Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2000 > October 2000 Decisions > G.R. No. 129380 October 19, 2000.

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO BALTAZAR:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 129380. October 19, 2000.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BONIFACIO BALTAZAR, Accused-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N


BELLOSILLO, J.:


BONIFACIO BALTAZAR was grazing his carabao outside the cemetery of Bgy. Kaingin, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija, around seven o’clock in the morning of Christmas Day 1992. When it started to rain he went inside the cemetery to seek shelter. As he entered, he smelled a foul odor which he thought was coming from one of the mausoleums. He immediately went to the house of Bgy. Capt. Anastacio Rigdaus to report the matter; however the barangay captain was not there. Baltazar was able to see him only the following day. Bgy. Capt. Rigdaus then summoned two (2) of his tanods and told them to proceed to the cemetery to investigate the report. The tanods eventually found the body of a young girl already in a state of decomposition, later identified to be that of seven (7)-year old Gladys Joy Marcos who had been missing since 11 December 1992.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

On 1 August 1994, or two (2) years later, Bonifacio Baltazar was charged with murder for the killing of seven (7)-year old Gladys Joy Marcos in an Information which alleged that about 11 December 1992, at around five o’clock in the afternoon, he willfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, cruelty, use of superior strength, employing means to weaken the defense or to insure impunity, hit her head with a hard object resulting in her instantaneous death. 1

Roberto Marcos, father of Gladys Joy, testified that his daughter had been missing since 11 December 1992 and was found dead on 26 December 1992 inside the cemetery in Bgy. Kaingin, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija. Subsequently, the accused Bonifacio Baltazar, a neighbor living some five (5) houses away, became a suspect in the killing of Roberto’s daughter.

Alejandro Briones, whose house was just fifty (50) meters away from that of the accused, testified that in the afternoon of 11 December 1992 while he was on his way home from his onion plantation he passed by the accused Bonifacio Baltazar and Gladys Joy Marcos walking hand in hand near the cemetery.

That much, unfortunately, was the evidence for the prosecution.

The accused denied participation in the perpetration of the crime. He claimed that he never left his house on 11 December 1992 and was in fact playing tong-its 2 with his neighbors.

Bgy. Capt. Anastacio Rigdaus testified that it was the accused who reported to him the stench supposed to be coming from one of the tombs in the cemetery. He also said that he saw the accused attend the wake of the victim.

Rodrigo Lucero, a public school teacher, testified that on 11 December 1992 he and his companions were at the cemetery constructing a tomb for one of his relatives, and that on that day he saw a person enter the cemetery but could not identify him as the person of the accused.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Mercy Mercado whose house was near the cemetery testified that between 4:00 o’clock and 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of 11 December 1992 Gladys Joy bought some snack items from her store. She was riding on a bicycle with a male companion in his 20’s.

On the basis of the very scanty evidence herein narrated, the court a quo on 28 March 1997 found the accused guilty of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of Gladys Joy Marcos P50,000.00 for her death, P50,000.00 for moral damages, and to pay the costs. 3

Quite obviously, the trial court convicted the accused of murder based on circumstantial evidence. It thus ratiocinated -

It is true that no witness testified that it was the accused who had in fact killed the victim. However, Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: a) There is more than one circumstance; b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and c) The combination of all the circumstances are such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution brought to fore the following circumstances which purportedly prove that the accused is the culprit, to wit: 1. That the accused was seen with the victim in the town cemetery at around 5:00 o’clock of December 11, 1992 and immediately before she disappeared . . . . 2. That the victim was missing thereafter . . . . 3. That the victim was found dead in the very town cemetery and near the place where she and the accused were seen . . . . 4. That the accused left and was never seen anymore in the town after the discovery of the body of the victim on December 26, 1992 . . . 5. That the accused has not visited nor condoled with the family during the wake of his neighbor . . . .

There are other circumstances which the Court notes (in) proving the guilt of the accused. For one, while the accused claims he was at the wake of the victim for three (3) hours . . . there was no witness to corroborate his presence. On the other hand, Roberto Marcos, the victim’s father, as well as witness Francisco Flores, testified that they never saw the accused at the wake . . . . This casts serious doubt as to the credibility of the accused’s alibi, especially when considered in the light of the fact that he should have readily been noticed at the wake, being the person who first reported the existence of a dead body to the authorities. It is likewise strange that the accused, as he himself admitted, never attempted to talk to the victim’s relatives.

