Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > December 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 68422 December 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESTITUTO B. BRAVO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 68422. December 29, 1989.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RESTITUTO BRAVO y BAJARO, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Elena D. Barcenal for Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEAL; FINDINGS OF FACTS OF TRIAL COURTS RESPECTED ABSENT SHOWING OF SERIOUS AND SUBSTANTIAL ERROR IN THE COURT’S APPRAISAL OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED. — By well settled principles this Court is enjoined from casually modifying or rejecting the Trial Court’s factual findings affirming Restituto’s guilt, a showing of serious and substantial error in that Court’s appraisal of the evidence being essential therefor. Such factual findings, particularly the Trial Judge’s assessment of the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses, are accorded great respect on appeal for, as repeatedly held, the Trial Judge enjoys the advantage of directly and at first hand observing and examining the testimonial and other proofs as they are presented at the trial and is therefore better situated to form accurate impressions and conclusions on the basis thereof. In this case, the Court has not been cited to any reason of weight to refuse reliance on the trial court’s appraisal of the proofs, particularly the testimonial evidence upon which the case hinges, as indubitably establishing the appellant Restituto’s commission of the rape imputed to him.

2. ID.; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS; CLEAR, COHESIVE, AND CONTRADICTION FREE TESTIMONY GIVEN FULL CREDENCE. — The Court is satisfied that the Trial Court’s verdict of conviction finds ample support in the Government’s evidence. That evidence indeed leaves little room for doubt that the dastardly felony of rape was correctly ascribed to Restituto and was not, as the defense posits, merely fabricated or imagined by Meriam. Meriam’s narrative on the witness stand rings true in all its details. Her testimony is clear and cohesive, her youthfulness notwithstanding, it is free from any serious contradictions. She was unwavering in her identification of Restituto as her defiler. And it is of no little significance that she had no motive what ever to conjure up the charge of rape against her sixty-seven year old neighbor.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; DEFENSE OF ALIBI UNAVAILING AS AGAINST POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACCUSED. — Accused Restituto’s alibi is feeble and flimsy. It is unavailing as a defense where, as here, Restituto was positively identified. Moreover, the proximity of the house of Restituto’s daughter — where he claims to have been at the time the rape was perpetrated — to the scene of the crime — the places being only thirty meters part — does not at all make it impossible for him to have been where his victim was.


D E C I S I O N


NARVASA, J.:


The tale shortly to be narrated herein was presented by appellant Restituto Bravo in the Regional Trial Court 1 which tried him for the felony of rape committed against a nine-year old girl. 2

The girl, Meriam Balomino, so Restituto’s story goes, was known in the barrio as "kulang-kulang," and was fond of climbing trees. In the early afternoon of May 30, 1982, she went up a kasuy tree, picking some of its fruits. She fell, and by a bizarre coincidence, she fell on a branch of a tree or sapling protruding from the ground, which pierced her "private parts." She removed her dress and used it to wipe that part of her anatomy, which was bleeding. She then threw the blood-stained dress away and ran to her house. As soon as she got home she told her mother that she had been raped by their neighbor, Restituto Bravo, a 67-year old widower. Immediately, her mother brought her to the police station, where both their statements were taken, and then to the Albay Provincial Hospital, where she was examined by Dr. Eduardo Martinez. Dr. Martinez also examined and analyzed a "green Girl Scout skirt" soaked with fresh blood, given to him by Meriam and her mother. The police then arrested Restituto Bravo.chanrobles law library

The Trial Court did not believe Restituto Bravo’s tale. Neither does this Court.

