Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2011 > June 2011 Decisions > [G.R. No. 182917 : June 08, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENJAMIN PADILLA Y UNTALAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.:




FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 182917 : June 08, 2011]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENJAMIN PADILLA Y UNTALAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N


LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

The case before Us is an appeal from the Decision [1] dated November 15, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00387.  Said decision affirmed with modification the Joint Decision [2] dated September 3, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Urdaneta City, Branch 49, in Criminal Case Nos. 11273-75, which convicted accused-appellant Benjamin Padilla y Untalan of three (3) counts of rape against the private complainant AAA. [3]

On March 12, 2001, accused-appellant was charged with three (3) counts of rape under three separate informations, the pertinent portions of which state:

CRIMINAL CASE NO. U-11273

That on or about January 13, 2001 at [XXX] and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the father of [AAA], a minor, 11 years old, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with said [AAA], against her will and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY to Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353 and R.A. 7659. [4] (Emphases ours.)

CRIMINAL CASE NO. U-11274

That at about dawn of January 14, 2001 at [XXX] and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being the father of [AAA], a minor, 11 years old, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with said [AAA], against her will and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY to Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353 and R.A. 7659. [5] (Emphases ours.)

CRIMINAL CASE NO. U-11275

That sometime in November 1999 at [XXX] and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being the father of [AAA], a minor, 10 years old, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with said [AAA], against her will and without her consent to her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY to Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353 and R.A. 7659. [6] (Emphases ours.)

On April 16 2001, accused-appellant separately entered a plea of not guilty in each of the three cases. [7]  Thereafter, the cases were set for a joint pre-trial conference.  In the said conference, the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the following matters, namely:

  1. The identity of the accused in [the] three cases;

  2. The identity of the private complainant [AAA] in [the] three cases;

  3. That the accused is the father of the private complainant; and

  4. That the private complainant is a minor having been born on February 28, 1989.[8]

The joint trial of the criminal cases, then, ensued.

The prosecution presented the testimony of AAA in order to prove that accused-appellant committed the three counts of rape as charged in the above informations.  AAA testified that the date of her birth was February 28, 1989.  In September of the year 1999, her mother, BBB, went to work abroad.  Since then, AAA had been living in their house in XXX with the accused-appellant; CCC, her older brother; DDD, her younger brother; and EEE, her younger sister.  AAA related that the incidents of rape charged against the accused-appellant occurred in November 1999, on January 13, 2001 and on January 14, 2001.  In November 1999, AAA recounted that at around seven o'clock in the morning, she was at the second floor of their house changing her clothes as she was about to go to school.  At that time, CCC was already working at the Asingan market as a helper, while DDD and EEE were outside the house.  While AAA was changing clothes, the accused-appellant came in.  The accused-appellant held her arm with his left hand and his right hand held a bolo. He pushed AAA and the latter fell down on the floor in a lying position.  He told her not to shout or he would kill her.  He proceeded to remove AAA's short pants and panty.  He was able to spread apart the legs of AAA despite her efforts to prevent him.  He then went on top of AAA and inserted his penis into her vagina.  He then did the push and pull movement.  Afterwards, he removed his penis, put on his brief and shorts and went to the market. [9]

As to the alleged second incident of rape on January 13, 2001, AAA related that the same likewise occurred at the upper floor of their house in the evening of the said date. AAA was then changing her clothes before going to bed, while her siblings CCC, DDD and EEE were already sleeping downstairs.  The accused-appellant again came in.  He held AAA with his left hand and his right hand held the same bolo used on the first incident of rape.  AAA stated that the accused-appellant pushed her again on the floor, removing her shorts and panty.  He spread her legs and went on top of her while she cried.  He thrusted his penis into her vagina then did the push and pull movement.  Afterwards, he left AAA.  The third incident of rape allegedly took place on January 14, 2001, at dawn as AAA slept at the ground floor of their house.  CCC was already in the market, while DDD and EEE were sleeping at a distance of around two meters from AAA.  The accused-appellant woke up AAA and whispered to her not to shout or he would kill her.  He then removed her shorts and panty and spread her legs.  He went on top of her, inserted his penis in her vagina and did the push and pull movement.  Thereafter, the accused-appellant left.  AAA said that at noontime on January 14, 2001, she and her younger siblings went to the house of her aunt, FFF.  There, she reported the incidents of rape to FFF.  They then waited for AAA's grandmother, GGG, and the latter accompanied AAA to the police station. [10]

The testimony of Senior Police Officer (SPO) 2 Patricio Badua, Jr. was also submitted in order to prove that he indeed received a report in connection with the above-stated cases for rape.  SPO2 Badua testified that on January 14, 2001, GGG reported that AAA was raped by the accused-appellant.  SPO2 Badua recorded the report in the police blotter and advised GGG that AAA should undergo medical examination. [11]  When GGG and AAA returned, SPO2 Badua took the sworn statement of AAA and he thereafter filed three criminal complaints in court against the accused-appellant. [12]

FFF next took the witness stand for the prosecution to corroborate the testimony of AAA.  FFF testified, among other details, that AAA is the daughter of her sister, BBB.  On January 14, 2001, at around eleven o'clock in the morning, FFF said that she was watering the plants in their yard when she saw AAA, together with DDD and EEE, proceeding towards her and they were crying.  When FFF asked AAA why she was crying, the latter eventually revealed that the accused-appellant raped her.  They then waited for GGG to arrive so they could have the accused-appellant picked up by the police. [13]

GGG also gave her testimony for the prosecution.  GGG testified that her daughter, BBB, is married to accused-appellant.  This fact was evidenced by a marriage certificate [14] that GGG presented in court.  The Certificate of Live Birth [15] in the name of AAA was likewise presented in order to prove that AAA is the daughter of the accused-appellant and that her date of birth is February 28, 1989.  According to GGG, she was at her store in XXX at around 11:00 a.m. on January 14, 2001.  She then went home and saw her grandchildren - AAA, DDD and EEE - crying. [16]  AAA reported to her that she (AAA) was raped by the accused-appellant.  Afterwards, they went to the police station where AAA gave her statement.  They then went to the hospital where AAA underwent a medical examination. [17]

Lastly, the prosecution presented the testimony of Dr. Noemie Taganas, the physician who examined AAA.  Dr. Taganas testified that on January 14, 2001, she conducted an external and internal examination of AAA. [18]  Dr. Taganas said that there was a swelling of the nipples, the labia majora, labia minora and the clitoris of AAA.  Moreover, Dr. Taganas stated that the hymen of AAA showed incomplete and old healed lacerations at 12 o'clock, 3 o'clock, 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock positions.  The hymen was lacerated only halfway.  Dr. Taganas concluded that the physical virginity of AAA was already lost. [19]

The defense portrayed a different version of the events.

CCC testified for the defense in order to prove that he had no knowledge of the allegations of rape of his younger sister, AAA.  He stated that, in 2001, the accused-appellant worked as a kargador (porter) in the market, usually around 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.  CCC related that his family slept side by side on the lower floor of their house at about 8:00 p.m. or 9:00 p.m.  Sometimes, he would sleep in another bed, which is separated from the other bed by a bamboo divider.  CCC further testified that he did not remember any unusual incident that happened in the evening on the month of January 2001.  Particularly, CCC said that he was asleep in their house and did not notice anything on that evening when AAA was allegedly raped by the accused-appellant. [20]

The accused-appellant also took the witness stand to prove his defense of denial and alibi.  He testified that in November 1999, he earned a living by selling fruits at the Asingan market.  During the market days of Monday, Wednesday and Friday back then, he would usually go out at 5:00 a.m. and stop selling fruits at 6:00 p.m.  He denied the allegation of AAA that he raped her sometime in November 1999 and that he afterwards went to the Asingan market.  He also testified that in the morning of January 14, 2001, he went to the Asingan market as he was already working there as a kargador.  He came back to their house at 9:30 a.m. and found therein his children AAA, DDD and EEE. CCC was working at the market at that time.  He asked AAA to cook food while he cleaned the house.  As he was cleaning, he allegedly saw that his squash plant has withered. He asked who among his children destroyed the plant, but none of them admitted to the act.  When he went to get his whipping stick, his children ran away to the bamboo groves.  He then went to find CCC in the market and told him to follow his siblings.  Afterwards, while he was still cleaning their house, two police officers came, looking for the house of Benjamin Padilla.  When he told them that he was Benjamin Padilla, they handcuffed him and brought him to the police station where he was incarcerated. The accused-appellant again denied raping AAA. [21]

On September 27, 2002, the defense also presented the testimony of Dr. Noemie Taganas, who testified to the fact that the lacerations found on the hymen of AAA on January 14, 2001 could still be detected as of that trial date.  The defense, thus, moved for another physical examination of AAA, to which the prosecution did not object.  On October 3, 2002, Dr. Taganas again testified, stating that she conducted another physical examination of AAA on September 27, 2002 and the internal findings arrived at were the same as those obtained from the previous examination. [22]

On September 3, 2004, the RTC rendered its Decision, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of rape, ratiocinating thus:

Seeking exculpation from the crime, [accused-appellant] claimed that he could not have possibly raped his daughter in November of 1999 and 14 January 2001 because he was working as a baggage carrier in the market of Asingan, Pangasinan.  As such, he would leave so early in the morning and would return home in the evening or at times, close to midday.  He also said that it was impossible to rape her on the night of 13 January 2001 because all of them sleep side by side; their sleeping arrangement was not even the same all the time.

