Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2010 > July 2010 Decisions > [G.R. No. 182793 : July 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DIONISIO CALONGE Y VERANA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. :




THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 182793 : July 05, 2010]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DIONISIO CALONGE Y VERANA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N


VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

For review is the Decision[1] dated November 29, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01516 which affirmed with modification the Joint Decision[2] dated August 10, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 27 in Criminal Case Nos. 4077-4080 finding the above-named accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of parricide and frustrated parricide.

The facts as culled from the records:

Rosita A. Calonge was appellant's legitimate wife, with whom he had three (3) children, namely: Melody, Dony Rose and Kimberly whose respective ages at the time of the incident were nine (9), seven (7) and six (6) years.[3]  The family lived in a four (4) by five (5) meters house at a farm land near the house of Rosita's parents at Barangay Cabuluan, Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya.

On December 1, 2001 at around 6:00 o'clock in the morning, the Villaverde Police Station received a radio call from the barangay captain of Cabuluan that a massacre took place in their locality.  By 7:30 a.m., the responding team led by PO3 Alfelmer Balut arrived at the area.   Rosita's bloodied body was found lying on the ground about fifteen (15) meters away from their house.  Her right hand was loosely clasping a knife.  Lying on his back near the stairs was appellant who was also wounded but still conscious.  Beside him were a bolo and a flashlight, both stained with blood.   While the windows of the house were locked with a piece of tie wire, the door was already opened, its metal lock was found three (3) to five (5) meters from the door and seven (7) to ten (10) meters from the body of Rosita.  Inside the two (2) "bedrooms" of the house separated only by a curtain, they found the lifeless bodies of the two (2) young girls, Kimberly and Dony Rose. The other child, Melody, was also bloodied but alive and conscious. They brought Melody to the Veterans Regional Hospital where she was treated and confined for seventeen (17) days.[4]

Police investigators found no signs of struggle or forcible entry as the things inside the house were not disarranged.  Photographs of the three (3) dead victims (Rosita, Dony Rose and Kimberly) were also taken at the crime scene.  When interviewed by the policemen, Melody's grandmother, Ana O. Amlag, said that Melody told her it was their father (appellant) who attacked her, her mother and her sisters.  Melody's grandparents said they knew it was appellant because they had heard Rosita shouting that appellant will kill them.  On the other hand, when appellant was asked what happened and who attacked him, he answered he does not know.  Appellant asked to be treated also and they brought him to the hospital.[5]

While still in the hospital, Melody, assisted by her first cousin Ana Fe Huang, gave her statement to the police.  She identified her father, who had a quarrel with her mother the previous night, as the one (1) who hacked her and also fatally stabbed her mother and two (2) sisters.[6]

On January 17, 2002, appellant was charged with parricide and frustrated parricide under the following Informations:

Criminal Case No. 4077

That on December 01, 2001 in the morning, at Barangay Cabuluan, Municipality of Villaverde, Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, evident premeditation, treachery and superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with the use of a bladed/pointed object, stab ROSITA CALONGE y AMLAG, legal wife of the accused, thus inflicting upon the latter mortal wound which caused her instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of her heirs.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]

Criminal Case No. 4078

That on December 01, 2001 in the morning, at Barangay Cabuluan, Municipality of Villaverde, Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, evident premeditation, treachery and superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with the use of a bladed/pointed object, hack KIMBERLY CALONGE y AMLAG, 06 years old, daughter of the accused, thus inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds which caused her instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of her heirs.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[8]

Criminal Case No. 4079

That on December 01, 2001 in the morning, at Barangay Cabuluan, Municipality of Villaverde, Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, evident premeditation, treachery and superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with the use of a bladed/pointed object, stab DONY ROSE CALONGE y AMLAG, 07 years old, daughter of the accused, thus inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds which caused her instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of her heirs.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[9]

Criminal Case No. 4080

That on December 01, 2001 in the morning, at Barangay Cabuluan, Municipality of Villaverde, Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, evident premeditation, treachery and superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with the use of a bladed object, hack Melody Calonge y Amlag, 09 years old, daughter of the accused, thus inflicting upon the latter fatal wounds and performing all the acts of execution which should have produced the crime of Parricide as a consequence, but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused, that is, the timely medical attendance given which prevented the victim's death, but nevertheless resulted to her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[10]

When arraigned, appellant pleaded not guilty.  During the trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses PO3 Alfelmer Balut, Dr. Telesforo A. Ragpa (Municipal Health Officer), Lourdes Amlag, Dr. Lirio Marie Ronduen-Adriatico and Melody A. Calonge.

The sole witness for the defense was appellant who gave a different version of the incident. According to appellant, he came home on the night of November 30, 2001 at around 6:00 o'clock. After taking coffee, he took supper with his family.  At about 8:30 p.m., he put Kimberly to sleep while his wife together with Dony Rose was in the kitchen preparing for their food the following morning because they will go to church.  He could not remember what time he fell asleep but when he woke up in the morning, he was no longer in their house but in a hospital.  Only then he realized that he was wounded on the chest and neck. He tried to inquire from people in the hospital what happened but no voice came out of his mouth.  He does not know who caused his injuries as he could not recall anything that transpired from the time he slept until the morning of December 1, 2001.  Appellant denied that he and his wife quarrelled the previous night. What he knows is that his wife had a quarrel with spouses Manong Sante and Manang Paula, as the latter who is the sister of his wife did not want them to stay in the place.[11]  On cross-examination, appellant claimed that the doors of the house were still open at that time because somebody else was still using the kitchen.  He denied that he sharpened his bolo that same night, as in fact all his carpentry tools were placed in their kitchen.  As to his flashlight, appellant insisted it was his wife who was using it that night but he admitted that it was already placed very near the door where he had put Kimberly to sleep.  He actually placed his bolo, flashlight and those other items in a shelf just four (4) meters away from where he slept.[12]

On August 18, 2005, the trial court promulgated its Joint Decision dated August 10, 2005 convicting appellant of the crimes charged, the fallo of which reads:

WHEREFORE, finding the accused Dionisio Calonge y Verana GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of parricide and one count of frustrated parricide, he is hereby sentenced as follows: (1) for the killing of Kimberly Calonge and Dony Rose Calonge, the said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer death penalty by lethal injection for each case; to pay the heirs of the said victims, the sums of P75,000.00 for each case as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages; and to pay the heirs actual damages in the sum of P21,255.00 for the death of Kimberly, Dony Rose and Rosita A. Calonge; (2) for the killing of Rosita Calonge, the said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; and to pay the heirs of Rosita the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages; (3) for the crime of frustrated parricide for wounding Melody Calonge, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as the minimum term to 20 years of [reclusion temporal[13]] as the maximum term; to pay the victim moral damages in the sum of P25,000.00; exemplary damages in the sum of P20,000.00 and P11,015.00 as actual damages.

SO ORDERED.[14]

On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court's judgment but modified the death penalty imposed on appellant in Criminal Case Nos. 4078 and 4079 (parricide committed against Kimberly and Dony Rose) by reducing it to reclusion perpetua.[15]  Appellant filed a notice of appeal[16] and accordingly the records of the case were elevated to this Court.

On August 11, 2008, the Court resolved to require the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired.[17]  In a Manifestation dated October 29, 2008, the Public Attorney's Office, representing the appellant, informed the Court that it would no longer file a supplemental brief; it was adopting its main brief on record.[18]  The Office of the Solicitor General, representing the People, likewise omitted to submit a supplemental brief.[19]

Appellant seeks the reversal of his conviction by the RTC and CA on the following grounds:

I.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS MELODY CALONGE DESPITE ITS EVIDENT CONTRADICTIONS AND APPARENT UNREALITY.

II.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[20]

Appellant contends that the trial court overlooked the following inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of Melody: (1) the alleged misunderstanding between her parents prior to December 1, 2001, which she first denied but changed it during a subsequent hearing when she claimed her parents had a quarrel before the stabbing incident occurred, (2) the time of such quarrel for which she gave three (3) different answers (8:00 to 9:00 p.m. of November 30, 2001; 2:00 early morning of December 1, 2001; and 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. of November 30, 2001),  and (3) whether it was Melody or her mother who was first hacked by her father. These inconsistent statements of the alleged eyewitness engender doubt as to their reliability and veracity.

Appellant further argues that Melody's identification of appellant as the perpetrator of the crimes remained uncorroborated.  The failure to present such other alleged witnesses (her grandparents) was not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution.  He assails Melody's testimony as highly incredible.  While Melody claimed that she saw appellant hacked and stabbed her sisters, the fact is that, during that time, according to her, she was sleeping together with her mother in another room inside their house. Moreover, it was impossible for Melody to have seen that the person who killed her mother and two (2) sisters was appellant when in fact, according to her, there was no light inside their room when the incident happened.  Clearly, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving the identity of the offender.

We disagree.

It is plain that the errors imputed to the trial court are factual and chiefly assail its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses.  The doctrinal rule is that findings of fact made by the trial court, which had the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses and to determine the probative value of the other testimonies are entitled to great weight and respect because the trial court is in a better position to assess the same, an opportunity not equally open to the appellate court.[21]  We find no cogent reason to deviate from the findings and conclusions of the RTC and CA in this case.

