9/4/2019 G.R. No. 127694 May 31, 2000 - QUIRICO MARI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

ET AL. : MAY 2000 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURIS…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2000 > May 2000 Decisions > G.R. No. 127694 May 31, 2000 -
QUIRICO MARI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:

Custom Search
Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 127694. May 31, 2000.]

QUIRICO MARI, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Respondents.

DECISION

PARDO, J.:

The case before the Court is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals the dispositive portion of
which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the conviction of petitioner Quirico Mari for the offense of serious slander by deed is
hereby AFFIRMED, but with a modified penalty of one (1) month and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correctional, as maximum.

"SO ORDERED." 1

The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Complainant Norma Capintoy and petitioner Quirico Mari were co-employees in the Department of
Agriculture, with office at Digos, Davao del Sur, although complainant occupied a higher position.

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
On December 6, 1991, petitioner borrowed from complainant the records of his 201 file. However, when
he returned the same three days later, complainant noticed that several papers were missing which
included official communications from the Civil Service Commission and Regional Office, Department of
Agriculture, and a copy of the complaint by the Rural Bank of Digos against petitioner. Upon instruction
of her superior officer, Honorio Lumain, complainant sent a memorandum to petitioner asking him to
explain why his 201 file was returned with missing documents.

Instead of acknowledging receipt of the memorandum, petitioner confronted complainant and angrily
shouted at her: "Putang ina, bullshit, bugo." He banged a chair in front of complainant and choked her.
With the intervention of the security guard, petitioner was prevailed upon to desist from further injuring
complainant.

Petitioner’s version is that, he borrowed from complainant his service record and not his 201 file which
contained his personal records. The service record which he borrowed did not include the missing
documents. Acknowledging that complainant was higher in rank than him, he claimed that it was
complainant who provoked him into acting the way he did and he was just reacting to the provocation.

On January 7, 1992, complainant filed with the Municipal Trial Court, Digos, Davao del Sur a criminal
complaint against petitioner for slander by deed. 2

On May 20, 1992, complainant filed an amended criminal complaint, adding that the crime was
aggravated by the fact that the offended party was a woman. 3