[Accused-appellant's] alibi and denial deserves scant consideration.  On the contrary, [AAA's] straightforward and unwavering testimony deserves the badge of credence.  She could not have spoken in such simple and forthright manner if the accusations were not true.  It is improbable for guileless girls such as [AAA] to impute a crime so serious as rape to any man, let alone her father, if it were not true.  The Court finds no motive for [AAA] to testify falsely against her father or implicate him in the commission of the same. The charges for rape could not have likewise been filed because [AAA] regarded [accused-appellant] as a cruel father as the defense would want the Court to believe.  [AAA] has clearly identified her father as the perpetrator of the sexual molestation she suffered.  She could not have done so if she had only been prompted to free herself from a strict and overweening parent meaning to enforce discipline.  Moreover, ill motive is never an essential element of a crime.  It becomes inconsequential more so when there are affirmative and categorical declarations towards the accused's accountability for the crime.

Amidst the firm bedrock of evidence, [accused-appellant]'s general denial pales in comparison.  Like alibi, denial is inherently weak and must fail in the light of the positive declaration of the victim that the accused authored the abuses. [Accused-appellant's] bare assertions denying his culpability cannot overcome [AAA's] categorical testimony narrating her father's libidinous proclivities.

Her testimony is readily corroborated by the medical findings of her non-virgin state and the hymenal lacerations she suffered. Juxtaposed against such telling evidence of the prosecution, the bare denial and alibi of [accused-appellant] cannot prevail.  Absent strong evidence to buttress such denial, [AAA's] positive testimony deserves far greater weight.

Furthermore, [accused-appellant] was persevering in his denial, so much so that he even questioned the medical findings of Dr. Taganas.  He requested that [AAA] would undergo another medical examination, which request was granted by the Court.  After examination, Dr. Taganas testified that her findings were all the same.

Little did [accused-appellant] know that by questioning the findings of the doctor, he just dug a hole for his grave and drove the final nail to his coffin. By questioning the medical findings, to the mind of the Court, [accused-appellant] admitted his crime.  He admitted that there was indeed penetration but only that the same was not complete; thus, explaining that the laceration in [AAA's] hymen was only half way.  It is very elementary that in rape cases, full penetration is not required.  The mere touching of the penis of the lips of the vagina would already constitute rape.

From the plethora of evidence presented, the Court finds beyond the whisper of a doubt that [accused-appellant] committed the three counts of rape against his daughter [AAA], as alleged in the informations filed in Court.  The complainant's age when the crimes were committed and the blood relationship between her and the accused have not been questioned.  Hence, under R.A. 8353, the penalty of death awaits a parent who commits the crime of rape against his or her child less than eighteen (18) years of age. Consistent with law and prevailing jurisprudence, he likewise incurs pecuniary obligations arising from his criminal liability. [23]

The RTC, thus, decreed:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds and hereby pronounces the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape against his own daughter in each of these three (3) cases.  He is hereby sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of death in each of these cases pursuant to R.A. 7659, otherwise known as the Heinous Crime Law, and is hereby ordered to indemnify the private complainant in the amount of Php50,000.00 for each count of rape as civil indemnity, Php50,000.00 for each count of rape as moral damages and Php25,000.00 for each count of rape as exemplary damages.

Cost against the accused. [24]

Accused-appellant appealed the above judgment to the Court of Appeals.  On November 15, 2007, the appellate court issued the assailed Decision, likewise pronouncing the guilt of the accused-appellant.  The Court of Appeals found that:

The [testimony] of Private Complainant was clear, definite, and convincing.  Her narration contains the details, which only a real victim could remember and reveal. In fact, even during the grueling cross-examination, the Private Complainant's testimony was unequivocal. It bears the hallmarks of truth as she remained consistent on material points[.] x x x.

x x x x

In contrast, the Accused-Appellant's claim that he was at the market of Asingan, Pangasinan on all the three (3) occasions of rape, is flimsy.  We agree with the trial court that his defense of denial is intrinsically weak and must necessarily fail.  Not to mention that the said defense is negative and a self-serving assertion, it has no weight in law if unsubstantiated by clear, strong, and convincing evidence of non-culpability.  Also, the Accused-Appellant failed to buttress his denial by the required quantum of proof.  Verily, it did not overcome the Private Complainant's affirmative, categorical, spontaneous, and convincing testimony.

The physical evidence likewise reinforced the Private Complainant's testimony.  The Medico-Legal Report of Dr. Noemie Taganas, who physically examined her on January 14, 2001, shows that her genital has healed laceration at 12, 3, 6, and 9:00 o'clock positions, and that her hymen orifice admits 1-2 fingers with slight difficulty.  Consequently, the lacerations and pain that the Private Complainant suffered in her genital could be only the result of penile penetration forced upon her by the Accused-Appellant.[25]

The Court of Appeals, however, modified the penalty imposed by the RTC as follows:

The foregoing considered, We affirm the trial court's finding that the Accused-Appellant is guilty of three (3) counts of rape.  The age of the Private Complainant at the time of the rape incidents, as well as her relationship with the Accused-Appellant, were sufficiently established by the prosecution and admitted by the Accused-Appellant.  Thus, the trial court correctly meted out the penalty of death on all counts.  However, Republic Act No. 9346, entitled, An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, signed into law on June 24, 2006, prohibits the imposition of the death penalty.  The Accused-Appellant, thus, shall suffer only the penalty of reclusion perpetua, on three (3) counts.

While We sustain the awards of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) and of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as civil indemnity and exemplary damages, respectively, for each count of rape, the award of moral damages, must, however, be increased from Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) for each count in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[26] (Emphases ours.)

The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.  The Accused-Appellant Benjamin Padilla is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count.  He is also hereby ORDERED to pay the Private Complainant Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity and Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as exemplary damages, for each count of rape.  As modified, the Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) awarded below as moral damages is hereby INCREASED to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), for each count of rape.  Costs against the Accused-Appellant. [27]

Accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal, [28] which was given due course by the appellate court. [29] The records of the case were then elevated to this Court.

In an Order [30] dated July 14, 2008, we required the parties to file their supplemental briefs, if any, within thirty days from notice. The prosecution and the accused-appellant separately manifested [31] that, in lieu of filing their supplemental briefs before this Court, they were each adopting and repleading the briefs they respectively filed before the Court of Appeals.

The accused-appellant submits a lone assignment of error, arguing that the RTC gravely erred in finding him guilty of the crimes charged as the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [32]

The accused-appellant avers that the trial court should have given weight to his testimony that he was working at the Asingan market as a kargador during the time the alleged rapes were committed.  This statement was allegedly attested to by CCC.  The accused-appellant argues that, although the defense of alibi is weak, the prosecution is not released from its burden to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.  He avers that the prosecution evidence must always rely on its own strength and not by the weakness of the evidence adduced by the defense.  The prosecution failed to prove that (1) there had been carnal knowledge of AAA by the accused-appellant; and (2) the same was achieved through force and intimidation upon AAA or because the latter was deprived of reason or was otherwise unconscious.  Hence, the accused-appellant claims that the presumption of innocence in his favor should be upheld.

After a thorough and conscientious review of the records of this case, the Court affirms the rulings of the Court of Appeals and the RTC that the guilt of the accused-appellant of the crime of rape was indeed established beyond reasonable doubt.