It was established from prosecution evidence that the lone survivor Melody saw appellant using his bolo and knife, struck at her mother who was able to evade it and run outside the house.  Appellant then turned to Melody, and hacked her three (3) times before stabbing Dony Rose and Kimberly who were both still sleeping.  After finishing off his family, appellant inflicted his lone superficial wound before lying down on the floor, apparently to avoid suspicion that he was himself the culprit and create an impression that a trespasser had attacked all of them in the night.   Melody vividly recounted to the court what she had witnessed while pretending to be still asleep even after she was hacked by appellant.

Melody's account was corroborated by the findings of prosecution witnesses Dr. Ragpa (who conducted the autopsy on the bodies of the three [3] victims) and Dr. Ronduen-Adriatico (who examined and treated Melody).   Dr. Ragpa testified that Rosita sustained only a single stab wound on the chest.  He explained that the width of such wound, 2 ¬Ĺ inches, was caused by a single upward thrust and pulling out of the bladed instrument.  The six (6)-inch deep wound hit the lower tip of the heart and resected the pulmonary vessels.  For Rosita, the cause of death was hypovolemic shock due to resected pulmonary blood vessels.  As for Kimberly, she sustained a hacking wound on the left axilla (armpit), probably inflicted in a lying position, which cut the head of the left humerus and resecting the axillary blood vessels. Kimberly also died from hypovolemic shock due to injured/resected left axillary blood vessels.  Dony Rose had one (1) incised wound and one (1) stab wound on her chest, which penetrated the left ventricle of the heart.   She likewise died of hypovolemic shock due to penetrating stab wound on the chest.[22]  On the other hand, Dr. Ronduen-Adriatico testified that Melody sustained five (5) wounds and had three (3) amputations of the three (3) digits of her right hand. She found the wounds located at the left side of the head, lower lip, left side of the neck, left shoulder, chest and the third, fourth and fifth fingers.  Although the only fatal wound is that at the left side of the neck, the combination of all wounds would have caused the death of Melody had there been no timely medical assistance rendered on the patient.  The neck wound was a fatal injury (victim could have died in less than six [6] hours) because of its proximity to large blood vessels such as carotid and tubular vessels.[23]

We hold that the trial court did not err in finding Melody's testimony clear and unequivocal, despite her answers not being as complete as would be desired, considering her age and difficulty of translating the questions to her in the Ifugao dialect. Her account of the incident was consistent with the physical evidence, particularly the findings of Dr. Ragpa and Dr. Ronduen-Adriatico on the injuries sustained and cause of death of the victims as a result of the carnage wrought upon their family by appellant.

The inconsistencies mentioned by appellant relate only to minor details and not to the fact of the fatal stabbing of his wife and two (2) children in his own hands.  We have consistently ruled that not all inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimony affect their credibility. Inconsistencies on minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimonies. Thus, although there may be inconsistencies on the testimonies of witnesses on minor details, they do not impair credibility where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailants.[24]  Discrepancies referring only to minor details and collateral matters - not to the central fact of the crime - do not affect the veracity or detract from the essential credibility of a witness as long as it is coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole.[25]

It must be further stressed that during her testimony, Melody had to be assisted by an interpreter as she responded to the questions in the Ifugao dialect.  Besides, ample margin of error and understanding should be accorded to young witnesses who, much more than adults, would be gripped with tension due to the novelty of the experience of testifying before a court.[26]  Despite the language barrier, Melody remained categorical and steadfast in declaring that it was her very own father, appellant, who hacked her, her mother and her younger sisters using his bolo and knife in the early morning of December 1, 2001 at their house.   Thus, she testified during the direct examination:

PROS. TURINGAN:
Q.
Do you recall of any incident at that evening that is relevant to this case involving the killing of your sister Dony Rose, Kimberly, your mother and the fact that you were wounded?
A.
Yes, there was sir.

Q.
What was that incident that you recall Melody?
A.
He hacked us, sir.

Q.
Who hacked you?
A.
My papa, sir.

COURT:
Q.
Do you know the full name of your papa or nickname?
A.
Yes, sir I know.

Q.
What is the full name of your papa?
A.
Dionisio Calonge, sir.

 

x x x x

PROS. TURINGAN:
Q.
What did your father use in hacking you Melody?
A.
The knife and the bolo, sir.
x x x x
PROS. TURINGAN:
These bolo and knife, how are they related to the bolo and knife used by your father in hacking you, your sister and your mother?
A.
He stabbed and then he hacked, sir.

Q.
By the way, these bolo and knife, do you know who own these bolo and knife?
A.
Yes, sir.

Q.
Who own these bolo and knife Melody?
A.
My father sir.

Q.
How are these knife and bolo related to the bolo and knife used by your father in hacking your sister, yourself and your mother?
A.
He used that bolo in hacking and stabbing my mother and my sister, sir.

Q.
Who was hacked first by your father Melody?
A.
I, sir.

Q.
After hacking [you] Melody. . .By the way, what part of your body was hacked by your father?
A.
This one, sir. (Witness showing to the Court the three fingers that were cut from the middle finger up to the small finger of the left arm and also below the shoulder of the left arm).

Q.
Where else, Melody?
A.
(Witness showing to the Court the scar located at the left side of her lower lip and also at the back of her left ear).

Q.
After your father Melody hacked you, what happened next?
A.
My mother, sir.

COURT:
Q.
What was done to your mother?
A.
He stabbed her, sir.

PROS. TURINGAN:
Q.
And after he stabbed your mother, what did your father do next Melody?
A.
He returned back and used the bolo in hacking me three times, sir.

Q.
After that, what happened next Melody?
A.
Next, sir my father used the bolo in stabbing my sister's armpit and used in hacking her abdomen.

Q.
Which of these bolo and knife did he use in hacking and stabbing your sister?
ATTY. TABAGO:
Who? Sister?
A.
Both, sir.

COURT:
Q.
Are you saying that your father was holding two weapons at the same time?
A.
Yes, sir.
Alright, go ahead.

PROS. TURINGAN:
Q.
After that what did your father do?
A.
He pretended to stab his body, his neck and his abdomen, sir.

Q.
What did your father use in stabbing and wounding himself?
A.
The bolo, sir.

Q.
You are referring to this Exh. "G"?
A.
Yes, sir.[27] [Emphasis supplied.]

CONTINUATION OF DIRECT

BY PROS. TURINGAN:
Q.
When was that again when your mother and your sisters were hacked and stabbed by your father?
A.
December 1, 2001, sir.

Q.
In the early morning of December 1, 2001 were there other persons in your house aside from you, your father, mother and your sisters?
A.
None, sir.

Q.
The weapons used by your father in hacking and stabbing you, your mother and your sisters, if you can see them could you be able to identify them?
A.
Yes, sir.

Q.
There are here a bolo and a knife Melody, can you please examine these bolo and knife and tell the Court if these are the same weapons used by your father in hacking and stabbing you, your mother and your sisters?
A.
Yes, sir.

Q.
Who owns these bolo and knife Melody?
A.
My father, sir.[28]

As to appellant's assertion that Melody could not have seen her father stab her two (2) sisters who slept on the other room since it was still dark inside the house, Melody (during cross-examination[29]) had described their "rooms" as not actually separated by walls.  She could thus see her two (2) sisters and appellant from where she was sleeping.[30]  The policemen who investigated the crime scene also found that the partition was just a curtain.[31]   Melody slept beside her mother while her sisters were beside their father on the other "room."[32]  And while indeed it was still dark when appellant started hacking his wife and daughters, Melody had sufficient illumination provided by the flashlight used by appellant.  This was mentioned by Melody in the later part of her direct examination:
 
Q.
Please tell the Court how you were able to see your father hacked and stabbed you, your mother and sisters?
A.
(No answer yet)

COURT:
Q.
x x x Why don't you start with where was she at the time the hacking and stabbing took place?

PROSECUTOR:
We withdraw that, your Honor. Aside from these bolo and knife Melody, was your father holding any other things?
A.
Yes, sir.

Q.
What was that Melody?
A.
Flashlight, sir.

Q.
Can you identify that flashlight it (sic) [if] you can see it Melody?
A.
Yes, sir.

Q.
There is here a flashlight marked as Exhibit "I". Can you please examine this flashlight and tell the Honorable Court if it is the same flashlight you mentioned?
A.
Yes, sir.

Q.
Who owns this flashlight Melody?
A.
My father, sir.
x x x x[33]

Q.
div align="justify">Could you please tell the Court how this flashlight was being held by your father?
A.
He put in his head the flashlight, sir.

Q.
Can you demonstrate how he placed in his head Melody?
A.
(Witness demonstrating how he placed the flashlight at the left side of her head with the use of a rubber tied on the flashlight).[34] [emphasis supplied.]

On cross-examination, Melody fixed the time of the incident at 4:00 in the morning when she woke up to prepare food.  However, she went back to bed because she knew that appellant was already awake. Her mother and sisters were still asleep.  Appellant then started hacking, first her mother, who evaded the blow and was able to run outside to seek help from her grandmother and aunt.  Returning to Melody, appellant hit her three (3) times before following her mother outside.[35]  At this point, Melody also recalled that her parents quarrelled on the night of November 30, 2001. Before they went to sleep, she saw her father sharpening his bolo.  When she asked appellant what he was doing, he replied that he will kill Uncle Santy and his family.  Melody said that she pretended to be still asleep when she woke up the next morning because she had seen appellant placed that bolo under his pillow.  As to the exact time the quarrel took place, it can be gleaned from the transcript of stenographic notes that Melody initially could not estimate with reference to the night before they slept, but she eventually declared that her parents quarrelled from 6:00 o'clock until 7:00 o'clock in the evening of November 30, 2001.[36]

Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of accused.[37] The key element in parricide is the relationship of the offender with the victim.[38]   All the elements of the crime were clearly and sufficiently proved by the prosecution.