What really happened, declared the Trial Court after receiving and weighing the evidence presented by the State and the defense, was that —

". . . on May 30, 1982, at about 2 o’clock in the afternoon, while (Meriam) was in a coconut plantation situated at Maticol, Estanza, Legaspi City, gathering firewood, Accused Restituto Bravo appeared and chased her; that accused overtook her, placed a handkerchief around her mouth and threatened her with a knife; that accused succeeded in removing her panties; that thereafter, Accused removed his pants and placed himself on top of Meriam; that accused while pointing a knife at Meriam’s stomach, forcibly inserted his penis inside Meriam’s private part; that Meriam felt pain in her private part which bled; that in the same afternoon Meriam was brought to the Albay Provincial Hospital where she was examined by Dr. Eduardo M. Martinez who issued a medico-legal certificate with the following findings:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘P.E. — Green girl scout skirt soaked with blood (fresh) front & back — both lower extremeties soaked with fresh blood — hands, fingers soaked with fresh blood — vulva soaked with fresh clotted blood, fresh blood still oozing per introitis (no pubic hair yet) — moderately bleeding laceration, hymen, 11 o’clock position about 0.5 cm. — required 3 stitches — vagina canal could not be inspected well for lack of appropriate instrument — Fourchet intact — No other injuries noted in the vulva."cralaw virtua1aw library

These facts were deemed by the Trial Court to have been established beyond reasonable doubt by the testimony of Dr. Martinez and of the victim herself, as well as that of the victim’s mother, Rosita Balomino and Dr. Salvador Sambitan, a psychiatrist.

Meriam’s evidence is to the effect that on the day in question, at about 2 o’clock in the afternoon, while she was gathering firewood in the coconut plantation owned by Kiko Prinsipe, Restituto Bravo came; she somehow became frightened and ran, and Restituto chased her, he overtook her, tied a handkerchief around her mouth and brandished a knife at her, he removed his trousers and placed himself on top of her, moments afterward she felt pain, and her private organ commenced to bleed as he forcefully inserted his own into hers; she could not shout for help because she was gagged, and because he was pointing his knife at her stomach, and when Restituto left, she went home and told her mother what happened to her.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Rosita Balomino corroborated her daughter’s testimony. She told of Meriam’s coming home at that time, crying and narrating what Restituto had done to her, that there were blood stains on the Meriam’s girl scout uniform; that accompanied by a neighbor, she had immediately set out with Meriam to report the matter to the authorities; that on the way they had met a PC constable who brought them to the police station where Meriam’s statement and hers were taken, and thence to the Albay Provincial Hospital where Meriam was examined by Dr. Eduardo Martinez; that they thereafter filed a complaint against Restituto at the City Fiscal’s Office at Legaspi City; that her daughter’s behavior later became aberrant, constraining her to consult a psychiatrist. 3

Dr. Martinez testified to his physical examination of Meriam and the results thereof, and acknowledged the possibility that the injuries in Meriam’s vagina could have been caused not only by sexual assault but also by the insertion of a sharp instrument in her organ (by herself or by another), or her falling on a sharp object. 4

The appellant’s own version of the occurrence, to which as aforesaid the Trial Court refused to give credence, was delineated by his declarations in court and those of his witnesses, Petronilo Prinsipe, Elvie Non, Leonora Pasuquin, a married daughter of the appellant, and Leonardo Bravo, Restituto’s son. They sought to persuade the Court a quo to believe that Meriam’s violent defloration was entirely accidental, caused by her falling from a tree and being impaled through her vulva on a stick or tree limb thrusting out from the ground; and that in any event, at the time of this uncommon happening, indeed, from 12:30 to 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, Restituto had been at the house of his daughter, Leonora Pasuquin, during which time he, a neighbor, Elvie Non, and his son, Leonardo, had unloaded coconut midribs from his daughter’s car for distribution to her workers in Maticol.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

It was Petronilo Prinsipe, a farmer residing about 10 meters away from Meriam’s house, who told the Trial Court about Meriam’s falling from the kasuy tree and being deflowered by a protruding stick. And respecting Restituto’s defense of alibi, corroborative testimony was given by Restituto’s daughter, Leonora Pasuquin, his son, Leonardo, and a neighbor, Elvie Non.

After trial, and due study of the evidence, the Court came to the reasoned conclusion that Restituto’s guilt of the crime of rape charged had been proven beyond reasonable doubt. It accordingly sentenced him, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, this Court finds accused Restituto Bravo y Bajaro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and penalized under Article 335, Paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the victim in the sum of P12,000.00 and to pay the costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

Restituto Bravo’s appeal from this judgment of conviction must fail. The proofs of the prosecution do indeed establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, his defense of fortuitous defloration is incredible, and his claim of alibi, untenable.

