Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1999 > March 1999 Decisions > G.R. No. 115006 March 18, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MARCOS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 115006. March 18, 1999.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GREGORIO MARCOS @ JUNIOR, Accused-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N


MENDOZA, J.:


This is an appeal from the decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court of Santiago, Isabela (Branch 21), finding accused-appellant guilty of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the complainant the amount of P55,000.00 as damages (P30,000.00 as indemnity for death and P25,000.00 for funeral expenses).

The information against accused-appellant alleged:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about the 30th day of March, 1988, in the municipality of Ramon, province of Isabela, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused together with John Does whose real identities are still to be determined, conspiring, confederating together and helping one another, with treachery and use of superior strength, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill suddenly and unexpectedly and without giving him a chance to defend himself, assault, attack and stab with a sharp pointed instrument one Vicente Reyes inflicting upon him stab wound on the mid-epigastric region, inside, upward, reaching the right portion of the heart which directly caused his death due to internal hemorrhage. 2

The crime took place in the early evening of March 30, 1988 in the public market at Barangay Oscariz in Ramon, Isabela.

The prosecution presented as an eyewitness Petronilo Jacinto, a farmer and long-time resident (31 years) of the barangay. He testified that the deceased Vicente "Boyet" Reyes was his close friend (barkada) and that on the said evening he and the deceased had some drinks with other friends (Rodring Nabong, Mario Mansayac, Mael Vinoya) in his house. According to Petronilo Jacinto, he left the group for a while to buy some ice at Mely’s Canteen 3 at the public market, about 20 meters from his house. Unknown to him, the deceased followed him. While he was at Mely’s Canteen, he heard a commotion and the sound of breaking glass inside Geronima Barbero’s restaurant and so went there and saw the deceased. He was seated alone at a table having beer. At another table were five men who were likewise drinking beer. In a while, an acquaintance, a certain Mamer, came by and they greeted each other. When he looked again inside the restaurant, he saw accused-appellant and two others holding the deceased as the latter was being stabbed. Petronilo said that he saw accused-appellant holding the deceased by the right hand for about 20 seconds. It is not clear from Jacinto’s testimony how many persons stabbed Vicente Reyes. In his sworn statement (Exh. B), 4 he stated that only one of the five stabbed the deceased. Jacinto said he wanted to help the deceased, but there were five assailants. When the latter fled, Jacinto called Mely Bulatao and others to take the deceased to the hospital. The deceased was taken to the hospital by his sister Wilma. Jacinto then called his friends and they all went after the assailants but lost them near the irrigation canal. Jacinto said he had not seen accused-appellant and the latter’s companions before and that the next time he saw accused-appellant again was two years later at the hearing of the case in Ilagan. 5chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Another witness for the prosecution was Geronima Barbero at whose restaurant the stabbing took place. She testified that at about six in the evening of March 30, 1988, while she was in her restaurant serving beer to four men, the deceased Vicente Reyes arrived. He wanted to buy three bottles of Beer Grande, but Barbero did not give him the beer because he had only P10.00. According to Barbero, the deceased thought the men drinking beer were making fun of him, possibly because of his embarrassment at not being given beer, and so he complained to her. But, Barbero said, she assured him that "they are not saying anything [against you]." One of the four was Accused-Appellant. She came to know him because earlier she heard accused-appellant asking his bilas (brother-in-law) Pedro San Pedro to join them drinking. Barbero personally knew Pedro San Pedro and she was later told by Pedro San Pedro and other people that accused-appellant’s name is Gregorio Marcos, alias Junior. But Barbero did not actually see the stabbing. Mely Bulatao had come to invite her to a party, and she told Bulatao to wait for her. Barbero went over to Mely Bulatao’s store, three meters from her restaurant. Two minutes after she had left her eatery, she said she saw people rushing out of her place and the deceased Vicente Reyes clutching his stomach, seriously wounded. Barbero said she ran to look for help. People hanging around the market responded. On April 6, 1988, Barbero executed a sworn statement (Exh. C) 6 regarding the incident where she identified accused-appellant as among the group of men in her eatery at the time of the incident. 7

The autopsy report (Exh. E) 8 on accused-appellant stated:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Autopsy Report