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2000maydecisions.php?id=613 1/5
9/4/2019 G.R. No. 127694 May 31, 2000 - QUIRICO MARI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : MAY 2000 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURIS…
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
May-2000 Jurisprudence
A.M. No. P-99-1308 May 4, 2000 - LEANDRO T.
LOYAO v. SOFRONIO S. MANATAD
G.R. No. 117040 May 4, 2000 - RUBEN SERRANO v.
NLRC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 130658 May 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ORLITO GADIN
G.R. No. 134084 May 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. DOMINICO LICANDA
G.R. No. 134631 May 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. BANDY REPOLLO, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 140560 & 140714 May 4, 2000 - JOVITO
O. CLAUDIO v. COMELEC, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 140850-51 May 4, 2000 - EUGENIO
FAELNAR v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.
G.R. No. 127501 May 5, 2000 - CONRADO C.
SALVADOR v. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL SIXTH
DIVISION), ET AL.
G.R. No. 133872 May 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ALEXANDER TAÑO
G.R. No. 139357 May 5, 2000 - ABDULMADID P.B.
MARUHOM v. COMELEC, ET AL.
A.M. No. MTJ-99-1227 May 9, 2000 - FERNANDO V.
TORRES v. FRANCISCO D. VILLANUEVA
A.M. No. P-98-1283 May 9, 2000 - JOHNNY GOMEZ,
ET AL. v. RODOLFO A. CONCEPCION
A.M. No. P-99-1353 May 9, 2000 - PABLO CASAJE v.
ROMAN GATBALITE, ET AL.
A.M. No. RTJ-98-1421 May 9, 2000 - MARIETTA A.
PADILLA v. SALVADOR D. SILERIO
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1439 May 9, 2000 - VIRGINIA
VILLALUZ VDA. DE ENRIQUEZ v. JAIME F. BAUTISTA,
ET AL.
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1512 May 9, 2000 - NESTOR B.
BELGA v. MAMERTO M. BUBAN
G.R. Nos. 119239 & 119285 May 9, 2000 -
FRANCISCO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL., ET AL.
G.R. No. 127124 May 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL v. CONRADO CABANA
G.R. No. 128024 May 9, 2000 - BEBIANO M. BAÑEZ
v. DOWNEY C. VALDEVILLA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 132558 May 9, 2000 - BEBERISA RIÑO v.
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 133284 May 9, 2000 - CLARO PONCIANO,
ET AL. v. JOSE J. PARENTELA, ET AL.
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2000maydecisions.php?id=613
After trial on September 22, 1994, the Municipal Trial Court, Digos, Davao del Sur rendered decision, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"In the light of the foregoing the court is of the opinion that the accused is guilty of the offense charged
and that private complainant has been slandered and embarrassed by the accused.
"Finding, therefore, Accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge filed against him and crediting
in favor of the prosecution one (1) ordinary aggravating circumstance, the Court hereby sentences the
accused to an Indeterminate Sentence of five (5) months and eleven (11) days to two (2) years, eleven
(11) months and eleven (11) days and to pay private complainant the amount of FIVE THOUSAND
(P5,000.00) PESOS as moral damages, FIVE THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS attorney’s fees and to
reimburse her the cost of suit.
"Private complainant is, however, ordered to pay the docket fee corresponding to the damages she is
entitled to receive, by virtue of this decision.
"SO ORDERED.
"Digos, Davao del Sur, September 22, 1994." 4
In due time, petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court.
After due proceedings, on December 1, 1995, the Regional Trial Court Davao del Sur, Digos, Branch 19
rendered decision adopting the trial court’s findings of fact, and affirming the appealed decision in toto. 5
On June 18, 1996, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review. 6
On July 16, 1996, the Court of Appeals ordered respondents to file their comment on the petition, which
shall be considered as an answer in the event the petition is given due course. 7
On December 9, 1996, the Court of Appeals rendered decision affirming the judgment a quo convicting
petitioner of serious slander by deed, but modifying the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of one (1)
month and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years and four (4) months of prision
correccional, as maximum. 8
Hence, this appeal. 9
At issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the conviction of petitioner for serious
slander by deed assailing the trial court’s finding that petitioner shouted invectives at complainant in the
presence of several persons and then choked her. Petitioner submits that the prosecution failed to prove
that he choked the complainant; that the choking was an after-thought as shown by inconsistencies in
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
The issue raised is factual, which would bar us from reviewing the same in an appeal via certiorari. 10
The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals supported by substantial evidence are conclusive and binding
on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court. 11 unless the case falls under any of the exceptions
to the rule, 12 such as diverse factual findings of the lower courts 13 or the findings are entirely
grounded on speculations. 14 Petitioner failed to prove that the case falls within the exceptions. 15
However, we regret to note that the Municipal Trial Court, Digos, Davao del Sur, the Regional Trial Court,
Digos, Davao del Sur and even the Court of Appeals erred in the proper application of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law. chanrobles.com.ph:red
In the first place, the municipal trial court found the attendance of an "ordinary aggravating
circumstance." The court did not state what this aggravating circumstance was, as required. 16 True, the
amended criminal complaint alleged that the crime had been aggravated by the fact that the offended
party is a woman. However, the mere fact that the victim is a woman is not per se an aggravating
circumstance. 17 There was no finding that the evidence proved that the accused in fact deliberately
intended to offend or insult the sex of the victim, or showed manifest disrespect to the offended woman
or displayed some specific insult or disrespect to her womanhood. There was no proof of specific fact or
