-year old girl, without her consent and against her will and to her damage and prejudice. 5

Arraignment was initially postponed upon manifestation of the defense that appellant Almaden was suffering from mental disorder. 6 After a mental examination determined that he was competent to stand trial, 7 Almaden was arraigned on June 21, 1991. 8 He pleaded not guilty to the charge of rape. 9chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

To a large extent, the facts of the case are not in dispute. The victim Arlene Saldaña was then a young girl of 11 years. 10 Appellant admitted that the incident occurred on December 27, 1990, at around 8 o’clock in the morning, in Barangay Cahindok, Palo, Leyte. On that fateful morning, young Arlene was gathering firewood upon instructions of her mother with her friend Edwin Sudario, 11 also a minor. 12 Appellant Almaden chanced upon them as he was on his way to his farm. 13 He approached the children and ordered them to undress. 14 Arlene took off her shorts and underwear while Edwin lowered his jogging pants down to his knees. Arlene was ordered to lie on the ground and Edwin to place himself on top of Arlene. They were then made to simulate the sexual act. 15

From this point, the versions of the prosecution and the defense vary. According to appellant, he left Arlene and Edwin immediately after the two had commenced to simulate the sexual act, and he continued on his way to his farm. 16 Yet, according to the prosecution, there was a more malevolent twist to the story. Arlene and Edwin testified that, contrary to appellant’s declaration, appellant Almaden did not leave them as they were simulating the sexual act. Rather, appellant positioned himself nearby and closely observed them with his weapon ready. 17 At the time of the incident, appellant was armed with a bolo. 18 Appellant Almaden unsheathed his bolo 19 in order to threaten the minors and compel them to undress and simulate the sexual act. 20 After the two minors simulated the sexual act, Almaden ordered Edwin to get up. 21 He then grabbed the supine Arlene by her arm and made her stand. 22 With his bolo in one hand and Arlene’s arm in the other, appellant dragged Arlene to a nearby bamboo grove. 23 Meanwhile, Edwin seized the opportunity to escape. He pulled up his jogging pants and ran home. He then told his mother about the incident. 24

At the bamboo grove, Almaden again forced Arlene to lie on the ground. 25 This time, appellant himself got on top of Arlene. 26 Appellant loosened his shorts, unzipped his fly and proceeded to insert his penis into Arlene’s vagina. 27 Arlene, at the time, had no lower clothing because her shorts and underwear were at the place where she and Edwin were made to lie down. Appellant succeeded in inserting a small portion of his penis. 28 Arlene felt intense pain causing her to cry out, "Agi!" 29 Appellant next made Arlene to sit up. He knelt on the ground in front of Arlene and ordered her to suck his penis. 30 After sucking for about three minutes, 31 Arlene was made to swallow 32 a warm substance ejaculated from appellant’s penis while inside her mouth.

Between the two versions of the incident, the trial court chose to give credence to the prosecution version and convicted appellant. Hence, this appeal wherein appellant assigns the single error that the trial court convicted him on the basis of "incredible, improbable and inconsistent testimonies of prosecution witnesses." 33chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

As consistently held by the Court, the rule is that the trial court’s evaluation of a witness’ credibility is entitled to great respect. 34 And there is sound reason for this rule. It was the trial court that had the opportunity to observe firsthand the demeanor of the witness on the stand and to gauge the truthfulness of his narration. 35 The tentative tone of voice, the flushed face, the pregnant pause in narration and the frequent fidgeting are, to the perceptive judge, telltale marks of truth or falsity. Yet, these same marks are not captured on record and upon review are lost to the appellate court.

In its well-written decision, the trial court observed that the" (v)ictim did not waver during her testimony, but narrated the events with straightforward confidence, clear, convincing and precise in every detail on how the bastardly (sic) act was committed by Ronaldo Almaden." 36 We find sufficient basis in the record for such evaluation of Arlene’s testimony. Arlene gave a very candid narration of her ordeal thus: 37

Q Now, when you reached the bamboo grove (sic) after you have been dragged by Ronaldo Almaden, what next did Ronaldo Almaden do to you?

A He made me lie down and he placed himself on top of me.

Q At the time you were made to lie down by Ronaldo Almaden after you had been dragged to the bamboo groove (sic), where was your city shorts and your panty?

A At the place where both I and Edwin where (sic).

Q When accused Ronaldo Almaden placed himself on top of you, was he wearing any pants?

ATTY. SALINAS

Objection, Your Honor, very leading.

COURT

AS I SAID IN THIS STAGE, I WILL ALLOW LEADING QUESTIONS.