Name — Vicente Ablan Reyes

Age — 28

Address — Oscariz, Ramon, Isabela

C/S — Single

Occupation — Fisherman

Physical Appearance:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

about 50 kilos, 5’3" height, cold body w/ slight rigor mortis

External Examination:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Head — no pertinent findings

Neck — no pertinent findings

upper extremities — no pertinent findings

chest — no pertinent findings

abdomen — Penetrating wound on the med epigastric region about 2 inches in the midline right penetrating upward medially to the left

lower extremities — no pertinent findings

External examination

— Note — Head, neck, upper & lower extremities (no incision was made)

— Thoracic abdominal incision was made (y shape incision) showed plenty of black blood clot intra-thoracic cavity and black blood fluid more on the lower portion, right lower lung to be punctured (black color w/ clotted blood [illegible]

— Heart — punctured wound in the right ventricle w/ no blood in the right auricle & ventricle, small amount of blood in both left auricle and ventricle.

— Diaphragm — was lacerated on right med portion about 2 inches long

— Abdominal cavity — shows little amount of blood clot & blood fluid in the epigastric region (none with med & hypogastric region)

Cause of Death — Internal hemorrhage (intra-thoracic) due to stab wound penetrating the right ventricle.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

[Sgd.]

BENITO S. ACOSTA

Resident Physician

Southern Isabela District Hospital

Santiago, Isabela

Medical Officer

His death certificate (Exh. D) 9 stated he died because of "internal bleeding" caused by "stabbing wound."cralaw virtua1aw library

The deceased’s sister Remedios Lorenzo testified that the deceased was unmarried and had been living with her since he was six years old when their parents died. On that fateful day, March 30, 1988, a child came to their house to inform her about her brother’s death. She learned that her cousin, Wilma Aspirin, had taken Vicente Reyes to the hospital in Santiago, Isabela. She spent P25,000.00 for his funeral, but the receipts for the same were burned when a fire occurred at her house. 10

On the other hand, Accused-appellant interposed the defense of alibi. He testified that, at the time of the commission of the crime, he was in Barangay San Marcos, at the house of Fortunato Domingo; that he had been there since nine in the morning preparing food for the people attending a wake for the child of Domingo. They started serving dinner at five in the afternoon when the people returned from the cemetery in Oscariz. It takes three hours by walking and one hour by tricycle from the house of Fortunato Domingo in Barangay San Marcos to the cemetery in Barangay Oscariz. He denied he saw Pedro San Pedro on March 30, 1988. 11

To corroborate accused-appellant’s claim, the defense presented Alfredo Domingo. Domingo testified that those who attended the interment finished eating dinner at the house of his cousin Fortunato Domingo at seven in the evening. He and accused-appellant went home together at eight. Their houses are only four meters apart; they have been neighbors since 1984. 12

On September 22, 1992, the trial court rendered its decision, finding accused-appellant guilty of murder. The trial court rejected accused-appellant’s defense of alibi which it held could not overthrow "the positive identification [of accused-appellant] made by Geronima Barbero and Petronilo Jacinto." It found the killing attended by abuse of superior strength but ruled out treachery because in its view the killing was made in the heat of the moment, after an altercation, and it was not apparent that the method of attack was chosen by the assailants without risk to themselves. The dispositive portion of the trial court’s decision reads:chanrobles.com : virtual law library

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations the Court finds the accused Gregorio Marcos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and hereby sentences him to a penalty of reclusion perpetua. The accused is also ordered to pay to the complainant Remedios Lorenzo the total amount of Fifty Five Thousand Pesos (P55,000.00) as damages. 13

Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant contends:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE APPELLANT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 14

As already stated, the trial court rejected the defense of alibi of accused-appellant on the ground that he had been positively identified by Petronilo Jacinto and Geronima Barbero.

To be sure, Barbero did not see accused-appellant and his group assault the deceased. She could not, therefore, have "positively identified" accused-appellant as the assailant. Indeed, she only said that accused-appellant and four others took some beer in her restaurant; that the deceased Vicente Reyes must have been embarrassed when Barbero did not give him beer because his money was not enough and took offense at the actuations of accused-appellant’s group whom he thought was making fun of him; that she later saw Vicente Reyes clutching his stomach obviously in pain and seriously wounded. But she did not see who in the group actually attacked the deceased because she said she had stepped out of her restaurant to go over to Mely Bulatao’s canteen. Her testimony alone is insufficient to prove that accused-appellant and his companions conspired to kill the deceased.