It bears stressing, at the outset, that by well settled principles this Court is enjoined from casually modifying or rejecting the Trial Court’s factual findings affirming Restituto’s guilt, a showing of serious and substantial error in that Court’s appraisal of the evidence being essential therefor. 5 Such factual findings, particularly the Trial Judge’s assessment of the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses, are accorded great respect on appeal for, as repeatedly held, the Trial Judge enjoys the advantage of directly and at first hand observing and examining the testimonial and other proofs as they are presented at the trial and is therefore better situated to form accurate impressions and conclusions on the basis thereof. 6 In this case, the Court has not been cited to any reason of weight to refuse reliance on the trial court’s appraisal of the proofs, particularly the testimonial evidence upon which the case hinges, as indubitably establishing the appellant Restituto’s commission of the rape imputed to him.chanrobles law library

The Court is satisfied that the Trial Court’s verdict of conviction finds ample support in the Government’s evidence. That evidence indeed leaves little room for doubt that the dastardly felony of rape was correctly ascribed to Restituto and was not, as the defense posits, merely fabricated or imagined by Meriam. Meriam’s narrative on the witness stand rings true in all its details. Her testimony is clear and cohesive, her youthfulness notwithstanding, it is free from any serious contradictions. She was unwavering in her identification of Restituto as her defiler. And it is of no little significance that she had no motive what ever to conjure up the charge of rape against her sixty-seven year old neighbor. 7

Restituto’s alibi is feeble and flimsy. It is unavailing as a defense where, as here, Restituto was positively identified. 8 Moreover, the proximity of the house of Restituto’s daughter — where he claims to have been at the time the rape was perpetrated — to the scene of the crime — the places being only thirty meters part — does not at all make it impossible for him to have been where his victim was. 9

The appellant’s additional theory, that Meriam had been the victim, not of the vile crime of rape, but of a bizarre accident, is equally untenable. Seizing upon the testimony of Dr. Martinez that the lacerations in Meriam’s hymen might possibly have resulted from causes other than sexual assault, the defense sought to develop the theory that Meriam’s violent defloration had resulted from her fall from a kasuy tree and her vagina’s being pierced in the process by a piece of wood projecting from the ground. The theory is on its face quite implausible. It simply does not inspire acceptance and belief. Furthermore, the evidence by which this extraordinary theory was sought to be demonstrated, the testimony of Petronilo Prinsipe, is itself implausible. For all things considered, it is improbable for Petronilo, from a distance of more than twenty yards, with a patch of trees and shrubbery virtually hiding Meriam from view, to have heard, much less seen Meriam, fall from the kasuy tree. In fact, he testified only to first having seen Meriam perched on a tree branch — the diameter of his right thumb in size, according to him — and then hearing a cracking sound or a thud, from which circumstances he concluded that Meriam had fallen and had thus injured herself in a delicate part of her body.

In fine, the Court agrees with the Trial Court that the evidence suffices to establish beyond reasonable doubt the appellant’s guilt of the crime of rape. The indemnity that he has become obliged to pay to his victim must however, conformably to uniformly observed precedent, be raised from P12,000.00 to P30,000.00.

WHEREFORE, as modified in the manner indicated in the next preceding paragraph, the judgment of the Regional Trial Court subject of this appeal is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Branch II, Legaspi City, presided by Hon. Jesus G. Bersamira.

2. Criminal Case No. 2380, commenced by complaint dated June 24, 1982, charging rape under paragraph 3, Article 335, Revised Penal Code, i.e., "having carnal knowledge of a woman .. under twelve years of age" (even if there be no force or intimidation, or the woman is not deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious).

3. Dr. Salvador Sambitan, who attended to Meriam, testified to the results of his mental examination of the girl: that she was depressed and quite unresponsive but coherent and relevant in speech and not clinically psychotic, his impression being that Meriam was suffering from a transient situational disturbance with depressive reaction most probably due to her psychologically traumatic experience (TSN, OCT. 13, 1983).