circumstance, other than the victim is a woman, showing insult or disregard of sex in order that it may
be considered as aggravating circumstance. 18 Hence, such aggravating circumstance was not proved,
and indeed, in the circumstances of this case may not be considered as aggravating. 19 Consequently,
the trial court erred in "crediting in favor of the prosecution one (1) ordinary aggravating circumstance."
On review, the Regional Trial Court Judge did not notice the error because it did not make its own
findings of fact, and followed the line of least resistance by simply adopting the trial court’s "finding of
fact as well as its reasons for making so." Neither did the Court of Appeals notice the error, even if the
Solicitor General in his comment noted that the sentence imposed on the accused was excessive,
meaning that there was no aggravating circumstance proved. 20
In the second place, in applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the court shall fix minimum and
maximum penalties. 21 If the offense is punished by the Revised Penal Code, as in this case, the court
shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which shall be that which,
in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal
Code, and the minimum term of which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by the Code for the offense. 22 The court shall fix the minimum penalty within the number of
months or years covered by the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed by the Code for the
offense without regard to any modifying circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime. 23 The
court has the unqualified discretion to fix the term of the minimum penalty. 24 The only limitation is that
it must be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense
committed, without regard to its three (3) periods 25 or reference to the degrees into which it may be
subdivided. 26 Then, the court shall fix the maximum period. In doing so, the court shall now consider
the attending circumstances, finding whether any modifying circumstance attended the commission of
the crime. In this case, there was no modifying circumstance, hence, the maximum penalty imposable
must be within the range of the medium period of the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense. 27
The penalty prescribed by law for serious slander by deed under Article 359 of the Revised Penal Code is
arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum or four (4) months and one (1) day to two (2)
years and four (4) months or a fine ranging from P200.00 to P1,000.00. The penalty next lower in degree
is arresto mayor minimum and medium periods, or one (1) month and one (1) day to four (4) months.
Consequently, the minimum shall be taken from any of its periods, but must be definite, say, one (1)
month and one (1) day, as minimum. The maximum shall be taken from the medium period of the
prescribed penalty that is within the range of one (1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and eight (8)
months of prision correccional but also a specific, definite fixed period, say, one (1) year and one (1)
day, as maximum. Notice that the trial court imposed five months of arresto mayor as minimum,
exceeding the range provided by law. However, the minimum fixed by the Court of Appeals was correct,
that is, one (1) month and one (1) day of arresto mayor. The maximum fixed by the trial court of two (2)
years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days was wrong as it exceeded the prescribed range because
that period is within the maximum of the penalty prescribed by the Code, which could not be imposed in
the absence of any aggravating circumstance. The maximum penalty fixed by the Court of Appeals (two
(2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional) was also wrong because it exceeded the range of
the medium period of the prescribed penalty. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Prescinding from the foregoing, it would serve the ends of justice better if the petitioner were sentenced
2/5
9/4/2019 G.R. No. 127694 May 31, 2000 - QUIRICO MARI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : MAY 2000 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURIS…
G.R. No. 134505 May 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO GO-OD, ET AL.
A.M. No. 98-2-22-MeTC & MTJ-00-1272 May 11,
2000 - CLODUALDO C. DE JESUS v. SUSANITA E.
MENDOZA-PARKER
G.R. No. 101723 May 11, 2000 - INDUSTRIAL
MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORP
v. NLRC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 125896 May 11, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ANGELO ORILLO , ET AL.
to pay a fine instead of imprisonment. The offense while considered serious slander by deed was done in
the heat of anger 28 and was in reaction to a perceived provocation. The penalty for serious slander by
deed may be either imprisonment or a fine. 29 We opt to impose a fine.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals and in lieu thereof
renders judgment finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of serious slander by deed defined
and penalized under Article 359 of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing him to pay a fine of
P1,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
With costs.
SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 126114 May 11, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE Puno and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
PHIL. v. JIMMY SABREDO
Davide, Jr., C.J., on official leave.
G.R. No. 127571 May 11, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. BONIFACIO LADIT, ET AL.
Ynares-Santiago, J., took no part.
G.R. No. 130935 May 11, 2000 - ALLAN VILLAR, ET
AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.
Endnotes:
G.R. No. 134217 May 11, 2000 - KENNETH ROY
SAVAGE/K ANGELIN EXPORT TRADING v.
APRONIANO B. TAYPIN, ET AL. 1. In CA-G.R. CR No. 19521, promulgated on December 9, 1996, Agcaoili, J., ponente,
Imperial and Guerrero, JJ., concurring.
G.R. No. 135959 May 11, 2000 - HEIRS OF ANDREA
CRISTOBAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
2. Docketed as Criminal Case No. 7227; Petition, Rollo, p. 9.
G.R. No. 107791 May 12, 2000 - PEPITO BERNARDO
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. 3. Petition, Annex "B", Rollo, p. 25.