This leaves only Petronilo Jacinto’s testimony on the question of identification of Accused-Appellant. However, although Jacinto claimed he saw accused-appellant holding Vicente Reyes while the latter was being stabbed by the others, his testimony is at odds with the testimony of Geronima Barbero.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

(1) Petronilo Jacinto testified that he had been at Mely Bulatao’s store for ten minutes when he heard the commotion at Geronima Barbero’s restaurant. 15 But Geronima Barbero said she also went to Mely Bulatao’s store about the same time Jacinto said he was there, i.e., before trouble at her restaurant broke out, yet did not see Petronilo Jacinto, whom she knew as the latter was her barriomate, there. 16

(2) Petronilo Jacinto testified that he saw the deceased inside Geronima Barbero’s restaurant having beer, 17 but Geronima Barbero said she did not give the deceased beer because his money was not enough. 18

(3) Petronilo Jacinto said there were five in the group of accused-appellant, including the latter, 19 while Geronima Barbero said there were only four men. 20

(4) Petronilo Jacinto testified that he saw Geronima Barbero inside the restaurant at the time the incident happened. 21 However, as already noted, Geronima Barbero testified that she had already stepped out of her restaurant to go to Mely Bulatao’s store 22 when the incident happened. She could not, therefore, have been seen by Jacinto inside her restaurant when the incident happened.

These discrepancies between the testimonies of prosecution witnesses cannot be casually dismissed as they make it impossible for the Court to determine what exactly are the facts as there is no way to determine who is telling the truth and who is not. 23

Not only is Petronilo Jacinto’s testimony at odds with that of Geronima Barbero, it is also in itself inconsistent.

First, he claims that Vicente Reyes was his buddy, 24 but it appears that the deceased was actually his cousin. The deceased had a sister, Remedios Lorenzo. According to Lorenzo, the deceased was taken to the hospital by their cousin Wilma. 25 As Wilma is the sister of Petronilo Jacinto, 26 the latter is also a cousin of the deceased. Apparently, Petronilo Jacinto was trying to conceal his relationship with the deceased. When asked in court how he came to know the deceased, instead of saying they were cousins, he said they were close friends.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

Second, Jacinto said the deceased was in his party at his house but the latter followed him when he left to buy ice and he did not know this until he saw the deceased having beer alone at the restaurant. 27 If the deceased was in Jacinto’s house where there was drinking, why did the deceased have to go to the restaurant to have beer? Apparently realizing the improbability of his testimony, Jacinto later said he saw the deceased having beer in the restaurant and wanted to ask him over to his house, but before he could do this, trouble broke out in the restaurant. 28

Third, he testified that he had gone to the restaurant precisely to see what was going on there when Mamer came by, 29 but later he claimed that it was while talking to Mamer that he heard the commotion and that was the reason he proceeded to the eatery. 30

Fourth, Petronilo Jacinto said that he went near Geronima Barbero’s restaurant because he sensed trouble, yet when asked why he did not tell Mamer, he replied it was because he did not think "something [bad] will happen.’’ 31

Fifth, Jacinto said that after hearing the commotion in the restaurant, he tried to find out what it was all about but found that the victim and the group of accused-appellant were "just conversing" and not quarrelling 32 and that the deceased did not say anything 33 or do anything 34 and in fact never thought that something bad would happen to him.chanrobles virtuallawlibrary

It is noteworthy that Petronilo Jacinto gave his sworn statement (Exh. B) 35 nearly two months after the incident, because he had to "think over what I will do." 36 What it was that made him hesitate to volunteer information which he knew about the killing he did not say. What this Court said in People v. Cruz 37 therefore applies to this case:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

It took forty-two (42) days after the incident for Modesto Alipio to come out and give his sworn statement, Exhibit "B", to the Philippine Constabulary narrating therein what he saw on that occasion. . .[T]he long delay, which is not caused by threat, intimidation or coercion by herein appellant or anybody for that matter, in reporting the matter to the authorities — the mayor, barangay captain, police or the Philippine Constabulary, by one who himself was once an army man has rendered the evidence for the prosecution insufficient to establish appellant’s guilty connection to the requisite of moral certainty. The claim that he was relying on other persons present to make the report is, to say the least, a lame excuse.

