ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.

com™

Tweet 2 Share 2 Share

Search
Tweet

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2015 > January 2015 Decisions > G.R. No. 190912, January 12,
2015 - GARY FANTASTICO AND ROLANDO VILLANUEVA, Petitioners, v. ELPIDIO MALICSE, SR. AND PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.:

Custom Search Search

G.R. No. 190912, January 12, 2015 - GARY FANTASTICO AND ROLANDO VILLANUEVA, Petitioners, v.
ELPIDIO MALICSE, SR. AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 190912, January 12, 2015

GARY FANTASTICO AND ROLANDO VILLANUEVA, Petitioners, v. ELPIDIO MALICSE, SR. AND
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

For this Court's consideration is the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, dated January 20, 2010 , of petitioners Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva assailing
the Decision2 dated August 31, 2007 and Resolution3 dated January 7, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G. R. CR. No. 31719, affirming the Decision4 dated March 31, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 11, Manila, in Criminal Case No. 93-127049, finding petitioners guilty of attempted murder.

The following are the antecedents:

On the afternoon of June 27, 1993, Elpidio Malicse, Sr. (Elpidio) was outside the house of his sister
Isabelita Iguiron (Isabelita) in Pandacan, Manila when all of a sudden, he heard Isabelita's son, Winston,
throwing invectives at him. Thus, Elpidio confronted Isabelita but she also cursed him, which prompted
the former to slap the latter. On that occasion, Elpidio was under the influence of alcohol.
DebtKollect Company, Inc.
The Barangay Chairman heard what transpired and went to the place where the commotion was taking
place in order to pacify those who were involved. Elpidio was eventually persuaded to go home where he
drank some coffee. Thereafter, Elpidio went back to the house of Isabelita to offer reconciliation. On his
way there, he passed by the house of Kagawad Andy Antonio and requested the latter to accompany him,
but was instead told to go back home, leaving Elpidio to proceed alone.

Upon reaching Isabelita's house, Elpidio saw the former's son, Titus Iguiron (Titus) and her son-in-law
Gary Fantastico (Gary) and asked the two where he can find their parents. Titus and Gary responded,
“putang ina mo, and kulit mo, lumayas ka, punyeta ka.”

In his anger with the response of Titus and Gary, Elpidio kicked the door open and saw Isabelita's elder
son, Salvador Iguiron (Salvador) behind the door holding a rattan stick or arnis. Salvador hit Elpidio on
the right side of his head that forced the latter to bow his head but Salvador delivered a second blow that
hit Elpidio on the right eyebrow. Salvador attempted to hit Elpidio for the third time but the latter got hold
of the rattan stick and the two wrestled on the floor and grappled for the possession of the same rattan
stick. Then Titus ran towards the two and sprayed something on Elpidio's face. Not being able to free
himself from the clutches of Salvador and to extricate himself, Elpidio bit Salvador's head.

ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
January-2015 Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 200013, January 14, 2015 - BETTY
GEPULLE-GARBO, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-
FACT, MINDA G. ROSALES(NOW REPRESENTED BY
HER NEW ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, GARY LLOYD G.
ROSALES), Petitioner, v. SPOUSES VICTOREY
ANTONIO GARABATO AND JOSEPHINE S. GARABATO,
Respondents.
A.C. No. 8235, January 27, 2015 - JOSELITO F.
TEJANO, Complainant, v. ATTY. BENJAMIN F.
BATERINA, Respondent.
A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC, January 21, 2015 - RE:
VIOLATION OF RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE
G.R. No. 210634, January 14, 2015 - NORIEL R.
MONTIERRO, Petitioner, v. RICKMERS MARINE
AGENCY PHILS., INC., Respondent.
G.R. No. 194499, January 14, 2015 - MANUEL R.
PORTUGUEZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 187892, January 14, 2015 - UNGAY
MALOBAGO MINES, INC. Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 203384, January 14, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SPS. JOSE
CASTUERA AND PERLA CASTUERA, Respondents.
A.M. No. P-14-3194 (Formerly A.M. No. 14-1-01-
MTC), January 27, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. CONSTANTINO P.
REDOÑA, FORMER CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURT, TANAUAN, LEYTE, Respondent.
G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015 - SENATOR
JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA, Petitioner,
BERSAMIN, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, FIELD
INVESTIGATION OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, NATIONAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION AND ATTY. LEVITO D. BALIGOD,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 179491, January 14, 2015 - ALEJANDRO C.
ALMENDRAS, JR., Petitioner, v. ALEXIS C.
ALMENDRAS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 168950, January 14, 2015 - ROHM APOLLO
SEMICONDUCTOR PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondents.
A.M. No. P-08-2465 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-
1849-P], January 12, 2015 - CONCHITA S. BAHALA,
Gary hit Elpidio on the right side of his head with a tomahawk axe when the latter was about to go out of
the house. Elpidio tried to defend himself but was unable to take the tomahawk axe from Gary. Elpidio
walked away from Titus but Gary, still armed with the tomahawk axe and Salvador, with his arnis,
including Titus, chased him.
Roland (Rolly) Villanueva, without any warning, hit Elpidio on the back of his head with a lead pipe which
caused the latter to fall on the ground. Elpidio begged his assailants to stop, but to no avail. Salvador hit
him countless times on his thighs, legs and knees using the rattan stick. While he was simultaneously
being beaten up by Salvador, Titus, Gary, Rolly, Nestor, Eugene and Tommy, he tried to cover his face with
his arm. Gary hit him with the tomahawk axe on his right leg, between the knees and the ankle of his leg,
which caused the fracture on his legs and knees. Rolly hit Elpidio's head with a lead pipe, while Tommy hit
him with a piece of wood on the back of his shoulder.
Thereafter, a certain “Mang Gil” tried to break them off but Titus and Gary shouted at him: “Huwag
makialam, away ng mag-anak ito” and the two continued to maul Elpidio. The people who witnessed the
incident shouted “maawa na kayo” but they only stopped battering him when a bystander fainted because
of the incident. Elpidio then pretended to be dead. It was then that concerned neighbors approached him
and rushed him to the emergency room of the Philippine General Hospital (PGH).
Thus, a case for Attempted Murder under Article 248, in relation to Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code,
was filed against Salvador Iguiron, Titus Malicse Iguiron, Saligan Malicse Iguiron, Tommy Ballesteros,
Nestor Ballesteros, Eugene Surigao and petitioners Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva. The
Information reads: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
That on or about June 27, 1993, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused
conspiring and confederating together and helping one another, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill and with treachery and taking advantage of
superior strength, commence the commission of the crime of murder directly by overt acts,
to wit: by then and there hitting the head of Elpidio Malicse, Sr. y de Leon with a piece of
rattan, axe, pipe and a piece of wood and mauling him, but the said accused did not
perform all the acts of execution which should have produced the crime of murder, as a
consequence, by reason of causes other than their own spontaneous desistance, that is, the
injuries inflicted upon Elpidio Malicse, Sr. y de Leon are not necessarily mortal.
They all pleaded “not guilty.” The defense, during trial, presented the following version of the events that
transpired:
Around 4:30 p.m. of June 27, 1993, Salvador was at the second floor of their house when he heard his
tenth son Winston crying while the latter was being castigated by Elpidio. He went down and told Elpidio
to come back the next day to settle. His wife Isabelita called the Barangay Chairman two blocks away.
Barangay Chairman Joseph Ramos and Elpidio's wife and daughter went to the house and Elpidio was
given warm water, but he showered his daughter and Winston with it. Elpidio was brought to his house
and the former told the Barangay Chairman that it was a family problem. Elpidio went back to the house
of Salvador where Titus was sitting on the sofa. Elpidio asked Titus to open the door until the former
kicked the door open. Titus escaped through the open door and Salvador went out of the house because
another child was on the roof, afraid that the said child might fall. Thereafter, Elpidio went to the street.
According to petitioner Gary Fantastico, he was inside their house with his wife and Titus when the
incident occurred. He and his wife ran upstairs, while Titus went out when Elpidio hit the door. Elpidio had
a reputation for hurting people when drunk and Gary learned that Elpidio was brought to the hospital
because he was mauled by the people.
During trial, one of the accused, Salvador Iguiron died. Eventually, the trial court, in a Decision dated
March 31, 2008, acquitted Titus Iguiron, Saligan Iguiron and Tommy Ballesteros but found Gary Fantastico
and Rolando Villanueva guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Attempted Murder. The dispositive portion of
the said decision reads: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Court finds Gary Fantastico and
Rolando Villanueva GUILTY of the crime of attempted murder and sentences them to an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day as minimum, to
ten (10) years as maximum. They are also ordered to pay the actual damages of
P17,300.00 and moral damages of P10,000.00.
Accused Titus Iguiron, Saligan Iguiron and Tommy Ballesteros ACQUITTED.
SO ORDERED.
After their motion for reconsideration was denied, petitioners appealed the case to the CA, but the latter
court affirmed the decision of the RTC and disposed the case as follows: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from, we hereby AFFIRM
the same and DISMISS the instant appeal.
SO ORDERED.
A motion for reconsideration was filed, but it was denied by the same court.
Hence, the present petition.
Petitioners stated the following arguments:
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE TRIAL COURT FROM THE
v. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE INCORRECT.
THE INFORMATION ITSELF IN THIS CASE DOES NOT ALLEGE ALL THE ELEMENTS AND THE
NECESSARY INGREDIENTS OF THE SPECIFIC CRIME OF ATTEMPTED MURDER.
NOT ALL OF THE ELEMENTS OF ATTEMPTED MURDER ARE PRESENT IN THIS CASE.
THERE IS NO TREACHERY OR ANY OTHER QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE TO SPEAK OF IN
THIS CASE.
THE LOWER COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE PRESENCE OF
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
THERE ARE MANIFEST MISTAKES IN THE FINDINGS OF FACTS BY THE COURT OF APPEALS
AND THE TRIAL COURT.
THE CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONERS WAS BASED ON THE WEAKNESS OF THE DEFENSE
Complainant, v. CIRILO DUCA, SHERIFF III,
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT IN CITIES,
BRANCH 1, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, Respondent.
A.C. No. 10568 [Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2753],
January 13, 2015 - MARILEN G. SOLIMAN,
Complainant, v. ATTY. DITAS LERIOS-AMBOY,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 209346, January 12, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ARNALDO BOSITO Y
CHAVENIA, Appellant.
G.R. No. 200797, January 12, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANOLITO
OPIANA Y TANAEL, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 207993, January 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. GERARDO
ENUMERABLE Y DE VILLA, Appellant.
G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015 - ATTY. ALICIA
RISOS-VIDAL, Petitioner, ALFREDO S. LIM,
Petitioner-Intervenor, v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS AND JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 200333, January 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DOMINGO
DILLA Y PAULAR, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 191540, January 21, 2015 - SPOUSES JOSE
O. GATUSLAO AND ERMILA LEONILA LIMSIACO-
GATUSLAO, Petitioners, v. LEO RAY V. YANSON,
Respondent.
A.M. No. P-11-2940, January 21, 2015 - JUDGE
GODOFREDO B. ABUL, JR., Complainant, v. GEORGE E.
VIAJAR, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 4, BUTUAN CITY, Respondent.
G.R. No. 209605, January 12, 2015 - NEIL B.
AGUILAR AND RUBEN CALIMBAS, Petitioners, v.
LIGHTBRINGERS CREDIT COOPERATIVE, Respondent.
G.R. No. 212196, January 12, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAMIL
DORIA DAHIL AND ROMMEL CASTRO Y CARLOS,
Accused-Appellants.
A.C. No. 10576, January 14, 2015 - ARCATOMY S.
GUARIN, Complainant, v. ATTY. CHRISTINE A.C.
LIMPIN, Respondent.
A.C. No. 7325, January 21, 2015 - DR. DOMICIANO
F. VILLAHERMOSA, SR., Complainant, v. ATTY.
ISIDRO L. CARACOL, Respondent.
G.R. No. 211211, January 14, 2015 - ROMMEL B.
DARAUG, Petitioner, v. KGJS FLEET MANAGEMENT
MANILA, INC., KRISTIAN GERHARD JEBSEN
SKIPSREDER, MR. GUY DOMINO A. MACAPAYAG
AND/OR M/V “IBIS ARROW,” Respondents.
G.R. No. 192270, January 26, 2015 - IRENE D.
OFILADA, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES RUBEN ANDAL AND
MIRAFLOR ANDAL, Respondents.
G.R. No. 193451, January 28, 2015 - ANTONIO M.
MAGTALAS, Petitioner, v. ISIDORO A. ANTE, RAUL C.
ADDATU, NICANOR B. PADILLA, JR., DANTE Y.
CEÑIDO, AND RHAMIR C. DALIOAN, Respondent.
G.R. No. 197011, January 28, 2015 - ESSENCIA Q.
MANARPIIS, Petitioner, v. TEXAN PHILIPPINES, INC.,
RICHARD TAN AND CATHERINE P. RIALUBIN-TAN,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 206562, January 21, 2015 - UNICOL
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., LINK MARINE PTE.
LTD. AND/OR VICTORIANO B. TIROL, III, Petitioners,
v. DELIA MALIPOT, IN BEHALF OF GLICERIO
MALIPOT, Respondent.
G.R. No. 192406, January 21, 2015 - ONE SHIPPING
CORP., AND/OR ONE SHIPPING KABUSHIKI
KAISHA/JAPAN, Petitioner, v. IMELDA C. PEÑAFIEL,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 208790, January 21, 2015 - GLENN VIÑAS,
Petitioner, v. MARY GRACE PAREL-VIÑAS,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015 - THE DIOCESE
OF BACOLOD, REPRESENTED BY THE MOST REV.
BISHOP VICENTE M. NAVARRA AND THE BISHOP
HIMSELF IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY, Petitioners, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE ELECTION
OFFICER OF BACOLOD CITY, ATTY. MAVIL V.
MAJARUCON, Respondents.
G.R. No. 190912, January 12, 2015 - GARY
FANTASTICO AND ROLANDO VILLANUEVA,
Petitioners, v. ELPIDIO MALICSE, SR. AND PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 204702, January 14, 2015 - RICARDO C.
EVIDENCE, NOT ON THE STRENGTH OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE RESPONDENT THAT IT WAS THE PETITIONERS WHO ATTACKED
HIM IS INDEED UNCORROBORATED AND THUS SELF-SERVING.
CLEARLY, THERE ARE SO MUCH REVERSIBLE ERRORS IN THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS AND THE LOWER COURT THAT INJURIOUSLY AFFECTED THE SUBSTANTIAL
RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONERS AND THESE SHOULD BE CORRECTED BY THIS HONORABLE
COURT.
At the outset, it bears stressing that under the Rules of Court, an appeal by certiorari to this Court should
only raise questions of law distinctly set forth in the petition.5 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In the present case, the issues and arguments presented by the petitioners involve questions of facts.
Therefore, the present petition is at once dismissible for its failure to comply with the requirement of Rule
45 of the Rules of Court, that the petition should only raise questions of law.
The distinction between a “question of law” and a “question of fact” is settled. There is a “question of law”
when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and which does not
call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. On the
other hand, there is a “question of fact” when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of
the alleged facts. Simply put, when there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or not the
conclusion drawn therefrom is correct, is a question of law.6 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
At any rate, the arguments of herein petitioners deserve scant consideration.
It is the contention of the petitioners that the Information filed against them was defective because it did
not state all the elements of the crime charged. However, a close reading of the Information would show
the contrary. The Information partly reads: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
x x x but the said accused did not perform all the acts of the execution which should have
produced the crime of murder, as a consequence, by reason of causes other than their own
spontaneous desistance, that is, the injuries inflicted upon Elpidio Malicse, Sr. y de Leon are
not necessarily mortal.
From the above-quoted portion of the Information, it is clear that all the elements of the crime of
attempted murder has been included.
The last paragraph of Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code defines an attempt to commit a felony, thus: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by
overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony
by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.7
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The essential elements of an attempted felony are as follows:
The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts;
He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony;
The offender's act be not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance;
The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his
spontaneous desistance.8
The first requisite of an attempted felony consists of two (2) elements, namely:
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(1) That there be external acts;
(2) Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed.9
The Court in People v. Lizada10 elaborated on the concept of an overt or external act, thus: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
An overt or external act is defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention
to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried
out to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by
external obstacles nor by the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and
necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. The raison d'etre for the law requiring a direct
overt act is that, in a majority of cases, the conduct of the accused consisting merely of
acts of preparation has never ceased to be equivocal; and this is necessarily so, irrespective
of his declared intent. It is that quality of being equivocal that must be lacking before the
act becomes one which may be said to be a commencement of the commission of the
crime, or an overt act or before any fragment of the crime itself has been committed, and
this is so for the reason that so long as the equivocal quality remains, no one can say with
certainty what the intent of the accused is. It is necessary that the overt act should have
been the ultimate step towards the consummation of the design. It is sufficient if it was the
"first or some subsequent step in a direct movement towards the commission of the offense
after the preparations are made." The act done need not constitute the last proximate one
for completion. It is necessary, however, that the attempt must have a causal relation to
the intended crime. In the words of Viada, the overt acts must have an immediate and
necessary relation to the offense.11
Petitioners question the inclusion of the phrase “not necessarily mortal” in the allegations in the
Information. According to them, the inclusion of that phrase means that there is an absence of an intent
to kill on their part. Intent to kill is a state of mind that the courts can discern only through external
manifestations, i.e., acts and conduct of the accused at the time of the assault and immediately
thereafter. In Rivera v. People,12 this Court considered the following factors to determine the presence of
an intent to kill: (1) the means used by the malefactors; (2) the nature, location, and number of wounds
sustained by the victim; (3) the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the
killing of the victim; and (4) the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of
the accused. This Court also considers motive and the words uttered by the offender at the time he
inflicted injuries on the victim as additional determinative factors.13 All of these, were proven during the
trial. Needless to say, with or without the phrase, what is important is that all the elements of attempted
murder are still alleged in the Information. Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure
states:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Sec. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. – A complaint or information is sufficient if it
states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense by the statute; the acts or
omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the
HONRADO, Petitioner, v. GMA NETWORK FILMS, INC.,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 178169, January 12, 2015 - NFF
INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. G & L
ASSOCIATED BROKERAGE AND/OR GERARDO
TRINIDAD, Respondent.
G.R. No. 204444, January 14, 2015 - VIRGILIO C.
BRIONES, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND
CASH ASIA CREDIT CORPORATION, Respondents.
G.R. No. 213525, January 27, 2015 - FORTUNE LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA) PROPER; COA
REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VI-WESTERN VISAYAS; AUDIT
GROUP LGS-B, PROVINCE OF ANTIQUE; AND
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF ANTIQUE,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 210760, January 26, 2015 - KYLE
ANTHONY ZABALA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. Nos. 183152-54, January 21, 2015 -
REYNALDO H. JAYLO, WILLIAM VALENZONA AND
ANTONIO G. HABALO, Petitioners, v.
SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND HEIRS OF COL. ROLANDO DE
GUZMAN, FRANCO CALANOG AND AVELINO
MANGUERA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 187226, January 28, 2015 - CHERYLL
SANTOS LEUS, Petitioner, v. ST. SCHOLASTICA’S
COLLEGE WESTGROVE AND/OR SR. EDNA QUIAMBAO,
OSB, Respondents.
G.R. No. 191470, January 26, 2015 - AUGUSTO M.
AQUINO, Petitioner, v. HON. ISMAEL P. CASABAR, AS
