Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2010 > July 2010 Decisions > [G.R. No. 188129 : July 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICARDO BODOSO Y BOLOR, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. :




SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 188129 : July 05, 2010]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICARDO BODOSO Y BOLOR, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N


MENDOZA, J.:

For final review by this Court are the December 18, 2008 Decision[1] and February 17, 2009 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01526, which affirmed with modification the July 28, 2005 Decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Tabaco City (RTC), in Criminal Case No. T-3285 and Criminal Case No. T-3286, thus, sentencing the accused to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape and reduced the amount of civil indemnity from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00.

The RTC Decision[4] convicted the accused for two counts of rape which he committed against his own daughter and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death and to pay "the sum of P75,000.00, for each case, as civil indemnity, the sum of P50,000.00 for each case, as moral damages, and the sum of P25,000.00 for each case, as exemplary damages, or the aggregate sum of P300,000.00 plus the costs of the suit."

It appears that on February 17, 2000, two (2) Informations were filed charging the accused with two (2) counts of rape. The accusatory portions of the two Informations read as follows:

Criminal Case No. T-3285

That on July 14, 1999, at around 8:00 o'clock in the morning, more or less, at Barangay San Isidro, Municipality of Malilipot, Province of Albay, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd and unchaste design, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully  and  feloniously have carnal

knowledge with his own daughter, AAA,[5] a minor being only 14 years of age, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.

ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]

Criminal Case No. T-3286

That sometime in the month of September, 1999, at around 8:00 o'clock in the morning, more or less, at Barangay San Isidro, Municipality of Malilipot, Province of Albay, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd and unchaste design, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with his own daughter, AAA, a minor being only 14 years of age, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.

ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]

Upon arraignment, the accused entered a plea of "Not Guilty' to both charges.[8] During the pre-trial conference, the parties stipulated that there should be no dispute with respect to the following matters:

  1. Identity of the accused;
  2. The private complainant in this case is a minor, being 14 years old on the date of the incidents, July 14, 1999 and September, 1999;
    The private complainant is the daughter of the accused; and
  3. The private complainant and the accused were living in the same house at Brgy. San Ilawod, Malilipot, Albay.[9]

During the trial, the prosecution presented, as its witnesses, private complainant AAA and Dr. Arsenia Mañosca-Moran, the Municipal Health Officer who examined her. On the other hand, the accused, through counsel, manifested in open court that he had no intention of presenting any evidence.

Consequently, on April 2, 2001, the cases against the accused were considered submitted for decision.[10]

On July 2, 2001, a decision was rendered by the trial court finding the accused guilty as charged and imposing upon him the penalty of death. The cases were then brought to this Court for automatic review[11] and were docketed as G.R. No. 149382 and G.R. No. 149383. On March 5, 2003, this Court resolved[12] to remand the cases to the trial court for proper disposition, particularly to ascertain the voluntariness of the accused on his waiver of his right to present evidence, as expressed in the April 2, 2001 Order[13] of the trial court; his understanding of its consequences; and the conduct of further proceedings, including receiving evidence, if the contrary would be found.

In compliance with the aforementioned order of this Court, the trial court allowed the accused to present his evidence on February, 17, 2004. After resting its case, the defense moved and was granted leave to submit a memorandum.[14] Upon submission of a Memorandum,[15] the case was deemed submitted for decision.[16]

The trial court wove together the evidence presented by the prosecution and summarized its version of the incidents in this wise:

Complainant AAA is a 14-year-old minor daughter of accused Ricardo Bodoso. She was living with her father (accused herein), mother and other siblings at their house located at Brgy. San Isidro Iraya, Malilipot, Albay.

Sometime in the evening of 14 July 1999, complainant's mother and other siblings went to the Poblacion of Malilipot, Albay, to watch the coronation night of the Search for Miss Malilipot 1999. Complainant, on the other hand, was watching television at the house of her grandmother, about 8 to 10 meters away from their house, when she was summoned by her father (herein accused) to go home. She obeyed her father and immediately went home at about 8:00 o'clock in the evening.