Vicente Reyes was Jacinto’s buddy and, it appears, his cousin. His initial reluctance to get involved in the case cannot be reconciled with his assertion that he went to Geronima Barbero’s restaurant because he heard a commotion there and he wanted to know what it was about and that when he saw the assailants flee he ran after them. Indeed, the suspicion cannot be helped that the belated appearance of Petronilo Jacinto as alleged eyewitness was intended to fill the gaps in Geronima Barbero’s account. The conviction of accused-appellant cannot be based on the testimony of a single witness whose testimony is confusing, vacillating and illogical. 38

The Solicitor General urges the Court to defer to the finding of the trial court on the ground that it has had the opportunity to observe the demeanor and general deportment of the witnesses. But evidence to be believed not only must proceed from the mouth of credible witnesses but must itself be credible. Here, the discrepancies and confusing portions just pointed out put in doubt the credibility of Petronilo Jacinto and his testimony.chanrobles law library

Petronilo Jacinto’s behavior stands in sharp contrast to Geronima Barbero’s. Barbero reported the incident to the police immediately 39 and gave her sworn statement on April 6, 1988, seven days after the incident took place. In fact, it was through her initiative in asking Pedro San Pedro and other people 40 that she came to know the name of accused-appellant who was among those present at her restaurant when the stabbing took place. She came all the way from Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya (where she now resides) to testify. There is no reason, therefore, for her to add or to detract from what she had testified. However, as noted earlier, her testimony is by itself insufficient to convict Accused-Appellant. It is possible that it was one or more of accused-appellant’s companions who was guilty. Since conspiracy has not been shown to have existed, the mere presence of accused-appellant at the place cannot make him liable. In the absence of conspiracy, if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty. 41

The accused-appellant’s guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the presumption of innocence must prevail. That alibi, which accused-appellant invokes, is the weakest defense, is irrelevant. For when the prosecution fails to discharge its burden, an accused need not even offer evidence in his behalf.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Santiago, Isabela (Branch 21), is REVERSED and accused-appellant Gregorio Marcos is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt.

The Director of Prisons is hereby directed to forthwith cause the release of accused-appellant unless the latter is being lawfully held for another cause and to inform the Court accordingly within ten (10) days from notice.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Puno and Buena, JJ., concur.

Quisumbing, J., on official leave.

Endnotes:



1. Per Judge Fe Albano Madrid; Rollo, pp. 14-20.

2. Rollo, p. 6.

3. Also referred to as Mely’s Store in the TSNs of the testimonies of Petronilo Jacinto and Geronima Barbero.

4. Records, p. 7.

5. TSN, pp. 2-53, July 18, 1991.

6. Records, p. 6.

7. TSN, pp. 2-22, Aug. 5, 1991.

8. Records, p. 3.

9. Records, p. 4.

10. TSN, pp. 2-9, July 16, 1991.

11. TSN, pp. 3-18, Jan. 22, 1992.

12. TSN, pp. 6-8, Dec. 13, 1991.

13. Rollo, p. 20.

14. Brief for Accused-Appellant, pp. 3-4; Id., pp. 52-53.

15. TSN, p. 51, July 18, 1991.

16. TSN, pp. 12, 14, 21, Aug. 5, 1991.

17. TSN, p. 16, July 18, 1991.

18. TSN, p. 8, Aug. 5, 1991.

19. TSN, pp. 4, 6, 50, July 18, 1991.

20. TSN, p. 7, Aug. 5, 1991.

21. TSN, p. 28, July 18, 1991.

22. TSN, p. 12, Aug. 5, 1991.

23. People v. Jubilog, 263 SCRA 604 (1996).

24. TSN, p. 7, July 18, 1991.

25. TSN, p. 7, July 16, 1991.

26. TSN, p. 46, July 18, 1991.

27. Id., pp. 11, 14, 16.

28. Petronilo Jacinto testified:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Q. So it was your instinct when you saw him you invite him in your house because he was alone in the restaurant. Is that correct?