The provision of law that defines the crime of rape by sexual intercourse is Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:

ART.  266-A. Rape When and How Committed.  - Rape is committed -

1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

a.  Through force, threat or intimidation;

b.  When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;

c. By means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority;

d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

Specifically, Article 266-A(1)(d) spells out the definition of the crime of statutory rape, the elements of which are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that such a woman is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented.

In the prosecution of statutory rape cases, force, intimidation and physical evidence of injury are not relevant considerations; the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place.  The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years; the child's consent is immaterial because of her presumed incapacity to discern good from evil. [33]

In the instant case, the element of carnal knowledge was primarily established by the testimony of AAA, which the Court of Appeals and the RTC found to be unequivocal and deserving credence.  In this regard, the Court reiterates the oft-cited doctrine that:

In a prosecution for rape, the victim's credibility becomes the single most important issue.  For when a woman says she was raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed; thus, if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.

The rule is settled that the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses and of their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, in the absence of any clear showing that the court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which would have affected the result of the case.  This is because the trial court, having seen and heard the witnesses themselves, and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, is in a better position to decide the question of credibility. [34]

We perused the entire records of the case and we are inclined to agree with the factual findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals on the issue of the credibility of AAA's testimony.  AAA unhesitatingly pointed to her father, the accused-appellant, as the perpetrator of the reprehensible acts of rape against her. The testimony of AAA was indeed straightforward, unequivocal, definite and convincing.  AAA tearfully narrated the ordeal that she suffered at the hands of the accused-appellant as follows:

[PROSECUTOR SILVESTRE RIDAO]
Q:
The first incident, Madam Witness, is November 1999. Where were you when the incident happened?
[AAA]
A:
I was in our house, sir.
Q:
What were you doing in your house?
A:
I was changing my clothes, sir.
Q:
For what?
A:
I was going to school that time, sir.
Q:
What time was that?
A:
Seven o'clock, sir.
Q:
Where was your brother [CCC] at that time?
A:
He was at the market, sir.
x x x x
Q:
How about the two, [DDD] and [EEE], where were they?
x x x x
A:
They were outside the house, sir.
Q:
What happened while you were changing your clothes?
A:
My father came, sir.
Q:
By the way, what part of the house were you in?
A:
I was upstairs, sir.
x x x x
Q:
What did your father do when he went to the second floor?
A:
He held me, sir.
Q:
With what hand did he hold you?
A:
His left hand, sir.
x x x x
Q:
You said he held you with his left hand. How about his right hand, what was his right hand doing?
A:
His right hand was holding a bolo, sir.
x x x x
Q:
What happened next after he held you?
A:
He pushed me, sir.
Q:
What happened to you when he pushed you?
A:
I fell down in a lying position, sir.
x x x x
Q:
What did your father tell you, if any, Madam Witness?
A:
He told me not to shout because he will kill me, sir.
x x x x
Q:
After you were pushed on the floor, what happened next?
A:
He removed my short pants and my panty, sir.
Q:
What did you do while he was removing your shorts and panty?
A:
I was crying, sir.
Q:
What did he do next, Madam Witness?
A:
He removed his shorts and brief, sir.
x x x x
Q:
What did your father do when he removed his shorts and brief?
A:
He spread my legs sir.
x x x x
Q:
What happened next after he spread your legs?
A:
He went on top of me, sir.
x x x x
Q:
What happened next after he went on top of you?
A:
He inserted his penis inside my vagina, sir.
Q:
What did you feel when he inserted his penis to your vagina?
A:
It was painful, sir.
x x x x
PROS. RIDAO:
May we just put on record, Your Honor, that the witness is crying.
COURT:
Put that on record.
x x x x
Q:
After he inserted his penis into your vagina, what did he do next?
A:
He did the push and pull movement, sir.
Q:
What happened next after he did the push and pull movement?
A:
He removed his penis and stood up, sir.
x x x x
Q:
Do you recall where you were, Madam Witness, on January 13, 2001 in the evening?
x x x x
A:
I was in our house, sir.
Q:
In what particular place in your house?
A:
Upstairs, sir.
Q:
What were you doing upstairs?
A:
I was changing my clothes, sir.
x x x x
Q:
Where was your older brother, [CCC], at that time?
A:
He was already asleep, sir.
Q:
How about [DDD] and [EEE]?
A:
They were already asleep, sir.
Q:
Where were they sleeping?
A:
Downstairs, sir.
Q:
While changing your clothes, Madam Witness, what happened?
A:
My father came again, sir.
Q:
What did you do when he came near you?
A:
He held me again, sir.
Q:
How did he hold you?
x x x x
A:
His left hand, sir.
Q:
About [his] right hand, what was his right hand doing?
A:
His right hand was holding a bolo, sir.
x x x x
Q:
What did he do next after he held your arm?
A:
He again pushed me, sir.
Q:
What happened to you when he pushed you?
A:
I fell down, sir.
x x x x
Q:
What did your father do next after you fell on the floor?
A:
He removed my shorts and panty, sir.
x x x x
Q:
What did your father do next?
A:
He spread my [legs], sir.
x x x x
Q:
What did he do next after spreading your legs?
A:
He went on top of me, sir.
x x x x
Q:
What did your father do next?
A:
He inserted his penis in my vagina, sir.
x x x x
Q:
What did your father do next after inserting his penis into your vagina?
A:
He did the push and pull movement, sir.
Q:
While doing the push and pull movement, what did you feel?
A:
I felt pain, sir.
Q:
After he did the push and pull movement, what did you feel?
A:
I felt something hot, sir.
Q:
Coming from what?
A:
Coming from his penis, sir.
Q:
Where did you feel that something hot?
A:
My vagina, sir.
Q:
What did your father do next after you felt something hot in your vagina?
A:
He removed his penis from my vagina, sir.
Q:
And then what did he do?
A:
He put on his brief and shorts, sir.
Q:
And then?
A:
Then he left, sir.
x x x x
Q:
On January 14, 2001, at dawn, Madam Witness, do you recall where you were?
x x x x
A:
I was in our house, sir.
Q:
In what particular place in your house?
A:
Downstairs, sir.
Q:
What were you doing downstairs?
A:
I was sleeping, sir.
Q:
About your brother [CCC], where was he?
A:
He was in the market, sir.
Q:
About your brother [DDD], where was he?
A:
He was still sleeping, sir.
Q:
About your sister [EEE], where was she?
A:
She was still sleeping at that time, sir.
Q:
Where were they sleeping?
A:
On the ground floor, sir.
x x x x
Q:
What time were you awakened at dawn?
A:
I cannot remember but it was early dawn, sir.
Q:
Why were you awakened?
A:
My father woke me up, sir.
Q:
How did he woke you up?
A:
He shook me, sir.
x x x x
Q:
After you were awakened, what did your father do next?
A:
He threatened me, sir.
Q:
How did he threaten you? What did he tell you?
A:
He said to me: "Don't shout or else I will kill you".
Q:
How did he tell that to you?
A:
He whispered it to me, sir.
Q:
After making that threat, what did he do next[?]
A:
He removed my shorts and panty, sir.
x x x x
Q:
After removing your shorts and panty, what did he do next?
A:
He also removed his shorts and brief, sir.
x x x x
Q:
What did your father do next?
A:
He spread my legs again, sir.
x x x x
Q:
What did your father do next?
A:
He went on top of me, sir.
Q:
And then what did he do next?
A:
He inserted his penis inside my vagina, sir.
x x x x
Q:
What did you do after he inserted his penis inside your vagina?
A:
He did the push and pull [movement], sir.
x x x x
Q:
After your father did the push and pull movement, what did you feel?
A:
I felt something hot, sir.
Q:
And after you felt something hot, what did your father do?
A:
He removed his penis from my vagina, sir. [35]

The above testimony of AAA that the accused-appellant had sexual intercourse with her was also corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Taganas that AAA was no longer physically a virgin.  In People v. Oden, [36]  we held that "[t]he spontaneity with which the victim has detailed the incidents of rape, the tears she has shed at the stand while recounting her experience, and her consistency almost throughout her account dispel any insinuation of a rehearsed testimony.  The eloquent testimony of the victim, coupled with the medical findings attesting to her non-virgin state, should be enough to confirm the truth of her charges." [37]

Moreover, People v. Bon [38] reiterates that "no sane woman, least of all a child, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her.  Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed.  Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity." [39]

Thus, the Court rules that the element of carnal knowledge of AAA by the accused-appellant was sufficiently proven in each of the three (3) counts of rape in this case.