Upon reaching their house, complainant entered the bedroom to look for a dress. Her father also entered the bedroom and told her to come near him. When complainant failed to respond, her father pulled her and forcibly laid her on the bed. After undressing himself, complainant's father removed her shirt and shorts. He then inserted his sexual organ into the vagina of the complainant and made push and pull movement for about 5 minutes. Complainant tried to extricate herself from her father's hold but to no avail, and so she just cried out her misfortune.

After the sexual act, accused helped complainant in putting back her shirts and shorts and they both went out of the room. Later, they rode together in a bicycle and proceeded to the Poblacion of Malilipot, Albay, to watch the beauty contest. When the contest ended at about 12:00 o'clock midnight, complainant, together with her mother and other siblings, all walked home to Brgy. San Isidro, Ilawod, Malilipot, Albay. Complainant did not inform her mother about the incident because she was afraid her father might kill them.

The said incident of sexual abuse was followed by another incident at about 8:00 o'clock in the morning during the month of September, 1999, while complainant was reading a pocketbook inside their bedroom. Her mother then was in Tabaco, Albay, selling spices while her sister Vivian was burning dry leaves in their yard. After her father entered the bedroom, he pulled her in order to have sexual intercourse with her. She tried to get away from her father's hold but she could not, so she just kept on crying while she was sexually molested. After satisfying his lust, complainant's father just helped her put on her shorts and panty, dressed himself and left the room. When her mother arrived at about 12:00 noon, she did not again reveal what her father had done to her because she was afraid her mother might be killed.

Apprehensive that she or mother would be killed by her father if she would divulge the aforementioned rapes committed on 14 July 1999 and September, 1999, and fearful that she would again be sexually abused by her own father, complainant decided to leave their house on 07 January 2000, together with a friend named Cheryll Binaday who was also being maltreated by her own mother. Together, they walked along the seashore towards the direction of Brgy. Salvacion, Tabaco, Albay, when a motorized tricycle being driven by a certain Melchor passed by. When Melchor recognized the complainant, he brought them to his house, located at Brgy. San Isidro Iraya, Malilipot, Albay. Then and there, complainant revealed to Melchor that she was raped twice by her own father. Thereafter, Melchor's family called for a Brgy. Kagawad, who in turn, advised the complainant to seek the help of the police authorities.

At the Municipal Police Station of Malilipot, Albay, complainant was investigated by the police and she gave her sworn statement. Complainant was also examined by Dr. Arsenia Mañosora-Moran, Municipal Health Officer, Malilipot, Albay. The examination of the complainant yielded the following results as contained in a Medical Certificate dated 10 January 2000, viz:

"Genitalia: Hymen: with heat sealed incomplete laceration at 1:00, 3:00, 5:00, & 11:00 and complete laceration at 9:00 o'clock with sharp coaptable borders without congestion."

Explaining her findings, Dr. Moran stated that the lacerations found in the hymen of the complainant were caused by sexual intercourse and that because there was no congestion, the incident could have happened a long time ago before the examination of the patient. Hence, the present criminal complaints against the accused.[17] (Citations omitted.)

The defense version of the events was summed up by the trial court in this manner:

Setting up denial and alibi, accused Ricardo Bodoso averred that on the night of 14 July 1999, he was out of their house proceeding to Tabaco, Albay, to see a friend named Quirino who was to help him find a job. He recalled that he left their house of about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon and returned home at almost 12:00 o'clock midnight. He also insisted that he was in Manila during the month of September, 1999, when the alleged incident happened. According to him, it was only on 30 October 1999 that he came home because he was requested by his mother to attend to the grave of his father. Finally, the accused claimed that, maybe, complainant filed the cases against him because she was afraid of him when she went away from home on 06 January 2000 and did not return home the whole night staying at the police headquarters.[18] (Citations omitted.)

