Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > October 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 112370 October 13, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIZA CLEMENTE:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 112370. October 13, 1999.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELIZA CLEMENTE Y PIMENTEL, Accused-Appellant.


D E C I S I O N


PURISIMA, J.:


On appeal before this Court is the judgment of Branch 117 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City dated September 6, 1993, finding the appellant, Eliza Clemente y Pimentel, guilty of Violation of Section 15 of Republic Act 6425, as amended, and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

Upon her arrival at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) on November 8, 1991, appellant was arrested together with a companion, one Benito Chua Lo, allegedly for illegally transporting 12.24 kilograms, more or less, of Metamphetamine Hydrochloride or "Shabu" from Hongkong. When brought to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for preliminary investigation, however, the appellant submitted an affidavit, dated November 24, 1992, exculpating Lo, stating that Lo had nothing to do with the packs or cartons containing subject prohibited drugs found in her baggage.

Two days thereafter or on November 26, 1992 to be precise, the appellant, through her lawyer, retracted her said affidavit.

Finding the retraction merely as a defense strategy, then Assistant State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuno ordered Lo’s release, after which he filed the Information against the appellant, alleging:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 8th day of November, 1992 at about 7:30 p.m. at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport, Pasay City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Eliza Clemente y Pimentel, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously transport, without lawful authority 12.24 kilograms, more or less of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a regulated drug, commonly known as "Shabu" without the corresponding license or prescription."cralaw virtua1aw library

With the accused entering a negative plea upon arraignment, trial ensued. On September 6, 1993, on the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court rendered judgment, finding the accused guilty and sentencing her, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds the accused Eliza Clemente y Pimentel GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 15 of Republic Act 6425, as amended, and sentences her to life imprisonment; to pay a fine of P20,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment, in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. The methamphetamine hydrochloride is forfeited in favor of the government and turned over to the Dangerous Drugs Board for proper disposition." (Rollo, p. 174)

From the findings below , it can be gleaned unerringly that on November 8, 1992, at about 4:30 to 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon, the appellant, Eliza P. Clemente, together with one Benito Chua Lo, her brother-in-law, arrived at the NAIA, from Hongkong via Flight CX 903 of the Cathay Pacific Airlines.chanrobles law library

Nerza Rebustes, a Customs Examiner of the NAIA, testified that when the appellant submitted her passport, there was inserted, a Baggage Declaration Form in the name of Benito Chua Lo. Rebustes asked appellant where her Baggage Declaration Form was, and she replied "Brother in law ko siya, magkasama kami." The appellant thereafter, affixed her name on Lo’s Baggage Declaration Form which presented six (6) pieces of bags and suitcases.

When asked where their baggage was, both the appellant and Lo pointed to the six (6) pieces of bags and suitcases. Rebustes first found three (3) carton packs at the inner portion of one bag, mixed with ready-to-wear clothes. The appellant grabbed one pack and gave it to Lo. Rebustes requested the appellant to return the pack to the examination table which appellant did. Rebustes then found a total of twelve (12) packs in the baggage. When the same were opened in the presence of Customs agents and a Narcotics Command (Narcom) representative, they found white crystalline flakes, which turned out to be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "Shabu."cralaw virtua1aw library

Expert witness Leslie Chambers confirmed that the twelve (12) specimens sent to her for chemical analysis were positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. Based on her report, the twelve (12) packs weighed about thirteen (13) kilograms, more or less. In the brown paper, the total weight of the specimen was 7.5 to 5 kilograms; in the two transparent clutch bags, it was 2.140 kilograms; in the black clutch bag, the weight was 1.1 kilogram; in the gray clutch bag, the weight was 1.075 kilogram; and in the brown clutch bag, it was 1.075 kilogram (TSN, March 8, 1993, p. 12)

Appellant denounced the prosecution’s version as a distortion of the truth. According to her, she was a chance passenger with only two (2) pieces of handcarried luggage. Lo was on the same flight but she did not know he was transporting subject prohibited drugs.

Upon their arrival at the airport, Rebustes examined Lo’s baggage. The appellant denied saying "Brother-in-law ko siya, magkasama kami." She also denied grabbing a pack of "Shabu" which she (appellant) allegedly gave to Lo when it was discovered by Rebustes in one of the bags of Lo.