The accused-appellant cannot likewise rely on his defense of alibi to disprove the testimony of AAA.  Verily, denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative evidence, which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of a credible witness.  Between the positive assertions of the victim and the negative averments of the appellant, the former indisputably deserve more credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary weight. [40]  For alibi to prosper it is not enough for the appellant to prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed; he must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. [41]

In the instant case, the accused-appellant merely denied that he raped AAA in November 1999.  The accused-appellant did not deny that he was in their house, with all of his children, on the night when the second incident of rape on January 13, 2001 took place.  As to the rape that was committed in the early morning hours of January 14, 2001, the accused-appellant denied the same, stating that he was at the Asingan market when the rape supposedly occurred and that he only came home at around 9:30 a.m. on the said date.  However, other than his testimony in court, the accused-appellant failed to submit any other evidence to prove that he was indeed at the Asingan market when the third incident of rape was committed.  The testimony of CCC did not particularly provide any specific corroboration on this point, as CCC merely testified that the accused-appellant usually goes to work at the Asingan market at 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.  The accused-appellant even subsequently denied in his cross-examination that he went home at about 9:30 a.m. on January 14, 2001 without so much of an explanation. [42]  Furthermore, the accused-appellant failed to demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be at their house at the time of the commission of the third incident of rape.  CCC stated in his cross-examination that the Asingan market was only 10 minutes away from their house if one were to go there by foot. [43]  Thus, it would have been relatively easy for the accused-appellant to go back from the Asingan market to their house to carry out the sexual abuse against AAA and then go to the market again.  Consequently, the accused-appellant's defense of alibi cannot overcome the positive declaration of AAA.

As to the second element of statutory rape, the fact that AAA was under 12 years of age when the incidents of rape occurred had likewise been clearly established in the instant case.  During the pre-trial conference before the RTC, the parties stipulated that AAA was born on February 28, 1989 and such fact was also evidenced by the Certificate of Live Birth of AAA, which was presented during the trial.  Thus, AAA was only 10 years old and 11 years old, respectively, when the incidents of rape charged against the accused-appellant took place in November 1999 and January 2001. Moreover, the parties previously stipulated during the pre-trial conference and, thereafter, the accused-appellant admitted during trial that he is the biological father of AAA.  The said fact is also evident in the Certificate of Live Birth of AAA.

The age of AAA and her relationship to the accused-appellant qualify the three (3) counts of rape in this case, as provided for under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, which reads:

Art. 266-B. Penalties. - x x x

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:

1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.

In sum, the Court finds the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of statutory rape in its qualified form.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the Court of Appeals correctly held that the appropriate penalty that should be imposed upon the accused-appellant is reclusion perpetua for each count of rape.  This is in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 9346, entitled an Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, which took effect on June 30, 2006.  Section 2 of Republic Act No. 9346 imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of death, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code. [44] Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 further provides that persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.

The Court affirms the appellate court's award of P75,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape in accordance with the current jurisprudence on qualified rape.  However, the awards of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape should be increased to P75,000.00 and P30,000.00, respectively, in keeping with recent case law. [45]

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the appeal is DENIED.  The Decision dated November 15, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00387 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS.  The accused-appellant Benjamin Padilla y Untalan is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of QUALIFIED RAPE and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without the possibility of parole.  The accused-appellant is ORDERED to pay AAA for each count of rape P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus legal interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% from the date of finality of this Decision.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Corona, C.J., (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., Del Castillo, and Perez, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:


[1] Rollo, pp. 2-22; penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro with Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Fernanda Lampas Peralta, concurring.

[2] CA rollo, pp. 40-50; penned by Presiding Judge Rodrigo G. Nabor.

[3] The real name or any other information tending to establish the identity of the private complainant and those of her immediate family or household members shall be withheld in accordance with Republic Act No. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its Violation, and for Other Purposes; Republic Act No. 9262, An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes; Sec. 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as "Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children" effective November 15, 2004; and People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.

Thus, the private offended party shall be referred to as AAABBB shall refer to her mother.  CCC shall stand for the name of her older brother, whereas DDD and EEE shall indicate the names of her younger brother and younger sister, respectively.  FFF shall pertain to the sister of the private offended party's mother, while GGG shall designate the maternal grandmother of the private offended party.  XXX shall denote the place where the crime was allegedly committed.

[4] Records (Criminal Case No. U-11273), p. 1.

[5] CA rollo, p. 8.

[6] Records (Criminal Case No. U-11275), p. 1.

[7] Records (Criminal Case No. U-11273), p. 28.

[8] Id. at 37.

[9] TSN, August 22, 2001, pp. 2-9.

[10] Id. at 9-17.

[11] TSN, June 11, 2001, pp. 3-4.

[12] Id. at 5.

[13] TSN, June 19, 2001, pp. 2-6.

[14] Records (Criminal Case No. U-11273), p. 93.

[15] Id. at 2.

[16] TSN, August 7, 2001, pp. 7-8.

[17] Id. at 9-10.

[18] The findings of Dr. Taganas were set forth in the Medico-Legal Certification, which recites:

MEDICO-LEGAL CERTIFICATION


TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This is to certify that [AAA], 12 years old, female and a resident of [XXX] came to this hospital for consultation and examination on January 14, 2001 with the following findings:

A. External Findings:

- Swelling of both nipples
- Swelling of the labia majora, labia minora and clitoris

B. Internal Findings:

- Hymen showing incomplete and old healed laceration about 12:00, 3:00, 6:00 and 9:00 o'clock position.
- Hymen orifice admits 1-2 fingers with slight difficulty.

DIAGNOSIS: Physical Virginity, Lost
(Signed)

NOEMIE M. TAGANAS, M.D.
Chief of Hospital (Records [Criminal Case No. U-11273], p. 94.)


[19] TSN, December 4, 2001, pp. 4-6.

[20] TSN, February 4, 2002, pp. 5-10.

[21] TSN, June 10, 2002, pp. 6-11.

[22] TSN, September 27, 2002, pp. 2-5.

[23] CA rollo, pp. 48-50.

[24] Id. at 50.

[25] Rollo, pp. 18-20.

[26] Id. at 20-21.

[27] Id. at 21-22.

[28] Id. at 23-25.

[29] Id. at 26.

[30] Id. at 28.

[31] Id. at 29-34.

[32] CA rollo, p. 89.

[33] People v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 172372, December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 307, 314-315.

[34] People v. Paculba, G.R. No. 183453, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 755, 763-764.

[35] TSN, August 22, 2001, pp. 4-15.

[36] 471 Phil. 638 (2004).

[37] Id. at 667.

[38] G.R. No. 166401, October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 168.

[39] Id. at 187.

[40] People v. Bang-ayan, G.R. No. 172870, September 22, 2006, 502 SCRA 658, 670.

[41] People v. Matunhay, G.R. No. 178274, March 5, 2010, 614 SCRA 307, 317.

[42] TSN, June 11, 2002, p. 4.

[43] TSN, February 4, 2002, p. 10.

[44] People v. Dimanawa, G.R. No. 184600, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 770, 783.

[45] People v. Documento, G.R. No. 188706, March 17, 2010, 615 SCRA 610, 614-618; People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 177740, April 5, 2010, 617 SCRA 318, 335.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

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

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

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

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





June-2011 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 179558, June 01 : 2011] ASIATRUST DEVELOPMENT BANK, PETITIONER, VS. FIRST AIKKA DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND UNIVAC DEVELOPMENT, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 169359-61, June 01 : 2011] MARCELO G. GANADEN, OSCAR B. MINA, JOSE M. BAUTISTA AND ERNESTO H. NARCISO, JR. PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND ROBERT K. HUMIWAT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169191, June 01 : 2011] ROMEO VILLARUEL, PETITIONER, VS. YEO HAN GUAN, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE YUHANS ENTERPRISES, RESPONDENT.