The trial court, in its July 28, 2005 Decision,[19] finally convicted the accused of two (2) counts of rape defined under Article 266-A, and penalized under Article 266-B, of the Revised Penal Code. It did not give due consideration to the defense of denial and alibi put up by the accused and, instead, gave credence to the evidence of the prosecution. It noted that in contrast to the "evasive" narration of the accused,[20] AAA testified in a straightforward and categorical manner.[21]  Thus, the trial court disposed:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused RICARDO BODOSO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Rape, defined and penalized under Articles 266-A and 266-B, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353. Accordingly, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH in each of the two (2) counts of rape. He is also ordered to pay complainant AAA the sum of Php75,000.00 for each case, as civil indemnity; the sum of Php50,000.00 for each case, as moral damages; and the sum of Php25,000.00 for each case, as exemplary damages, or the aggregate sum of Php300,000.00, plus costs of the suit.

Let the entire records of these two (2) cases, together with the evidence, be forwarded to the Hon. Court of Appeals for automatic review, pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 20-2005 dated April 19, 2005.

SO ORDERED.

Aggrieved, the accused appealed to the Court of Appeals presenting in his Brief[22] the following

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS:

I.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

II.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE MINORITY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT AND HER RELATIONSHIP TO THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.[23]

On December 18, 2008, the Court of Appeals rendered the subject decision echoing the findings of the trial court that the accused was guilty of the crimes leveled against him. The appellate court, however, was of the view that the award of civil indemnity should be reduced to P50,000.00[24] considering that R.A. 9346[25] prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals, thus, reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 16, Tabaco City, dated 28 July 2005 in Criminal Cases Nos. T-3285 and T-3286, finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Rape, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that DEATH PENALTY is reduced to RECLUSION PERPETUA in each of the two (2) counts of Rape and that the award of civil indemnity is hereby reduced from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00 for each case.

SO ORDERED. [26]

Hence this appeal.

In a resolution dated July 29, 2009,[27] the Court required the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs within thirty (30) days from notice, if they so desired. In separate manifestations, dated September 22, 2009[28] and October 16, 2009,[29] both parties waived the filing of supplemental briefs and instead opted to stand by their respective briefs filed before the Court of Appeals.

In his brief, the accused argues that AAA's testimony of what happened after the first rape incident on July 14, 1999 is hard to believe, thus, creating serious doubts as to the crimes imputed to him. The accused bases his argument on the following testimony of AAA:



ATTY. BROTAMONTE:

xxx xxx xxx

Q.
That night after your father supposedly raped you, you accompanied him to watch the program or contest in Poblacion, Malilipot, Albay?
A.
Yes.

Q.
Before going to Malilipot to watch the program or contest you eat [sic] supper with your father?

PROS. PIFAÑO:

Vague, what date?

ATTY. BROTAMONTE:

I am referring to the date of the supposed first rape incident.

COURT:
Witness may answer.

WITNESS:

A.
Not yet.

ATTY. BROTAMONTE:

Q.
What time did you take your supper that night?
A.
After watching the program and contest in Malilipot late that night.

Q.
You do not take your supper before going to Poblacion, Malilipot to watch [the] program or contest because you were then in a hurry to see that program?
A.
Yes.

Q.
Of course you were happy to watch the program or contest in Poblacion, Malilipot, Albay?
A.
Yes.

Q.
What kind of program were [sic] shown?
A.
Search for Binibining Malilipot.

Q.
And that contest consist of making the contestant[s] who were women or ladies to walk while wearing bathing suits?
A.
Yes.

Q.
And of course being a lady yourself, you are so happy, watching them showing how feminine they are?
A.
Yes.

Q.
You have seen these women or ladies walking in front of [the] public wearing swimming suits that made you happy but did not cause sadness to you considering that you were just supposedly raped that night before going to watch to program?
A.
Yes.

Q.
You did not imagine yourself being supposedly violated while watching those ladies in skimpy attire?
A.
I felt that.

Q.
And yet you are happy watching them?
A.
I was happy just waiting for the declared winner.

Q.
Do you think that [it] is normal to be happy watching those ladies in skimpy attire just after you were supposedly raped by your father?
A.
No, that is not normal.

Q.
What time did you went [sic] home after watching those [sic] program.
A.
Late in the evening about 1:00 or 12:00 o'clock.