PRESIDING JUDGE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-GUIMBA,
NUEVA ECIJA, BRANCH 33 AND MA. ALA F. DOMINGO
AND MARGARITA IRENE F. DOMINGO, SUBSTITUTING
HEIRS OF THE DECEASED ANGEL T. DOMINGO,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 193468, January 28, 2015 - AL O. EYANA,
Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS,
INC., ALAIN A. GARILLOS, CELEBRITY CRUISES, INC.
(U.S.A.), Respondents.
G.R. No. 189571, January 21, 2015 - THE
HONORABLE MONETARY BOARD AND GAIL U. FULE,
DIRECTOR, SUPERVISION AND EXAMINATION
DEPARTMENT II, AND BANGKO SENTRAL NG
PILIPINAS, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE VETERANS
BANK, Respondent.
G.R. No. 202837, January 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAKIM
MINANGA Y DUMANSAL, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 194885, January 26, 2015 - C.F. SHARP
CREW MANAGEMENT, INC. AND REEDEREI CLAUS
PETER OFFEN, Petitioners, v. CLEMENTE M. PEREZ,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 205433, January 21, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. AVELINO DE ZOSA AND
BARTOLOME DELA CRUZ, Respondents.
G.R. No. 204866, January 21, 2015 - RUKS
KONSULT AND CONSTRUCTION, Petitioner, v.
ADWORLD SIGN AND ADVERTISING CORPORATION*
AND TRANSWORLD MEDIA ADS, INC., Respondents.
G.R. No. 163928, January 21, 2015 - MANUEL
JUSAYAN,ALFREDO JUSAYAN, AND MICHAEL
JUSAYAN, Petitioners, v. JORGE SOMBILLA,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 195272, January 14, 2015 - BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS (FORMERLY PRUDENTIAL
BANK), Petitioner, v. SPOUSES DAVID M. CASTRO
AND CONSUELO B. CASTRO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 176508, January 12, 2015 - SAINT MARY
CRUSADE TO ALLEVIATE POVERTY OF BRETHREN
FOUNDATION, INC., Petitioner, v. HON. TEODORO T.
RIEL, ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION,
BRANCH 85, QUEZON CITY, Respondent.;
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, Intervenor.
G.R. No. 202687, January 14, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERIC PAVIA
Y PALIZA aka “JERIC” AND JUAN BUENDIA Y DELOS
REYES aka “JUNE”, Accused-Appellants.
G.R. Nos. 193383-84, January 14, 2015 - CBK
POWER COMPANY LIMITED, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent.; G.R. NOS. 193407-08 - COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. CBK POWER
COMPANY LIMITED, Respondent.
G.R. No. 206832, January 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALFREDO
approximate time of the commission of the offense; and the place wherein the offense was
committed.
In any case, it is now too late for petitioners to assail the sufficiency of the Information on the ground that
the elements of the crime of attempted murder are lacking. Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court
provides:
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
SEC. 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor.- The failure of the
accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or
information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in
said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections except those based on the grounds
provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of section 3 of this Rule.
Anent the probative value and weight given to the testimony of Elpidio by the CA and the RTC, the same
is not ridden with any error. In People v. Alvarado,14 we held that greater weight is given to the positive
identification of the accused by the prosecution witness than the accused's denial and explanation
concerning the commission of the crime. This is so inasmuch as mere denials are self-serving evidence
that cannot obtain evidentiary weight greater than the declaration of credible witnesses who testified on
affirmative matters.15
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
It is clear from the records that Elpidio was able to make a positive identification of the petitioners as the
assailants, thus: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Q. Then what happened next Mr. Witness?
A. When I was able to free myself from Salvador Iguiron, I got out of the door of the house,
then, I saw Gary was hiding in the kitchen door holding an axe. Tonahawk with blade of ax
was dull and had a handle of one foot, with the diameter of one inch.
Q. Why did you know that the ax blade of the tom was dull? (sic)
A. I also used that.
Q. Where do you usually keep that in the house of Iguiron?
A. In the kitchen.
Q. How far is that kitchen from where Gary emerged from?
A. He is right in the kitchen.
Q. Then what happened?
A. When I was able to free myself from Salvador, Gary Iguiron was hiding in the kitchen
door and holding a tomhack (sic) whose edge is dull and he hit me on my right side and my
head and I got injury (sic) and blood profusely oozing, I want to get hold of the tomhawk
(sic).
Q. Were you able to get of the tomhawk (sic) from Gary?
A. No sir.16 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
xxxx
Q. You said while on that street somebody hit you from behind, who was that?
A. Rolly Villanueva.
Q. Why do you say that it was Rolly Villanueva, considering that it was hit from behind?
A. Because they were about 5 of them at the main gate of the compound.
Q. Who are they?
A. Rolando Villanueva, Nestor Ballesteros, Tommy Ballesteros, Eugene Surigao, Saligan
Iguiron.
Q. You said you were hit by Rolando from behind, do you have occasion to see first before
you were hit?
A. When I was hit I fell down and I was able to see who hit (sic0, I saw him.
Q. When you fell down, you were able to realize it was Rolando Villanueva who hit you, you
mean you realized what he used in hitting you from behind?
A. It was a pipe. 1/2 inch thick, 24 inches in length.
Q. You said you fell down because of the blow of Rolando Villanueva and you saw him
holding that pipe, how was he holding the pipe when you saw him?
A. When I fell down he was about trying to hit me again.17
In connection therewith, one must not forget the well entrenched rule that findings of facts of the trial
court, its calibration of the testimonial evidence of the parties as well as its conclusion on its findings, are
accorded high respect if not conclusive effect. This is because of the unique advantage of the trial court to
observe, at close range, the conduct, demeanor and deportment of the witness as they testify.18 The rule
finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of
Appeals.19
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
It is also of utmost significance that the testimony of Elpidio is corroborated by the medico-legal findings
as testified by Dr. Edgar Michael Eufemio, PGH Chief Resident Doctor of the Department of Orthopedics.
He testified as to the following: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Q. And as head of that office, Mr. Witness, why are you here today?
A. Actually, I was called upon by the complainant to rectify regarding, the findings
supposedly seen when he was admitted and when I saw him in one of the sessions of our
Out Patient Department.
MORALES Y LAM, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 212932, January 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARNEL
BALUTE Y VILLANUEVA, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. Nos. 209655-60, January 14, 2015 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PALMY
TIBAYAN AND RICO Z. PUERTO, Accused-Appellants.
A.M. No. RTJ-15-2405 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 12-
3919-RTJ], January 12, 2015 - ANTONIO S. ASCAÑO,
JR., CONSOLACION D. DANTES, BASILISA A. OBALO,
JULIETA D. TOLEDO, JOSEPH Z. MAAC, EMILIANO E.
LUMBOY, TITA F. BERNARDO, IGMEDIO L. NOGUERA,
FIDEL S. SARMIENTO, SR., DAN T. TAUNAN, AMALIA
G. SANTOS, AVELINA M. COLONIA, ERIC S.
PASTRANA, AND MARIVEL B. ISON, Complaints, v.
PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE S. JACINTO, JR., BRANCH
45, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN JOSE OCCIDENTAL
MINDORO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 198756, January 13, 2015 - BANCO DE
ORO, BANK OF COMMERCE, CHINA BANKING
CORPORATION, METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST
COMPANY, PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS,
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PHILIPPINE
VETERANS BANK AND PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT
BANK, Petitioners, RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING
CORPORATION AND RCBC CAPITAL CORPORATION,
Petitioners, CAUCUS OF DEVELOPMENT NGO
NETWORKS, Petitioner-Intervenor, v. REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, BUREAU OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, SECRETARY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE, THE NATIONAL TREASURER AND BUREAU
OF TREASURY, Respondents.
G.R. No. 156995, January 12, 2015 - RUBEN
MANALANG, CARLOS MANALANG, CONCEPCION
GONZALES AND LUIS MANALANG, Petitioners, v.
BIENVENIDO AND MERCEDES BACANI, Respondents.
G.R. No. 207942, January 12, 2015 - YINLU BICOL
MINING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. TRANS-ASIA
OIL AND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 185544, January 13, 2015 - THE LAW FIRM
OF LAGUESMA MAGSALIN CONSULTA AND
GASTARDO, Petitioner, v. THE COMMISSION ON
AUDIT AND/OR REYNALDO A. VILLAR AND JUANITO
G. ESPINO, JR. IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS CHAIRMAN
AND COMMISSIONER, RESPECTIVELY, Respondents.
G.R. No. 189272, January 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. CHI CHAN LIU A. K. A.
CHAN QUE AND HUI LAO CHUNG A.K.A. LEOFE
SENGLAO, Appellants.
G.R. Nos. 209672-74, January 14, 2015 - EDMUND
SIA, Petitioner, v. WILFREDO ARCENAS, FERNANDO
LOPEZ, AND PABLO RAFANAN, Respondents.
G.R. No. 184458, January 14, 2015 - RODRIGO
RIVERA, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES SALVADOR CHUA
AND S. VIOLETA CHUA, Respondents.; G.R. NO.
184472 - SPS. SALVADOR CHUA AND VIOLETA S.