  • MEGAN SUGAR CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOILO, BRANCH 68, DUMANGAS, ILOILO; NEW FRONTIER SUGAR CORPORATION AND EQUITABLE PCI BANK, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186243, June 01 : 2011] HACIENDA PRIMERA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and ANNA KATRINA E. HERNANDEZ, Petitioners, vs. MICHAEL S. VILLEGAS, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 186243, June 01 : 2011] HACIENDA PRIMERA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and ANNA KATRINA E. HERNANDEZ, Petitioners, vs. MICHAEL S. VILLEGAS, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 185230, June 01 : 2011] JOSEPH C. CEREZO,PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, JULIET YANEZA, PABLO ABUNDA, JR., AND VICENTE AFULUGENCIA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 170500 & 170510-11, June 01 : 2011] MARCELO G. GANADEN, OSCAR B. MINA, JOSE M. BAUTISTA AND ERNESTO H. NARCISO, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL TRANSMISSION COMMISSION (TRANSCO), ALIPIO NOOL, FERMIN P. LANAG, SR., EUSEBIO B. COLLADO, JOSE S. TEJANO, NECIMIO A. ABUZO, ELISEO P. MARTINEZ AND PERFECTO LAZARO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188064, June 01 : 2011] MILA A. REYES , PETITIONER, VS. VICTORIA T. TUPARAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186465, June 01 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LORIE VILLAHERMOSA Y LECO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 185917, June 01 : 2011] FREDCO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE (HARVARD UNIVERSITY), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180683, June 01 : 2011] AURORA L. TECSON, SPOUSES JOSE L. TECSON AND LEONILA TECSON, PETITIONERS, VS. MINERVA, MARIA, FRANCISCO, AGUSTINA, JOSE, ROMUALDO, ELIZABETH AND VICTOR, ALL SURNAMED FAUSTO, AND ISABEL VDA. DE FAUSTO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167050, June 01 : 2011] SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. RIZAL POULTRY AND LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION, INC., BSD AGRO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND BENJAMIN SAN DIEGO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 161651, June 01 : 2011] ELVIRA LATEO Y ELEAZAR, FRANCISCO ELCA Y ARCAS, AND BARTOLOME BALDEMOR Y MADRIGAL, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 194379, June 01 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FELICIANO "SAYSOT" CIAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 173198, June 01 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DOLORES OCDEN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 178925, June 01 : 2011] MANUEL YBIERNAS, VICENTE YBIERNAS, MARIA CORAZON ANGELES, VIOLETA YBIERNAS, AND VALENTIN YBIERNAS, PETITIONERS, VS. ESTER TANCO-GABALDON, MANILA BAY SPINNING MILLS, INC., AND THE SHERIFF OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG CITY, BRANCH 163, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179675, June 01 : 2011] SPOUSES JUANITO MAHUSAY AND FRANCISCA MAHUSAY,PETITIONERS, VS. B.E. SAN DIEGO, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 154704, June 01 : 2011] NELLIE VDA. DE FORMOSO AND HER CHILDREN, NAMELY, MA. THERESA FORMOSO-PESCADOR, ROGER FORMOSO, MARY JANE FORMOSO, BERNARD FORMOSO AND PRIMITIVO MALCABA, PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, FRANCISCO ARCE, ATTY. BENJAMIN BARBERO, AND ROBERTO NAVARRO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 193902, June 01 : 2011] ATTY. MARIETTA D. ZAMORANOS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SAMSON R. PACASUM, SR., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 193908] ATTY. MARIETTA D. ZAMORANOS, PETITIONER, VS. SAMSON R. PACASUM, SR., RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 194075] SAMSON R. PACASUM, SR., PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. MARIETTA D. ZAMORANOS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191618, June 01 : 2011] ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL, PETITIONER, VS. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170251, June 01 : 2011] CELIA S. VDA. DE HERRERA, PETITIONER, VS. EMELITA BERNARDO, EVELYN BERNARDO AS GUARDIAN OF ERLYN, CRISLYN AND CRISANTO BERNARDO,* RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 127851, June 02 : 2011] CORONA INTERNATIONAL, INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 178701 and 178754, June 06 : 2011] ZAFIRO L. RESPICIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185211, June 06 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ARNEL BENTACAN NAVARRETE, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 190107, June 06 : 2011] JAPRL DEVELOPMENT CORP., PETER RAFAEL C. LIMSON AND JOSE UY AROLLADO, PETITIONERS, VS. SECURITY BANK CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 168382, June 06 : 2011] AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190515, June 06 : 2011] CIRTEK EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS PETITIONER, VS. CIRTEK ELECTRONICS, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 160506, June 06 : 2011] JOEB M. ALIVIADO, ARTHUR CORPUZ, ERIC ALIVIADO, MONCHITO AMPELOQUIO, ABRAHAM BASMAYOR, JONATHAN MATEO, LORENZO PLATON, JOSE FERNANDO GUTIERREZ, ESTANISLAO BUENAVENTURA, LOPE SALONGA, FRANZ DAVID, NESTOR IGNACIO, JULIO REY, RUBEN MARQUEZ, JR., MAXIMINO PASCUAL, ERNESTO CALANAO, ROLANDO ROMASANTA, RHUEL AGOO, BONIFACIO ORTEGA, ARSENIO SORIANO, JR., ARNEL ENDAYA, ROBERTO ENRIQUEZ, NESTOR BAQUILA, EDGARDO QUIAMBAO, SANTOS BACALSO, SAMSON BASCO, ALADINO GREGORO, JR., EDWIN GARCIA, ARMANDO VILLAR, EMIL TAWAT, MARIO P. LIONGSON, CRESENTE J. GARCIA, FERNANDO MACABENTE, MELECIO CASAPAO, REYNALDO JACABAN, FERDINAND SALVO, ALSTANDO MONTOS, RAINER N. SALVADOR, RAMIL REYES, PEDRO G. ROY, LEONARDO P. TALLEDO, ENRIQUE F. TALLEDO, WILLIE ORTIZ, ERNESTO SOYOSA, ROMEO VASQUEZ, JOEL BILLONES, ALLAN BALTAZAR, NOLI GABUYO, EMMANUEL E. LABAN, RAMIR E. PIAT, RAUL DULAY, TADEO DURAN, JOSEPH BANICO, ALBERT LEYNES, ANTONIO DACUNA, RENATO DELA CRUZ, ROMEO VIERNES, JR., ELAIS BASEO, WILFREDO TORRES, MELCHOR CARDANO, MARIANO NARANIAN, JOHN SUMERGIDO, ROBERTO ROSALES, GERRY C. GATPO, GERMAN N. GUEVARRA, GILBERT Y. MIRANDA, RODOLFO C. TOLEDO, ARNOLD D. LASTONA, PHILIP M. LOZA, MARIO N. CULDAYON, ORLANDO P. JIMENEZ, FRED P. JIMENEZ, RESTITUTO C. PAMINTUAN, JR., ROLANDO J. DE ANDRES, ARTUZ BUSTENERA, ROBERTO B. CRUZ, ROSEDY O. YORDAN, DENNIS DACASIN, ALEJANDRINO ABATON, AND ORLANDO S. BALANGUE, PETITIONERS, VS. PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILS., INC., AND PROMM-GEM INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165279, June 07 : 2011] DR. RUBI LI, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES REYNALDO AND LINA SOLIMAN, AS PARENTS/HEIRS OF DECEASED ANGELICA SOLIMAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, June 07 : 2011] RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY ENTITLED RESTORING INTEGRITY: A STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME COURT