Q.
And you also went home with your father?
A.
No, with me was my mother.

Q.
Why, where was your father when you left the program when you go [sic] home?
A.
Outside, I did not know where.

Q.
But before you go home, you looked for him in the vicinity of the venue of the program so that he could accompany you home, is that correct?
A.
Not anymore because with me was my mother.

Q.
But of course in going to the program, you and your father were together in going there?
A.
Yes.

Q.
You walked all the way from your house to the Poblacion of Malilipot which is more than three (3) kilometers?
A.
No, we rode on a bicycle.

Q.
Your farther [sic] drove the bicycle?
A.
Yes.

Q.
And you rode on the bicycle while standing beside [sic] him?
A.
In front because I did not know how to ride at the back.

Q.
So, you were seated in the bicycle between the bicycle handle, which is equivalent to the wheels of [a] motor vehicle, and you father?
A.
Yes.

Q.
You chose to seat [sic] between the driver's handle and you father because it is where you could conveniently sit?
A.
Yes.

Q.
You did not choose to ride by standing behind your father by clumping your feet on the axle of the rear wheel because that is somewhat convenient for you?
A.
Because I might fall from that position.[30]

The accused argues that if AAA had indeed been raped, she would have naturally felt pain all over her body and could not have sat behind the bike's handle, travelled for three (3) hours to Malilipot and enjoyed watching the pageant.

The accused also points out the following testimony of AAA on what she and her mother talked about as they were walking home. Thus:

Q.
When you went home with your mother, in as much as your father was left behind the Poblacion of Malilipot, Albay, the bicycle was also left with him?
A.
Yes.

Q.
So, with nothing to ride on, you and your mother just walked all the way from Poblacion Malilipot to San Isidro Ilawod, right?
A.
Yes, because we are so many then.

Q.
And you walked for about an hour?
A.
Yes.

Q.
What did you talk about while walking towards your house?
A.
We talked about who could win because when we left, nobody was declared yet.

Q.
You and your mother were talking about happy things while walking towards home?
A.
They were happy but not me.

Q.
Before you were raped, your usual self has been very happy?
A.
No.

Q.
Your mother did not ask you why you were very sad?
A.
I did not manifest that I was sad.

Q.
You pretended to be happy while walking with your mother?
A.
Yes.

Q.
So, you initiated [a] topic that are [sic] happy to pretend that you are happy?
A.
Yes.[31]

The accused contends that if AAA was indeed raped by the accused, her agitated state could not have escaped her mother's attention because it normally takes a while for a rape victim to regain her composure. Since she was not at all agitated while she was walking home with her mother, it could not be said that AAA was raped. At such a young age, AAA could not have calculatedly presented herself as if nothing had happened.

Moreover, the accused finds it hard to believe that AAA would reveal her tormenting experience to a certain Melchor Brusola and his family, a stranger to her, but not to her own mother.

Finally, the accused asserts that the prosecution was not able to prove the minority of AAA because it failed to introduce in evidence her birth certificate.

The Court finds no merit in the appeal.

Time and again, this Court has emphasized that the manner of assigning values to declarations of witnesses on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who has the unique and unmatched opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and assess their credibility. In essence, when the question arises as to which of the conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense is worthy of belief, the assessment of the trial court is generally given the highest degree of respect, if not finality.  The assessment made by the trial court is even more enhanced when the Court of Appeals affirms the same,[32] as in this case.

In its effort to ferret out the truth, the Court examined the transcripts of stenographic notes. Like the trial court, the Court finds that the victim's testimony on the incident was candid and straightforward, indicative of a reliable and trustworthy recollection of what took place on that fateful day. She narrated the sexual abuse in this manner:

PROS. PIFAÑO:

Q.
On July 14, 1999 at 8:00 o'clock in the evening, do you remember where were you?
A.
Yes, sir.

Q.
Where were you on said date and time?
A.
In our house.

Q.
While there on said date and time, do you remember if there was any unusual incident that happened?
A.
There was.

Q.
Will you tell the Honorable Court what is that unusual incident that happened?
A.
I was then in our house and I entered the bedroom. He call[ed] me but I did not come near him. When I did not come near him, he pulled me and forcibly laid me on the bed then while I was on the bed, he entered his sexual organ into my vagina.