Clearly, for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence to prosper, the prosecution must establish more than one circumstance indubitably linking the accused to the commission of the crime. Likewise, the facts from which the inferences are derived are proved and that the combination of all these circumstances must produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. This is not so in the instant case.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Strictly speaking, the prosecution presented in evidence only one (1) circumstance linking, albeit indirectly, Accused-appellant to the crime, i.e., that he was seen walking hand in hand with the victim outside the cemetery in the afternoon of 11 December 1992 immediately before the latter’s disappearance. As to the fact that accused-appellant left Bongabon immediately after knowing that he was being suspected of having killed Gladys Joy, it only remained a mere supposition on the part of the prosecution. Other than the testimonies of Alejandro Briones and Roberto Marcos to the effect that they had not seen the accused-appellant after 26 December 1992, no other evidence was presented to prove their claim that indeed he had already left Bongabon.

On the contrary, their testimonies were belied by the fact that when the warrant of arrest was issued against accused-appellant, it was stated therein that the latter could be found at his residence in Bgy. Kaingin, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija. In fact, after the warrant of arrest was served, Accused-appellant was found and apprehended in no time at all at his stated address. If indeed he was in hiding as intimated by the prosecution, then the apprehending officers would have encountered difficulty in finding him. Also, it is not true that accused-appellant was not at the wake of the victim. On this fact, Bgy. Capt. Rigdaus corroborated the testimony of accused-appellant that he was at the wake of the victim.

For a conviction based on circumstantial evidence to stand, it is imperative that there be a confluence of circumstances. These circumstances which are proved must constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. 4 We find that the web of circumstances adverted to above does not constitute an unbroken chain that would fairly lead to the conclusion that it was accused-appellant who killed the victim. In short, the circumstances laid by the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. There were lapses in the ruling of the court below.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

First, it declared that "Briones clearly and categorically identified the accused as the one who took the victim to the cemetery immediately before the latter was killed or reported missing." This is misleading. Nowhere in the testimonies of Briones could be found that it was accused-appellant who brought the victim into the cemetery. He only testified that he passed by the victim and accused-appellant who were walking towards the cemetery. In fact, upon further clarification, Briones did not even know where accused-appellant and the victim went after he passed them by.

Second, it was error on the part of the court below to state that "while the accused claims he was at the wake of the victim for three hours . . . there was no witness to corroborate his presence. On the other hand, Roberto Marcos . . . as well as witness Francisco Flores, testified that they never saw the accused at the wake." As culled from the records, Bgy. Capt. Rigdaus corroborated the testimony of accused-appellant that he attended the wake of the victim. Likewise, the records revealed that Flores did not testify that he did not see accused-appellant at the wake of the victim. In fact, he never mentioned the wake of the victim at all. All he said was that accused-appellant did not attend the burial of Gladys Joy. Plainly, wake and burial are two different things. Besides, Flores would have been incompetent to conclude that accused-appellant did not attend the wake as Flores himself was not present at the wake all of the time. It was possible then that accused-appellant was there during the time when Flores was absent. Moreover, it was understandable and not unusual for accused-appellant not to talk to or approach the parents of Gladys Joy during the vigil. As explained by accused-appellant, he was not personally acquainted with the Marcoses but, just the same, he went to the wake as was customary for a neighbor in their place.cralaw : red

Third, the trial court convicted accused-appellant based mainly on the testimony of Briones. The court a quo stated thus: "A perusal of the records shows that perhaps the most important evidence in the prosecution’s favor is the testimony of Alejandro Briones . . . . The fact that witness Rodrigo Lucero saw a person (enter the cemetery) who was not the accused does not prove that the categorical identification of Alejandro Briones pointing to the accused as the person seen with the victim is false. In the first place, the Court noted the demeanor of Alejandro Briones at the witness stand who testified in all candor." But a closer scrutiny of the records would reveal that Briones was not really straightforward in his testimony. In fact, at one instance, the hearing of the case was reset due to the confusion manifested by Briones. The minutes of the hearing held on 7 November 1994 is quite revealing. It stated —

When the case was called for hearing, the Public Prosecutor conducted his direct examination of prosecution witness Alejandro Briones. However, due to an apparent state of confusion manifested by the witness as noticed by the Court and Cross-Examining Counsel, the continuation of the cross examination of the witness Alejandro Briones is hereby reset . . . . 5

In criminal prosecutions, the identity of the offender must be established. 6 In the instant case, the prosecution endeavored to demonstrate that accused-appellant was the assailant by showing that he was the last person seen in the company of the victim immediately before she disappeared. Nonetheless, based on the quantum of evidence required in criminal cases, the evidence presented by the prosecution would not constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of Accused-Appellant. It cannot be made to rest on mere speculations or even probabilities. 7 It is not sufficient for conviction that the evidence establishes a strong suspicion or even a probability of guilt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime is required.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

At all times an accused is presumed innocent unless proved otherwise. The onus is on the State to dispose of this presumption. In the case before us, we find that the prosecution miserably failed to discharge its burden. Although accused-appellant proffered only denial and alibi as defenses, still, the evidence presented by the prosecution was weaker, and could not prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence.