  • [G.R. No. 190259, June 07 : 2011] DATU ZALDY UY AMPATUAN, ANSARUDDIN ADIONG, REGIE SAHALI-GENERALE PETITIONERS, VS. HON. RONALDO PUNO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ALTER-EGO OF PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, AND ANYONE ACTING IN HIS STEAD AND ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (AFP), OR ANY OF THEIR UNITS OPERATING IN THE AUTONOMOUS REGION IN MUSLIM MINDANAO (ARMM), AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, OR ANY OF THEIR UNITS OPERATING IN ARMM, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177130, June 07 : 2011] HON. EDUARDO ERMITA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, PETITIONER, VS. HON. JENNY LIND R. ALDECOA-DELORINO, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 137, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MAKATI CITY, ASSOCIATION OF PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTING JG SUMMIT PETROCHEMICAL CORPORATION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2835 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2901-P), June 08 : 2011] DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. BENILDA A. TEJADA, CHIEF LEGAL COUNSEL, COMPLAINANT, VS. CLERK OF COURT VII ATTY. JEOFFREY S. JOAQUINO, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, AND SHERIFF IV CONSTANCIO V. ALIMURUNG, BRANCH 18, BOTH OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CEBU CITY,RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 192465, June 08 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ANGELITO ESQUIBEL Y JESUS, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 170575, June 08 : 2011] SPOUSES MANUEL AND FLORENTINA DEL ROSARIO, PETITIONERS, VS. GERRY ROXAS FOUNDATION, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185717, June 08 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GARRY DE LA CRUZ Y DELA CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 179673, June 08 : 2011] NATIVIDAD STA. ANA VICTORIA, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171972, June 08 : 2011] LUCIA RODRIGUEZ AND PRUDENCIA RODRIGUEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. TERESITA V. SALVADOR, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178409, June 08 : 2011] YOLITO FADRIQUELAN, ARTURO EGUNA, ARMANDO MALALUAN, DANILO ALONSO, ROMULO DIMAANO, ROEL MAYUGA, WILFREDO RIZALDO, ROMEO SUICO, DOMINGO ESCAMILLAS AND DOMINGO BAUTRO, PETITIONERS, VS. MONTEREY FOODS CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 178434] MONTEREY FOODS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. BUKLURAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MONTEREY-ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA, YOLITO FADRIQUELAN, CARLITO ABACAN, ARTURO EGUNA, DANILO ROLLE, ALBERTO CASTILLO, ARMANDO MALALUAN, DANILO ALFONSO, RUBEN ALVAREZ, ROMULO DIMAANO, ROEL MAYUGA, JUANITO TENORIO, WILFREDO RIZALDO, JOHN ASOTIGUE, NEMESIO AGTAY, ROMEO SUICO, DOMINGO ESCAMILLAS AND DOMINGO BAUTRO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170146, June 08 : 2011] HON. WALDO Q. FLORES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SENIOR DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY IN THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, HON. ARTHUR P. AUTEA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY IN THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, AND THE PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION (PAGC), PETITIONERS, VS. ATTY. ANTONIO F. MONTEMAYOR, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175834, June 08 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ROSAURO ASETRE Y DURAN, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 169913, June 08 : 2011] HEIRS OF DR. JOSE DELESTE, NAMELY: JOSEFA DELESTE, JOSE RAY DELESTE, RAUL HECTOR DELESTE, AND RUBEN ALEX DELESTE, PETITIONERS, VS. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (LBP), AS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, LAND VALUATION OFFICE OF LBP COTABATO CITY; THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR - REGION 12 OF COTABATO CITY, THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM; THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION X - CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, REPRESENTED BY MCMILLAN LUCMAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER (PARO) OF DAR LANAO DEL NORTE; LIZA BALBERONA, IN HER CAPACITY AS DAR MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER (MARO); REYNALDO BAGUIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ILIGAN CITY AS NOMINAL PARTY; THE EMANCIPATION PATENT HOLDERS: FELIPE D. MANREAL, CUSTUDIO M. RICO, HEIRS OF DOMINGO V. RICO, HEIRS OF ABDON T. MANREAL, MACARIO M. VELORIA, ALICIA B. MANREAL, PABLO RICO, SALVACION MANREAL, HEIRS OF TRANQUILIANA MANREAL, HEIRS OF ANGELA VELORIA, HEIRS OF NECIFURO CABALUNA, HEIRS OF CLEMENTE RICO, HEIRS OF MANTILLANO OBISO, HEIRS OF HERCULANO BALORIO, AND TITO BALER, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183849, June 11 : 2011] DOMINGO M. ULEP, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC, June 14 : 2011] RE: PETITION FOR RADIO AND TELEVISION COVERAGE OF THE MULTIPLE MURDER CASES AGAINST MAGUINDANAO GOVERNOR ZALDY AMPATUAN, ET AL., [A.M. No. 10-11-6-SC ] RE: PETITION FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PRESENT COURT HANDLING THE TRIAL OF THE MASSACRE OF 57 PERSONS, INCLUDING 32 JOURNALISTS, IN AMPATUAN, MAGUINDANAO INTO A SPECIAL COURT HANDLING THIS CASE ALONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACHIEVING GENUINE SPEEDY TRIAL and FOR THE SETTING UP OF VIDEOCAM AND MONITOR JUST OUTSIDE THE COURT FOR JOURNALISTS TO COVER AND FOR THE PEOPLE TO WITNESS THE "TRIAL OF THE DECADE" TO MAKE IT TRULY PUBLIC AND IMPARTIAL AS COMMANDED BY THE CONSTITUTION, A.M. No. 10-11-7-SC RE: LETTER OF PRESIDENT BENIGNO S. AQUINO III FOR THE LIVE MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE MAGUINDANAO MASSACRE TRIAL.

  • [G.R. No. 189314, June 15 : 2011] MIGUEL DELA BARAIRO, PENA PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND MST MARINE SERVICES (PHILS,), INC.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-10-2246 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3219-RTJ) : June 01, 2011] ATTY. RANDY P. BARENG, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ZENAIDA R. DAGUNA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 19, MANILA, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2794 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2937-P) : June 01, 2011] DANELLA G. SONIDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JOSEFINA G. ILOCSO, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 80, MORONG, RIZAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. SCC-11-16-P (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I No. 10-33-SCC [P] : June 01, 2011] SULTAN PANDAGARANAO A. ILUPA, COMPLAINANT, VS. MACALINOG S. ABDULLAH, CLERK OF COURT II, SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURT, MARAWI CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2931 (formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2852-P) : June 01, 2011] JOHN A. MENDEZ, ANGELITO, CABALLERO AND IVY CABALLERO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. NERISSA A. BALBUENA, COURT INTERPRETER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 7, CEBU CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 196919 : June 06, 2011] JOSE RAMILO O. REGALADO, PETITIONER, VS. CHAUCER B. REGALADO AND GERARD R. CUEVAS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 155307 : June 06, 2011] M.A. JIMENEZ ENTERPRISES, INC., REPRESENTED BY CESAR CALIMLIM AND LAILA BALOIS, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN, JESUS P. CAMMAYO, ARTURO SANTOS, MANUEL FACTORA, TEODORO BARROZO, MANUEL ROY, RONALD MANALILI AND JOHN ULASSUS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 142676 : June 06, 2011] EMERITA MUÑOZ, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. VICTORIANO R. YABUT, JR. AND SAMUEL GO CHAN, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 146718] EMERITA MUÑOZ, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES SAMUEL GO CHAN AND AIDA C. CHAN, AND THE BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 164939 : June 06, 2011] SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HYATT (SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN), PETITIONER, VS. HON. VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR BUENAVENTURA C. MAGSALIN AND HOTEL ENTERPRISES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 172303] SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HYATT (SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN), PETITIONER, VS. HOTEL ENTERPRISES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191266 : June 06, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DARIUS BAUTISTA Y ORSINO @ DADA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 164891 : June 06, 2011] VIRGINIA M. GUADINES, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168335 : June 06, 2011] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. NESTOR GALANG, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190710 : June 06, 2011] JESSE U. LUCAS, PETITIONER, VS. JESUS S. LUCAS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188897 : June 06, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. IRENO BONAAGUA Y BERCE, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 165887 : June 06, 2011] MAJORITY STOCKHOLDERS OF RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, VS. MIGUEL LIM, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AS STOCKHOLDER OF RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND REPRESENTING THE MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS OF RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 165929 ] CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. MIGUEL LIM, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AS A STOCKHOLDER OF RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND REPRESENTING THE MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS OF RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182918 : June 06, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. EFREN PATELAN LAMBERTE @ “KALBO” AND MARCELINO RUIZ NIMUAN @ “CELINE,” ACCUSED, MARCELINO RUIZ NIMUAN, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 175367 : June 06, 2011] DANILO A. AURELIO, PETITIONER, VS. VIDA MA. CORAZON P. AURELIO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 177131 : June 07, 2011] BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-07-2087 : June 07, 2011] (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2621-RTJ) OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MA. ELLEN M. AGUILAR, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 70, BURGOS, PANGASINAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-07-2087 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2621-RTJ) : June 07, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MA. ELLEN M. AGUILAR, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 70, BURGOS, PANGASINAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182148 : June 08, 2011] SIME DARBY PILIPINAS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. GOODYEAR PHILIPPINES, INC. AND MACGRAPHICS CARRANZ INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 183210] GOODYEAR PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. SIME DARBY PILIPINAS, INC. AND MACGRAPHICS CARRANZ INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167391 : June 08, 2011] PHIL-VILLE DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. MAXIMO BONIFACIO, CEFERINO R. BONIFACIO, APOLONIO B. TAN, BENITA B. CAINA, CRISPINA B. PASCUAL, ROSALIA B. DE GRACIA, TERESITA S. DORONIA, CHRISTINA GOCO AND ARSENIO C. BONIFACIO, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS THE SURVIVING HEIRS OF THE LATE ELEUTERIA RIVERA VDA. DE BONIFACIO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 178771 : June 08, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ALBERTO ANTICAMARA Y CABILLO AND FERNANDO CALAGUAS FERNANDEZ A.K.A. LANDO CALAGUAS, APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177099 : June 08, 2011] EDUARDO G. AGTARAP, PETITIONER, VS. SEBASTIAN AGTARAP, JOSEPH AGTARAP, TERESA AGTARAP, WALTER DE SANTOS, AND ABELARDO DAGORO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 177192] SEBASTIAN G. AGTARAP, PETITIONER, VS. EDUARDO G. AGTARAP, JOSEPH AGTARAP, TERESA AGTARAP, WALTER DE SANTOS, AND ABELARDO DAGORO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189206 : June 08, 2011] GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE 15TH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND INDUSTRIAL BANK OF KOREA, TONG YANG MERCHANT BANK, HANAREUM BANKING CORP., LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, WESTMONT BANK AND DOMSAT HOLDINGS, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186395 : June 08, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ITO PINIC, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 167000 : June 08, 2011] GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), PETITIONER, VS. GROUP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (GMC) AND LAPU-LAPU DEVELOPMENT & HOUSING CORPORATION (LLDHC), RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 169971] GROUP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (GMC), PETITIONER, VS. LAPU-LAPU DEVELOPMENT & HOUSING CORPORATION (LLDHC) AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182917 : June 08, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENJAMIN PADILLA Y UNTALAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. P-06-2130 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. NO. 04-1946-P) : June 13, 2011] SUSANA E. FLORES, COMPLAINANT, VS. ARIEL D. PASCASIO, SHERIFF III, MTCC, BRANCH 5, OLONGAPO CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-09-2715 : June 13, 2011] (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1383-RTJ) Office of the Court Administrator, Complainant, Efren E. Tolosa, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Sorsogon City, Respondent.