INTERPRETER:

Witness was crying in making this statement.

PROS. PIFAÑO: (Continuing)

Q.
After the accused entered his sexual organ into your vagina, what happened next?
A.
He made a push and pull movement with his organ inside my vagina.

Q.
For how long did the accused make his push and pull movement with his organ inside you vagina?
A.
About five minutes.

Q.
While he was doing this to you, what did you do?
A.
I tried to extricate from his hold but I was not able to.

Q.
So what did you do?
A.
I kept crying.

Q.
After the accused sexually abused you on said date and time for 5 minutes, what happened next?
A.
He put on my dress on me then he also put back his shirts and shorts.

Q.
After he dressed up, what did he do?
A.
He went out.

PROS. PIFAÑO: (Continuing)

Q.
How about you, did you report the incident to your mother?
A.
No, because I was afraid.

Q.
Why? What are you afraid of?
A.
He might kill my mother and my siblings.

Q.
When the incident of sexual abuse committed by the accused against you, who was the person present if there is any?
A.
Nobody, because the other members of the family were in Malilipot. The only person left in our house were he and me.

Q.
On September 1999, do you remember where were you?
A.
Yes, sir.

Q.
Where were you on said date and time?
A.
In our house.

Q.
While in your house on said date and time at about 8:00 o'clock in the morning, do you remember if there was any unusual incident that happened?
A.
There was.

Q.
Will you tell the Honorable Court what is that unusual incident that happened?
A.
I was then in the bedroom lying and reading pocket books when he pulled my dress up then removed my shorts and panty.

PROS. PIFAÑO: (Continuing)

Q.
After he removed your shorts and panty, what happened next?
A.
He entered his penis into my vagina.

Q.
When your father entered his penis into your vagina, to whom do you refer?
A.
Ricardo Bodoso.

Q.
And what is your relation to him?
A.
My father.

Q.
After the accused entered his penis into your vagina, what happened next?
A.
Then he again made a push and pull into my vagina.

Q.
For how long did he make that push and pull?
A.
About 3 minutes.

Q.
When the accused sexually abused you on September 1999 at about 8:00 o'clock in the morning, do you know who were present in the house?
A.
Yes, sir.

Q.
Who?
A.
My sister.

Q.
What is the name of your sister?
A.
BBB

Q.
How far was she in your place where you were sexually abused?
A.
She was in the yard burning dry leaves.

Q.
When the accused sexually abused you on said date and time, what did you do?
A.
I was trying to get away from his hold but I couldn't.

Q.
So what did you do?
A.
I kept crying.

INTERPRETER:

Witness still crying.

PROS. PIFAÑO: (Continuing)

Q.
When the accused satisfied his lust, what did he do?
A.
He put on my shorts and panty.

Q.
After the accused put on your shorts and panty, what did he do?
A.
He went away.

Q.
Where was your mother then when the incident happened?
A.
She was in the Tabaco market vending some spices.

Q.
What time then (sic) your mother went home?
A.
About 11:00 or 12:00.[33]

The Court gives considerable weight on the above testimony of AAA since, ordinarily and customarily, Filipino children revere and respect their elders. This is deeply ingrained in them and is even recognized by law. Thus, it is unthinkable, if not completely preposterous, that a daughter would audaciously concoct a story of rape against her father in wanton disregard of the unspeakable trauma and social stigma it may generate on her and the entire family. An unmarried teenage lass does not ordinarily file a rape complaint against anybody, much less her own father, if it never did happen.[34]

The Court finds difficulty in subscribing to the assertion of the accused that AAA could not have been possibly raped simply because she was able to travel on a bicycle with her father and watched a beauty pageant right after the incident. AAA's honor might have been tarnished and her womanhood desecrated, but it does not follow that her physical capacity was affected.

