Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > March 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 129058 March 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO SEVILLENO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 129058. March 29, 1999.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PAULINO SEVILLENO Y VILLANUEVA alias TAMAYO, Accused-Appellant.


D E C I S I O N


BELLOSILLO, J.:


By pleading guilty to the rape and killing of a 9-year old girl a death sentence would seem inevitable. But a mere plea of guilt is not sufficient for conviction as the court must first assure itself that the accused fully understood the consequences of his plea. In the instant case, the trial court failed to conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness of his admission of guilt and that he fully comprehended the implications thereof. As the court a quo inadequately discharged its duty of conducting a searching inquiry, the plea of guilt to a capital offense therefore inevitably became null and void. 1

On 22 July 1995, at around 10:00 o’clock in the morning, Paulino Sevilleno y Villanueva alias Tamayo went to Barangay Guadalupe, San Carlos City. He brought with him bread and ice candy for his 9-year old and 8-year old nieces, Virginia and Norma, both surnamed Baquia. He then invited Virginia to accompany him to Sitio Guindali-an "to see (a) beta show." 2 To reach the place, Paulino and Virginia passed through the sugarcane fields.chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary

At around 11:00 o’clock that same morning, Rogelio Baquia, father of Virginia and Norma, arrived. Not seeing Virginia in their house, Rogelio asked Norma where her sister was. After learning from her that Virginia had gone with accused Paulino to Sitio Guindali-an, Rogelio immediately set out to look for them.

Rogelio failed to find his daughter upon reaching Sitio Guindali-an; instead, he bumped into the accused. When asked about Virginia the accused denied knowing where she was. However, Rogelio noticed that the accused had nail scratches on his neck and a wound on his left cheek.

Rogelio continued his search. He was accompanied by Eugenio Tiongson, a relative of the accused. The next day they met the accused at the house of the former barangay captain of Sitio Guindali-an, Paeng Lopez. Eugenio asked Paulino where Virginia was. This time the accused replied that she was in a sugarcane field known as "Campo 9," still a part of Guadalupe, like Sitio Guindali-an. Accompanied by some police officers, Rogelio and Eugenio proceeded to "Campo 9." There they found Virginia covered with dried leaves, her dress raised to her armpits; the lower portion of her torso was naked; her legs were spread apart. She had wounds on various parts of her body. She was dead. 3

Dr. Arnel Laurence Q. Portuguez, City Health Officer of San Carlos City, autopsied the body of Virginia. His postmortem examination showed these findings: linear abrasion over hematoma, 3.0 x 2.0 cm., right superior anterior neck; linear abrasion over hematoma, 2.5 x 3.0 cm., left superior anterior neck; hematoma 9.0 x 4.0 cm., right inguinal area; hematoma 9.0 x 5.0 cm., left inguinal area; superficial hymenal laceration 0.5 cm., at 12 o’clock position, with clot formation at intuitus; abrasion 5.5 x 4.0 cm., left superior gluteal area; abrasion 5.0 x 3.0 cm., right superior gluteal area; abrasion 6.0 x 2.0 cm., right inferior lateral gluteal area; vaginal smear showing absence of sperm cells except pus cells and epithelial cells. Cause of death: asphyxia secondary to strangulation. 4 Based on his findings, Dr. Portuguez concluded that Virginia was raped and then strangled to death.

When news of the gruesome rape and killing spread around the community, the local residents immediately arrested the accused Paulino Sevilleno and turned him over to the police authorities. Thereafter, on 25 July 1995, the accused was charged with rape with homicide for having carnal knowledge of Virginia Baquia, a minor, 9 years of age, by means of force, violence and intimidation and against her will, and after ravishing her, with intent to hide his identity and to prevent discovery thereof, with intent to kill, strangled her which directly caused her death. 5

The arraignment where the accused was represented by Atty. Vic Agravante of the Public Attorney’s Office proceeded thus —

Court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Call the case . . .

Interpreter:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Appearances?

Pros. Tabinas:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Appearing for the government, ready for arraignment.

Atty. Agravante:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Respectfully appearing for the accused, ready, your Honor.