G.R. No. 115692 May 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. EDWIN TANOY
G.R. No. 119621 May 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ROMULO AVILLANA
G.R. No. 122112 May 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ASPALAN MAING
G.R. Nos. 124338-41 May 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. ARTHUR DE LEON
G.R. No. 128112 May 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. DIOSCORA MERCADO DE ARABIA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 129914 May 12, 2000 - NAPOLCOM, ET AL.
v. LEONARDO BERNABE
4. Petition, Annex "C", Rollo, pp. 26-30.
5. Petition, Annex "D", Rollo, pp. 31-34.
6. Docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 19521, CA Rollo, pp. 12-24.
7. CA Rollo, p. 39.
8. Petition, Annex "A", Rollo, pp. 20-21.
9. Filed on February 1, 1997; Petition, Rollo, pp. 8-19.
10. Maglaque v. Planters Development Bank, 307 SCRA 156, 161 [1999], citing Guerrero
v. Court of Appeals, 285 SCRA 670 [1998]; Rongavilla v. Court of Appeals, 294 SCRA 289
[1998]; Cristobal v. Court of Appeals, 291 SCRA 122 [1998]; Sarmiento v. Court of
Appeals, 291 SCRA 656 [1998].

G.R. No. 130699 May 12, 2000 - BERNARDO
MERCADER ET AL. VS. DBP, ET AL.
G.R. No. 132319 May 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. FERNANDO MADARANG
G.R. No. 132544 May 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. IRENEO DEQUITO
11. Atillo III v. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 596 [1997]; Don Orestes Romualdez Electric
Cooperative, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 128389, November 25, 1999.
12. Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works, Inc. v. William Lines, Inc., 306 SCRA 762, 774-
775 [1999]; Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 703 [1997].
13. Yobido v. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA 1 [1997].

G.R. No. 136082 May 12, 2000 - FRANKLIN P.
BAUTISTA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 136221 May 12, 2000 - EQUATORIAL
REALTY DEVELOPMENT v. MAYFAIR THEATER
G.R. No. 136913 May 12, 2000 - ANITA C. BUCE v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 138882 May 12, 2000 - JOSE S. LIZARDO
v. CARMELITO A. MONTANO
G.R. Nos. 139789 & 139808 May 12, 2000 -
ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO v. ERLINDA I. BILDNER, ET AL.
14. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 462 [1997].
15. Rivera v. Court of Appeals, 248 Phil. 734, 743 [1998].
16. Rule 120, Section 2, second paragraph, 1985 Rules of Court on Criminal Procedure, as
amended.
17. People v. Braña, 30 SCRA 307, 315 [1969].
18. People v. Mangsant, 65 Phil. 548, 550 [1938]; People v. Mori, 55 SCRA 382, 404
[1974]; People v. Gervacio, 133 Phil. 805 [1968]; People v. Limaco, 88 Phil. 35, 44
[1951]; U.S. v. de Jesus, 14 Phil. 190 [1909]; People v. Metran, 89 Phil. 543 [1951];
People v. Jaula, 90 Phil. 379 [1951].

G.R. No. 124309 May 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. VIRGILIO RIMORIN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 122142 May 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. JIMMY OBRERO
G.R. No. 110220 May 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. RODOLFO V. TOLEDANO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 128281 May 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. CARLITO SARAGINA
G.R. No. 129227 May 30, 2000 - BANCO FILIPINO
SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 130609 May 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL v. EMIL BABERA
G.R. No. 130670 May 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. SAMAD AGANDO, ET AL.
19. Chief Justice Aquino, in his text on The Revised Penal Code, Vol. 1, 1987 ed. p. 314,
wrote that sex was not considered aggravating in libel or slander against a woman, citing
Court of Appeals rulings.
20. See Comment, CA Rollo, pp. 45-57, at pp. 56-57.
21. People v. Ducosin, 59 Phil. 109 [1933]; Bacar v. de Guzman, 271 SCRA 328, 340
[1997]; People v. Feloteo, 290 SCRA 627, 636-637 [1998].
22. Barrameda v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96428, September 2, 1999; People v.
Feloteo, supra.
23. People v. Gabres, 335 Phil. 242, 256-257 [1997]; People v. Cesar, 131 Phil. 121, 125-
126 [1968]; Jacobo v. Court of Appeals, 337 Phil. 7, 23 [1997]; de la Cruz v. Court of
Appeals, 265 SCRA 299 [1996]; Quinto v. People, G.R. No. 126712, April 14, 1999.
24. People v. Onate, 78 SCRA 43 [1977]; Bacar v. de Guzman, supra, at pp. 340-341.
25. Bacar v. de Guzman, supra.