The fear of bodily harm against herself and her mother can explain why AAA acted the way she did while walking home with her mother. After going through a harrowing experience in the hands of her father, her young mind could only imagine the worst from him. Few things are more recognized than the love that a daughter has for her mother. Verily, the guilt of the accused cannot be doubted just because AAA did not act as expected of a rape victim. Her behavior after the incident can be attributed to her young age, her father's moral ascendancy over her, and her fear that he might harm her and her mother should she find out that he had ravished their daughter. At any rate, not all rape victims are expected to act conformably to the usual expectation of everyone.[35] Different and varying degrees of behavioral responses are expected in the proximity of, or in confronting, an aberrant episode. In People v. Silvano,[36] it was written:

It is a time-honored precept that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.

For the same reason, the fact that AAA first confided the rape to Melchor Brusola and his family, instead of her mother, should not be taken against her.

The prosecution's version of what transpired on the two unforgettable occasions is fortified by the medical findings of Dr. Arsenia Mañosca-Moran, who testified that the lacerations found in her hymen could have been caused by sexual intercourse. Her report that there was no congestion because the incident took place several months before the examination of the patient on January 8, 2000 is consistent with the story of AAA that she was raped on July 14, 1999 and September 1999. When the testimony of the witness corresponds with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to conclude that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.[37] The mass of physical and testimonial evidence in this case clearly establishes the guilt of the accused. In fine, the trial court was correct in its findings.

In both incidents, the accused puts up the defense of denial and alibi. In a long line of cases, it has been consistently held that between the positive assertion of prosecution witnesses and the negative averment of an accused, the former undisputedly deserves more credence and is entitled to greater evidentiary value than mere denial.[38] On the other hand, for alibi to prosper, the accused must not only prove that he was at another place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at that time.[39]  As noted by the trial court:

Besides, the claim of the accused that he stayed in Tabaco in (sic) the evening of July 14, 1999 until midnight was belied by his own admission during the hearing on February 17, 2000, thus:

ATTY. BONAFER, JR.: (continuing)

xxx xxx

Q. Now, Mr. witness, how would you describe your relationship or your dealings with the private complainant prior to July 14, 1999?

A. In fact, I was so surprised because on the night of July 14, 1999 we are so happy together eating our supper and in fact, when I learned of that incident I was surprised. xxx[40]

The assertion of the accused that the minority of AAA was not established because the prosecution failed to present her birth certificate in evidence deserves scant consideration. The Informations specifically alleged that AAA was a minor, i.e., barely 14 years old on July 14, 1999 and September 1999, when she was raped by her own father. The accused himself, with the assistance of counsel, categorically admitted during pre-trial that AAA was his daughter and that she was only 14 years old on July 14, 1999 and in September 1999. These stipulations are binding on this Court because they are judicial admissions within the contemplation of Section 4, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court.[41]  The stipulation of facts signed by the parties, that is, the accused, his counsel and the prosecutor, in a criminal case is recognized as a declaration constituting judicial admission and is binding upon the parties. The stipulated facts stated in the pre-trial order amount to an admission by the accused and a waiver of his right to present evidence to the contrary. Although the right to present evidence is guaranteed by the Constitution, such right may be waived expressly or impliedly.[42] Thus, the rule that no proof need be offered as to any facts admitted during a pre-trial hearing applies.[43]

In this regard, the Court is also guided by the ground rules laid down in the case of People v. Pruna,[44] in appreciating the age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance. Thus:

1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party.

2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age.

3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim's mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances:

  1. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old;

  2. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old;

  3. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old.

4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document or the testimony of the victim's mother or relatives concerning the victim's age, the complainant's testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. 

5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him.

The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim. (Emphasis supplied)

At any rate, the minority of AAA was never in question as it was never contested. Not only did the accused admit such fact during the pre-trial conference,[45] but he also neither objected to, nor refuted, the following: AAA's testimony during the trial; the Medical Certificate[46] issued by Dr. Mañosca-Moran on January 10, 2000 and signed by AAA and her mother, which stated that she was only 14 years old at the time of the examination; and AAA's sworn statement[47] subscribed and sworn to on the same date before Judge Edwin C. Ma-Alat.