Court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Arraign the accused.

Stenographer’s Observation:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Accused was arraigned in a Cebuano language duly known and understood by him, pleaded GUILTY.

COURT (to accused):chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Do you understand your plea of guilty?

Accused:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know that your plea of guilty could bring death penalty?

A. Yes, sir.

Court (to Pros. Tabinas):chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

You still have to present your evidence.

Pros. Tabinas:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Yes, your honor. 6

The hearing for the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution was scheduled on 31 August 1995. It was however reset several times. On 10 October 1995 the accused manifested that he had no counsel. Thus, the trial court ordered the Public Attorney’s Office to provide a counsel de oficio for him. The next hearing was set on 21 November 1995. 7

On 28 October 1995, taking advantage of typhoon "Pepang" that struck the island of Negros, the accused escaped from detention, of which the Presiding Judge was accordingly informed.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

The records show that Atty. Vic Agravante assisted the accused during the arraignment only. In the succeeding hearings, Atty. Danilo Pabalinas, another lawyer of PAO, represented the accused. But after the escape Atty. Pabalinas sought permission from the court to be released from his duty to assist the accused. The court then directed that the accused be tried in absentia and counsel was relieved from his responsibility to his client and the court. 8

The prosecution presented the examining physician as well as Maria Lariosa and Norma Baquia. Notably, these witnesses were not cross-examined because, as already adverted to, Atty. Pabalinas earlier excused himself from the case. Neither did the court appoint another counsel for the accused.

The next hearing was set on 30 January 1996. However, for various reasons, the hearing was reset to 13 March 1996, 21 April 1996, 18 June 1996 and 17 July 1996.

Meanwhile, on 10 July 1996 the Jail Warden of San Carlos City reported to the court that the accused had been recaptured. 9

Atty. Florentino Saldavia, also of PAO, was appointed counsel de oficio for the accused. On 17 July 1996 the prosecution presented Rogelio Baquia as its last witness. Atty. Saldavia cross-examined Rogelio but his questions were only considered token, and even irrelevant. Then the prosecution rested.

On 28 August 1996, the date set for the presentation of the evidence for the defense, Atty. Saldavia moved that the hearing be reset as he was not feeling well. On 19 November 1996, Atty. Saldavia again moved for postponement and the hearing was reset to 3 December 1996 on which date, instead of presenting evidence, Atty. Saldavia manifested that he was submitting the case for decision but invoking the plea of guilt of the accused as a mitigating circumstance. As recorded, the hearing proceeded thus —

Court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Call the case . . .

Interpreter:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Appearances.

Pros. Tabinas:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Appearing for the government.

Atty. Saldavia:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

For the accused. Your honor please, this is already the turn of the defense to present evidence. He already pleaded GUILTY. We have no mitigating circumstance to prove except the plea of guilty. I believe there is no need of presenting evidence, he already pleaded guilty.

Court: (to Atty. Saldavia):chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

You will rest the case?

Atty. Saldavia:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Yes, your honor.

Pros. Tabinas:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

You will invoke the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty?

Atty. Saldavia:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Yes.

Pros. Tabinas:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

We have no objection to that.

Court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Order.

When this case was called for the presentation of evidence for the accused, counsel for the accused manifested that he had no evidence to present in favor of the accused except the plea of GUILTY made in open court.

In view thereof, the above-entitled case is hereby submitted for decision based on the evidence presented by the prosecution without the accused presenting evidence in his behalf except the plea of GUILTY which is admitted by the prosecution.

WHEREFORE, the above-entitled case is hereby submitted for decision.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

SO ORDERED. 10

On 6 March 1997 the Regional Trial Court-Br. 57, San Carlos City, rendered its decision finding the accused guilty of rape with homicide and sentencing him to death and to pay the heirs of Virginia Baquia P50,000.00 plus costs. 11

This case is now on automatic review. The defense contends that the court a quo erred in convicting the accused and imposing upon him the penalty of death as it failed to observe the required procedure for cases where the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense when arraigned. 12 The defense also argues that the arraignment conducted by the trial court was null and void as it did not conduct a "searching inquiry" before accepting the plea of guilt and sentencing the accused to death. It concludes that since the arraignment was fatally defective and not in accordance with law, the case must be remanded to the court of origin for the proper arraignment of the accused before the capital punishment may be imposed.