The appellant signed her name in Lo’s Baggage Declaration Form because she was ordered to do so by the Customs personnel. She did not know why they were detained and arrested at the airport. It was only later when she found out that they were being held for the illegal transporting of prohibited drugs.

Appellant theorized further that when they (appellant and Lo) were in the custody of the Narcotics Command (Narcom) operatives, a certain Captain Ricomono demanded One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos for himself and for the prosecutors of the DOJ for their release. Unable to produce the amount, the appellant, on March 24, 1993, was made to sign an affidavit purportedly prepared by persons from the DOJ. On the belief that she would be released after Lo, the appellant admitted sole ownership of the contrabands. Two days after, or on March 26, 1993, sensing she would not be released as promised, she retracted her admission and withdrew her affidavit.

On September 6, 1993, the trial court handed down its judgment finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

In her appeal at bar, appellant contends that there is no evidence to link her to the illegal transporting of the prohibited drugs sued upon, because:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. the claim/baggage tags of the four (4) pieces of baggage where the twelve (12) packs of prohibited drugs were found, were all in the name of Lo;chanrobles law library

2. the appellant had no checked-in baggage, only two (2) handcarried ones, none of which contained subject prohibited drugs;

3. the appellant was ordered by the Customs personnel to affix her signature in Lo’s Baggage Declaration Form.

There is no dispute as to the corpus delicti. The twelve (12) brown packs retrieved from the baggage declared under Lo’s and appellant’s names were found to be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "Shabu." There is also no question that the appellant arrived with Lo from Hongkong on November 8, 1992, when the said baggage containing subject prohibited drugs was examined by Customs personnel at the NAIA. While none of the Customs and Narcom agents saw who actually placed and carried subject prohibited drugs in the said baggage, what is evident is that it was either Lo (who was released on the basis of appellant’s affidavit) or the appellant who illegally transported subject prohibited drugs.

Appellant’s defense that she did not know about the prohibited drugs contained in Lo’s baggage and that she was only made to sign her name on Lo’s Baggage Declaration Form by the Customs personnel, is unbelievable.

To begin with, common experience suggests that one does not simply agree to co-sign another’s baggage declaration form unless she is intimately related to the owner or unless she has knowledge of or a direct interest in the contents of the baggage. Then too, it is perplexing why the appellant, assisted by counsel, executed an affidavit exculpating Lo from any blame. Assuming there was a promise to release her after Lo, her behavior striking such a bargain with "persons from the DOJ", admitting full responsibility for the commission of an offense so serious as transporting subject prohibited drugs, certainly does not indicate innocence on her part.

The issue revolves on credibility of witnesses, and this Court has, time and time again, held that "credibility" is the sole province of the trial court. (People v. Dela Cruz, 190 SCRA 335 [1990])

In the absence of a clear showing that the trial court’s conclusions were arbitrarily arrived at or that it overlooked certain facts of substance or value which, if considered, might alter the result, findings by the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are to be accorded great respect on appeal. The reason for this is that the trial court had the singular opportunity to hear the witnesses and observe their deportment and manner of testifying. (People v. Morales, 241 SCRA 267 [1995], People v. Tami, 244 SCRA 1 [1995], Dizon v. CA and People, G.R. No. 111762, July 22, 1999)

In the present case, the trial court correctly observed:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . Although accused Clemente was really a chance passenger on the plane from Hongkong, it does not necessarily mean that she had only two hand carry luggages. At first, she claimed to be travelling alone. Later, it turned out that one of the passengers, Benito Chua Lo is her brother-in-law and the obvious conclusion is they were travelling together. Her actuations during the examination of the luggages belie her claim that they did not belong to her . . ." (Decision, pp. 7-8)

The lower court relied heavily on the following testimony of Examiner Rebustes, who recounted how she was able to seize subject prohibited drugs from the appellant and Lo, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q: Madam Witness, any papers or documents which Madam Clemente showed you when she was presented to you for rigid examination?chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

x       x       x


A: Aside from the passport that Eliza Clemente submitted to the undersigned, there was inserted inside the passport, a Baggage Declaration Form, the no. is PR No. 9579851 in the name of Benito Lo.

x       x       x


Q: Upon presentation of this document to you, Madam Witness, what did you do?