Even granting arguendo that Melody did not see the actual stabbing of her mother and two (2) sisters, the attendant circumstances point to no one else but the appellant as the perpetrator.  Direct evidence of the actual killing is not indispensable for convicting an accused when circumstantial evidence can sufficiently establish his guilt.  The oft-repeated rule has been that circumstantial evidence is adequate for conviction if there is more than one circumstance, the facts from which the inferences are derived have been proven and the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[39]   While no general rule can be laid down as to the quantity of circumstantial evidence which will suffice in a given case, all the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.  The circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to only one fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of all others, is the guilty person.[40]

As correctly found by the CA, the following circumstances taken together established without doubt that it was appellant who inflicted fatal wounds on Rosita, Melody, Dony Rose and Kimberly inside their house early morning of December 1, 2001:  (1) after having a quarrel with Rosita the previous night, appellant was seen by Melody sharpening his bolo which he later hid under his pillow; (2) the bolo, knife and flashlight used in the hacking of the victims belong to appellant, and which were found in his possession when policemen arrived at the scene; (3) the medical findings showed that the victims' injuries were caused by sharp and bladed instruments; (4) there were no sign of forcible entry as the things inside the house were not disarranged; (5) the only persons inside the house were appellant, Rosita and their three children who slept in adjacent rooms separated only by a curtain; (6) the only house near appellant's house was that of his parents-in-law; (7) Rosita was heard by her relatives shouting for help before their bodies were discovered; (8) appellant sustained only superficial wounds and was found conscious by the policemen; (9) appellant could not explain or say anything about how and when he and the victims were injured;  and (10)  Melody saw her father initially strike at her mother before the latter ran outside the house, and then stab her also five (5) times.

Appellant simply raises the defense of denial, which is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification[41] made by Melody that he was the one (1) who hacked her, her mother and her sisters.   Moreover, an affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness,[42] as in this case, the child of the assailant who survived his murderous rampage.

Under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 5 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7659, the penalty for parricide is composed of two (2) indivisible penalties, reclusion perpetua to death.

In the killing of Dony Rose and Kimberly, the trial court was correct in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of treachery. There is treachery when the attack is so sudden and unexpected that the victim had no opportunity either to avert the attack or to defend himself.[43]  Indeed, nothing can be more sudden and unexpected than when a father stabs to death his two (2) young daughters while they were sound asleep and totally defenseless. Thus, for the parricide committed against both Dony Rose and Kimberly, appellant was properly meted the death penalty in Criminal Case Nos. 4079 and 4078.  Since the killings were committed in 2001, the trial court was correct in imposing upon appellant the supreme penalty of death.  In view, however, of the passage and effectivity of R.A. No. 9346 on June 24, 2006, proscribing the imposition of the capital punishment, the CA correctly modified the imposable penalty on appellant to reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, in line with Sections 2 and 3 of the said law.[44]

SEC. 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:

(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or

(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.

SEC. 3. Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not  be  eligible for  parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.  (Underscoring supplied.)

As to the killing of Rosita, neither treachery nor evident premeditation was present considering that she was able to parry the first thrust of appellant and ran away outside the house, and there is no evidence proving that appellant determined to commit the crime even as Melody recounted that she saw his father sharpening his bolo before they slept the previous night.  Evident premeditation needs proof of the time when the intent to commit the crime is engendered in the mind of the accused, the motive which gives rise to it, and the means which are beforehand selected to carry out that intent. All such facts and antecedents which make notorious the pre-existing design to accomplish the criminal purpose must be proven to the satisfaction of the court.[45]  There is paucity of evidence as to the time, motive and the means chosen by appellant to carry out the intent to kill his entire family.  There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the trial court was correct in sentencing appellant to the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua[46] in Criminal Case No. 4077.

On the civil indemnity awarded by the trial court in the amount of P75,000.00 each and another P50,000.00 each as moral damages, for the deaths of Dony Rose and Kimberly, the Court sustains the same.   Likewise, the heirs of Rosita are entitled to civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and another P50,000.00 as moral damages.

With regard to the frustrated felony, Article 250 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides that -

ART. 250. Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder, or homicide. - The courts, in view of the facts of the case, may impose upon the person guilty of the frustrated crime of parricide,  murder or homicide, defined and penalized in the preceding articles, a penalty lower by one degree than that which should be imposed under the provisions of Article 50.

The courts, considering the facts of the case, may likewise reduce by one degree the penalty which under Article 51 should be imposed for an attempt to commit any of such crimes.

We therefore find the penalty imposed by the trial court proper and correct for this offense.

The trial court awarded Melody moral damages in the amount of P25,000.00, and another P20,000.00 as exemplary damages which are justified under Articles 2219 (1)  and 2229 of the Civil Code.  Further, under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code, exemplary damages are awarded to serve as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings, as vindication of undue suffering and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured person, and as punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.[47]

Melody is likewise entitled to the sum of P11,025.00 as cost of her treatment and hospitalization. Anent actual or compensatory damages, it bears stressing that only substantiated and proven expenses or those which appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake or burial of the victim will be recognized by the courts.[48]  Prosecution witness Lourdes Amlag testified that the family incurred expenses in connection with the funeral, wake and burial, totalling P21,255.00, as shown in  the itemized list submitted to the trial court.[49]

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated November 29, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01516 is hereby AFFIRMED. 

With costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio Morales, (Chairperson), Brion, Bersamin, and Abad,* JJ., concur.

Endnotes:


* Designated additional member per Special Order No. 843 dated May 17, 2010.

[1]   CA rollo, pp. 108-125.  Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Fernanda Lampas Peralta.

[2]   Records, pp. 252-265.  Penned by Judge Jose B. Rosales.

[3]   Exhibit "B" and Pre-Trial Order, records, pp. 15 and 93.

[4]   TSN, July 10, 2002, pp. 3-4, 7-13;  TSN, August 6, 2002,  pp. 1-2; TSN, September 11, 2002, pp. 4-6; TSN, October 9, 2002, pp. 5-9; Exhibits "O" and "Q", records, pp. 199-200.

[5]   Exhibits "P", "P-2" and "P-1", records, pp. 16, 41 and 60; TSN, August 6, 2002, pp. 1-4, 6-7, 10, 12.

[6]   Exhibit "G", records, p. 4; TSN, July 10, 2002, p. 13; TSN, August 6, 2002, pp. 7-8, 14-17.

[7]   Records, p. 1.

[8]   Id., p. 29.

[9]   Id., p. 49.

[10] Id., p. 68.

[11] TSN, February 23, 2005, pp. 4-7.

[12] Id., pp. 8-9, 11-12; TSN, February 24, 2005, pp. 2-3.

[13] As amended by Order dated September 5, 2005, records, p. 267.

[14] Id., p. 265.

[15] CA rollo, p. 125.

[16] Id., pp. 128-131.

[17] Rollo, p. 25.

[18] Id., pp. 28-31.

[19] Id., p. 33.

[20] CA rollo, p. 45.

[21]   People v. Villamor, G.R. Nos. 140407-08 & 141908-09, January 15, 2002, 373 SCRA 254, 265, citing  People v. Visaya, G.R. No. 136967, February 26, 2001, 352 SCRA 713, 725-726.

[22] Exhibits "I", "J" and "K", records, pp. 193-195; TSN, March 5, 2003, pp. 2-9.

[23] TSN, June 2, 2004, pp. 2-8.

[24] People v. Castro, G.R. No. 172370, October 6, 2008,  567 SCRA 586, 595-596, citing  People v. Bato, G.R. No. 134939, February 16, 2000, 325 SCRA 671, 677 and  People v. Valla, G.R. No. 111285, January 24, 2000, 323 SCRA 74, 82.

[25] People v. Suarez, G.R. Nos. 153573-76, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 333, 345.

[26] People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 116726, July 28, 1997, 276 SCRA 352, 357, citing  People v. Salazar, G.R. No. 84391, April 7, 1993, 221 SCRA 170, 177.

[27] TSN, March 6, 2003, pp. 18-23.

[28] TSN, July 9, 2003, pp. 2-3.

[29] TSN, September 17, 2003, p. 4.

[30] Id.

[31] TSN, October 9, 2002, p. 8.

[32] TSN, September 17, 2003, p. 3.

[33] TSN, July 9, 2003, pp. 3-4.

[34] TSN, July 16, 2003, pp. 2-3.

[35] TSN, July 17, 2003, pp. 5-6; TSN, September 17, 2003, pp. 6-9.

[36] TSN, September 17, 2003, pp. 11-13; TSN, September 18, 2003,  pp. 2-3; TSN, November 12, 2003,  pp. 2-7.

[37] LUIS B. REYES, The Revised Penal Code, 2006 Edition, Book II, p. 457.

[38] Id.;  People v. Malabago, G.R. No. 115686, December 2, 1996, 265 SCRA 198, 206.