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Br. 40, of Palayan City in Crim. Case No. 0534 - P is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Bonifacio Baltazar is ACQUITTED on insufficiency of evidence or on reasonable doubt.

The Director of Prisons is DIRECTED to forthwith cause the release of Bonifacio Baltazar unless the latter is held for another lawful cause and to inform this Court accordingly within ten (10) days on the action taken hereon.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Information; Rollo, p. 10.

2. A card game.

3. Decision penned by Judge Erlinda Pestaño Buted, RTC-Br. 40, Palayan City, p. 18; Rollo, p. 126.

4. People v. Ragundiaz, G.R. No. 124977, 22 June 2000.

5. Original Records, p. 59.

6. People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 130188, 27 April 2000.

7. People v. De Los Santos, G.R. No. 126998, 14 September 1999, 314 SCRA 303.




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-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 108552 October 2, 2000 - ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST v. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109305 October 2, 2000 - INSURANCE SERVICES and COMMERCIAL TRADERS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121182 October 2, 2000 - VICTORIO ESPERAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121408 October 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO DECILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122733 October 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SASAN BARIQUIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123130 October 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR MIRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129211 October 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129315 October 2, 2000 - OSIAS I. CORPORAL, SR., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138584 October 2, 2000 - MARIA VICTORIA CANO-GUTIERREZ v. HERMINIO A. GUTIERREZ

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1213 October 2, 2000 - FRANK LAWRENCE A. CARIÑO v. JONATHAN S. BITENG

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1469 October 2, 2000 - JULIUS N. RABOCA v. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1263 October 3, 2000 - EDUARDO MA. QUINTERO, ET AL. v. RODOLFO C. RAMOS

  • A.M. No. P-00-1430 October 3, 2000 - ATTY. JOSEPHINE MUTIA-HAGAD v. IGNACIO DENILA

  • G.R. No. 106873 October 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119794 October 3, 2000 - TOMAS SEE TUAZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125005 October 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO CABILES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126881 October 3, 2000 - HEIRS OF TAN ENG KEE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130547 October 3, 2000 - LEAH ALESNA REYES, ET AL. v. SISTERS OF MERCY HOSPITAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138544 October 3, 2000 - SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. RODOLFO M. CUENCA

  • G.R. No. 140823 October 3, 2000 - MELVYN U. CALVAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. OCA-00-03 October 4, 2000 - LIWAYWAY G. BANIQUED v. EXEQUIEL C. ROJAS

  • A.M. No. P-99-1285 October 4, 2000 - TERESITA REYES-DOMINGO v. BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

  • G.R. No. 127405 October 4, 2000 - MARJORIE TOCAO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128559 & 130911 October 4, 2000 - SEC. OF EDUC., CULTURE AND SPORTS, ET AL VS. COURT OF APPEALS; ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129371 October 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO SANTIAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132633 October 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO GEMOYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 134480-82 October 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MAGTRAYO

  • G.R. No. 137798 October 4, 2000 - LUCIA R. SINGSON v. CALTEX (PHILS.)

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1296 October 5, 2000 - ALBERT R. SORDAN v. ROLANDO B. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. Nos. 115251-52 October 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN O. DEE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111904 October 5, 2000 - AGRIPINO GESTOPA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129532 October 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE HILOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130613 October 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131942 October 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO BAWANG

  • G.R. No. 133904 October 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO DELA CUESTA

  • G.R. Nos. 134143-47 October 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO CATUBIG, JR.