A: I referred these documents to the duty collector Olalo for instruction before I proceed to my examination because Eliza Clemente did not submit her Baggage Declaration Form and instead she said "magkasama kami" and later she signed it.

Q: Were you present when she signed it?

A: I was present.

x       x       x


A: I was instructed by duty collector Olalo to proceed to the examination of the luggages.

Q: You are referring to the luggages of the passenger, Madam Witness?

A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: When I entered the ICU, the two (2) passengers were already inside and both of them presented to me 6 luggages for examination, and when I asked their luggages, both of them pointed to the luggages and that all were theirs. So, I proceeded to my examination.

Q: So how did you go about examining the luggages of the accused, Madam Witness?

A: First, I opened up a black duffle bag, then at the top portion of the bag were found RTWs (Ready to Wear), T-shirts and Sweat Shirt, at the inner portion of it were found three (3) brown packs in uniform.

x       x       x


Q: What happened next?

A: Then, I placed these three (3) brown packs in the examination table, then Eliza Clemente grabbed one pack and placed it in her blue handcarried bag and then gave that blue handcarried bag to Benito Lo, Benito Lo received the blue handcarried bag with a brown pack inside and Benito Lo placed it down on his feet.

x       x       x


Q: What did you find in this black bag with brown handle which is the second bag which you examined?

A: It also contains knitted sweat shirt, sweat shirt and three (3) brown packs.

x       x       x


A: The third bag was a black bag with violet aqua stripe on the handle.

x       x       x


A: It also contains t-shirts, knitted sweat shirt, sweat shirt and three (3) brown packs.

Q: What did you do with the three (3) brown packs?chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

x       x       x


A: Still, I put it on the examination table.

x       x       x


Q: So there were nine (9) brown packs?

A: No, there were 12, the four (4) bags contain 12 brown packs."cralaw virtua1aw library

(TSN Feb. 1, 1993, pp. 8-14)

On cross-examination, Rebustes testified:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q: Do I get you right that it was Collector Olalo who directed the Customs personnel to insert the name of Eliza Clemente in that Baggage Declaration Form?

x       x       x


A: No, not upon the instruction of collector Olalo. It was Eliza Clemente herself who requested the undersigned that her name be inserted in the Baggage Declaration Form of Benito Lo since they were both travelling together and the baggages belong to both of them.

x       x       x


Q: At what instance this Eliza Clemente inserted her name in the Baggage Declaration Form?

A: That was during the examination."cralaw virtua1aw library

(TSN, Feb. 22, 1993, pp. 6-7)

Rebustes’ narration of the incident under inquiry was straightforward, categorical and free from any serious contradiction. We find therefore no compelling reason to change the conclusion of the trial court on the credibility of Examiner Rebustes, on the one hand, and the non-reliability of the appellant. The plain denial by the appellant of the charges against her cannot outweigh the clear and credible testimony of Rebustes. (People v. Atad, 266 SCRA 276 [1997])

And what is more, Rebustes, having no ill motive or reason to falsely impute a serious crime against the appellant, cannot be considered other than a credible witness. Credence is accorded to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who are law enforcers. The law grants them the presumption of regularly performing their duty in the absence of convincing proof to the contrary. (People v. Atad, ibid; People v. Segwaben , 194 SCRA 238, Feb. 19, 1991, People v. Sariol, 174 SCRA 237, 1989)

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against Appellant.

SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

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




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1998 Jurisprudence                 

  • Bar Matter No. 914 October 1, 1998 - RE: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR v. VICENTE D. CHING

  • G.R. No. 89662 October 1, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO VILLABLANCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 89700-22 October 1, 1998 - AURELIO M. DE LA PEÑA, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107737 October 1, 1998 - JUAN L. PEREZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 120681-83 & 128136 October 1, 1998 - JEJOMAR C. BINAY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126269 October 1, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REGINO MARCELINO ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127777 October 1, 1998 - PETRONILA C. TUPAZ v. BENEDICTO B. ULEP