PROS. CANDIDO

Yes because the witness is of tender age.

A Yes, sir.

Q What did he do with his pants?

A He pulled down the zipper of his pants.

Q Do you know why he pulled down the zipper of his pants?

A Yes, Sir, because he took out his penis.

Q What did he do with his penis after he had taken that out and he was already on top of you?

A He placed his penis into my vagina.

Q Did he succeed in putting his penis inside your vagina?

A Yes, Sir, but only a small bit of his penis into my vagina, because it would not enter.

Q Now, did you not try to resist while the accused Ronaldo Almaden was trying to insert his penis inside your vagina?

A I felt pain from my vagina up to the top of my head and I cried as it was very painful.

Q Did you not try to plead with Ronaldo Almaden not to do what he as trying to do with you?

A I did that, Sir.

Q What did you do to him?

A I said "ouch."cralaw virtua1aw library

Q And what did Ronaldo Almaden do in response to your expression of pain?

A He told me to get up.

Q But that was after he had succeeded in inserting a little portion of his penis inside your vagina?

A Yes, sir.

COURT

DO YOU KNOW HOW TO READ A WATCH?

A Yes, sir.

COURT

MINUTES?

A Yes, sir.

COURT

HOW MANY MINUTES WAS ALMADEN ON TOP OF YOU?

A For a time but I cannot estimate how many minutes. Maybe five (5) minutes.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

Thus, the trial court rejected appellant Almaden’s version that he was unarmed at the time 38 and very weak because he had just suffered an epileptic seizure. 39 The trial court also dismissed his claim that he neither touched Arlene 40 employed force or intimidation upon her. 41

Appellant Almaden disputes Arlene’s claim that she was dragged by him to the bamboo grove. According to him, this is highly improbable because the Medico-Legal Report 42 mentions no injury on the victim’s buttocks and legs. Appellant argues that if indeed Arlene was dragged, then she would have suffered injury on her buttocks and legs. And that if indeed Arlene was dragged and suffered injury, then such injury would have been discovered by the examining physician and placed in her report.

We dismiss appellant’s contention. Arlene testified that she was injured when she was dragged to the bamboo grove, yet it appears that her injuries were not seen by the examining physician. For her part, the physician explained that while she examined the victim from head to foot, 43 her focus was on the internal examination of Arlene’s pelvis and hymen. 44 Such focus on internal examination is understandable considering that Arlene was being examined on the basis of her claim that she was sexually assaulted.

Appellant also contends that Arlene’s claim that she was raped is equally improbable because Arlene’s hymen is intact. 45 As repeatedly enunciated by the Court, an intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped. 46 To commit the crime of rape, the rupture of the hymen is not indispensable. 47 Even the full penetration by the penis is not necessary.

The gravamen of the crime of rape is carnal knowledge under the circumstances enumerated in the penal code. 48 Carnal knowledge is, simply put, sexual intercourse 49 between a man and a woman. With the slightest penetration, sexual intercourse is achieved, 50 and the crime of rape is consummated. The examining physician even testified as an expert witness on obstetrics and gynecology 51 that an intact hymen does not eliminate the possibility that a hard object or a penis was inserted into the vagina. 52 In some cases, the physician said, the hymen is still intact even after the woman has given birth. 53chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Although the appellant did not categorically raise the defense that the appellant’s alleged epilepsy exempts him from criminal liability, much of the testimony of defense witnesses during the trial was devoted to appellant’s medical condition. Epilepsy per se is not an exempting circumstance. As early as 1927, the Court has dismissed the defense of epilepsy thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Neither can the defense of lack of free will of the accused Ciriaco Aguilar, who is an epileptic, be sustained. While Ciriaco Aguilar, as an epileptic was susceptible to nervous attacks that may momentarily deprive him of his mental faculties and lead him to unconsciously attempt to take his own life and the lives of others, nevertheless, it has not been shown that he was under the influence of an epileptic fit before, during, and immediately after the aggression. 54

Appellant testified that he suffered an epileptic fit immediately prior to the incident. 55 However, according to the trial court, this was highly improbable because appellant himself said that he would weaken and sleep for several hours whenever he suffered an attack. 56

In summary, we find that the trial court did not err in giving credence to the testimony of the victim Arlene and her friend Edwin. Their testimonies, far from being incredible and improbable as contended by appellant Almaden, were a true narration of what actually took place. Arlene’s testimony was candid and straightforward, and no ill motive can be discovered why she would impute against appellant so grave a charge. She positively identified appellant as her assailant. 57 Arlene’s actions immediately after the incident are consistent with the natural conduct of a young lass who had been sexually assaulted. Arlene promptly ran to her mother, reported the incident to the Barangay Chairman and immediately submitted to medical examination at the Leyte Provincial Hospital, all within one hour after the incident. No woman especially one who is of tender age would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and thereafter permit herself to be subjected to a public trial, if she is not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished. 58