  • G.R. No. 139592 October 5, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112792-93 October 6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL TAGUBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119602 October 6, 2000 - WILDVALLEY SHIPPING CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133448-53 October 6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSELINDO CUTAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136781, 136786 & 136795 October 6, 2000 - VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108615 October 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NILO VEDRA

  • G.R. No. 125468 October 9, 2000 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILS. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128110-11 October 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE UBALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128121 & 128993 October 9, 2000 - PHIL. CREOSOTING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138979 October 9, 2000 - ERNESTO BUNYE v. LOURDES AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140904 October 9, 2000 - RENE S. ONG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 00-2-27-MTCC October 10, 2000 - EDELITO I. ALFONSO. MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC)

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1247 October 10, 2000 - CHARLES N. UY v. NELIDA S. MEDINA

  • G.R. No. 128002 October 10, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO BONITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132168 October 10, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSELITO LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 133511 October 10, 2000 - WILLIAM G. PADOLINA, ET AL. v. OFELIA D. FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 138570, 138572, 138587, 138680 & 138698 October 10, 2000 - BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) ET AL. v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RONALDO ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109143 October 11, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO G. TALIMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109853 October 11, 2000 - PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE v. C A

  • G.R. No. 120897 October 11, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEVERO DAYUHA

  • G.R. No. 130177 October 11, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN BARRAMEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139020 October 11, 2000 - PAQUITO BUAYA v. STRONGHOLD INSURANCE CO.

  • A.M. No. 00-1395 October 12, 2000 - FRANCIA MERILO-BEDURAL v. OSCAR EDROSO

  • G.R. No. 97913 October 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO CARROZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106634 October 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NINOY MALBOG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119832 October 12, 2000 - RAYMUNDO TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122047 October 12, 2000 - SERAFIN SI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122451 October 12, 2000 - CAGAYAN ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127130 October 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO M. EBIAS

  • G.R. No. 127316 October 12, 2000 - LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY v. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 00-1-48-RTC October 12, 2000 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE RTC-BRANCH 20

  • G.R. No. 137378 October 12, 2000 - PHIL. ALUMINUM WHEELS v. FASGI ENTERPRISES

  • G.R. No. 138596 October 12, 2000 - FIDELIS ARAMBULO v. HILARION LAQUI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139524 October 12, 2000 - PHILIP C. SANTOS, ET AL. v. LADISLAO M. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135695-96 October 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS TUNDAG

  • G.R. No. 120077 October 13, 2000 - MANILA HOTEL CORP. ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120350 October 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE YAMBOT

  • G.R. No. 120546 October 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO OPERAÑA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 120787 October 13, 2000 - CARMELITA G. ABRAJANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123147 October 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH MANENG

  • G.R. No. 123176 October 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR RAFAEL

  • G.R. No. 128230 October 13, 2000 - ROCKWELL PERFECTO GOHU v. ALBERTO GOHU, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 134628-30 October 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO ARVES

  • G.R. No. 137269 October 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MULLER BALDINO

  • G.R. No. 140825 October 13, 2000 - CIPRIANO CENTENO, ET AL. v. IGNACIA CENTENO

  • G.R. No. 115813 October 16, 2000 - EDUARDO FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120367 October 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO BARRETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120697 October 16, 2000 - STA. LUCIA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121971 October 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLINARIO PERALTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129892 October 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO BARRO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 130610 October 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSELITO BALTAZAR

  • G.R. No. 132071 October 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL DE GUZMAN

  • A.M. No. CA-99-30 October 16, 2000 - UNITED BF HOMEOWNERS v. ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1234 October 16, 2000 - JESUS G. CHAVEZ v. PANCRACIO N. ESCAÑAN

  • A.M. RTJ 00-1593 October 16, 2000 - JAIME MORTA, SR. v. JOSE S. SAÑEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131518 October 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO R. ARELLANO

  • G.R. No. 134761 October 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUINALDO CATUIRAN, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 136003-04 October 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLITO A. ADAJIO

  • G.R. No. 138113 October 17, 2000 - EMILIO BUGATTI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138516-17 October 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMMA DELA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139465 October 17, 2000 - SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. RALPH C. LANTION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140453 October 17, 2000 - TRANSFARM & CO., INC. ET AL. v. DAEWOO CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 98-3-119-RTC October 18, 2000 - JUDICIAL AUDIT REPORT

  • A.C. No. 5333 October 18, 2000 - ROSA YAP PARAS v. JUSTO DE JESUS PARAS

  • G.R. No. 114028 October 18, 2000 - SALVADOR SEBASTIAN, SR. v. FRANCIS E. GARCHITORENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116417 October 18, 2000 - ALBERTO MAGLASANG, JR. v. MERCEDES GOZO DADOLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121994 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS.. v. ANGELES TEVES