[39] People v. Mactal,  G.R. No. 141187, April 28, 2003, 401 SCRA 612, 617-618, citing  People v. Abella, G.R. No. 127803, August 28, 2000, 339 SCRA 129; People v. Bago, G.R. No. 122290, April 6, 2000, 330 SCRA 115;  People v. Sa√Īez, G.R. No. 132512, December 15, 1999, 320 SCRA 805, 815;  People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 108180, February 8, 1994, 229 SCRA 754, 764; People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 92537, April 25, 1994, 231 SCRA 737 and People v. Retuta, G.R. No. 95758, August 2, 1994, 234 SCRA 645.

[40] People v. Castillo, G.R No. 172695, June 29, 2007, 526 SCRA 215, 221-222.

[41] People v. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 83326, May 27, 1997, 272 SCRA 615, 623.

[42] People v. Tumulak, G.R. No. 177299, November 28, 2007, 539 SCRA 296, 304.

[43] People v. Delima, Jr., G.R. No. 169869, July 12, 2007, 527 SCRA 526, 539, citing  Andrada v. People,  G.R. No. 135222, March 4, 2005, 452 SCRA 685, 695.

[44]  People v. Castro, supra note 24 at 607.

[45] People v. Torpio, G.R. No. 138984, June 4, 2004, 431 SCRA 9, 15-16, citing  People v. Recepcion, G.R. Nos. 141943-45, November 13, 2002, 391 SCRA 558, 590.

[46] See People v. Ayuman, G.R. No. 133436, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 248, 260.

[47] People v. Castro, supra note 24, at 609, citing  People v. Gandia, G.R. No. 175332, February 6, 2008, 544 SCRA 115, People v. Daleba, Jr., G.R. No. 168100, November 20, 2007, 537 SCRA 708.

[48] People v. Listerio, G.R. No. 122099, July 5, 2000, 335 SCRA 40, 66.

[49] Exhibits "L", "M" and "N", records, pp. 196-198; TSN, January 28, 2004, pp. 2-5.



Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





July-2010 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 176743 : July 28, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NELSON BALUNSAT Y BALUNSAT, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 147629 : July 28, 2010] JAKA INVESTMENTS CORPORATION,PETITIONER, VS.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 180543 : July 27, 2010] KILOSBAYAN FOUNDATION AND BANTAY KATARUNGAN FOUNDATION, AS REPRESENTED BY JOVITO R. SALONGA, PETITIONERS, VS. LEONCIO M. JANOLO, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH 264, PASIG CITY; GREGORY S. ONG, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, SANDIGANBAYAN; AND THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF SAN JUAN, METRO MANILA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. 2008-19-SC : July 27, 2010] RE: COMPLAINTS OF MRS. MILAGROS LEE AND SAMANTHA LEE AGAINST ATTY. GIL LUISITO R. CAPITO.

  • [G.R. No. 178621 : July 26, 2010] MIGUEL RUBIA, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, FOURTH DIVISION, CEBU CITY, COMMUNITY WATER AND SANITATION COOPERATIVE AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, RESPONDENTS,

  • [G.R. No. 186466 : July 26, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , APPELLEE, VS. CHRISTOPHER DESUYO Y BUEN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 176868 : July 26, 2010] SOLAR HARVEST, INC., PETITIONER, VS. DAVAO CORRUGATED CARTON CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 151246 : July 05, 2010] HEIRS OF THE LATE APOLINARIO FAMA (GABRIELA DE GUZMAN VDA. DE FAMA, MARIA FAMA-FLORENTIN, EMILIA FAMA-ESTEPA AND MARIA QUITO VDA. DE FAMA AND CHILDREN: VIRGILIO, ERNESTO, ROMEO, MANUEL, JR., AND CORAZON, ALL SURNARNED FAMA), PETITIONERS, VS. MELECIO GARAS, ROBERTO MENDEZ, JOSE PAROCHA, URBANA BAY-AN, BERNARDO DAO-OA, JUAN NANTES, TONY TORSO, FLORENTINA MORALES, FILOMENA TORIO, ARSENIO TORIO, VICTORTANO NANTES, PABLO ESTRADA, LORENZO BAY-AN, FILEMON MASLOG, PEDRO ASPIRAS, SINFROSO LANG-ES, ROBERTO DULAY, LUCAS ABAG, BINTOR LANG-ES, DIAN ANG MAPALO, PEDRO MAPALO, JOSE LANG-ES, CEFERINO ORIBELLO, AVELINO PIO, FLORENTINA NANTES, RODOLFO MORALES, MARCOS BACTADAN, BERNARDO ESTRADA, GREGORIO PIANO, ADRIANO BENTRES, EBANG NANTES, PATRICIO ESTOESTA, DOMINGO LANG-ES, MIGUEL MAPALO AND LAVIANA AGOJO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 160422 : July 05, 2010] MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), PETITIONER, VS. SPS. EDITO AND FELICIDAD CHUA, AND JOSEFINA PAQUEO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G. R. No. 39803 : July 02, 2010] MARIA PEREZ DE GUZMAN ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. MATILDE DE LEON ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

  • [A.C. No. 8390 [Formerly CBD 06-1641] : July 02, 2010] A-1 FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LAARNI N. VALERIO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 152266 : July 02, 2010] HEIRS OF PEDRO DE GUZMAN, PETITIONERS, VS. ANGELINA PERONA AND HEIRS OF ROSAURO DE GUZMAN; BATAAN DEVELOPMENT BANK; AND REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 151084 : July 02, 2010] PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNOR LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF AGUSTIN PATO, ADOLFO DEL VALLE BRUSAS AND ZENAIDA BRUSAS; TRIFONA FEDERIS, MAURICIO MEDIALDEA AND NELSON TONGCO; MARIANO DE LOS ANGELES; HEIRS OF MIGUEL PATO, ARACELI BARRAMEDA ACLAN AND PONCIANO IRAOLA; HEIRS OF CRESENCIA VDA. DE SAN JOAQUIN,* RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 148974 : July 02, 2010] OMC CARRIERS, INC. AND JERRY A◊ĀALUCAS Y PITALINO, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES ROBERTO C. NABUA AND ROSARIO T. NABUA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167218 : July 02, 2010] ERECTOR ADVERTISING SIGN GROUP, INC. AND ARCH. JIMMY C. AMOROTO, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 167824 : July 02, 2010] GERALDINE GAW GUY AND GRACE GUY CHEU, PETITIONERS, VS. ALVIN AGUSTIN T. IGNACIO, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 168622] GERALDINE GAW GUY AND GRACE GUY CHEU, PETITIONERS, VS. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, HON. MARICEL U. SALCEDO, MAYNARDO MARINAS, RICARDO CABOCHAN AND ELISEO EXCONDE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168627 : July 02, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. REYNALDO BAYON Y RAMOS, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 168495 : July 02, 2010] DANSART SECURITY FORCE & ALLIED SERVICES COMPANY AND DANILO A. SARTE, PETITIONERS, VS. JEAN O. BAGOY,* RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 168655 : July 02, 2010] J. CASIM CONSTRUCTION SUPPLIES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. REGISTRAR OF DEEDS OF LAS PI√ĎAS, RESPONDENT. INTESTATE ESTATE OF BRUNEO F. CASIM, (PURPORTED) INTERVENOR.