After a careful review of the records of the case, we find that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant committed the nefarious deed against the victim Arlene. There is sufficient evidence to produce moral certainty that appellant Almaden, through force and intimidation, succeeded in consummating the sexual act with victim Arlene Saldaña who was then a woman under twelve years of age.chanrobles law library

The award of "thirty thousand pesos in indemnity as moral damages," although not assailed by appellant, must be modified. The victim Arlene is entitled to both indemnity and moral damages. Indemnity may be automatically awarded upon proof of commission of the crime of rape. 59 As to moral damages, the records clearly disclose the basis for its award. The child Arlene testified that she felt extreme physical pain when she was ravished by Almaden. 60 A prosecution witness also testified that Arlene suffered the humiliation of tearfully relating her ordeal before a crowd. 61 We find this sufficient basis for awarding moral damages as provided in the Civil Code. 62 Consistent with current case law, 63 we deem the amounts of fifty thousand pesos in indemnity and fifty thousand pesos in moral damages as appropriate.

WHEREFORE, the Judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that accused-appellant should pay the victim, Arlene Saldaña, the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) as indemnity and an additional amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) as moral damages.chanrobles virtuallawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo and Pardo, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Penned by Judge Ruben A. Mendiola.

2. Judgment, p. 15, Rollo, p. 28.

3. Record, p. 5.

4. Id., at 14-15.

5. Id., at 1.

6. Id., at 21

7. Id., at 24.

8. Id., at 35.

9. Ibid.

10. Born on July 2, 1979, TSN, January 31, 1992, p. 21.

11. TSN, June 26, 1992, pp. 10-11.

12. TSN, April 3, 1992, p. 2.

13. TSN, June 26, 1992, p. 10.

14. Id., at 11.

15. Ibid.

16. Id., at 11-12.

17. TSN, December 19, 1991, p. 11.

18. TSN, April 3, 1992, p. 12.

19. TSN, December 19, 1991, p. 9.

20. Id., at 9-10.

21. Id., at 12.

22. Id., at 13-14.

23. Id., at 12-14.

24. TSN, April 3, 1992, pp. 16-18.

25. TSN, December 19, 1991, pp. 14-15.

26. Ibid.

27. Id., at 16.

28. Ibid.

29. Id., at 17.

30. Id., at 19.

31. Id., at 20.

32. Id., at 21.

33. Brief for Appellant, p. 6, Rollo, p. 180.

34. People v. Dones, 254 SCRA 696, 706 (1996) per Kapunan. J .

35. Ibid.

36. Judgment, p. 12; Rollo, p. 25.

37. TSN, December 19, 1991, pp. 14-18.

38. TSN, June 26, 1992, p. 14.

39. Id., at 18-19.

40. Id., at 14.

41. Ibid.

42. Signed by Dr. Lydia Jayobo, resident physician of the Leyte Provincial Hospital; Record, p. 9.

43. TSN, January 31, 1992, p. 8.

44. Ibid.

45. Brief for Appellant, p. 8, Rollo, p. 182.

46. People v. Gagto, 323 Phil. 539, 555-556 (1996) per Davide, Jr., J .

47. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed., p. 194.

48. Art. 335, Revised Penal Code.

49. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed., p. 193.

50. Ibid.

51. TSN, January 31, 1992, p. 3.

52. Id., at 9-10.

53. Ibid.

54. People v. Mancao and Aguilar, 49 Phil. 887, 893 (1927) per Villa-Real, J .

55. TSN, June 26, 1992, pp. 18-19.

56. Judgment, p. 11; Record, p. 24.

57. TSN, December 19, 1991, p. 6.

58. People v. Abordo, 258 SCRA 571, 581 (1996), per Mendoza. J., citing People v. Manzano, 250 SCRA 152, 161 (1995).

59. People v. Fuentes, G.R. No. 126285, September 29, 1998, per Regalado, J .

60. TSN, December 19, 1991, p. 17.

61. TSN, April 10, 1992, p. 4.

62. Arts. 2217 and 2219, Civil Code.

63. People v. Dones, 254 SCRA 699, 710 (1996) per Kapunan, J., citing People v. Bondoy, 222 SCRA 216 (1993); People v. Joya, 227 SCRA 9 (1993); People v. Sabellina, 238 SCRA 492 (1994).




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