  • G.R. No. 132058 October 1, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN NARIDO

  • G.R. No. 132137 October 1, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR PADAMA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1487 October 4, 1998 - PEDRO G. PERALTA v. ALFREDO A. CAJIGAL

  • G.R. No. 121939 October 4, 1998 - SPOUSES ROMAN & AMELITA T. CRUZ, ET AL. v. SPOUSES ALFREDO & MELBA TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128813 October 4, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YAMASITO VERGEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132991 October 4, 1998 - RODOLFO MUNZON, ET AL. v. INSURANCE SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT AGENCY

  • A.M. No. 98-12-381-RTC October 5, 1998 - REQUEST OF JUDGE IRMA ZITA V. MASAMAYOR

  • G.R. No. 63145 October 5, 1998 - SULPICIA VENTURA v. FRANCIS J. MILITANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115719-26 October 5, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENE YABUT

  • G.R. Nos. 119418 & 119436-37 October 5, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN CARATAY

  • A.M. No. 98-1-11-RTC October 7, 1998 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN RTC

  • G.R. No. 103515 October 7, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN SUELTO Y CORDETA

  • G.R. No. 120641 October 7, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIE FLORO

  • G.R. No. 125272 October 7, 1998 - CANDIDO AMIL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131283 October 7, 1998 - OSCAR C. FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106314-15 October 8, 1998 - HEIRS OF PEDRO CABAIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 107132 & 108472 October 8, 1998 - MAXIMA HEMEDES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111743 October 8, 1998 - VISITACION GABELO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112483 October 8, 1998 - ELOY IMPERIAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118624 October 8, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON ORTIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114937 October 11, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE APELADO

  • G.R. No. 124298 October 11, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN RONATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94432 October 12, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO LACHICA

  • G.R. No. 101188 October 12, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLINAR RAGANAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117925 October 12, 1998 - TENSOREX INDUSTRIAL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118498 & 124377 October 12, 1998 - FILIPINAS SYNTHETIC FIBER CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123031 October 12, 1998 - CEBU INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124262 October 12, 1998 - TOMAS CLAUDIO MEMORIAL COLLEGE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128805 October 12, 1998 - MA. IMELDA ARGEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133913 October 12, 1998 - JOSE MANUEL STILIANOPULOS v. CITY OF LEGASPI

  • G.R. No. 83466 October 13, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ELIZALDE CULALA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-98-1424 October 13, 1998 - ROMULO G. MADREDIJO, ET AL. v. LEANDRO T. LOYAO, JR.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1496 October 13, 1998 - EDESIO ADAO v. JUDGE CELSO F. LORENZO

  • G.R. No. 102305 October 13, 1998 - FRANCISCO G. ZARATE AND CORAZON TIROL-ZARATE v. RTC OF KALIBO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102675 October 13, 1998 - HENRY C. SEVESES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103606 October 13, 1998 - RELIGIOUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109963 October 13, 1998 - HEIRS OF JOAQUIN TEVES: RICARDO TEVES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111737 October 13, 1998 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112370 October 13, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIZA CLEMENTE

  • G.R. No. 113899 October 13, 1998 - GREAT PACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115470 October 13, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO MANEGDEG

  • G.R. No. 115821 October 13, 1998 - JESUS T. DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116220 October 13, 1998 - SPOUSES ROY PO LAM, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116233 October 13, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. RENATO GAILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125534 October 13, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125763 October 13, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMMANUEL PANIQUE

  • G.R. No. 128754 October 13, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO D. LANGRES

  • G.R. No. 130202 October 13, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS ERICK CLEMENTE

  • G.R. Nos. 130411-14 October 13, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO BELLO

  • G.R. No. 130784 October 13, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO AGUINALDO

  • G.R. No. 130961 October 13, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOBBY AGUNOS

  • G.R. No. 133491 October 13, 1998 - ALEXANDER G. ASUNCION v. EDUARDO B. EVANGELISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133993 October 13, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO GABALLO

  • G.R. No. 134311 October 13, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ELEUTERIO COSTELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 97652-53 October 19, 1998 - JOSE H. RUTAQUIO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106029 & 105770 October 19, 1998 - BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106467-68 October 19, 1998 - DOLORES LIGAYA DE MESA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1216 October 20, 1998 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. LEONARDO F. QUIÑANOLA and RUBEN B. ALBAYTAR

