Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1999 > October 1999 Decisions > G.R. No. 124298 October 11, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN RONATO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 124298. October 11, 1999.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RUBEN RONATO, JONATHAN RONATO and VILMO RONATO, Accused.

RUBEN RONATO, Accused-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N


PUNO, J.:


Accused-appellant Ruben Ronato, alias "Virgo", appeals the decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, finding him guilty of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the victim’s heirs in the amount of P50,000.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

In an information 2 dated August 13, 1992, Accused-appellant, together with his brothers Jonathan Ronato and Delmo Ronato 3 were charged with murder committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on 15 May 1991 at about 3:30 o’clock in the afternoon at Tampocon I Ayungon, Negros Oriental, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court accused Ruben Ronato with intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation did then and there willfully (sic), unlawfully and feloniously assault and shot Luduvico 4 Romano with the use of a firearm with which the said Ruben Ronatowas then armed and provided (sic) hitting the said victim on a vital part of his body inflicting upon the latter fatal injury which caused his death soon thereafter; and knowing the criminal design of Ruben Ronato, the other accused, namely; Vilmo Ronato and Jonathan Ronato concur (sic) with the said Ruben Ronato in killing the said victim by cooperating in the execution of the crime of murder with previous and simultaneous acts, i.e., by drawing their respective firearms with which said accused were then armed and provided, thereby supplying the said Ruben Ronato material or moral aid in the execution of the crime, aforesaid, in an efficacious way and said acts were directly related to those acts attributed to the said Ruben Ronato.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Contrary to article 248 in relation to Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code."cralaw virtua1aw library

The three pleaded guilty when arraigned and trial ensued.

The prosecution tried to establish that on May 15, 1991, at about 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, it being the fiesta of Ayungon, Negros Oriental, the victim Ludovico Romano and his wife Melecia were selling tuba in a makeshift hut, several meters away from the highway. Melecia sat on a bench, while Ludovico squatted on the ground, waiting for customers to arrive. Suddenly, a shot was fired. Melecia hid herself in an irrigation canal while Ludovico stood up and tried to find out where the shot came from. When another shot was fired, Melecia shouted for Ludovico to duck. Ludovico then stood an arm’s length away from the highway. It was too late, Melecia saw accused-appellant Ruben Ronato shoot Ludovico. She was four (4) arms’ length away from Ruben Ronato. His brothers, Jonathan and Delmo, were standing beside him. She saw Pompia and Edilberto Ronato pull the three away and commanded them to run. While the Ronatos were fleeing, she approached Ludovico and found out he was hit. 5 Santiago Romano, who happened to be passing by, was three (3) arms’ length away from Ruben Ronato when he saw him aim his gun and shoot Ludovico. He helped Melecia bring Ludivico to Bindoy District Hospital, but later transferred him to Negros Oriental Provincial Hospital for surgery. 6 Ludovico sustained one fatal gunshot would which penetrated his left lung and abdominal cavity. 7 Two days later, he died. 8

To supply the motive for the shooting , Melecia testified that there was along standing grudge between the Ronatos and the Romanos involving a piece of land owned by the latter. Cresencio Ronato, Edilberto’s brother and demanded possession of the land, the Ronatos refused. On March 3, 1991, Cresencio was killed. The Ronatos blamed Ludivico for the killing. 9

On cross-examination, the defense tried to discredit Melecia’s testimony by showing that she could not have possibly seen the person who shot Ludovico since she hid herself in a carnal which was one (1) foot deep. 10 The defense also tried to discredit the testimony of Santiago Romano who is first cousin of the victim. 11

When the defense presented its case, it claimed that it was Eduardo Ronato and not Ruben Ronato who shot Ludovico. According to the defense, on May 15, 1991, at about 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, the spouses in the afternoon, the spouses Pompia and Edilberto Ronato, their two (2) sons Ruben and Jovone 12 and Eduardo, the son of Cresencio were walking along the highway on their way home after spending the morning at the fiesta fair. They were walking on file: Ruben and Edilberto led the group, followed by Eudardo, then by Pompia and the five (5) year old Jovone. When they neared the makeshift hut of the Romanos, Ludovico sprang on Pompia and tried to stab her. The rest of the Ronatos ran away. Edilberto and Ruben tried to grab Jovone while Pompia escaped and sought refuge in the house of a certain Rogelio Abella. While Pompia was running, she heard two (2) gun shots, but did not look back to see who fired them. It was already 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon when she reached their house. That evening, they found out that Eduardo was in jail for shooting Ludovico. On the witness stand, Pompia stated that the Romanos were angry at her because she was an eyewitness in the stabbing of Cresencio by Ludovico. She denied that Jonathan and Delmo were with them when the shooting happened. 13