  • [G. R. No. 165548 : June 13, 2011] PHILIPPINE REALTY AND HOLDINGS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. LEY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G. R. No. 167879] LEY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE REALTY AND HOLDINGS CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G. R. No. 191065 : June 13, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JONIE DOMINGUEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 164153 : June 13, 2011] JOHN ANTHONY B. ESPIRITU, FOR HIMSELF AND AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT FOR WESTMONT INVESTMENT CORPORATION, STA. LUCIA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, GOLDEN ERA HOLDINGS, INC., AND EXCHANGE EQUITY CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, VS. MANUEL N. TANKIANSEE AND JUANITA U. TAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187083 : June 13, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDUARDO DAHILIG Y AGARAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 171628 : June 13, 2011] ARMANDO V. ALANO [DECEASED], SUBSTITUTED BY ELENA ALANO-TORRES,* PETITIONER, VS. PLANTER'S DEVELOPMENT BANK, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF MAUNLAD SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC.,*** RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-09-2715 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1383-RTJ) : June 13, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. EFREN E. TOLOSA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, SORSOGON CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 194836 : June 15, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 193840 : June 15, 2011] ALEXANDER S. GAISANO, PETITIONER, VS. BENJAMIN C. AKOL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G. R. No. 178110 : June 15, 2011] AYALA LAND, INC. AND CAPITOL CITIFARMS, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. SIMEONA CASTILLO, LORENZO PERLAS, JESSIELYN CASTILLO, LUIS MAESA, ROLANDO BATIQUIN, AND BUKLURAN MAGSASAKA NG TIBIG, AS REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, SIMEONA CASTILLO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169985 : June 15, 2011] MODESTO LEOVERAS, PETITIONER, VS. CASIMERO VALDEZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 194367 : June 15, 2011] MARK CLEMENTE Y MARTINEZ @ EMMANUEL DINO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 187047 : June 15, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL CRUZ Y CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 150462 : June 15, 2011] TOP MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. LUIS FAJARDO AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAS PIÑAS CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177995 : June 15, 2011] HEIRS OF AGAPITO T. OLARTE AND ANGELA A. OLARTE, NAMELY NORMA OLARTE-DINEROS, ARMANDO A. OLARTE, YOLANDA OLARTE-MONTECER AND RENATO A. OLARTE, PETITIONERS, VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY (NHA), MARIANO M. PINEDA, AS GENERAL MANAGER, THE MANAGER, DISTRICT I, NCR, EDUARDO TIMBANG AND DEMETRIO OCAMPO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189207 : June 15, 2011] ERIC U. YU, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE JUDGE AGNES REYES-CARPIO, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG-BRANCH 261; AND CAROLINE T. YU, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187640 : June 15, 2011] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. THE SPS. ANGELITO PEREZ AND JOCELYN PEREZ, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 187687] SPS. ANGELITO PEREZ AND JOCELYN PEREZ, PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 166838 : June 15, 2011] STA. LUCIA REALTY & DEVELOPMENT, INC., PETITIONER, VS. CITY OF PASIG, RESPONDENT, MUNICIPALITY OF CAINTA, PROVINCE OF RIZAL, INTERVENOR.

  • [G.R. No. 175021 : June 15, 2011] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, PETITIONER, VS. THI THU THUY T. DE GUZMAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181126 : June 15, 2011] LEONARDO S. UMALE, [DECEASED] REPRESENTED BY CLARISSA VICTORIA, JOHN LEO, GEORGE LEONARD, KRISTINE, MARGUERITA ISABEL, AND MICHELLE ANGELIQUE, ALL SURNAMED UMALE, PETITIONERS, VS. ASB REALTY CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 189325 : June 15, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. TEOFILO RAGODON MARCELINO, JR. ALIAS "TERENCE" AND ALIAS TEOFILO MARCELINO Y RAGODON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 187326 : June 15, 2011] PHILIPPINE ARMY, 5th INFANTRY DIVISION, THROUGH GEN. ALEXANDER YAPSING, LT. COL. NICANOR PENULIAR, AND LT. COL. FERNANDO PASION, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES MAJOR CONSTANCIO PAMITTAN (RET.) AND LEONOR PAMITTAN, SPOUSES ALBERTO TALINIO AND MARIA CHONA P. TALINIO, SPOUSES T/SGT. MELCHOR BACULI AND LAARNI BACULI, SPOUSES S/SGT. JUAN PALASIGUE AND MARILOU PALASIGUE, SPOUSES GRANT PAJARILLO AND FRANCES PAJARILLO, SPOUSES M/SGT. EDGAR ANOG AND ZORAIDA ANOG, AND SPOUSES 2LT. MELITO PAPA AND PINKY PAPA, FOR THEMSELVES AND FOR OTHER OCCUPANTS OF SITIO SAN CARLOS, UPI, GAMU, ISABELA, BY WAY OF CLASS SUIT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171742 : June 15, 2011] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. MIRANT (PHILIPPINES) OPERATIONS, CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 176165] MIRANT (PHILIPPINES) OPERATIONS CORPORATION (FORMERLY: SOUTHERN ENERGY ASIA-PACIFIC OPERATIONS (PHILS.), INC.), PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184925 : June 15, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSEPH MOSTRALES Y ABAD, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2829 : June 21, 2011] JUDGE EDILBERTO G. ABSIN, COMPLAINANT, VS. EDGARDO A. MONTALLA, STENOGRAPHER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 29, SAN MIGUEL, ZAMBOANGA PROMULGATED: DEL SUR, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.C. No. 6683 : June 21, 2011] RE: RESOLUTION OF THE COURT DATED 1 JUNE 2004 IN G.R. NO. 72954 AGAINST, ATTY. VICTOR C. AVECILLA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 149433 : June 22, 2011] THE COCA-COLA EXPORT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS.CLARITA P. GACAYAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 192649 : June 22, 2011] HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. R-II BUILDERS INC. AND NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183122 : June 22, 2011] GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION (GMC-ILU), PETITIONER, VS. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 183889] GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION (GMC-ILU), ET. AL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183122 : June 22, 2011] GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION (GMC-ILU), PETITIONER, VS. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 183889] GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION (GMC-ILU), ET. AL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182980 : June 22, 2011] BIENVENIDO CASTILLO, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182819 : June 22, 2011] MAXIMINA A. BULAWAN, PETITIONER, VS. EMERSON B. AQUENDE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182645 : June 22, 2011] IN THE MATTER OF THE HEIRSHIP (INTESTATE ESTATES) OF THE LATE HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ, ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, MACARIO J. RODRIGUEZ, DELFIN RODRIGUEZ, AND CONSUELO M. RODRIGUEZ AND SETTLEMENT OF THEIR ESTATES, RENE B. PASCUAL, PETITIONER, VS. JAIME M. ROBLES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182236 : June 22, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CHITO GRATIL Y GUELAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 186523 : June 22, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. URBAN SALCEDO ABDURAHMAN ISMAEL DIOLAGRA, ABDULAJID NGAYA, HABER ASARI, ABSMAR ALUK, BASHIER ABDUL, TOTING HANO, JR., JAID AWALAL, ANNIK/RENE ABBAS, MUBIN IBBAH, MAGARNI HAPILON IBLONG, LIDJALON SAKANDAL, IMRAM HAKIMIN SULAIMAN, NADSMER ISNANI SULAIMAN, NADSMER ISNANI MANDANGAN KAMAR JAAFAR, SONNY ASALI AND BASHIER ORDOÑEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS, KHADAFFY JANJALANI, ALDAM TILAO ALIAS "ABU SABAYA," ET AL., AND MANY OTHER JOHN DOES, PETER DOES AND RICHARD DOES, ACCUSED.