With respect to the penalty, the Court of Appeals failed to state that the reduction from death to reclusion perpetua is without eligibility for parole as held in the case of People v. Antonio Ortiz.[48] This should be rectified.

Moreover, it also erred in reducing the amount of the civil indemnity from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00. As the penalty would still have been death had it not been abolished, the amount of the civil indemnity should have remained at P75,000.00. The discussion in People v. Rodolfo Lopez[49] is worth noting. Thus:

On pecuniary liability, this Court ruled in People of the Philippines v. Sarcia that:

The principal consideration for the award of damages, under the ruling in People v. Salome and People v. Quiachon is the penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heinousness, not the public penalty actually imposed on the offender.

Regarding the civil indemnity and moral damages, People v. Salome explained the basis for increasing the amount of said civil damages as follows:

The Court, likewise, affirms the civil indemnity awarded by the Court of Appeals to Sally in accordance with the ruling in People v. Sambrano which states:

As to damages, we have held that if the rape is perpetrated with any of the attending qualifying circumstances that require the imposition of the death penalty, the civil indemnity for the victim shall be Php75,000.00 . . . Also, in rape cases, moral damages are warded without the need of proof other than the fact of rape because it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award. However, the trial court's award of Php50,000.00 as moral damages should also be increased to Php75,000.00 pursuant to current jurisprudence on qualified rape.

It should be noted that while the new law prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty provided for by law for a heinous offense is still death and the offense is still heinous. Consequently, the civil indemnity for the victim is still Php75,000.00.

People v. Quiachon also ratiocinates as follows:

With respect to the award of damages, the appellate court, following prevailing jurisprudence, correctly awarded the following amounts: Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity which is awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty; Php75,000.00 as moral damages because the victim is assumed to have suffered moral injuries, hence, entitling her to an award of moral damages even without proof thereof,  x x x.

Even if the penalty of death is not to be imposed on the appellant because of the prohibition in R. A. No. 9346, the civil indemnity of Php75,000.00 is still proper because, following the ratiocination in People v. Victor, the said award is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the offense. The Court declared that the award of P75,000.00 shows "not only a reaction to the apathetic societal perception of the penal law and the financial fluctuations over time but also the expression of the displeasure of the court of the incidence of heinous crimes against chastity."

The litmus test therefore, in the determination of the civil indemnity is the heinous character of the crime committed, which would have warranted the imposition of the death penalty, regardless of whether the penalty actually is reduced to reclusion perpetua.

(Emphasis included)

Moreover, to conform with existing jurisprudence,[50] the amount of exemplary damages should be increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 for each count of rape. Finally, in addition to the damages awarded, the accused should also pay interest at the legal rate of 6% from this date until fully paid.[51]

WHEREFORE, the December 18, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 01526, finding accused RICARDO BODOSO y BOLOR guilty of two (2) counts of rape is hereby MODIFIED to read as follows:

WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty of two (2) counts of rape committed against his daughter, AAA, the Court hereby sentences the accused, in each count, to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole; and to pay AAA the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and to pay the costs.

The accused shall also pay legal interest on all damages awarded until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

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

Endnotes:


* Designated as additional member in lieu of Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura per raffle dated June 16, 2010.

[1] Penned by Associate Justice Arturo G. Tayag, with Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam concurring; Rollo, pp. 2-26.

[2] Id. at 30.

[3] CA rollo, pp. 60-70; Records (Volume No. 1), pp. 229-239.

[4]  Id.

[5] The Court shall use fictitious initials in lieu of the real names and circumstances of the victim and the latter's immediate family members other than accused-appellant. (See People v. Gloria, G.R. No. 168476, September 27, 2006, 503 SCRA 742; citing Sec. 29 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610, Sec. 44 of R.A. No. 9262, and Sec. 40 of the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children; and People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419).

[6] CA rollo, p.5.

[7]  Id. at 6.

[8]  Records (Volume No. 1), pp. 37-38.

[9] Id. at 46-47.