For his part, Edilberto testified that when Ludovico lunged for his wife, he tried to grab Jovone who was left behind. He then saw Eduardo aiming his gun at Ludovico. 14 He did not see what happened later for he was running away from the place. He denied that Ruben was carrying a gun during the incident and that Jonathan and Delmo were with them. On cross-examination, he admitted that he felt bad because his brother Cresencio was stabbed to death by Ludovico. However, he denied harboring ill-feelings against Ludovico. They have decided to leave the matter to the Municipal Trial Court of Bindoy where they filed a criminal complaint against Ludovico. 15

To bolster the story that it was really Eduardo who shot Ludovico, the defense presented Police Officer 2 Devey Romblon. He testified that on May 15, 1991, at 6:35 p.m., he was on duty at the Philippine National Police (PNP) Station of Ayungon when he recorded the following information in the logbook 16 :jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Entry 113. On this time and date, Mr. Eduardo Ronato y Guardario, 20 years of age, single, laborer of Lacson’s Prawn Pond of Talisay, Bacolod City, and a resident of Sitio Punglo, Gomentoc, Ayungon, Negros Oriental, voluntarily surrendered to this PNP Station. This is in connection of (sic) the shooting incident [which] happened at the junction of Tampocon I and Maaslum Road. He is escorted by the barangay tanod of Barangay Anibong of this municipality in the name of Mr. Pedro Gorgonio and he bring (sic) his snub nose .38 revolver Smith and Wesson five-shot homemade w/o serial number and four empty shells. For further investigation." 17

At that time, he was the only policeman inside the station since it was the town fiesta. Eduardo gave him a .38 caliber revolver 18 with four (4) empty shells 19 . On cross-examination, PO2 Romblon stated that Eduardo did not admit that he was the one who shot Ludovico. 20

SPO4 Ebenezer Fabillar, the Chief of Police of the PNP Ayungon, testified that on May 15, 1991, at 6:00 o’clock in the evening, he read the station’s logbook and learned that a certain Ludovico Romano was shot in Tampocon I. He designated several policemen to conduct an investigation. When the investigation was concluded, they made a verbal report to him that it was not Eduardo Ronato who shot Ludovico. On May 25, 1991, he ordered the release of Eduardo. 21

SPO2 Miguelito Garcia testified that he was not able to investigate Eduardo Ronato despite the advice of Chief of Police Ebenezer Fabillar. He was only able to investigate the witnesses for the prosecution who informed him that it was Ruben Ronato who shot Ludovico. They did not mention Eduardo Ronato as a suspect. 22

When accused-appellant Ruben took the witness stand, he claimed that he, together with his mother and father, brother Jovone and cousin Eduardo were on their way home when they passed by Ludovico who was squatting by the roadside. Suddenly, he heard his mother shout for help. When he looked back, he saw Ludovico chasing his mother with a hunting knife. He then saw Eduardo shoot Ludovico. He and his father held his brother Jovone and his father told him to go home. The three (3) of them reached their house safely. Shortly after, his mother arrived. He belied the Romano’s claim that he was the one who shot Ludovico. He claimed that Melecia did not like them for his mother was an eyewitness in the stabbing of Cresencio by Ludovico. 23 On cross-examination, he stated that when Ludovico was trying to stab his mother, he was unable to help her since Ludovico was a big man. He just stood by and held his little brother Jovone. His father was also unable to help because "Ludovico was so mad at that time" and "we were not armed." 24

When trial concluded, the court a quo found Ruben Ronato guilty of murder, but acquitted his brothers Jonathan and Delmo for insufficiency of evidence. Hence, this appeal where accused-appellant assigns the following errors committed by the trial court:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

I


THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

II


THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH QUALIFIED THE KILLING TO MURDER, GRANTING THAT HEREIN ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS THE PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME CHARGED.

We find accused-appellant guilty of murder.

The prosecution established with certainty the identity and culpability of Accused-Appellant. Melecia Romano and Santiago Romano testified that it was accused-appellant whom they saw shoot Ludovico Romano. Melecia being four (4) arms’ length and Santiago, three (3) arms’ length away from him, which distances are reasonable to make an accurate identification. Furthermore, they are familiar with the accused-appellant having lived in the same place with him. Accused-appellant tried to discredit the testimony of these two (2) eyewitnesses by saying that Melecia was the wife while Santiago was the first cousin of the victim. But mere relationship of the witness to the victim does not necessarily impair credibility. 25 This Court is well aware that not too infrequently crimes are committed with just the relatives of the victim as witnesses. 26 It will be a miscarriage of justice to disbelieve the two (2) eyewitnesses in this case simply because of relationship. More than anyone else, the victim’s relatives have a great interest in helping prosecute the real offender and have him put to jail. 27 Moreover, Accused-appellant failed to impute any ill-motive for these eyewitnesses to testify against him.