  • G.R. No. 123545 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODELO PALIJON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127846 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO G. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 127851 October 18, 2000 - CORONA INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128134 October 18, 2000 - FE D. LAYSA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 128703 October 18, 2000 - TEODORO BAÑAS, ET AL. v. ASIA PACIFIC FINANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 129573 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO DIMAPILIS

  • G.R. No. 130590 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RANILLO PONCE HERMOSO

  • G.R. No. 131144 October 18, 2000 - NOEL ADVINCULA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131280 October 18, 2000 - PEPE CATACUTAN, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF NORMAN KADUSALE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135517 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMELITO BRONDIAL

  • G.R. No. 136393 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADIO ITDANG

  • G.R. No. 138842 October 18, 2000 - NATIVIDAD P. NAZARENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140942 October 18, 2000 - BENIGNO M. SALVADOR v. JORGE Z. ORTOLL

  • A.M. No. P-00-1432 October 19, 2000 - JOSE C. SARMIENTO v. ROMULO C. VICTORIA

  • G.R. No. 119002 October 19, 2000 - INTERNATIONAL EXPRESS TRAVEL & TOUR SERVICES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129380 October 19, 2000.

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO BALTAZAR

  • G.R. No. 133696 October 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR CALlWAN

  • G.R. No. 135337 October 19, 2000 - CITY OF OLONGAPO v. STALLHOLDERS OF THE EAST BAJAC-BAJAC PUBLIC MARKET, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135527 October 19, 2000 - GEMINIANO DE OCAMPO, ET AL. v. FEDERICO ARLOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135699-700 & 139103 October 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR CLADO

  • G.R. No. 135775 October 19, 2000 - EMERENCIANO ESPINOSA, ET AL. v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136490 October 19, 2000 - BRENDA B. MARCOS v. WILSON G. MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 112924 October 20, 2000 - EDUARDO P. BALANAY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120539 October 20, 2000 - LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO v. MONINA A. ZENOROSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120931 October 20, 2000 - TAG FIBERS, INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129651 October 20, 2000 - FRANK UY and UNIFISH PACKING CORPORATION v. BIR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131141 October 20, 2000 - VICTORINA MOTUS PEÑAVERDE v. MARIANO PEÑAVERDE

  • G.R. No. 131541 October 20, 2000 - THERMOCHEM INC., ET AL. v. LEONORA NAVAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131806 October 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIBERATO CABIGTING

  • G.R. No. 132677 October 20, 2000 - ISABELA COLLEGES v. HEIRS OF NIEVES TOLENTINO-RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 136252 October 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO L. FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 117949 October 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX BANTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121438 October 23, 2000 - FELIX UY CHUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128127 October 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO BRIONES

  • G.R. No. 125692 October 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GADFRE TIANSON

  • G.R. No. 132428 October 24, 2000 - GEORGE YAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136142 October 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO DATOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136456 October 24, 2000 - HEIRS OF RAMON DURANO, ET AL. v. ANGELES SEPULVEDA UY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138938 October 24, 2000 - CELESTINO VIVERO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143325 October 24, 2000 - RAUL SANTOS v. JOSE P. MARIANO; ET AL.

  • A.M. Nos. MTJ-97-1132 & MTJ-97-1133 October 24, 2000 - MARIO CACAYOREN v. HILARION A. SULLER, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1396 October 24, 2000 - ROBERTO R. IGNACIO v. RODOLFO PAYUMO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1595 October 24, 2000 - LUZ CADAUAN, ET AL. v. ARTEMIO R. ALIVIA

  • A.M. Nos. RTJ-99-1484 (A) & RTJ 99-1484 October 24, 2000 - JOSELITO RALLOS, ET AL. v. IRENEO LEE GAKO JR.

  • G.R. No. 125542 October 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERLINDO TALO

  • G.R. No. 126135 October 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO OCFEMIA

  • G.R. No. 128114 October 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER P. CANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134768 October 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO SARMIENTO

  • G.R. No. 143398 October 25, 2000 - RUPERTO A. AMBIL, JR v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134581 October 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN N. DEL ROSARIO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1330 October 27, 2000 - ELIZABETH ALEJANDRO, ET AL. v. SERGIO A. PLAN

  • G.R. No. 135551 October 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMPIE C. TARAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118608 October 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ULYSSES CAPINPIN

  • G.R. No. 126126 October 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALES SABADAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132783 October 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS C. LAGUERTA

  • G.R. No. 132784 October 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONILO VILLARBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136185 October 30, 2000 - EDUARDO P. LUCAS v. MAXIMO C. ROYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137557 October 30, 2000 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138826 October 30, 2000 - PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.