  • [G.R. No. 172102 : July 02, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HANOVER WORLWIDE TRADING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191938 : July 02, 2010] ABRAHAM KAHLIL B. MITRA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ANTONIO V. GONZALES, AND ORLANDO R. BALBON, JR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 164257 : July 05, 2010] SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. VICENTE B. SEMILLANO, NELSON MONDEJAR, JOVITO REMADA, ALILGILAN MULTI-PURPOSE COOP (AMPCO) AND MERLYN V. POLIDARIO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.C. No. 8096 : July 05, 2010] REY J. VARGAS AND EDUARDO A. PANES, JR., COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. MICHAEL A. IGNES, ATTY. LEONARD BUENTIPO MANN, ATTY. RODOLFO U. VIAJAR, JR., AND ATTY. JOHN RANGAL D. NADUA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 159097 : July 05, 2010] METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. RURAL BANK OF GERONA, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 164577 : July 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), VICTORINO A. BASCO, ROMEO S. DAVID, AND ROGELIO L. LUIS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 164402 : July 05, 2010] ASUNCION URIETA VDA. DE AGUILAR, REPRESENTED BY ORLANDO U. AGUILAR, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES EDERLINA B. ALFARO AND RAUL ALFARO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165036 : July 05, 2010] HAZEL MA. C. ANTOLIN, PETITIONER, VS. ABELARDO T. DOMONDON, JOSE A. GANGAN, AND VIOLETA J. JOSEF, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 175705] HAZEL MA. C. ANTOLIN PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIETA FORTUNA-IBE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 167401 : July 05, 2010] BAGONG PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA NG TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL, REPRESENTED BY SABINO F. GRAGANZA, UNION PRESIDENT, AND REYVILOSA TRINIDAD,PETITIONERS, VS. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT AND TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL (PHILS.), INC., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 167407] TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL (PHILS.), INC., PETITIONER, VS. BAGONG PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA NG TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL, ELOISA FIGURA, JERRY JAICTEN, ROWELL FRIAS, MARGARITA PATINGO AND ROSALINDA OLANGAR, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168164 : July 05, 2010] VICENTE ADRIANO, PETITIONER, VS. ALICE TANCO, GERALDINE TANCO, RONALD TANCO, AND PATRICK TANCO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168960 : July 05, 2010] AMELIA B. HEBRON, PETITIONER, VS. FRANCO L. LOYOLA, ANGELO L. LOYOLA, RAFAEL L. LOYOLA, ARMANDO L. LOYOLA, SENEN L. LOYOLA, MA. VENUS L. RONQUILLO, PERLA L. ABAD AND THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF EDUARDO L. LOYOLA, CARMELITA A. MANABO, HERMINIA AGUINALDO-ROSAS, DIGNA AGUINALDO-VALENCIA,ROGELIO AGUINALDO, MILA AGUINALDO-DIAZ, BABY AGUINALDO, RUBEN LOYOLA SUBSTITUTED BY JOSEFINA C. LOYOLA, GLESILDA A. LEGOSTO, EVELYN C. LOYOLA, MARINA C. LOYOLA, AURE C. LOYOLA, CORAZON C. LUGARDA AND JOVEN FRANCISCO C. LOYOLA, LORENZO LOYOLA, CANDELARIA LOYOLA, NICANDRO LOYOLA, FLORA LOYOLA, TERESITA L.ALZONA, VICENTE LOYOLA,ROSARIO L. LONTOC, SERAFIN LOYOLA, ROBERTO LOYOLA, BIBIANO LOYOLA,PURITA LOYOLA, ESTELA LOYOLA, ESTER DANICO,EDUARDO DANICO, EMELITA DANICO, MERCEDITA DANICO, HONESTO DANICO,DANTE DANICO, ERLINDA DANICO-DOMINGUEZ REPRESENTED BY TEODORO DOMINGUEZ AND BEVERLY ANNE DOMINGUEZ,EFREN CABIGAN AND ISIDRO CABIGAN, RESPONDENTS. ALBERTO L. BAUTISTA REPRESENTED BY FELICIDAD G.BAUTISTA, AGNES B. ZULUETA, AYREEN B. ALBA, JOSEPH ANTHONY G. BAUTISTA, ANN-JANET G. BAUTISTA AND ALFREDO L.BAUTISTA, UNWILLING RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169227 : July 05, 2010] PHILIPPINE RURAL RECONSTRUCTION MOVEMENT (PRRM), PETITIONER, VS. VIRGILIO E. PULGAR, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170530 : July 05, 2010] SARGASSO CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/PICK & SHOVEL, INC.,/ATLANTIC ERECTORS, INC. (JOINT VENTURE), PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171736 : July 05, 2010] PENTACAPITAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. MAKILITO B. MAHINAY, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 181482] PENTACAPITAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. MAKILITO B. MAHINAY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 174129 : July 05, 2010] HONESTO V. FERRER, JR., AND ROMEO E. ESPERA, PETITIONERS, VS. MAYOR SULPICIO S. ROCO, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF NAGA CITY, SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNGSOD OF THE CITY OF NAGA, AND PE√ĎAFRANCIA MEMORIAL PARK CORPORATION RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175023 : July 05, 2010] GIOVANI SERRANO Y CERVANTES, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175730 : July 05, 2010] HERMINIO T. DISINI, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG), AND THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175700 : July 05, 2010] SALVADOR V. REBELLION, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 179793 : July 05, 2010] MAGDALENA HIDALGO, EDITHA GONZALES, EUNICE P. MALIMBAN, CHRISTINE VIDAL, CHRISTIAN CALLEJO, CONSOLACION P. MORENO, SHERINA F. DOREZA, LUZ T. SUCGANG, PRISCILLA F. ESTOYE, REYNOSO V. GALLANO, ROSITA L. SENEDRIN, JULITA P. DE CASTRO, JULIETA F. PALAFOX, ERLINDO V. GALANO, JR., ROSALINDA R. SALUD, EVANGELINE D. EVANGELISTA, BABYLINDA N. NOHAY, BELINDA D. CARDONA, WILMA D. BARCENA, ANABELLE P. MOJADAS, LEONORA GRANADO, RICARDO R. BARANGCO, ROMEO O. MAICON, DANILO B. ENRICO, MARIANILA SITO, MERLINA A. CATAAN, NEMIA E. PIANO, SOLEDAD P. RAMOS, DANTE L. PESIGAN, EDA A. JUNIO, MERCEDES R. NAFARRETE, MARILYN S. GONO, LUZ SAMSON, ERNESTO C. DESEAR, TERESITA G. GONZAGA, TERESITA E. EUSTAQUIO, VIRGINIA S. MONTEMAYOR, CRISTINA ABANTO, HENRY C. AMORTIZADO, FRANKIE VALERA, NELIA G. CAMORO, JOYSIE LABRADOR, GERTRUDES FALALES, OPHELIA G. MUSAMAREN, PETRA M. IRINGAN, FRANCISCO C. CAPIZ, JR., RICKY ECHIEVERA, MA. ELGIN O. ABAIS, JOHN CARANAN, ROMEO LAGUNA, REBECCA C. BUGUA, NELSON FERRER, HELEN MANRESA, CONSORCIA FAJANEL, MA. JUANA A. GOLFO, RUBYLYN D. DUMANDAL, FLORECERFINA S. BANDOLIN, FLORENCIO A. QUILATON, JR., GLORIA J. DOMINGO, MAY MACUGAY, MARY ANN CLAUDIO, ELVIRA KALALO, DOROTEA MARTINEZ, LIGAYA PANEDA, AND RENATO AGUILAR, PETITIONERS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES COMMISSARY AND EXCHANGE SERVICES (AFPCES), RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182740 : July 05, 2010] LYDIA ESCARCHA, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF JOSEPH ERWIN M. ESCARCHA, SHEILA MAY ESCARCHA, AND ALYSSA M. ESCARCHA, PETITIONER, VS. LEONIS NAVIGATION CO., INC. AND/OR WORLD MARINE PANAMA, S.A., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181051 : July 05, 2010] MANDAUE GALLEON TRADE, INC. AND GAMALLOSONS TRADERS, INC., REPRESENTED BY FAUSTO B. GAMALLO, PETITIONERS, VS. BIENVENIDO ISIDTO, ERWIN BA-AY, VICTORIANO BENDANILLA, EDUVIGIS GUTIB, JULITO GUTIB, GREGORIO ORDENISA, DAMIAN RABANAL, ROSITA RABANAL, EUSTAQUIA SIGLOS, PRIMITIVO SIGLAS, AND RODOLFO TORRES RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180819 : July 05, 2010] AMIHAN BUS LINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ROMARS INTERNATIONAL GASES CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY CHARLIE J. SAPUGAY; REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 36, IRIGA CITY, PRESIDED BY HON. MILAGROS G. QUIJANO; AND SAMUEL S. SANTAYANA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182793 : July 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DIONISIO CALONGE Y VERANA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 186411 : July 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARTURO PALER, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 186461 : July 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SEVERIANO OGAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 186472 : July 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO SIONGCO Y DELA CRUZ, ERIBERTO ENRIQUEZ Y GEMSON, GEORGE HAYCO Y CULLERA, AND ALLAN BONSOL Y PAZ, ACCUSED, ANTONIO SIONGCO Y DELA CRUZ AND ALLAN BONSOL Y PAZ, APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187075 : July 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMMEL BELO Y DE LEON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 186550 : July 05, 2010] ASIAN CATHAY FINANCE AND LEASING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES CESARIO GRAVADOR AND NORMA DE VERA AND SPOUSES EMMA CONCEPCION G. DUMIGPI AND FEDERICO L. DUMIGPI, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187737 : July 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALIODING SULTAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 187879 : July 05, 2010] DALISAY E. OCAMPO, VINCE E. OCAMPO, MELINDA CARLA E. OCAMPO, AND LEONARDO E. OCAMPO, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. RENATO M. OCAMPO AND ERLINDA M. OCAMPO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188129 : July 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICARDO BODOSO Y BOLOR, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 188223 : July 05, 2010] SENTINEL INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. RIO JOSE REMO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188975 : July 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ALBERT TE√ĎOSO Y LOPEZ ALIAS "PAKING" AND EDGARDO COCOTAN ALIAS "PAOT," APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189807 : July 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. JESSIE DACALLOS Y MODINA, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 190384 : July 05, 2010] HEIRS OF SPOUSES CRISPULO FERRER AND ENGRACIA PUHAWAN, REPRESENTED BY ROMEO F. GAZA AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, GUIDO ALFREDO DELGADO, FERNANDO ROXAS, ALBERTO PANGCOG, SAMUEL PIEDAD, GREGORIO ALVAREZ, RAFAEL LAGOS, AUGUSTO GO, NAPOLEON EUFEMIO, MELITO SALAZAR, VIRGILIO ODI AND MEHOLK SADAIN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 191404 : July 05, 2010] EUMELIA R. MITRA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FELICISIMO S. TARCELO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 190633 : July 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BASILIO CADAP, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. P-08-2590 : July 05, 2010] JULIE ANN C. DELA CUEVA, COMPLAINANT, VS. SELIMA B. OMAGA, COURT STENOGRAPHER I, MTC-CALAUAN, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 176885 : July 05, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. DOMINGO ESPINOSA, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-10-2236 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. NO. 09-3083-RTJ) : July 05, 2010] RUBEN N. SALCEDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE GIL G. BOLLOZOS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 156797 : July 06, 2010] IN RE: RECONSTITUTION OF TRANSFER CERTIFICATES OF TITLE NOS. 303168 AND 303169 AND ISSUANCE OF OWNER'S DUPLICATE CERTIFICATES OF TITLE IN LIEU OF THOSE LOST, ROLANDO EDWARD G. LIM, PETITIONER.