Accused-appellant points to his cousin Eduardo as the real culprit and questions why the police did not investigate and file charges against him. But, as testified to by the police officers, Eduardo did not admit that he was the one who shot the victim. He confided to the police officers that he was only forced by accused-appellant to surrender the gun to the police officers. These findings are bolstered by the fact that Melecia and Santiago Romano did not mention the name of Eduardo as the one who shot Ludovico when their initial statements were taken by the police.

Accused-appellant also contends that there were other people passing by who could have testified to the shooting, yet, the prosecution only presented the relatives of the victim. It is well-settled that "it is the prosecution which determines who among the witnesses to a crime should testify in court. The prosecutor handling the case is given a wide discretion on this matter. It is definitely not for the courts, much more the defense to dictate what evidence to present or who should take the witness stand." 28

The trial court convicted accused-appellant of murder appreciating abuse of superior strength as qualifying circumstance. However, a cursory reading of the information against accused-appellant shows that abuse of superior strength was not alleged therein. An accused must be informed of the cause and the nature of the accusation against him. Since abuse of superior strength qualifies the crime to murder, Accused-appellant should have been apprised of this fact from the beginning to prepare for his defense. Be that as it may, we find the accused-appellant guilty of murder qualified by treachery. Treachery was alleged in the information and proven during the course of the trial. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, without the slightest provocation on the part of the person attacked. 29 There is treachery when the attack on the victim was made without giving the latter warning of any kind and thus rendering him unable to defend himself from an assailant’s unexpected attack. 30

In People v. Javier 31 , the defense asked this Court to discount the fact that the attack on the victim was executed treacherously considering that the victim "would have been able to see the approach of his would-be attackers." In refusing to do so we reasoned that "while a victim may have been warned of possible danger to his person, in treachery, what is decisive is that the attack was executed in such a manner as to make it impossible for the victim to retaliate." The case at bar presents a similar scenario, for while the victim might have been able to look around after the first and second shots were fired by accused-appellant, still he had no opportunity to defend himself. In fact, he had no inkling that he was the target of the shooting. As testified to by Melecia, the victim was "squatting on the ground" in their makeshift hut when the shooting started. The victim stood up to find out what was happening. On the third time, Accused-appellant shot him point blank and in a helpless position.

Finally, the defense contends that it was Eduardo who had a motive to kill Ludovico, since the latter stabbed Eduardo’s father to death. However, motive is only crucial if there is no positive identification of the offender. The positive identification of .accused-appellant is weightier than his bare denial.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, we find accused-appellant Ruben Ronato guilty of murder qualified by treachery. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.00. Costs against Accused-Appellant.

SO ORDERED.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

Pardo and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Davide, Jr., C.J. and Kapunan, J., on official business abroad.

Endnotes:



1. Penned by Judge Teopisto L. Culampano, dated November 20, 1995.

2. Rollo, p. 19.

3. Cited as Delmo in the Decision and the Records, but Vilmo in the information.

4. Sometimes referred to in the Records as Ludovico and Lodivico.

5. TSN, September 1, 1993, pp. 2-9.

6. TSN, September 20, 1993, pp. 4-6.

7. TSN, September 24, 1993, p. 5.

8. Death Certificate, "Exhibit "B", Original Record, p. 9.

9. Supra note 5, p. 10.

10. Id, pp. 11-12.

11. Supra note 6, p. 9.

12. Also cited as Joebon in the TSN.

13. TSN, October 6, 1993, pp. 3-9.

14. TSN, November 4, 1993, pp. 4-13.

15. Id, p. 15.

16. TSN, November 8, 1993, p. 3.

17. Exhibit "1", Original Record, pp. 208-209.

18. Exhibit "2" .

19. Exhibit "2-a" .

20. Supra note 16, pp 4-6.

21. TSN, November 11, 1993, pp. 7-23; the verbal order of release was recorded in Entry 194 of the station’s logbook marked as Exhibit "3" .

22. TSN, February 24, 1994, pp. 3-10.

23. Id, pp. 14-23.

24. Id, p. 26.

25. People v. Dianos, G.R. No. 119311, October 7, 1998; People v. Turingan, 282 SCRA 424 [1997].

26. Id.

27. People v. Salvador, 279 SCRA 164 [1997].

28. Id, p. 241.

29. People v. Lapay, G.R. No, 123072, October 14 1998.

30. People v. Hayahay, 279 SCRA 567 [1997]; People v. Felix, G.R. No. 126914, October 1, 1998; People v. Navarro, G.R. No. 129566, October 7, 1998.