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1500 October 20, 1998 - VICTORIANO B. CARUAL v. VLADIMIR B. BRUSOLA

  • G.R. No. 109073 October 20, 1998 - EDUARDO BALAGTAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 125307-09 October 20, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROQUE CELIS

  • G.R. No. 130187 October 20, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT MOTOS

  • G.R. No. 132564 October 20, 1998 - SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132715 October 20, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR TABION

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1206 October 22, 1998 - NORTHCASTLE PROPERTIES and ESTATE CORP. v. ESTRELLITA M. PAAS

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1229 October 22, 1998 - ROSARIO GARCIA v. PIO PASIA

  • A.M. RTJ-99-1430 October 22, 1998 - NARCISO G. BRAVO v. RICARDO M. MERDEGIA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1499 October 22, 1998 - GIL RAMON O. MARTIN v. ELEUTERIO F. GUERRERO

  • G.R. No. 75908 October 22, 1998 - FEDERICO O. BORROMEO v. AMANCIO SUN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100353 October 22, 1998 - PNCC v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106052 October 22, 1998 - PLANTERS PRODUCTS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106770 October 22, 1998 - JOHNNY K. LIMA, ET AL. v. TRANSWAY SALES CORP., ET AL

  • G.R. No. 110994 October 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENCIANO MARAMARA

  • G.R. No. 125964 October 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ELEUTERIO GUARIN

  • G.R. No. 130708 October 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO ARIZALA

  • G.R. No. 134622 October 22, 1998 - AMININ L. ABUBAKAR v. AURORA A. ABUBAKAR

  • G.R. No. 130140 October 25, 1998 - PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131755 October 25, 1998 - MOVERS-BASECO INTEGRATED PORT SERVICES v. CYBORG LEASING CORP.

  • Adm. Case Nos. 3066 & 4438 October 26, 1998 - J.K. MERCADO AND SONS AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES v. EDUARDO DE VERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65416 October 26, 1998 - CARLOMAGNO A. CRUCILLO, ET AL v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107800 October 26, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLY PARANZO

  • G.R. No. 108846 October 26, 1998 - MOOMBA MINING EXPLORATION CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110111 October 26, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO GARIGADI

  • G.R. No. 111042 October 26, 1998 - AVELINO LAMBO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112090 October 26, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLINAR LAZARO

  • G.R. No. 113708 October 26, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARQUILLOS TABUSO

  • G.R. No. 114087 October 26, 1998 - PLANTERS ASSN. OF SOUTHERN NEGROS INC. v. BERNARDO T. PONFERRADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118381 October 26, 1998 - T & C DEV’T. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121483 October 26, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMANO MANLAPAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128531 October 26, 1998 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130439 October 26, 1998 - PHIL. VETERANS BANK v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131483 October 26, 1998 - Tai Lim v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133619 October 26, 1998 - JOSE B. TIONGCO v. MARCIANA Q. DEGUMA

  • G.R. No. 134194 October 26, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILSON BATOON

  • G.R. No. 128870 October 27, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO ESPIRITU

  • G.R. Nos. 129968-69 October 27, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO DE LABAJAN

  • G.R. No. 108174 October 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENCIANO CANAGURAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120852 October 28, 1998 - BENJAMIN D. OBRA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123071 October 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERONICO M. LOBINO

  • G.R. No. 125214 October 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELPIDIO HERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126955 October 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO TIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133944 October 28, 1998 - MARCITA MAMBA PEREZ v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1316 October 29, 1998 - KENNETH S. NEELAND v. ILDEFONSO M. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1505 October 29, 1998 - ARSENIA T. BERGONIA v. ALICIA B. GONZALEZ-DECANO

  • G.R. Nos. 100342-44 October 29, 1998 - RURAL BANK OF ALAMINOS EMPLOYEES UNION (RBAEU), ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106102 October 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO SARABIA

  • G.R. No. 109355 October 29, 1998 - SERAFIN MODINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121344 October 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO ALTABANO, ET AL.