We sustain the defense. Under Sec. 3, Rule 116, of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, when the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea. It must also require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of his culpability. If the accused so desires he may also present evidence in his behalf. This procedure is mandatory and a judge who fails to observe it commits grave abuse of discretion. 13

The questions propounded by the trial judge during arraignment hardly satisfied the requisite searching inquiry. Regrettably, there were only two (2) questions propounded to the accused: First. Do you understand your plea of guilt? Second. Do you know that your plea of guilt could bring death penalty? In every case where the accused enters a plea of guilty to a capital offense, especially where he is an ignorant person with little or no education, the proper and prudent course to follow is to take such evidence as are available and necessary in support of the material allegations of the information, including the aggravating circumstances therein enumerated, not only to satisfy the trial judge himself but also to aid the Supreme Court in determining whether the accused really and truly understood and comprehended the meaning, full significance and consequences of his plea. 14

In the instant case, the trial court did not bother to explain the essential elements of the crime of rape with homicide with which the accused was charged. On the same note, the trial judge also failed to inform the accused the certainty by which the death penalty would be imposed on him and the fact that he would also be made to indemnify the heirs of his victim. As a result, the accused was not properly accorded his fundamental right to be informed of the precise nature of the accusation leveled against him. 15 Thus, it is with apprehension that ruling for the affirmance of the decision in this case will prejudice the due observance of the fundamental requirements of fairness and due process. 16 The constitutional rights of the accused are for the protection of the guilty and of the innocent alike. Only with the assurance that even the guilty shall be given the benefit of every constitutional guaranty can the innocent be secure in the same rights. 17

Trial courts must exercise meticulous care in accepting a plea of guilty in a capital offense. Judges are duty-bound to be extra solicitous in seeing to it that when an accused pleads guilty he understands fully the meaning of his plea and the import of his inevitable conviction. 18 Courts must proceed with more care where the possible punishment is in its severest form — death — for the reason that the execution of such a sentence is irrevocable. Experience has shown that innocent persons have at times pleaded guilty. 19 Only a clear, definite and unconditional plea of guilty by the accused must be accepted by trial courts. 20 There is no such rule which provides that simply because the accused pleaded guilty to the charge that his conviction should automatically follow. 21 A judge should always be an embodiment of competence. 22 As an administrator of justice, it is imperative that the trial judge carry out his duties ably and competently so as not to erode public confidence in the judiciary.

It is quite unfortunate that Attys. Vic Agravante, Danilo Pabalinas and Florentino Saldavia, all of PAO, were remiss in their duties as defenders of the accused. Atty. Agravante did not take time to explain to his client the nature of the crime of which he was charged and the gravity of the consequences of his plea. Instead, he readily agreed to the accused pleading guilty to a capital offense. In the succeeding hearings, Atty. Pabalinas was supposed to assist the accused ably but miserably failed. When the case was called and appearances noted, the trial judge informed the parties that the accused had escaped from detention. It was then that the prosecution and the defense, including the trial court, agreed that the accused would be tried in absentia. Then, at this juncture, Atty. Pabalinas sought to be relieved of his responsibilities as counsel de oficio which, unfortunately, the court also granted. The court proceeded with the presentation of three (3) prosecution witnesses who testified but were never cross-examined because Atty. Pabalinas already left the courtroom, apparently with the consent of the trial court. Nobody was assigned to replace Atty. Pabalinas. Consequently, not only was the accused tried in absentia, he was also tried without the assistance of counsel.

When the prosecution rested its case, Atty. Saldavia of the PAO asked for the postponement of the succeeding hearings not only once but thrice allegedly because he was not feeling well. Interestingly, when the time came for him to adduce evidence in behalf of the accused, he manifested that since his client had already pleaded guilty he would no longer present any evidence. He only invoked the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty.

The plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance is misplaced. Not under any circumstance would any admission of guilt affect or reduce the death sentence. 23 Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the penalty of death when by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed. Death is a single indivisible penalty and corollary to Art. 63 of the Revised Penal Code, in all cases in which a single indivisible penalty is prescribed, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance that may have attended the commission of the offense.

The court below also erred in disregarding the testimony of Norma Baquia "for the reason that her testimony failed to establish that the incident happened within the territorial jurisdiction of this court." 24 The court did not consider her testimony purportedly because she only testified that her sister Virginia went with the accused to Guindali-an without specifying as to what municipality or city it was part of. 25 Again, this is error. Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court requires courts to take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and geographical divisions of our country. There is only one Sitio Guindali-an, Brgy. Guadalupe, San Carlos City (Negros Occidental).

We cannot right finis to this discussion without making known our displeasure over the manner by which the PAO lawyers dispensed with their duties. All three (3) of them displayed manifest disinterest on the plight of their client. They lacked vigor and dedication to their work. Atty. Agravante did not explain to the accused the nature of the crime of which he was charged and the consequences of his plea. Atty. Pabalinas, instead of assisting the accused, hastily left the courtroom after obtaining leave while the prosecution was presenting its three (3) witnesses. Resultingly, all three (3) witnesses were never cross-examined. On the other hand, Atty. Saldavia moved for the postponement of the scheduled hearings during which he was supposed to present evidence for the defense; worse, on the last scheduled hearing he submitted the case for decision without presenting evidence. In short, no evidence was ever presented for the defense. And, as if to compound his deficiency with ignorance, Atty. Saldavia relied on his client’s plea of guilt in the mistaken belief that it would modify and reduce to reclusion perpetua the imposable penalty of death.

Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires every lawyer to serve his client with utmost dedication, competence and diligence. He must not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in this regard renders him administratively liable. 26 Obviously, in the instant case, the aforenamed defense lawyers did not protect, much less uphold, the fundamental rights of the accused. Instead, they haphazardly performed their function as counsel de oficio to the detriment and prejudice of the accused Sevilleno, however guilty he might have been found to be after trial. Inevitably, this Court must advise Attys. Agravante, Pabalinas and Saldavia to adhere closely and faithfully to the tenets espoused in the Code of Professional Responsibility; otherwise, commission of any similar act in the future will be severely sanctioned.

WHEREFORE, the 6 March 1997 Decision of the Regional Trial Court-Br. 57, San Carlos City (Negros Occidental), in Crim. Case No. 129058, convicting the accused PAULINO SEVILLENO Y VILLANUEVA alias Tamayo of Rape with Homicide and sentencing him to DEATH is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE and the case is REMANDED to the court of origin for the proper arraignment and trial of the accused until terminated.

SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Davide, Jr ., C.J., Romero, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban and Quisumbing, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. People v. Bulalake, 106 Phil. 767 (1959).

2. TSN, 21 November 1995, p. 11.

3. TSN, 17 July 1996, p. 10.

4. Exhibit "A," Records, p. 11.

5. Rollo, p. 10.

6. TSN, 15 August 1995, pp. 1-2.

7. Records, p. 33.

8. Id., p. 39.

9. Id., p. 72.

10. TSN, 3 December 1996, pp. 1-2.

11. Rollo, p. 26.

12. Id., p. 49.

13. People v. Dayot, G.R. No. 88281, 10 July 1990, 187 SCRA 641.

14. See Note 1.

15. People v. Estomaca, G.R. Nos. 117485-86, 22 April 1996, 256 SCRA 429.

16. People v. Gonzaga, No. L-48373, 30 January 1984, 127 SCRA 158.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. People v. Albert, G.R. No. 114001, 14 December 1995, 251 SCRA 136.

20. Ibid.

21. People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 80845, 14 March 1994, 231 SCRA 264.

22. Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Judicial Conduct.

23. See Note 15, p. 434.

24. Rollo, p. 23.

25. Ibid.

26. Rule 18.03, Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility.




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