  • [G.R. No. 183676 : June 22, 2011] RUEL AMPATUAN "ALIAS RUEL," PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170646 : June 22, 2011] MA. LIGAYA B. SANTOS, PETITIONER, VS. LITTON MILLS INCORPORATED AND/OR ATTY. RODOLFO MARIÑO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170292 : June 22, 2011] HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND (HDMF), PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES FIDEL AND FLORINDA R. SEE AND SHERIFF MANUEL L. ARIMADO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-07-2044 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 07-2553-RTJ) : June 22, 2011] ATTY. FACUNDO T. BAUTISTA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE BLAS O. CAUSAPIN, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 32, GUIMBA, NUEVA ECIJA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 193023 : June 22, 2011] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. YUNITA TUAZON, ROSAURO TUAZON AND MARIA TERESA TUAZON, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170416 : June 22, 2011] UNIVERSITY PLANS INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, VS. BELINDA P. SOLANO, TERRY A. LAMUG, GLENDA S. BELGA, MELBA S. ALVAREZ, WELMA R. NAMATA, MARIETTA D. BACHO AND MANOLO L. CENIDO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176740 : June 22, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. CARLO DUMADAG Y ROMIO, APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-11-1786 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-2262-MTJ] : June 22, 2011] FELICISIMA R. DIAZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE GERARDO E. GESTOPA, JR., MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, NAGA, CEBU, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170658 : June 22, 2011] ANICETO CALUBAQUIB, WILMA CALUBAQUIB, EDWIN CALUBAQUIB, ALBERTO CALUBAQUIB, AND ELEUTERIO FAUSTINO CALUBAQUIB, PETITIONERS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 174158 : June 27, 2011] WILLIAM ENDELISEO BARROGA, PETITIONER, VS. DATA CENTER COLLEGE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND WILFRED BACTAD,[1] RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176951 : June 28, 2011] LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP), REPRESENTED BY LCP NATIONAL PRESIDENT JERRY P. TREÑAS; CITY OF CALBAYOG, REPRESENTED BY MAYOR MEL SENEN S. SARMIENTO; AND JERRY P. TREÑAS, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AS TAXPAYER, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; MUNICIPALITY OF BAYBAY, PROVINCE OF LEYTE; MUNICIPALITY OF BOGO, PROVINCE OF CEBU; MUNICIPALITY OF CATBALOGAN, PROVINCE OF WESTERN SAMAR; MUNICIPALITY OF TANDAG, PROVINCE OF SURIGAO DEL SUR; MUNICIPALITY OF BORONGAN, PROVINCE OF EASTERN SAMAR; AND MUNICIPALITY OF TAYABAS, PROVINCE OF QUEZON, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 177499] LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP), REPRESENTED BY LCP NATIONAL PRESIDENT JERRY P. TREÑAS; CITY OF CALBAYOG, REPRESENTED BY MAYOR MEL SENEN S. SARMIENTO; AND JERRY P. TREÑAS, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AS TAXPAYER, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; MUNICIPALITY OF LAMITAN, PROVINCE OF BASILAN; MUNICIPALITY OF TABUK, PROVINCE OF KALINGA; MUNICIPALITY OF BAYUGAN, PROVINCE OF AGUSAN DEL SUR; MUNICIPALITY OF BATAC, PROVINCE OF ILOCOS NORTE; MUNICIPALITY OF MATI, PROVINCE OF DAVAO ORIENTAL; AND MUNICIPALITY OF GUIHULNGAN, PROVINCE OF NEGROS ORIENTAL, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 178056] LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP), REPRESENTED BY LCP NATIONAL PRESIDENT JERRY P. TREÑAS; CITY OF CALBAYOG, REPRESENTED BY MAYOR MEL SENEN S. SARMIENTO; AND JERRY P. TREÑAS, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AS TAXPAYER, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; MUNICIPALITY OF CABADBARAN, PROVINCE OF AGUSAN DEL NORTE; MUNICIPALITY OF CARCAR, PROVINCE OF CEBU; MUNICIPALITY OF EL SALVADOR, PROVINCE OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL; MUNICIPALITY OF NAGA, CEBU; AND DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176579 : June 28, 2011] WILSON P. GAMBOA, PETITIONER, VS. FINANCE SECRETARY MARGARITO B. TEVES, FINANCE UNDERSECRETARY JOHN P. SEVILLA, AND COMMISSIONER RICARDO ABCEDE OF THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG) IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS CHAIR AND MEMBERS, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE PRIVATIZATION COUNCIL, CHAIRMAN ANTHONI SALIM OF FIRST PACIFIC CO., LTD. IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF METRO PACIFIC ASSET HOLDINGS INC., CHAIRMAN MANUEL V. PANGILINAN OF PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY (PLDT) IN HIS CAPACITY AS MANAGING DIRECTOR OF FIRST PACIFIC CO., LTD., PRESIDENT NAPOLEON L. NAZARENO OF PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, CHAIR FE BARIN OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION, AND PRESIDENT FRANCIS LIM OF THE PHILIPPINE STOCK EXCHANGE, RESPONDENTS. PABLITO V. SANIDAD AND ARNO V. SANIDAD, PETITIONERS-IN-INTERVENTION.

  • [G.R. No. 192591 : June 29, 2011] EFREN L. ALVAREZ, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172227 : June 29, 2011] SPOUSES WILFREDO PALADA AND BRIGIDA PALADA,* PETITIONERS, VS. SOLIDBANK CORPORATION AND SHERIFF MAYO DELA CRUZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181398 : June 29, 2011] FEB LEASING AND FINANCE CORPORATION (NOW BPI LEASING CORPORATION), PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES SERGIO P. BAYLON AND MARITESS VILLENA-BAYLON, BG HAULER, INC., AND MANUEL Y. ESTILLOSO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188365 : June 29, 2011] BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., PETITIONER, VS. PRYCE GASES, INC., INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION, AND NEDERLANDSE FINANCIERINGS-MAATSCHAPPIJ VOOR ONTWIKKELINGSLANDEN N.V., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 148483 : June 29, 2011] BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, PETITIONER, VS. ORIENT COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, JOSE C. GO, GEORGE C. GO, VICENTE C. GO, GOTESCO PROPERTIES, INC., GO TONG ELECTRICAL SUPPLY INC., EVER EMPORIUM, INC., EVER GOTESCO RESOURCES AND HOLDINGS INC., GOTESCO TYAN MING DEVELOPMENT INC., EVERCREST CEBU GOLF CLUB AND RESORTS, INC., NASUGBU RESORTS INC., GMCC UNITED DEVELOPMENT CORP., GULOD RESORT, INC., OK STAR, EVER PLAZA, INC. AND EVER ELECTRICAL MFG., INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183564 : June 29, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. LUCRESIO ESPINA, APPELLANT.