CHUA, Petitioners, v. RODRIGO RIVERA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 195671, January 21, 2015 - ROGELIO J.
GONZAGA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
A.M. No. P-14-3281 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-
3998-P), January 28, 2015 - FELISICIMO* R.
SABIJON AND ZENAIDA A. SABIJON, Complainants, v.
BENEDICT** M. DE JUAN, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT OF KABACAN, NORTH COTABATO,
BRANCH 22, Respondent.
G.R. No. 188016, January 14, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner,
v. TEAM (PHILS.) ENERGY CORPORATION (FORMERLY
MIRANT (PHILS.) ENERGY CORPORATION),
Respondent.
G.R. No. 182864, January 12, 2015 - EASTERN
SHIPPING LINES, INC., Petitioner, v. BPI/MS
INSURANCE CORP., & MITSUI SUMITOMO
INSURANCE CO., LTD., Respondents.
G.R. No. 166357, January 14, 2015 - VALERIO E.
KALAW, Petitioner, v. MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 195580, January 28, 2015 - NARRA NICKEL
MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., TESORO MINING
AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., AND MCARTHUR MINING,
INC., Petitioners, v. REDMONT CONSOLIDATED
MINES CORP., Respondent.
G.R. No. 210660, January 21, 2015 - FLOR G. DAYO,
Petitioner, v. STATUS MARITIME CORPORATION
AND/OR NAFTO TRADE SHIPPING COMMERCIAL S.A.,
Respondents.
Q. When was this follow-up session at your department did you see this complainant?
A. Based on the chart, I think it was four (4) months post injury when I first saw the
patient.
Q. Why does he has (sic) to make a follow up in your department?
A. Based on this chart, he sustained bilateral leg fractures which necessitated casting.
Normally, casting would take around three (3) months only but since the nature of his
fracture was relatively unstable, I think it necessitated prolong immobilization in a case.
PROSECUTOR TEVES:
Q. Did you personally attend on his needs on that date when you saw him?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And what could have been the cause of these injuries he sustained?
A. I think one of his leg has close fracture, meaning, probably it was caused by a blunt
injury rather than a hacking injury, one on the left side, with an open wound which was
very much compatible with a hack at the leg area.20
Petitioners also claim that the prosecution was not able to prove the presence of treachery or any other
qualifying circumstance.
In this particular case, there was no treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended
party might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift,
deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance
to resist or escape. For treachery to be considered, two elements must concur: (1) the employment of
means of execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and
(2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.21 From the facts proven by the
prosecution, the incident was spontaneous, thus, the second element of treachery is wanting. The
incident, which happened at the spur of the moment, negates the possibility that the petitioners
consciously adopted means to execute the crime committed. There is no treachery where the attack was
not preconceived and deliberately adopted but was just triggered by the sudden infuriation on the part of
the accused because of the provocative act of the victim.22 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The RTC, however, was correct in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength,
thus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
In the case at bar, the prosecution was able to establish that Salvador Iguiron hit Elpidio
Malicsi, Sr. twice on the head as he was entered (sic) the house of the former. Gary
Fantastico hit the victim on the right side of the head with an axe or tomahawk. The
evidence also show that Rolando “Rolly” Villanueva hit the victim on the head with a lead
pipe. And outside while the victim was lying down, Gary hit the legs of the victim with the
tomahawk. lvador also hit the victim with the rattan stick on the thighs, legs and knees.
And Titus Iguiron hit the victim's private organ with a piece of wood. The Provisional
Medical Slip (Exh. “D”), Medico Legal Certificate and Leg Sketch (Exh. “D-2”) and the
fracture sheet (Exh. “D-4”) all prove that the victim suffered injuries to both legs and
multiple lacerations on his head. The injury on one leg which was a close fracture was
caused by a blunt instrument like a piece of wood. This injury was caused by Salvador
Iguiron. The other leg suffered an open fracture caused by a sharp object like a large knife
or axe. This was caused by Gary Fantastico who used the tomahawk or axe on the victim.
The multiple lacerations on the head were caused by Gary, Rolly and Salvador as it was
proven that they hit Elpidio on the head. There is no sufficient evidence that the other,
accused, namely Saligan Iguiron Y Malicsi, Tommy Ballesteros, Nestor Ballesteros and
Eugene Surigao harmed or injured the victim. Titus having sprayed Elpidio with the tear gas
is not sufficiently proven. Neither was the alleged blow by Titus, using a piece of wood, on
the victim's private organ sufficiently established as the medical certificate did not show any
injury on that part of the body of the victim.
The said injuries inflicted on the complainant after he went back to his sister Isabelita's
house. When he kicked the door, the melee began. And the sequence of the injuries is
proven by victim's testimony. But it was a lopsided attack as the victim was unarmed,
while his attackers were all armed (rattan stick, tomahawk and lead pipe). And
the victim was also drunk. This establishes the element of abuse of superior
strength. The suddenness of the blow inflicted by Salvador on Elpidio when he
entered the premises show that the former was ready to hit the victim and was
waiting for him to enter. It afforded Elpidio no means to defend himself. And
Salvador consciously adopted the said actuation. He hit Elpidio twice on the head.
Treachery is present in this case and must be considered an aggravating
circumstance against Salvador Iguiron. Rolly Villanueva, Gary Fantastico and Salvador
Iguiron were all armed while Elpidio, inebriated, had nothing to defend himself with. There
is clearly present here the circumstance of abuse of superior strength.23 (Emphasis
supplied)
Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the
victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the
aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime."24 "The fact that there
were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se establish that the crime was committed with
abuse of superior strength, there being no proof of the relative strength of the aggressors and the
victim."25 The evidence must establish that the assailants purposely sought the advantage, or that they
had the deliberate intent to use this advantage.26 "To take advantage of superior strength means to
purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person
attacked."27 The appreciation of this aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size, and strength of
the parties.28
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Anent the penalty imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, which is an indeterminate penalty of eight
(8) years and one (1) day as minimum, to ten (10) years as maximum and ordered them to pay actual
damages of P17,300.00 and moral damages of P10,000.00, this Court finds an obvious error.
For the crime of attempted murder, the penalty shall be prision mayor, since Article 51 of the Revised
Penal Code states that a penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated
felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit a felony.29 Under the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the maximum of the sentence shall be that which could be properly imposed in view of the
 attending circumstances, and the minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that
G.R. No. 204689, January 21, 2015 - STRONGHOLD prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. Absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstance in this case, the
INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES maximum of the sentence should be within the range of prision mayor in its medium term, which has a
RUNE AND LEA STROEM, Respondents. duration of eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years; and that the minimum should be within the
range of prision correccional, which has a duration of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years.
G.R. No. 206526, January 28, 2015 -
Therefore, the penalty imposed should have been imprisonment from six (6) years of prision correccional,
WINEBRENNER & IÑIGO INSURANCE BROKERS, INC.,
Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.
REVENUE, Respondents.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated January 20, 2010 of petitioners Gary Fantastico
G.R. No. 203351, January 21, 2015 - PANAY POWER and Rolando Villanueva is hereby DENIED. Consequently, the Decision dated August 31, 2007 and
CORPORATION (FORMERLY AVON RIVER POWER Resolution dated January 7, 2010 of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED with the
HOLDINGS CORPORATION), Petitioner, v. MODIFICATION that the petitioners are sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from six
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
Respondents. maximum. Petitioners are also ORDERED to pay P17,300.00 as actual damages, as well as P10,000.00
moral damages as originally ordered by the RTC. In addition, interest is imposed on all damages awarded
UDK-15143, January 21, 2015 - IN THE MATTER OF: at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
SAVE THE SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL
INDEPENDENCE AND FISCAL AUTONOMY MOVEMENT
SO ORDERED.
v. ABOLITION OF JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND
cralawlawlibrary