31. 269 SCRA 181 [1997].chanrobles.com:cralaw:red




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-1999 Jurisprudence                 

  • Bar Matter No. 914 October 1, 1999 - RE: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR v. VICENTE D. CHING

  • G.R. No. 89662 October 1, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO VILLABLANCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 89700-22 October 1, 1999 - AURELIO M. DE LA PEÑA, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107737 October 1, 1999 - JUAN L. PEREZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 120681-83 & 128136 October 1, 1999 - JEJOMAR C. BINAY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126269 October 1, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REGINO MARCELINO ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127777 October 1, 1999 - PETRONILA C. TUPAZ v. BENEDICTO B. ULEP

  • G.R. No. 132058 October 1, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN NARIDO

  • G.R. No. 132137 October 1, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR PADAMA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1487 October 4, 1999 - PEDRO G. PERALTA v. ALFREDO A. CAJIGAL

  • G.R. No. 121939 October 4, 1999 - SPOUSES ROMAN & AMELITA T. CRUZ, ET AL. v. SPOUSES ALFREDO & MELBA TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128813 October 4, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YAMASITO VERGEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132991 October 4, 1999 - RODOLFO MUNZON, ET AL. v. INSURANCE SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT AGENCY

  • A.M. No. 98-12-381-RTC October 5, 1999 - REQUEST OF JUDGE IRMA ZITA V. MASAMAYOR

  • G.R. No. 63145 October 5, 1999 - SULPICIA VENTURA v. FRANCIS J. MILITANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115719-26 October 5, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENE YABUT

  • G.R. Nos. 119418 & 119436-37 October 5, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN CARATAY

  • A.M. No. 98-1-11-RTC October 7, 1999 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN RTC

  • G.R. No. 103515 October 7, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN SUELTO Y CORDETA

  • G.R. No. 120641 October 7, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIE FLORO

  • G.R. No. 125272 October 7, 1999 - CANDIDO AMIL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131283 October 7, 1999 - OSCAR C. FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106314-15 October 8, 1999 - HEIRS OF PEDRO CABAIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 107132 & 108472 October 8, 1999 - MAXIMA HEMEDES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111743 October 8, 1999 - VISITACION GABELO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112483 October 8, 1999 - ELOY IMPERIAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118624 October 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON ORTIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114937 October 11, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE APELADO

  • G.R. No. 124298 October 11, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN RONATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94432 October 12, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO LACHICA

  • G.R. No. 101188 October 12, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLINAR RAGANAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117925 October 12, 1999 - TENSOREX INDUSTRIAL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118498 & 124377 October 12, 1999 - FILIPINAS SYNTHETIC FIBER CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123031 October 12, 1999 - CEBU INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124262 October 12, 1999 - TOMAS CLAUDIO MEMORIAL COLLEGE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128805 October 12, 1999 - MA. IMELDA ARGEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133913 October 12, 1999 - JOSE MANUEL STILIANOPULOS v. CITY OF LEGASPI

  • G.R. No. 83466 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ELIZALDE CULALA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-98-1424 October 13, 1999 - ROMULO G. MADREDIJO, ET AL. v. LEANDRO T. LOYAO, JR.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1496 October 13, 1999 - EDESIO ADAO v. JUDGE CELSO F. LORENZO

  • G.R. No. 102305 October 13, 1999 - FRANCISCO G. ZARATE AND CORAZON TIROL-ZARATE v. RTC OF KALIBO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102675 October 13, 1999 - HENRY C. SEVESES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103606 October 13, 1999 - RELIGIOUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109963 October 13, 1999 - HEIRS OF JOAQUIN TEVES: RICARDO TEVES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111737 October 13, 1999 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112370 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIZA CLEMENTE

  • G.R. No. 113899 October 13, 1999 - GREAT PACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115470 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO MANEGDEG

  • G.R. No. 115821 October 13, 1999 - JESUS T. DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116220 October 13, 1999 - SPOUSES ROY PO LAM, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116233 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. RENATO GAILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125534 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125763 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMMANUEL PANIQUE

  • G.R. No. 128754 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO D. LANGRES

  • G.R. No. 130202 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS ERICK CLEMENTE

  • G.R. Nos. 130411-14 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO BELLO

  • G.R. No. 130784 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO AGUINALDO