[10] Records (Volume No. 1), p.106.

[11] Id. at 134.

[12] Id. at 137-155.

[13] Id. at 106.

[14] Id. at 219.

[15] Id. at 224-226.

[16] Id. at 227.

[17] RTC Decision, pp. 3-5; CA rollo, pp. 15-17; Records (Volume 1) pp. 231-233.

[18] RTC Decision, p.5; CA rollo, p. 17. Records (Volume 1) p. 233.

[19] Supra note 4.

[20] RTC Decision, p.8; CA rollo, p. 20; Records (Volume No. 1), p.236.

[21] RTC Decision, p.6; CA rollo, p 18; Records (Volume No. 1), p.234.

[22] CA rollo, pp. 44-59.

[23] Id. at 46, 51.

[24] CA Decision, p. 23. Rollo, p. 24.

[25] An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.

[26] Rollo, p. 25.

[27] Id. at 32.

[28] Id. at 36-37.

[29] Id. at 47-48.

[30] TSN, November 13, 2000, pp. 10-15.

[31] Id. at 15-17.

[32] People v. Dalipe, G.R. No. 187154, April 23, 2010.

[33] TSN, October 3, 2000, pp. 4-8.

[34] People v. Miranda, G.R. 176634, April 5, 2010, citing People v. Alvero, 386 Phil. 181, 198 (2000).

[35] People v. Silvano, 368 Phil. 676 (1999).

[36] Id.

[37] People v. Anthony Rante y Reyes, G.R. No. 184809, March 29, 2010, citing People v. Tuazon, G.R. No.

168102, 22 August 2008, 563 SCRA 124, 135.

[38] People v. Bustamante, 445 Phil. 345 (2003); People v. Monteron, 428 Phil. 401 (2002) and Tecson v. Sandiganbayan, 376 Phil. 191 (1999).

[39] People v. Alvarado, 429 Phil. 208 (2002).

[40] TSN, February 17, 2003, p.11.

[41] Sec. 4. Judicial admissions. - An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made (Emphasis supplied.)

[42] Alano v. CA, 347 Phil. 549 (1997).

[43] Afable, et al. v. Ruiz, et al., 56 O.G. 3767; supra; Munasque v. Court of Appeals, 224 Phil. 79 (1985) and Permanent Concrete Products, Inc. v. Teodoro, 135 Phil. 364 (1968).

[44] 439 Phil. 440 (2002).

[45] Records (Volume No. 1), pp. 46-47.

[46] Exh. C, Records (Volume 1) p. 4; Exh. D. Records (Volume 2) p. 4.

[47] Exh. A. Records (Volume 1) p. 2; Exh. B. Records (Volume 2) p. 2.

[48] G.R. No. 179944, September 4, 2009.

[49] G.R. No. 179714, October 2, 2009.

[50] People v. Antonio Dalisay y Destresa, G.R. No. 188100, November 25, 2009 and People v. Elmer Peralta y Hidalgo, G..R. No. 187531, October 16, 2009.

[51] People v. Bagos G.R. No. 177152, January 6, 2010, citing People v. Guevarra, G.R. No. 182192, October 29, 2008, 570 SCRA 288, 313; People v. Antivola, 466 Phil. 394 (2004) and People v. Olaybar, 459 Phil. 114 (2003).



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 AׁALUCAS 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 PIÑAS, 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 PEÑAFRANCIA 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 TEÑOSO 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, BIÑAN, LAGUNA AND HERMINIA JAVIER, CLERK III, RTC-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, BIÑAN, 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, BIÑAN, LAGUNA AND HERMINIA JAVIER, CLERK III, RTC-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, BIÑAN, 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, BIÑAN, 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, BIÑAN, 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, BIÑAN, 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, BIÑAN, 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, BIÑAN, 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, BIÑAN, 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, BIÑAN, 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, BIÑAN, 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, BIÑAN, 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, BIÑAN, 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, BIÑAN, 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, BIÑAN, 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 PEÑARANDA, 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. CARONOׁGAN, 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 MARIׁAS, 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. MONTAׁO, 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