(JDF) AND REDUCTION OF FISCAL AUTONOMY.

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Villarama, Jr., Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 209499, January 28, 2015 - MA. CHARITO
C. GADIA, ERNESTO M. PEÑAS, GEMMABELLE B.
REMO, LORENA S. QUESEA, MARIE JOY FRANCISCO, Endnotes:
BEVERLY A. CABINGAS, IVEE U. BALINGIT, ROMA
ANGELICA O. BORJA, MARIE JOAN RAMOS, KIM
1Rollo, pp. 3-120.
GUEVARRA, LYNN S. DE LOS SANTOS, CAREN C.
ENCANTO, EIDEN BALDOVINO, JACQUELINE B.
CASTRENCE, MA. ESTRELLA V. LAPUZ, JOSELITO L. 2Penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, with Associate Justices Vicente S. E. Veloso
LORD, RAYMOND G. SANTOS, ABIGAIL M. VILORIA, and Marlene Gonzales-Sison, concurring.
ROMMEL C. ACOSTA, FRANCIS JAN S. BAYLON, ERIC
O. PADIERNOS, MA. LENELL P. AARON, CRISNELL P. 3Rollo,
AARON, AND LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER F. PAPA, pp. 26-28.
Petitioners, v. SYKES ASIA, INC./ CHUCK SYKES/
MIKE HINDS/ MICHAEL HENDERSON, Respondents. 4 Penned by Presiding Judge Cicero D. Jurado, Jr.; id., at 60-65.