  • G.R. No. 130961 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOBBY AGUNOS

  • G.R. No. 133491 October 13, 1999 - ALEXANDER G. ASUNCION v. EDUARDO B. EVANGELISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133993 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO GABALLO

  • G.R. No. 134311 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ELEUTERIO COSTELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 97652-53 October 19, 1999 - JOSE H. RUTAQUIO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106029 & 105770 October 19, 1999 - BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106467-68 October 19, 1999 - DOLORES LIGAYA DE MESA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1216 October 20, 1999 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. LEONARDO F. QUIÑANOLA and RUBEN B. ALBAYTAR

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1500 October 20, 1999 - VICTORIANO B. CARUAL v. VLADIMIR B. BRUSOLA

  • G.R. No. 109073 October 20, 1999 - EDUARDO BALAGTAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 125307-09 October 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROQUE CELIS

  • G.R. No. 130187 October 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT MOTOS

  • G.R. No. 132564 October 20, 1999 - SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132715 October 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR TABION

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1206 October 22, 1999 - NORTHCASTLE PROPERTIES and ESTATE CORP. v. ESTRELLITA M. PAAS

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1229 October 22, 1999 - ROSARIO GARCIA v. PIO PASIA

  • A.M. RTJ-99-1430 October 22, 1999 - NARCISO G. BRAVO v. RICARDO M. MERDEGIA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1499 October 22, 1999 - GIL RAMON O. MARTIN v. ELEUTERIO F. GUERRERO

  • G.R. No. 75908 October 22, 1999 - FEDERICO O. BORROMEO v. AMANCIO SUN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100353 October 22, 1999 - PNCC v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106052 October 22, 1999 - PLANTERS PRODUCTS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106770 October 22, 1999 - JOHNNY K. LIMA, ET AL. v. TRANSWAY SALES CORP., ET AL

  • G.R. No. 110994 October 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENCIANO MARAMARA

  • G.R. No. 125964 October 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ELEUTERIO GUARIN

  • G.R. No. 130708 October 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO ARIZALA

  • G.R. No. 134622 October 22, 1999 - AMININ L. ABUBAKAR v. AURORA A. ABUBAKAR

  • G.R. No. 130140 October 25, 1999 - PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131755 October 25, 1999 - MOVERS-BASECO INTEGRATED PORT SERVICES v. CYBORG LEASING CORP.

  • Adm. Case Nos. 3066 & 4438 October 26, 1999 - J.K. MERCADO AND SONS AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES v. EDUARDO DE VERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65416 October 26, 1999 - CARLOMAGNO A. CRUCILLO, ET AL v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107800 October 26, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLY PARANZO

  • G.R. No. 108846 October 26, 1999 - MOOMBA MINING EXPLORATION CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110111 October 26, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO GARIGADI

  • G.R. No. 111042 October 26, 1999 - AVELINO LAMBO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112090 October 26, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLINAR LAZARO

  • G.R. No. 113708 October 26, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARQUILLOS TABUSO

  • G.R. No. 114087 October 26, 1999 - PLANTERS ASSN. OF SOUTHERN NEGROS INC. v. BERNARDO T. PONFERRADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118381 October 26, 1999 - T & C DEV’T. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121483 October 26, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMANO MANLAPAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128531 October 26, 1999 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130439 October 26, 1999 - PHIL. VETERANS BANK v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131483 October 26, 1999 - Tai Lim v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133619 October 26, 1999 - JOSE B. TIONGCO v. MARCIANA Q. DEGUMA

  • G.R. No. 134194 October 26, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILSON BATOON

  • G.R. No. 128870 October 27, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO ESPIRITU

  • G.R. Nos. 129968-69 October 27, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO DE LABAJAN

  • G.R. No. 108174 October 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENCIANO CANAGURAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120852 October 28, 1999 - BENJAMIN D. OBRA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123071 October 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERONICO M. LOBINO

  • G.R. No. 125214 October 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELPIDIO HERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126955 October 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO TIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133944 October 28, 1999 - MARCITA MAMBA PEREZ v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1316 October 29, 1999 - KENNETH S. NEELAND v. ILDEFONSO M. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1505 October 29, 1999 - ARSENIA T. BERGONIA v. ALICIA B. GONZALEZ-DECANO

  • G.R. Nos. 100342-44 October 29, 1999 - RURAL BANK OF ALAMINOS EMPLOYEES UNION (RBAEU), ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106102 October 29, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO SARABIA

  • G.R. No. 109355 October 29, 1999 - SERAFIN MODINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121344 October 29, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO ALTABANO, ET AL.