A.M. No. 97-9-283-RTC May 31, 2000 - REPORT ON
THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN RTC, BRANCH 1,
BANGUED, ABRA
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1552 May 31, 2000 - MARLAN
YOUNG v. HILARIO I. MAPAYO
26. People v. Ducosin, 59 Phil. 109, 116-118 [1933]; People v. Gonzales, 73 Phil. 549, 552
[1942]; People v. Onate, supra.
27. Article 64 in relation to Article 65, Revised Penal Code.
28. Pader v. People, G.R. No. 139157, February 8, 2000.

G.R. No. 74729 May 31, 2000 - RELIANCE 29. Article 359, Revised Penal Code.
COMMODITIES, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 118573-74 May 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. RICARDO FRANCISCO, ET. AL.
Back to Home | Back to Main

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2000maydecisions.php?id=613 3/5
9/4/2019 G.R. No. 127694 May 31, 2000 - QUIRICO MARI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : MAY 2000 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURIS…
G.R. No. 120170 May 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. RESTITUTO DIMAILIG
QUICK SEARCH
G.R. No. 122039 May 31, 2000 - VICENTE CALALAS
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 122840 May 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. FRANCISCO L. DOINOG, ET AL. 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
G.R. No. 122935 May 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. RODOLFO SANTOS, ET AL. 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
G.R. No. 124976 May 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. VICENTE BALORA 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
G.R. No. 125867 May 31, 2000 - BENJAMIN RIVERA
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
G.R. No. 126554 May 31, 2000 - ARB
CONSTRUCTION CO., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
ET. AL. 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
G.R. No. 127625 May 31, 2000 - VIRGILIO FLORA 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
CARA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

G.R. No. 127694 May 31, 2000 - QUIRICO MARI v. 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
G.R. Nos. 127026-27 May 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO D. ALICANTE

G.R. No. 128890 May 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. EDDIE MENDOZA

G.R. No. 129052 May 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. EUSEBIO TRAYA Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

G.R. No. 130026 May 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. ANTONIO MAGAT

G.R. No. 130328 May 31, 2000 - UBS MARKETING

CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 130332 May 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. MODESTO MAMAC

G.R. No. 130683 May 31, 2000 - ELIGIO MADRID v.

COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 131436 May 31, 2000 - GOLDEN DIAMOND

v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 131843 May 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. EDWIN R. DECENA

G.R. No. 132043 May 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. TEOFISTO COTAS

G.R. No. 132069 May 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. JOSE T. OBOSA

G.R. No. 132171 May 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. VIRGILIO GOMEZ

G.R. No. 132295 May 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. ANDRES P. LUBONG

G.R. No. 132852 May 31, 2000 - TEOFILO

MARTINEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

G.R. Nos. 133068-69 May 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. EFREN JABIEN

G.R. No. 133109 May 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. NOEL C. LEONARDO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 133579 May 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. ROGELIO CONTEGA

G.R. No. 135101 May 31, 2000 - ALADIN CRUZ v.

COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 135468 May 31, 2000 - DIOSCORO O.

ANGELIA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 135634 May 31, 2000 - JUAN SAN

ANDRES, ET AL. v. VICENTE RODRIGUEZ

G.R. No. 137672 May 31, 2000 - PAZ REYES AGUAM

v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 137677 May 31, 2000 - ADALIA B.

FRANCISCO v. ZENAIDA F. BOISER

G.R. No. 138053 May 31, 2000 - CORNELIO M.

ISAGUIRRE v. FELICITAS DE LARA

G.R. No. 139583 May 31, 2000 - CRUSADERS

BROADCASTING SYSTEM v. NATIONAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 139801 May 31, 2000 - ROBERTO

CONQUILLA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2000maydecisions.php?id=613 4/5
9/4/2019 G.R. No. 127694 May 31, 2000 - QUIRICO MARI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : MAY 2000 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURIS…

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

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2000maydecisions.php?id=613 5/5