  • [G.R. No. 172200 : July 06, 2010] THE HEIRS OF REDENTOR COMPLETO AND ELPIDIO ABIAD, PETITIONERS, VS. SGT. AMANDO C. ALBAYDA, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175846 : July 06, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. ROSILA ROCHE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 179709 : July 06, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FILOMENO MAYINGQUE, GREGORIO MAYINGQUE, AND TORIBIO MAYINGQUE Y SANICO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181036 : July 06, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ADRIANO LEONARDO Y DANTES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 180285 : July 06, 2010] MA. SOCORRO MANDAPAT, PETITIONER, VS. ADD FORCE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC. AND COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179812 : July 06, 2010] ETERTON MULTI-RESOURCES CORPORATION (FORMERLY ETERNIT CORPORATION), PETITIONER, VS. FILIPINO PIPE AND FOUNDRY CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183101 : July 06, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. NOEL CATENTAY, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 184088 : July 06, 2010] IGLESIA EVANGELICA METODISTA EN LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS (IEMELIF) (CORPORATION SOLE), INC., REV. NESTOR PINEDA, REV. ROBERTO BACANI, BENJAMIN BORLONGAN, JR., DANILO SAUR, RICHARD PONTI, ALFREDO MATABANG AND ALL THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE IEMELIF TONDO CONGREGATION OF THE IEMELIF CORPORATION SOLE, PETITIONERS, VS. BISHOP NATHANAEL LAZARO, REVERENDS HONORIO RIVERA, DANIEL MADUCDOC, FERDINAND MERCADO, ARCADIO CABILDO, DOMINGO GONZALES, ARTURO LAPUZ, ADORABLE MANGALINDAN, DANIEL VICTORIA AND DAKILA CRUZ, AND LAY LEADER LINGKOD MADUCDOC AND CESAR DOMINGO, ACTING INDIVIDUALLY AND AS MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME CONSISTORY OF ELDERS AND THOSE CLAIMING UNDER THE CORPORATION AGGREGATE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 184812 : July 06, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ERMILITO ALEGRE Y LAMOSTE, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 188570 : July 06, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. CHRISTOPHER DE MESA AND EMMANUEL GONZALES, APPELLANTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-06-1992 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 98-603-RTJ) : July 06, 2010] OLIVIA LAUREL, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, DIANA RAMOS, UTILITY WORKER, BOTH OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 25, BI√ĎAN, LAGUNA AND HERMINIA JAVIER, CLERK III, RTC-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, BI√ĎAN, LAGUNA, AND ALBERTO R. NOFUENTE, 3RD ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OF LAGUNA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT. [A.M. NO. P-10-2745 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 98-511-P)] JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, COMPLAINANT, VS. OLIVIA LAUREL, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, DIANA RAMOS, UTILITY WORKER, BOTH OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 25, BI√ĎAN, LAGUNA AND HERMINIA JAVIER, CLERK III, RTC-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, BI√ĎAN, LAGUNA, RESPONDENTS. [A.M. NO. RTJ-00-1992 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 00-974-P)] JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, COMPLAINANT, VS. OLIVIA LAUREL, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, AND DIANA RAMOS, UTILITY WORKER, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 25, BI√ĎAN, LAGUNA, RESPONDENTS. X [A.M. NO. P-10-2746 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 00-963-P)] JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, COMPLAINANT, VS. GERARDO P. HERNANDEZ, CLERK OF COURT V, JULIAN R. ORFIANO, JR., COURT LEGAL RESEARCHER III, MARIA FE L. LOPEZ, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, DIOSALYN N. PEREZ, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, AND JULIETA M. CHAVES, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 24, BI√ĎAN, LAGUNA, RESPONDENTS. [A.M. NO. P-10-2747 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 99-740-P)] JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO,PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, COMPLAINANT, VS. NICANOR B. ALFONSO, PROCESS SERVER, ANGELITO A. BATI, UTILITY WORKER I, ARNEL G. MAGAT, SHERIFF IV, HERMINIA S. JAVIER, CLERK III, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, BENEDICTO B. PASCUAL, INTERPRETER III, DIANA A. RAMOS, UTILITY WORKER I, OLIVIA M. LAUREL, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, ANDREW A. SANTOS, CLERK III, RAMON LUIS SEVILLA, PROCESS SERVER, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 25, BI√ĎAN, LAGUNA, JULIAN R. ORFIANO, JR., COURT LEGAL RESEARCHER II, CARIDAD D. CUEVILLAS, CLERK III, CARMELITA D. MORENO, CLERK III, MA. FE L. LOPEZ, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, DIOSALYN N. PEREZ, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, JULIETA M. CHAVES, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 24, BI√ĎAN, LAGUNA AND ATTY. MELVIN D.C. MANE, CLERK OF COURT V, RESPONDENTS. [A.M. NO. P-10-2748 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 99-573-P)] JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, COMPLAINANT, VS.CARIDAD D. CUEVILLAS, CLERK III, BRANCH 24, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BI√ĎAN, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT. [A.M. NO. P-10-2749 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 02-1338-P)] JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, COMPLAINANT, VS.HERMINIA S. JAVIER, CLERK III, NICANOR B. ALFONSO, PROCESS SERVER, ANGELITO A. BATI, UTILITY WORKER I, ARNEL G. MAGAT, SHERIFF IV, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, BI√ĎAN, LAGUNA, CARIDAD D. CUEVILLAS, CLERK III, CARMELITA D. MORENO, CLERK III, DIOSALYN N. PEREZ, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, MARIA FE LOPEZ, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, JULIAN ORFIANO, JR., LEGAL RESEARCHER III, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 24, BI√ĎAN, LAGUNA, BENEDICTO PASCUAL, COURT INTERPRETER III, RAMON LUIS SEVILLA, PROCESS SERVER, ANDREW A. SANTOS, CLERK III AND OLIVIA M. LAUREL, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 25, BI√ĎAN, LAGUNA.RESPONDENTS. [A.M. NO. P-10-2750 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 02-1410-P)] JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO,PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROWENA A. MALABANAN-GALEON, CLERK OF COURT V AND BENEDICTO PASCUAL, COURT INTERPRETER III, BOTH OF BRANCH 25, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BI√ĎAN, LAGUNA, RESPONDENTS. [A.M. NO. P-10-2751 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 02-1411-P)] JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROWENA A. MALABANAN-GALEON, CLERK OF COURT V, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 25, BI√ĎAN, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT. [A.M. NO. P-03-1706 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 02-1409-P)] JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROWENA A. MALABANAN-GALEON, CLERK OF COURT V AND OLIVIA M. LAUREL, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, BOTH OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 25, BI√ĎAN, LAGUNA, RESPONDENTS. [A.M. NO. RTJ-10-2214 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 02-1592-RTJ)] JOEL O. ARELLANO AND ARNEL M. MAGAT, BOTH DEPUTY SHERIFF, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, BI√ĎAN, LAGUNA, COMPLAINANTS. VS.JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA,RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 138696 : July 07, 2010] FELIZARDO S. OBANDO AND JUAN S. OBANDO, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 163835 : July 07, 2010] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 134269 : July 07, 2010] THE LEARNING CHILD, INC. AND SPS. FELIPE AND MARY ANNE ALFONSO, PETITIONERS, VS. AYALA ALABANG VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, SPOUSES ERNESTO AND ALMA ARZAGA, MARIA LUISA QUISUMBING, ARTURO SENA, KSL CORPORATION, SLV MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AND LAWPHIL, INC., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 134440] JOSE MARIE V. AQUINO, MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY HIS PARENTS DR. ERROL AQUINO AND ATTY. MARILYN AQUINO; LORENZO MARIA E. VELASCO, MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY HIS PARENTS FRANCISCO VELASCO AND ROSANNA VELASCO; CHRISTOPHER E. WALMSLEY, MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY HIS PARENTS GERALD WALMSLEY AND MA. TERESA WALMSLEY; JOANNA MARIE S. SISON, MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY HER PARENTS BONIFACIO SISON AND JOSEPHINE SISON; AND MATTHEW RAPHAEL C. ARCE, MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY HIS PARENTS RAPHAEL ARCE AND MA. ERISSA ARCE, PETITIONERS, VS. AYALA ALABANG VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, SPOUSES ERNESTO AND ALMA ARZAGA, MARIA LUISA QUISUMBING, ARTURO SENA, KSL CORPORATION AND LAWPHIL, INC., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 144518] AYALA ALABANG VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, SPOUSES ERNESTO AND ALMA ARZAGA, MARIA LUISA QUISUMBING, ARTURO SENA, KSL CORPORATION, SLV MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AND LAWPHIL, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. MUNICIPALITY (NOW CITY) OF MUNTINLUPA, THE LEARNING CHILD, INC., SPOUSES FELIPE AND MARY ANNE ALFONSO, AND THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FIFTEENTH DIVISION), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 147925-26 : July 07, 2010] ELPIDIO S. UY, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF EDISON DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION, PETITIONER, VS. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170375 : July 07, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. MAMINDIARA P. MANGOTARA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 1, ILIGAN CITY, LANAO DEL NORTE, AND MARIA CRISTINA FERTILIZER CORPORATION, AND THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, RESPONDENTS, [G.R. NO. 170505] LAND TRADE REALTY CORPORATION,PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION AND NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION (TRANSCO), RESPONDENTS, [G.R. NOS. 173355-56] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL TWENTY-THIRD DIVISION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY), AND LAND TRADE REALTY CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS, [G.R. NO. 173401] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,PETITIONER, VS. DEMETRIA CACHO, REPRESENTED BY ALLEGED HEIRS DEMETRIA CONFESOR VIDAL AND/OR TEOFILO CACHO, AZIMUTH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND LAND TRADE REALTY CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NOS. 173563-64] NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL TWENTY-THIRD DIVISION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY), AND LAND TRADE REALTY CORPORATION AS REPRESENTED BY ATTY. MAX C. TABIMINA, RESPONDENTS, [G.R. NO. 178779] LAND TRADE REALTY CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. DEMETRIA CONFESOR VIDAL AND AZIMUTH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS, [G.R. NO. 178894] TEOFILO CACHO AND/OR ATTY. GODOFREDO CABILDO,PETITIONER, VS. DEMETRIA CONFESOR VIDAL AND AZIMUTH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170623 : July 07, 2010] A.Z. ARNAIZ REALTY, INC. REPRESENTED BY CARMEN Z. ARNAIZ, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM; REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DAR REGION V, LEGASPI CITY; PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER, DAR PROVINCIAL OFFICE, MASBATE, MASBATE; MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER, DAR MUNICIPAL OFFICE, MASBATE, MASBATE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177573 : July 07, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROBERTO ASIS AND JULIUS PE√ĎARANDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188704 : July 07, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PEDRO ORTIZ, JR. Y LOPES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 172962 : July 08, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMEO REPUBLO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 174697 : July 08, 2010] CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS' ASSOCIATIONS, INC. (CREBA), PETITIONER, VS. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (ERC) AND MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 161849 : July 09, 2010] WALLEM PHILIPPINES SHIPPING, INC., PETITIONER, VS. S.R. FARMS, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 165582 : July 09, 2010] LUIS CHITO BUENSOCESO LOZANO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170645 : July 09, 2010] NIEVES ESTARES BALDOS, SUBSTITUTED BY FRANCISCO BALDOS AND MARTIN BALDOS, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND REYNALDO PILLAZAR A.K.A. REYNALDO ESTARES BALDOS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171873 : July 09, 2010] MUNICIPALITY OF TIWI, REPRESENTED BY HON. MAYOR JAIME C. VILLANUEVA AND THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF TIWI, PETITIONERS, VS. ANTONIO B. BETITO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172023 : July 09, 2010] HEIRS OF SANTIAGO C. DIVINAGRACIA, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE J. CEDRICK O. RUIZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 39, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ILOILO CITY; GERRY D. SUMACULUB, AS CLERK OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT; CBS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. (CBSDC) REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ROGELIO M. FLORETE, SR., AND DIAMEL INC., REPRESENTED BY ROGELIO M. FLORETE, SR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172611 : July 09, 2010] SPS. FEDERICO VALENZUELA AND LUZ BUENA-VALENZUELA PETITIONERS, SPS. JOSE MANO, JR. AND ROSANNA REYES-MANO RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177219, July 09 : 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROGELIO ALARCON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 165168 : July 09, 2010] SPS. NONILON (MANOY) AND IRENE MONTECALVO, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS (SUBSTITUTES) OF EUGENIA T. PRIMERO, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, ALFREDO T. PRIMERO, JR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170464 : July 12, 2010] LAMBERT PAWNBROKERS AND JEWELRY CORPORATION AND LAMBERT LIM, PETITIONERS, VS. HELEN BINAMIRA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 163825 : July 13, 2010] VIOLETA TUDTUD BANATE, MARY MELGRID M. CORTEL, BONIFACIO CORTEL, ROSENDO MAGLASANG, AND PATROCINIA MONILAR, PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE COUNTRYSIDE RURAL BANK (LILOAN, CEBU), INC. AND TEOFILO SOON, JR.,RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 161602 : July 13, 2010] ALFREDO T. ROMUALDEZ, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 154560 : July 13, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION), TERNATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, FANTASIA FILIPINA RESORTS, INC., MONTE SOL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, OCEAN VILLAS CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, OLAS DEL MAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PHILIPPINE VILLAGE HOTEL, PHILROAD CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PUERTO AZUL BEACH AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC., SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, SULO DOBBS FOOD SERVICES, INC., NOTION AND POTIONS, INC., AND SUN AND SHADE MERCHANDISE, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171565 : July 13, 2010] ANTONIO B. RAMOS (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HIS SURVIVING HEIRS, NAMELY, MA. MARGARITA A. RAMOS, ANTONIO A. RAMOS, MA. REGINA RAMOS DE DIOS, JOSE VICENTE A. RAMOS, MA. POMONA RAMOS KO TEH AND OSCAR EMERITO A. RAMOS, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ROGERIO H. ESCOBAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175835 : July 13, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. GERARDO ROLLAN Y REY, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 177861 : July 13, 2010] IN RE: PETITION FOR CANCELLATION AND CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE RECORD OF BIRTH, EMMA K. LEE, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, RITA K. LEE, LEONCIO K. LEE, LUCIA K. LEE-ONG, JULIAN K. LEE, MARTIN K. LEE, ROSA LEE-VANDERLEK, MELODY LEE-CHIN, HENRY K. LEE, NATIVIDAD LEE-MIGUEL, VICTORIANO K. LEE, AND THOMAS K. LEE, REPRESENTED BY RITA K. LEE, AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187693 : July 13, 2010] INTERTRANZ CONTAINER LINES, INC. AND JOSEFINA F. TUMIBAY, PETITIONERS, VS. MA. TERESA I. BAUTISTA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188569 : July 13, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROBERTO GARBIDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 188600 : July 13, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARCOS QUIROS Y SEMBRANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 188905 : July 13, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROSE NANDI Y SALI, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 180660 : July 20, 2010] MARIBAGO BLUEWATER BEACH RESORT, INC. PETITIONER, VS. NITO DUAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 174096 : July 20, 2010] SPOUSES DIVINIA C. PUBLICO AND JOSE T. PUBLICO,* PETITIONERS, VS. TERESA BAUTISTA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185920 : July 20, 2010] JUANITA TRINIDAD RAMOS, ALMA RAMOS WORAK, MANUEL T. RAMOS, JOSEFINA R. ROTHMAN, SONIA R. POST, ELVIRA P. MUNAR, AND OFELIA R. LIM, PETITIONERS, VS. DANILO PANGILINAN, RODOLFO SUMANG, LUCRECIO BAUTISTA AND ROLANDO ANTENOR, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181735 : July 20, 2010] LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY HON. BENEDICTO ULEP, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR, HON. EDILBERTO R. FELICIANO, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR AND CHAIRMAN, BAC-PGSM, HON. OFELIA ABUEG-STA. MARIA, VICE-CHAIRMAN, BAC-PGM, ELISA OCAMPO, EDELMIRA N. SALAZAR, ATTY. JOSEFINA MONTANER, ROSETTE MABUNAY, CHERRY HERNANDEZ, NOEL SABARIZA, AS MEMBERS, BAC-PGSM, PETITIONER, VS. LANTING SECURITY AND WATCHMAN AGENCY, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. THOMAS L. LANTING, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181735 : July 20, 2010] LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY HON. BENEDICTO ULEP, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR, HON. EDILBERTO R. FELICIANO, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR AND CHAIRMAN, BAC-PGSM, HON. OFELIA ABUEG-STA. MARIA, VICE-CHAIRMAN, BAC-PGM, ELISA OCAMPO, EDELMIRA N. SALAZAR, ATTY. JOSEFINA MONTANER, ROSETTE MABUNAY, CHERRY HERNANDEZ, NOEL SABARIZA, AS MEMBERS, BAC-PGSM, PETITIONER, VS. LANTING SECURITY AND WATCHMAN AGENCY, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. THOMAS L. LANTING, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182398 : July 20, 2010] BENNY Y. HUNG,* PETITIONER, VS. BPI CARD FINANCE CORP., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 174097 : July 21, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SONNY PADUA Y REYES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 153837 : July 21, 2010] ENGR. JOB Y. BESANA, HON. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AND HON. CONRADO M. ESTRELLA III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION, PETITIONERS, VS. RODSON F. MAYOR, RESPONDENT. AKLAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., INTERVENOR.