4. TSN, Oct. 7, 1982.

5. Peo. v. Dimacali, 153 SCRA 454 (1987) citing Peo. v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1; Peo. v. Cabrera, 100 SCRA 424.

6. Cortez v. C.A., 163 SCRA 139 (1988); Peo. v. Jarzi, 163 SCRA 307 (1988); Peo v. Traya, 147 SCRA 381.

7. See Peo. v. Lopez, 141 SCRA 385; Peo. v. Mesias, 127 SCRA 792.

8. Peo. v. Nolasco, 163 SCRA 623 (1988); Peo. v. Sato, 163 SCRA 602 (1988); Peo. v. Paton-og, 155 SCRA 675 (1987); Peo. v. Malabad, 133 SCRA 124.

9. Peo. v. Sato, supra; Peo. v. Nolasco, supra; Peo. v. Olmedillo, 116 SCRA 193; Peo. v. Mesias, supra; Peo. v. Aragona, 138 SCRA 569; Peo. v. Ramilo, 146 SCRA 258.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 55963 December 1, 1989 - JOSE FONTANILLA, ET AL. v. INOCENCIO D. MALIAMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56402-03 December 1, 1989 - EFREN CUNANAN, ET AL. v. ANGELINA SENGSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 30453 December 4, 1989 - ANGELINA PUENTEVELLA ECHAUS v. RAMON BLANCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 41295 December 4, 1989 - ALFREDO C. RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 66059-60 December 4, 1989 - FILIPINAS INVESTMENT and FINANCE CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66437 December 4, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME A. GUEVARRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69078 December 4, 1989 - CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76342 December 4, 1989 - SONIDA INDUSTRIES, INC. v. CORNELIO W. WASAN, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81327 December 4, 1989 - CRISPINA VANO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82264-66 December 4, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAGANI A. GULINAO

  • G.R. No. 82588 December 4, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO FUSTER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83175 December 4, 1989 - FREDILLO GUILLEN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83281 December 4, 1989 - FLORENTINO OZAETA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83693 December 4, 1989 - LEANDRO ALAZAS v. BERNARDO LL. SALAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84419 December 4, 1989 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, ET AL. v. JOSE ROXAS

  • G.R. No. 84908 December 4, 1989 - FELIX ABAD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87001 December 4, 1989 - LA UNION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. BRAULIO D. YARANON, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3049 December 4, 1989 - PERLA Y. LAGUITAN v. SALVADOR F. TINIO

  • G.R. No. 84516 December 5, 1989 - DIONISIO CARPIO v. SERGIO DOROJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76203-04 December 6, 1989 - ENRICO M. PEREZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82341 December 6, 1989 - SUNDOWNER DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74027 December 7, 1989 - SILAHIS MARKETING CORP. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79060 December 8, 1989 - ANICETO C. OCAMPO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84195 December 11, 1989 - LUCIO C. TAN, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79554 December 14, 1989 - LEOPOLDO G. DIZON v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82813 December 14, 1989 - EMELIA S. BLAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82870 December 14, 1989 - NEMESIO E. PRUDENTE v. ABELARDO M. DAYRIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88052 December 14, 1989 - JOSE P. MECENAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57415 December 15, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASCUAL BAYLON RILLORTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 67170-72 December 15, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERSON MAGHANOY

  • G.R. No. 71566 December 15, 1989 - FRANCISCO D. PALANCA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75875 December 15, 1989 - WOLFGANG AURBACH, ET AL. v. SANITARY WARES MANUFACTURING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75934 December 15, 1989 - WILLY CARSON, ET AL. v. GREGORIO D. PANTANOSAS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76509 December 15, 1989 - PIONEER INSURANCE & SURETY CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81788 December 15, 1989 - NATIONAL INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84992 December 15, 1989 - PHILIPPINE ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90426 December 15, 1989 - SIME DARBY PILIPINAS, INC. v. BUENAVENTURA C. MAGSALIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72623 December 18, 1989 - TEODOSIA C. LEBRILLA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78787 December 18, 1989 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80593 December 18, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. TERESITA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84818 December 18, 1989 - PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORP. v. JOSE LUIS A. ALCUAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88105 December 18, 1989 - NICOLAS FECUNDO v. RAMON BERJAMEN, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3195 December 19, 1989 - MA. LIBERTAD SJ CANTILLER v. ATTY. HUMBERTO V. POTENCIANO