G.R. No. 200169, January 28, 2015 - RODOLFO S. 5 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 45, Sec. 1.
AGUILAR, Petitioner v. EDNA G. SIASAT,
Respondents. 6Sarsaba v. Vda. de Te, G.R. No. 175910, July 30, 2009, 594 SCRA 410, 420.
G.R. No. 199648, January 28, 2015 - FIRST OPTIMA
REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SECURITRON 7Rivera v. People, 515 Phil. 824, 833 (2006).
SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Respondents.
8Id., citing People v. Lizada, 444 Phil. 67 (2003).
A.C. No. 10573, January 13, 2015 - FERNANDO W.
CHU, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE C. GUICO, JR., 9
Respondents. Reyes, Revised Penal Code, 1981, Vol. I, p. 98.

G.R. No. 180147, January 14, 2015 - SARA LEE 10People v. Lizada, supra note 8.
PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. EMILINDA D.
MACATLANG, ET AL.,1 Respondents.; G.R. NO. 180148 11Id. at 98-99.
- ARIS PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. EMILINDA
D. MACATLANG, ET AL., Respondents.; G.R. NO. 12Supra
180149 - SARA LEE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. note 7, citing People v. Delim, 444 Phil. 430, 450 (2003).
EMILINDA D. MACATLANG, ET AL., Respondents.; G.R.
NO. 180150 - CESAR C. CRUZ, Petitioner, v. 13Epifanio v. People, 552 Phil. 620, 630 (2007).
EMILINDA D. MACATLANG, ET AL., Respondents.; G.R.
NO. 180319 - FASHION ACCESSORIES PHILS., INC., 14 341 Phil. 725, 734 (1997).
Petitioner, v. EMILINDA D. MACATLANG, ET AL.,
Respondents.; G.R. NO. 180685 - EMILINDA D. 15People
MACATLANG, ET AL., Petitioners, v. NLRC, ARIS v. Gidoc, 604 Phil. 702, 713 (2009).
PHILIPPINES, INC., FASHION ACCESSORIES PHILS.,
INC., SARA LEE CORPORATION, SARA LEE 16 TSN, August 29, 1994, pp. 20-22.
PHILIPPINES, INC., COLLIN BEAL AND ATTY. CESAR
C. CRUZ, Respondents. 17Id. at 24-26.
G.R. No. 185812, January 13, 2015 - MARITIME 18People
INDUSTRY AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION v. Dumadag, G.R. No. 147196, June 4, 2004, 431 SCRA 65, 70.
ON AUDIT, Respondents.
19People v. Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019, February 12, 2007, 515 SCRA 537, 547.
G.R. No. 203026, January 28, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATHANIEL 20 TSN, July 23, 1996, pp. 5-6.
PASION Y DELA CRUZ A.K.A. “ATHAN” AND DENNIS
MICHAEL PAZ Y SIBAYAN, Accused-Appellants. 21People of the Philippines v. Danilo Feliciano, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 196735, May 5, 2014,
G.R. No. 165354, January 12, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF citing People v. Leozar Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 188353, February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA 738, 747
THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL [Per J. Velasco, Third Division], citing People v. Amazan, 402 Phil. 247, 270 (2001) [Per J.
POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF Mendoza, Second Division]; People v. Bato, 401 Phil. 415, 431 (2000) [Per J. Pardo, First
SATURNINO Q. BORBON, AND COURT OF APPEALS, Division]; People v. Albarido, G.R. No. 102367, October 25, 2001, 368 SCRA 194.
Respondents.
22 See People v. Tavas, G.R. No. 123969, February 11, 1999, 303 SCRA 86.
G.R. No. 148748, January 14, 2015 - IMELDA,
LEONARDO, FIDELINO, AZUCENA, JOSEFINA, ANITA 23Rollo,
AND SISA, ALL SURNAMED SYJUCO, Petitioners, v. pp. 63-64.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner-
Intervenor, v. FELISA D. BONIFACIO AND VSD 24People v. Daquipil, 310 Phil. 327, 348 (1995).
REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Respondents. 25People v. Casingal, 312 Phil. 945, 956 (1995).
G.R. No. 206393, January 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF 26People
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL v. Escoto, 313 Phil. 785, 800-801 (1995).
JOSON Y ROGANDO, Defendant-Appellant.
27People v. Ventura, 477 Phil. 458, 484 (2004).
G.R. No. 168406, January 14, 2015 - CLUB
FILIPINO, INC. AND ATTY. ROBERTO F. DE LEON, 28People v. Moka, 273 Phil. 610, 621 (1991).
Petitioners, v. BENJAMIN BAUTISTA, RONIE SUALOG,
JOEL CALIDA, JOHNNY ARINTO, CARLITO 29People
PRESENTACION, AND ROBERTO DE GUZMAN, v. Adallom, G.R. No. 182522, March 7, 2012, 667 SCRA 652, 680.
Respondents.