A. That is it but when I went to buy ice and then I was going to call him there was already a trouble, sir.

Id., p. 18.

29. Id., pp. 31, 32.

30. TSN, p. 48, July 18, 1991.

31. Id., p. 33.

32. Id., p. 36.

33. Id., p. 24.

34. Id., p. 31.

35. Records, p. 7.

36. TSN, p. 46, July 18, 1991.

37. 129 SCRA 156, 160-161 (1984).

38. People v. Viray, 202 SCRA 320 (1991).

39. TSN, p. 16, Aug. 5, 1991.

40. Id., p. 17.

41. People v. Remorosa, 200 SCRA 350 (1991).




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-1999 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 99266 March 2, 1999 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117105 March 2, 1999 - TIMES TRANSIT CREDIT COOP. INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124320 March 2, 1999 - HEIRS OF GUIDO YAPTINCHAY, ET AL. v. ROY S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125138 March 2, 1999 - NICHOLAS Y. CERVANTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125683 March 2, 1999 - EDEN BALLATAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126134 March 2, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JOVEN DE LA CUESTA

  • G.R. No. 131047 March 2, 1999 - TOYOTA AUTOPARTS, PHILS., INC. v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1178 March 3, 1999 - COMELEC v. BUCO R. DATU-IMAN

  • A.M. No. P-94-1107 March 3, 1999 - CARMELINA CENIZA-GUEVARRA v. CELERINA R. MAGBANUA

  • G.R. No. 93090 March 3, 1999 - ROMEO CABELLAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127575 March 3, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONORIO CANTERE

  • G.R. No. 127801 March 3, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMUEL YU VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 130347 March 3, 1999 - ABELARDO VALARAO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134096 March 3, 1999 - JOSEPH PETER S. SISON v. COMELEC

  • A.M. No. P-99-1286 March 4, 1999 - CONCEPCION L. JEREZ v. ARTURO A. PANINSURO

  • G.R. No. 108027 March 4, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISTINA M. HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 111676 March 4, 1999 - SILVINA TORRES VDA. DE CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117213 March 4, 1999 - ARMANDO DE GUZMAN v. MARIANO ONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122539 March 4, 1999 - JESUS V. TIOMICO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123936 March 4, 1999 - RONALD SORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132648 March 4, 1999 - GSIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133563 March 4, 1999 - BRIDGET BONENG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 123792 March 8, 1999 - MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125537 March 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JOSE MAGLANTAY

  • A.C. CBD No. 167 March 9, 1999 - PRUDENCIO S. PENTICOSTES v. DIOSDADO S. IBAÑEZ

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-99-1175 March 9, 1999 - VICTORINO CRUZ v. REYNOLD Q. YANEZA

  • G.R. No. 108532 March 9, 1999 - PABLITO TANEO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115741 March 9, 1999 - HEIRS OF JOAQUIN ASUNCION v. MARGARITO GERVACIO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121587 March 9, 1999 - SOLEDAD DY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126123 March 9, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO PLATILLA

  • G.R. No. 128721 March 9, 1999 - CRISMINA GARMENTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-94-1106 March 10, 1999 - ADALIA B. FRANCISCO v. ROLANDO G. LEYVA

  • Adm. Matters No. RTJ-98-1423 March 10, 1999 - ROMAN CAGATIN, ET AL. v. LEONARDO N. DEMECILLO

  • G.R. No. 95815 March 10, 1999 - SERVANDO MANGAHAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120163 March 10, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATUKON BANSIL

  • G.R. No. 120971 March 10, 1999 - TAGGAT INDUSTRIES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123426 March 10, 1999 - NAT’L. FEDERATION OF LABOR v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA

  • G.R. No. 126874 March 10, 1999 - GSIS v. ANTONIO P. OLISA

  • G.R. No. 127123 March 10, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH LAKINDANUM

  • G.R. No. 129442 March 10, 1999 - FEDERICO PALLADA, ET AL. v. RTC OF KALIBO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129824 March 10, 1999 - DE PAUL/KING PHILIP CUSTOMS TAILOR, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1293 March 11, 1999 - EMILIO DILAN, ET AL. v. JUAN R. DULFO

  • G.R. No. 95326 March 11, 1999 - ROMEO P. BUSUEGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106518 March 11, 1999 - ABS-CBN SUPERVISORS EMPLOYEES UNION MEMBERS v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108440-42 March 11, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 109721 March 11, 1999 - FELIX A. SAJOT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109979 March 11, 1999 - RICARDO C. SILVERIO, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119157 March 11, 1999 - GOLDEN THREAD KNITTING INDUSTRIES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125590 March 11, 1999 - BIOMIE S. OCHAGABIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127004 March 11, 1999 - NAT’L. STEEL CORP. v. RTC OF LANAO DEL NORTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127663 March 11, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 132250 March 11, 1999 - ROSALIA P. SALVA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 123982 March 15, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO K. JOYNO

  • G.R. No. 134188 March 15, 1999 - NUR G. JAAFAR v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61508 March 17, 1999 - CITIBANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111704 March 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 115693 March 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVERIANO BOTONA

  • G.R. No. 119347 March 17, 1999 - EULALIA RUSSELL, ET AL. v. AUGUSTINE A. VESTIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120751 March 17, 1999 - PHIMCO INDUSTRIES v. JOSE BRILLANTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125311 March 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ONYOT MAHINAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129695 March 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO TABONES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130380 March 17, 1999 - HEIRS OF GAUDENCIO BLANCAFLOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115006 March 18, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 119756 March 18, 1999 - FORTUNE EXPRESS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127542 March 18, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHENG HO CHUA

  • G.R. No. 128682 March 18, 1999 - JOAQUIN T. SERVIDAD v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 97-6-182-RTC March 19, 1999 - RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN RTC, BRANCH 68

  • G.R. No. 96262 March 22, 1999 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. EMBROIDERY AND GARMENTS INDUSTRIES (PHIL.)

  • G.R. No. 116738 March 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO DOMOGOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126286 March 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER VAYNACO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126714 March 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MARCELO

  • G.R. No. 127523 March 22, 1999 - LEONCIA ALIPOON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1296 March 25, 1999 - DANIEL CRUZ v. CLERK OF COURT, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1297 March 25, 1999 - LUDIVINA MARISGA-MAGBANUA v. EMILIO T. VILLAMAR V

  • G.R. No. 96740 March 25, 1999 - VIRGINIA P. SARMIENTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103953 March 25, 1999 - SAMAHANG MAGBUBUKID NG KAPDULA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112088 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALDO ALMADEN

  • G.R. Nos. 116741-43 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN MONTEFALCON

  • G.R. No. 117154 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO A. BORROMEO

  • G.R. No. 119172 March 25, 1999 - BELEN C. FIGUERRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120505 March 25, 1999 - AIUP, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122966-67 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR S. ALOJADO

  • G.R. No. 123160 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS BATION

  • G.R. No. 124300 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENANTE ROBLES

  • G.R. No. 125053 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHRISTOPHER CAÑA LEONOR

  • G.R. Nos. 126183 & 129221 March 25, 1999 - LUZVIMINDA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126916 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLINO BACONG MANAGAYTAY

  • G.R. No 127373 March 25, 1999 - ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127662 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO V. ERIBAL

  • G.R. No. 127708 March 25, 1999 - CITY GOVERNMENT OF SAN PABLO, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO V. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128386 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUDITO ALQUIZALAS

  • G.R. No. 130491 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO MENGOTE

  • G.R. No. 130872 March 25, 1999 - FRANCISCO M. LECAROZ, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131108 March 25, 1999 - ASIAN ALCOHOL CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132980 March 25, 1999 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GLADYS C. LABRADOR

  • G.R. No. 133107 March 25, 1999 - RCBC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-96-1082 & 98-10-135-MCTC March 29, 1999 - MARCELO CUEVA v. OLIVER T. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. P-94-1015 March 29, 1999 - JASMIN MAGUAD, ET AL. v. NICOLAS DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93291 March 29, 1999 - SULPICIO LINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113150 March 29, 1999 - HENRY TANCHAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122827 March 29, 1999 - LIDUVINO M. MILLARES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125129 March 29, 1999 - JOSEPH H. REYES v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 129058 March 29, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO SEVILLENO

  • G.R. No. 131124 March 29, 1999 - OSMUNDO G. UMALI v. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123540 March 30, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN AYO