  • G.R. No. 29627 December 19, 1989 - RAMON A. GONZALES v. ANTONIO V. RAQUIZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58168 December 19, 1989 - CONCEPCION MAGSAYSAY-LABRADOR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 67938 December 19, 1989 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72572 December 19, 1989 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74182 December 19, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO L. LLARENA

  • G.R. No. 75530 December 19, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77582 December 19, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO SAYANG-OD

  • G.R. No. 81563 December 19, 1989 - AMADO C. ARIAS v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 82753 December 19, 1989 - ESTELA COSTUNA v. LAUREANA DOMONDON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86675 December 19, 1989 - MRCA, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.xx

  • G.R. No. 88218 December 19, 1989 - CARCON DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43236 December 20, 1989 - OLYMPIA INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51449 December 20, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO HIZON

  • G.R. No. 67548 December 20, 1989 - IRENEO ODEJAR, ET AL. v. ISIDRO P. GUICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69969 December 20, 1989 - ANTONIO L. TOTTOC v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72883 December 20, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AURELIO ESPINOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76148 December 20, 1989 - ELISEO CARO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81403 December 20, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO ANDO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 86074 December 20, 1989 - LILIA LIWAG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87676 December 20, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 88075-77 December 20, 1989 - MAXIMO TACAY, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF TAGUM, Davao del Norte, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73887 December 21, 1989 - GREAT PACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE CORP. v. HONORATO JUDICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82170 & 82372 December 21, 1989 - TEODORO YBAÑEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82303 December 21, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 85847 December 21, 1989 - BELEN GREGORIO, ET AL. v. ZOSIMO Z. ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86344 December 21, 1989 - RAUL A. DAZA v. LUIS C. SINGSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 87721-30 December 21, 1989 - BENJAMIN P. ABELLA, ET AL. v. ADELINA INDAY LARRAZABAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88265 December 21, 1989 - SANTIAGO A. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. ALFREDO R. BENGZON

  • G.R. No. 89572 December 21, 1989 - DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, ET AL. v. ROBERTO REY C. SAN DIEGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 19328 December 22, 1989 - ALEJANDRO KATIGBAK, ET AL. v. SOLICITOR GENERAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 52159 December 22, 1989 - JOSE PILAPIL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55159 December 22, 1989 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 60741-43 December 22, 1989 - NEEDLE QUEEN CORP. v. MANUELA A. NICOLAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69260 December 22, 1989 - MUNICIPALITY OF BIÑAN v. JOSE MAR GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84111 December 22, 1989 - JIMMY O. YAOKASIN v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86625 December 22, 1989 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88243 December 22, 1989 - ROGELIO O. GARCIA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87687 December 26, 1989 - ISABELO T. SABELLO v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS

  • G.R. No. 72085 December 28, 1989 - CAGAYAN ELECTRIC POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, INC. v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 42108 December 29, 1989 - OSCAR D. RAMOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58122 December 29, 1989 - MOBIL OIL PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 58768-70 December 29, 1989 - LIBERTY FLOUR MILLS EMPLOYEES, ET AL. v. LIBERTY FLOUR MILLS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59581 December 29, 1989 - TARCISIO ICAO v. SIMPLICIO M. APALISOK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65376 December 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURICIO PETALCORIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68422 December 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESTITUTO B. BRAVO

  • G.R. No. 72313 December 29, 1989 - RICARDO CRUZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75602 December 29, 1989 - TRANS-ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTRACTORS, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75618 December 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO MARMITA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 77418 December 29, 1989 - RODERICK CASIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79025 December 29, 1989 - BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80612-16 December 29, 1989 - AIRTIME SPECIALISTS, INC., ET AL. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81798 December 29, 1989 - LAO GI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82121 December 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO B. CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 83885 December 29, 1989 - NICANOR A. CATRAL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.