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-09-1728 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 04-1623-MTJ) : July 21, 2010] ATTY. JOSE A. BERNAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE JULIA A. REYES, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 69, PASIG CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185215 : July 22, 2010] VIRGINIA D. BAUTISTA, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173634 : July 22, 2010] PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR), REPRESENTED BY ATTY. CARLOS R. BAUTISTA, JR., PETITIONER, VS. RUFINO G. AUMENTADO, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172700 : July 23, 2010] OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS. ROLSON RODRIGUEZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172292 : July 23, 2010] ALIDA MORES, PETITIONER, VS. SHIRLEY M. YU-GO, MA. VICTORIA M. YU-LIM, AND MA. ESTRELLA M. YU, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171925 : July 23, 2010] SOLIDBANK CORPORATION, (NOW METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY), PETITIONER, VS. PERMANENT HOMES, INCORPORATED, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171525 : July 23, 2010] ST. CATHERINE REALTY CORPORATION AND LAND KING REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, VS. FERDINAND Y. PINEDA AND DOLORES S. LACUATA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 190448 : July 26, 2010] FEDERICO D. TOMAS, PETITIONER, VS. ANN G. SANTOS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188949 : July 26, 2010] CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE TARLAC, PETITIONER, VS. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE TARLAC LABOR UNION-NLU, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 189278 : July 26, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ELIZABETH MARCELINO Y REYES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 183133 : July 26, 2010] BALGAMELO CABILING MA, FELIX CABILING MA, JR., AND VALERIANO CABILING MA, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSIONER ALIPIO F. FERNANDEZ, JR., ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER ARTHEL B. CARONO◊ĀGAN, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER JOSE DL. CABOCHAN, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER TEODORO B. DELARMENTE AND ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN Z. LITTAUA, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION), AND MAT G. CATRAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183027 : July 26, 2010] SPOUSES EDMUNDO AND LOURDES SARROSA, PETITIONERS, VS. WILLY O. DIZON, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181178 : July 26, 2010] AMELIA R. OBUSAN, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 180109 : July 26, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. JOSEPH "JOJO" V. GREY, FRANCIS B. GREY, AND COURT OF APPEALS-CEBU CITY, EIGHTEENTH DIVISION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179105 : July 26, 2010] METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. LARRY MARI◊ĀAS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178495 : July 26, 2010] SPOUSES RODOLFO A. NOCEDA AND ERNA T. NOCEDA, PETITIONERS, VS. AURORA ARBIZO-DIRECTO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178591 : July 26, 2010] SM SYSTEMS CORPORATION (FORMERLY SPRINGSUN MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS CORPORATION), PETITIONER, VS. OSCAR CAMERINO, EFREN CAMERINO, CORNELIO MANTILE, DOMINGO ENRIQUEZ, AND HEIRS OF NOLASCO DEL ROSARIO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177637 : July 26, 2010] DR. DIOSCORO CARBONILLA, PETITIONER, VS. MARCELO ABIERA AND MARICRIS ABIERA PAREDES, SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172988 : July 26, 2010] JOSE P. ARTIFICIO, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, RP GUARDIANS SECURITY AGENCY, INC., JUAN VICTOR K. LAURILLA, ALBERTO AGUIRRE, AND ANTONIO A. ANDRES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169999 : July 26, 2010] NEW PUERTO COMMERCIAL AND RICHARD LIM, PETITIONERS, VS. RODEL LOPEZ AND FELIX GAVAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168583 : July 26, 2010] ATTY. ALLAN S. MONTA◊ĀO, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. ERNESTO C. VERCELES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 167526 : July 26, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. DANTE TAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 167390 : July 26, 2010] SPOUSES ADOLFO FERNANDEZ, SR., AND LOURDES FERNANDEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES MARTINES CO AND ERLINDA CO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165554 : July 26, 2010] LAZARO PASCO AND LAURO PASCO, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF FILOMENA DE GUZMAN, REPRESENTED BY CRESENCIA DE GUZMAN- PRINCIPE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 166250 : July 26, 2010] UNSWORTH TRANSPORT INTERNATIONAL (PHILS.), INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 162608 : July 26, 2010] ADRIAN WILSON INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. TMX PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 156599 : July 26, 2010] BORMAHECO, INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, VS. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INCORPORATED AND INTERWORLD BROKERAGE CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188130 : July 26, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARY LOU OMICTIN Y SINGCO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-09-2180 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2817-RTJ] : July 27, 2010] ROLANDO E. MARCOS, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE OFELIA T. PINTO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 60, ANGELES CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 180291, July 27 : 2010] GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) AND WINSTON F. GARCIA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GSIS, PETITIONERS, VS. DINNAH VILLAVIZA, ELIZABETH DUQUE, ADRONICO A. ECHAVEZ, RODEL RUBIO, ROWENA THERESE B. GRACIA, PILAR LAYCO, AND ANTONIO JOSE LEGARDA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 119857 : July 28, 2010] GOLDEN APPLE REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ROSVIBON REALTY CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, VS. SIERRA GRANDE REALTY CORPORATION, MANPHIL INVESTMENT CORPORATION, RENAN V. SANTOS AND PATRICIO MAMARIL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 152236 : July 28, 2010] RPRP VENTURES MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. TEOFILO L. GUADIZ, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 147; METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY AND ATTY. ENRIQUETO MAGPANTAY, IN HIS CAPACITY AS A NOTARY PUBLIC OF MAKATI CITY. RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180385 : July 28, 2010] PETRON CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173150 : July 28, 2010] LYDIA C. GELIG, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171705 : July 29, 2010] EDUARDO VARELA, PETITIONER, VS. MA. DAISY REVALEZ, RAMON BORROMEO, YOLANDA BARCENILLA, ERNA LOCSIN, GRACE BARUC, VICENTE MIJARES, JR., LOIDA TAJONERA, NIRMLA AGNES MARTINEZ, ANALYN MAYPA, LEMUEL MAYPA, BERDITH GANCETA, ROGER RAMOS, SUZETTE DE LOS SANTOS, JUDE JAROPILLO, JOCELYN AZUCENA, VILMA PABALAN, CHANNIBAL BERJA, JERNEY BARZO, BRIGIDA MANGUINO, SOL GRACE GUSTILO, MARILOU AREVALO, LUCILLE ARGONOSO, MARCOS BACOMO, MELVIN BACOMO, JR., MERIAM BULLAG, ZOSIMA DESUYO, MARLENE BACOMO, EUGENE BALASA, ROY DE ASIS, LOLITA RUBEN, JOSE DIEZ, MILA DIEZ, JESUS DIEZ, DONNABEL ALFON, FRANCISCO DERIADA, ALEJANDRIA PORDIOS, LIGAYA MAGBANUA, DAISY GORECHO, ANARIEL BACOMO, FRED DELOTINA, STEPHEN DIPLOMA, MARITES BACABAC, ARACELI MAHINAY, JULIO OLVIDO, ANTONIO REBOTON, NENETTE JUMUAD, ROSEMARIE ALICANTE, AGUSTIN JAVIER, JR., LEODY JAVA, NAZARITO PIDO, NENITA BERMEO, DELILAH FERNANDEZ, WILDABETH LACSON, CYNTHIA DAZA, ROMMEL DELGADO, FLORITA GELACIO, ROSALLY LEAL, AILEEN VILLANUEVA, NINFA BENIGAY, ROSIE PALMA, FERNANDO DELGADO, ROMULO BARCENILLA, ROBERTO APIADO, MARIO OLVIDO, BETTY DELA CRUZ, MARTIN APILADAS, SOLEDAD MAGBANUA, NIDA VISTAL, FRANCISCO DE LARA, ANTHONY ROCH ACEVEDO, FELIX RAFOLS, YOLANDA FERNANDEZ, ERNISTINA ALARCON, EMIE ABANID, LOURY TOMPONG, MA. FE RAFOLS SIA, YOLANDA OLVIDO, FIDEL ARROYO, VITALIANO POBLACION, ZALDY TERENCIO, ROVIC ESCOBA, JENNIFER CABAHUG, HELEN PAGAY, ARTURO SALVE, AIDA GOMEZ, AND CITY OF CADIZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173351 : July 29, 2010] BF CITILAND CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. MARILYN B. OTAKE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171766 : July 29, 2010] ASIAWORLD PROPERTIES PHILIPPINE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 166236 : July 29, 2010] NOLI ALFONSO AND ERLINDA FUNDIALAN, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES HENRY AND LIWANAG ANDRES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165569 : July 29, 2010] UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS, GLENDA A. VARGAS, MA. SOCORRO S. GUANHING, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS DEAN AND ASSISTANT DEAN, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSING OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS, AND RODOLFO N. CLAVIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS, PETITIONERS, VS. DANES B. SANCHEZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 165976 : July 29, 2010] SONIC STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. EDUARDO B. PERALTA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 17 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, SEABOARD-EASTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., PREMIER SHIPPING LINES, INC., AND ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172027, July 29 : 2010] GONZALO S. GO, JR., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 184843 : July 30, 2010] VIRGILIO DYCOCO, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEYS-IN-FACT CRISTINO C. GRAFILO, JOSE C. GRAFILO AND ADOLFO C. GRAFILO, AND CRISTINO C. GRAFILO, JOSE C. GRAFILO AND ADOLFO C. GRAFILO FOR AND IN THEIR OWN BEHALF, PETITIONERS, VS. ADELAIDA ORINA JOINED BY HER HUSBAND GERMAN R. ORINA AS REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT EVELYN M. SAGALONGOS AND FOR IN THE LATTER'S OWN BEHALF, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180010 : July 30, 2010] CENITA M. CARIAGA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N