G.R. No. 191972, January 26, 2015 - HENRY ONG

LAY HIN, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS (2ND
DIVISION), HON. GABRIEL T. INGLES, AS PRESIDING
JUDGE OF RTC BRANCH 58, CEBU CITY, AND THE Back to Home | Back to Main
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
 G.R. No. 211002, January 21, 2015 - RICHARD QUICK SEARCH
RICALDE, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 174184, January 28, 2015 - G.J.T.

REBUILDERS MACHINE SHOP, GODOFREDO 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
TRILLANA, AND JULIANA TRILLANA, Petitioners, v. 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
RICARDO AMBOS, BENJAMIN PUTIAN, AND RUSSELL
AMBOS, Respondents. 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
G.R. No. 109645, January 21, 2015 - ORTIGAS &
COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Petitioner, v. 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
JUDGE TIRSO VELASCO AND DOLORES V. MOLINA, 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
Respondents.; [G.R. No. 112564] - DOLORES V.
MOLINA, Petitioner, v. HON. PRESIDING JUDGE OF 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
RTC, QUEZON CITY, BR. 105 AND MANILA BANKING 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
CORPORATION, Respondents.; [G.R. No. 128422] -
DOLORES V. MOLINA, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
COURT OF APPEALS AND EPIMACO ORETA, 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
Respondents.; [G.R. No. 128911] - THE MANILA
BANKING CORPORATION AND ALBERTO V. REYES, 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
Petitioners, v. DOLORES V. MOLINA AND HON. 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
MARCIANO BACALLA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 216, Respondent. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

G.R. No. 167519, January 14, 2015 - THE WELLEX 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
GROUP, INC., Petitioner, v. U-LAND AIRLINES, CO.,
LTD., Respondent.

G.R. No. 201151, January 14, 2015 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NESTOR
SUAREZ Y MAGTAGNOB, Accused-Appellant.
Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
G.R. No. 191710, January 14, 2015 - DEMETRIA DE
GUZMAN, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS OLGA C.
BARBASO AND NOLI G. CEMENTTNA;* LOLITA A. DE
GUZMAN; ESTHER G.MILAN; BANAAG A. DE GUZMAN;
AMOR G. APOLO, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS
ALBERTO T. APOLO, MARK APOLO AND GEORGE
APOLO;* HERMINIO A. DE GUZMAN; LEONOR G.
VTVENCIO; NORMA A. DE GUZMAN; AND JOSEFINA G.
HERNANDEZ, Petitioners, v. FBLINVEST
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

G.R. No. 168616, January 28, 2015 - HOME

GUARANTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. LA SAVOIE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

G.R. No. 200628, January 13, 2015 - MARIA

THERESA G. GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION
ON AUDIT AND AUDITOR NARCISA DJ JOAQUIN,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 198587, January 14, 2015 - SAUDI

ARABIAN AIRLINES (SAUDIA) AND BRENDA J. BETIA,
Petitioners, v. MA. JOPETTE M. REBESENCIO,
MONTASSAH B. SACAR-ADIONG, ROUEN RUTH A.
CRISTOBAL AND LORAINE S. SCHNEIDER-CRUZ,
Respondents.

Copyright © 1998 - 20191998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED