People v. Faustino

G.R. Nos. 133373-77 September 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
…O CAMPOS : September 2000 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions 4/23/21, 4:38 PM
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence
September 2000 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence
Search
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2000 > September 2000
Decisions > G.R. Nos. 133373-77 September 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
ChanRobles Professional
v. FAUSTINO CAMPOS:
Review, Inc.
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 133373-77. September 18, 2000.]

ChanRobles On-Line Bar
Review
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FAUSTINO
CAMPOS @ ENOT, Accused-Appellant.
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2000septemberdecisions.php?id=1057 Page 1 of 15
G.R. Nos. 133373-77 September 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. …O CAMPOS : September 2000 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions 4/23/21, 4:38 PM
DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
FAUSTINO CAMPOS alias Enot, 72 years of age, was charged with five (5)
counts of rape committed against the minors Ma. Victoria Padillo 1 and her
younger sister Marjorita Padillo. 2 chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Marjorita was only nine (9) years old when she was first ravished by Campos
on 1 August 1996. At half past noon of that day, while she was passing by the
uninhabited house of Linda Campos, the accused Faustino Campos suddenly
ChanRobles CPA Review
grabbed her from behind and dragged her towards Linda’s house. Once inside,
Online
Campos forced Marjorita to lie down. She struggled to free herself but Campos
firmly held her down. Then he placed himself on top of her inserted his penis
and pumped his penis several times into her vagina. She bled and felt pain.
After satisfying his lust, he warned her not to squeal on him or he would kill
her.
On 5 October 1996 Campos again sexually assaulted Marjorita. First, he

invited her and her cousin Analyn to his house on the pretext that he would
give them "tinapay." As soon as they entered his house he ushered them to
his room and had sexual intercourse with Marjorita in the presence of Analyn.
Analyn attempted to get out of the room but was prevented by Campos. After
reaching his climax with Marjorita, Campos then stroked the private parts of
Analyn.
ChanRobles Special Lecture Two (2) days later, or on 7 October 1996, Campos saw another opportunity to
Series sexually molest Marjorita. Finding her alone in their house cooking rice,
Campos approached her, covered her mouth with his hand, dragged her inside
a room and raped her. Afterwards, but before he left, Campos handed
Marjorita P500.00 but not without a warning not to divulge to anyone what he
had done to her or he would harm her.
Again, another two (2) days after or on 9 October 1996, while Marjorita was
gathering firewood, Campos who was then tending his carabao spotted her. He
approached her and brought her to a clearing nearby and there ravished her
for the last time.
Ma. Victoria, older sister of Marjorita, also narrated in court her sexual
experience in the hands of Campos. Thus, in June 1994 she went to the house
of Campos to ask for danutan leaves for her grandmother. He offered to gather
the danutan leaves for her; but first, he invited her inside his house. Once
inside, he forced her to lie down and then raped her. She was only eight (8)
years old at the time of the rape.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
While admitting having fondled the private parts of the complaining witnesses,
Ma. Victoria and Marjorita, Campos denied that he raped them. But his denial
was belied by the results of the medical examination conducted by Dr. Warlita
Aranas who testified that Ma. Victoria and Marjorita had loose vaginal
sphincter tone and their hymens were no longer intact. Moreover, Juanita
Padillo, mother of Ma. Victoria and Marjorita, testified — and this was damning
evidence — that Campos wrote them a letter asking for their forgiveness.
After the reception of evidence and sustaining the version of the prosecution,
the trial court found accused Faustino Campos alias Enot guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of five (5) counts of rape and sentenced him accordingly to
five (5) distinct penalties of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify Ma. Victoria in
the amount of P50,000.00 and Marjorita P100,000.00, and to pay the costs.
Accused-appellant insists in this appeal that he could not be convicted of

raping Ma. Victoria and Marjorita considering that the medical examination
showed that the complaining witnesses suffered no lacerations, abrasions or
contusions.
But a medical examination is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. In

fact, there can be rape even if the medical examination shows no vaginal
laceration. 3 As we held in People v. Dreu 4 —
It is of no moment either that the medical certificate fails to show that

Josephine suffered any contusion or abrasion. Although the results of a
medical examination may be considered strong evidence to prove that the
victim was raped, such evidence is not indispensable in establishing accused-
appellant’s guilt or innocence. In People v. Docena, we stated: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
That there was no medical examination report presented, sign of resistance

during the actual copulation, or proof of violence committed against MARGIE
does not detract from our conclusion that she was raped. A medical
examination is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. Medical findings or
proof of injuries, virginity, or an allegation of the exact time and date of the
commission of the crime are not essential in a prosecution for rape. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
In fact, the medical findings of Dr. Aranas only serve to corroborate the
testimonies of the sisters Ma. Victoria and Marjorita. In People v. Alicante 5 we
said that the accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone
uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim provided that her testimony is
clear, positive, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal
course of things. As found by the trial court, the testimonies of Ma. Victoria
and Marjorita were "positive, candid, straightforward, and endowed with the
ring of truth and earmarks of credibility, deserving the court’s full faith and
credence." 6 The court a quo, on the other hand, disbelieved the version of the
defense —
His admission that he fondled the private parts of the complainants is just one
sensuous act away from sexual intercourse. Accused having taken advantage
of the youthful credulity of the complainants in sexually petting them, must

have all the more naturally aroused his lewdness, whereby in that (sic)
circumstances of time and place, there is strong reason to believe the
complainants’ positive allegations that the accused was not contented in
touching their private parts, but went on in pursuing his lust to its desired end.
This is exactly what was meant by the judicial Opus: Lust is no respecter of
person, time and place. 7
Evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best

undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the
witnesses and their demeanor, conduct and attitude, especially under cross-
examination. Appellate courts are bound by the findings of the trial court in
this respect, unless it is shown that it has overlooked, misunderstood or
misappreciated certain facts and circumstances which if considered would have
altered the outcome of the case. 8 We find no reason in the instant case to
disturb the factual findings of the court below.
Marjorita was only ten (10) years old and Ma. Victoria was eleven (11) when
they testified in court. At such tender years, they were still unfamiliar with and
naive in the ways of the world that it is quite unbelievable that they could
fabricate such a sordid story of personal defloration. 9 Their testimonies
therefore cannot be disregarded. Besides, the defense failed to impute any ill
motive on the part of Ma. Victoria and Marjorita as to file such serious charges
against accused-appellant if what they testified to was not the truth. In fact,
Campos himself testified that he occasionally gave some money to the
complaining witnesses for school allowance. In People v. Pambid 10 we
September-2000 declared that the testimony of rape victims who are young and immature
Jurisprudence deserves full credence, especially if they are without any motive to testify
falsely against an accused, as in this case.
G.R. No. 117690 September
1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE The defense next claims that the prosecution failed to prove that Ma. Victoria
PHIL. v. ALBERTO DANO was raped by accused-appellant as he only fondled her private parts. We are
not persuaded. That Ma. Victoria was raped by accused-appellant sometime in
G.R. No. 128567 September June 1994 was clearly established in the records — chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
1, 2000 - HUERTA ALBA

RESORT INC. v. COURT OF Fiscal Cabatos: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
APPEALS, ET AL.
You said that the house of Faustino Campos is just near the house of your
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1582
grandmother, can you point to a certain distance to estimate the distance of
September 4, 2000 - COB C.
the house of Faustino Campos to the house of your grandmother?
DE LA CRUZ v. RODOLFO M.
SERRANO
Record: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(Witness pointed to a certain distance inside the court room).
4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. WILFREDO RIGLOS,
Court:
ET AL.
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
G.R. No. 137785 September One hundred meters, more or less.

4, 2000 - NAPOCOR v. VINE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Fiscal Cabatos: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
ET AL.
. . . did you go to the house of Faustino Campos as directed by your

G.R. No. 139282 September grandmother?
4, 2000 - ROMEO DIEGO v.
SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL. Complaining witness: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Yes, ma’am.
5, 2000 - MELVIN COLINARES,
ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS,
Q: . . . . who was present at the house of Faustino Campos?
ET AL.
A: He was there alone . . .

Court: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
PHIL. v. ADORACION SEVILLA

ET AL.
And, when you saw that the accused was in his house, what did you say to
him?
A: I said, no ‘yo.
PHIL. v. PAUL LAPIZ
Q: Why did you say that?

G.R. Nos. 131848-50
September 5, 2000 - PEOPLE
A: Because, he wanted me to go to the bedroom.
OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO
VILLARAZA
Q: Did you not tell the accused that you were asking from him some medicinal
leaves for your grandmother?
5, 2000 - FERDINAND THOMAS
A: I told him.
M. SOLLER v. COMELEC, ET
AL.
Q: What did he say when you told him about that?
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1307

A: He answered yes . . . .
September 6, 2000 - MANUEL
BUNYI, ET AL. v. FELIX A.
Fiscal Cabatos:
CARAOS
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1309 Now, when you were brought to the room by the accused, what did he do to
September 6, 2000 - you inside the bedroom?
FREDESMINDA DAYAWON v.
MAXIMINO A. BADILLA A: He let me lie down . . . .
A.M. No. O.C.A.-00-01 Q: Okey. But when the accused made you to lie down inside the bedroom,
September 6, 2000 - JULIETA what did he do?
B. NAVARRO v. RONALDO O.
NAVARRO, ET AL. A: Nothing.
G.R. No. 129220 September Q: Considering that he did nothing, what did the accused do to you while he
6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE did nothing about when, he ordered you to lie down?
PHIL. v. BERNIE JAMON
FAUSTINO A: He undressed me.
G.R. No. 131506 September Q: When you said undressed, what did he take off from you?
PHIL. v. RODEL DIZON A: My shorts.
G.R. No. 133625 September Q: What else, if there was any?

6, 2000 - REMEDIOS F. EDRIAL
ET AL. v. PEDRO QUILAT- A: Panty.
QUILAT, ET AL.
Q: What was your position when the accused removed your shorts and your
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1314 panty that you had?
September 7, 2000 -
CLODUALDO C. DE JESUS v. A: I was lying down.
RODOLFO D. OBNAMIA JR.
Q: What was your reaction when the accused removed your shorts and panty?
7, 2000 - GIL MACALINO, JR. A: I was scared.
v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET
AL. Q: Were you able to express your fear in that incident?
G.R. No. 126036 September A: No, ma’am.

PHIL. v. PASCUAL BALINAD, ET Q: You said that, "ayaw, ‘yo," when did you utter these things?
AL.
A: Before he let me lie down.
7, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE Q: Now, after removing your panty and your shorts, what did the accused do
PHIL. v. ARMANDO JUAREZ, ET next?
AL.
A: That his penis entered into my vagina . . . .
7, 2000 - EDGARDO SANTOS Q: Now, what did you feel when the sex organ already penetrated your
v. LAND BANK OF THE PHIL. vagina? . . . .
G.R. No. 143385 September A: I felt pain. 11

7, 2000 - LEARNING CHILD, ET
AL. v. ANNIE LAZARO, ET AL. Lastly, while the court below properly granted civil indemnity of P50,000.00 to
Ma. Victoria, it erred in awarding only P100,000.00 to Marjorita. In recent
A.M. Nos. P-93-990 & A.M. cases 12 the Court awarded P50,000.00 civil indemnity for each count of rape.
No. P-94-1042 September 8, Thus, since accused-appellant is guilty of four (4) counts of rape committed
2000 - TERESITO D. against Marjorita, the latter is entitled to receive P200,000.00 as civil
FRANCISCO v. FERNANDO indemnity. In addition, Marjorita and Ma. Victoria are each entitled likewise to
CRUZ an award of P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape. 13 Moral
damages are imposed in rape cases involving young girls taking into account
G.R. No. 125167 September the immeasurable havoc wrought on their youthful feminine psyche. It may be
8, 2000 - PRODUCERS BANK awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered mental anguish,
OF THE PHIL, ET AL. v. BANK fright, serious anxiety, and the like. 14 The victim’s injury is inherently
OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS, ET AL. concomitant with, and necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape to
justify per se an award for moral damages. 15 Thus, P200,000.00 as moral
G.R. No. 137714 September damages should be awarded to Marjorita and P50,000.00 to Ma. Victoria. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

PHILS.. v. ROBERTO BANIGUID WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran
City — Br. 2 finding accused-appellant FAUSTINO CAMPOS alias Enot guilty
A. M. No. P-99-1309 beyond reasonable doubt of five (5) counts of rape and sentencing him to
September 11, 2000 - suffer five (5) distinct penalties of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED, with the
FRANCISCO B. IBAY v. MODIFICATION that he is ordered to pay Marjorita Padillo P200,000.00 as civil
VIRGINIA G. LIM indemnity and another P200,000.00 as moral damages, and Ma. Victoria
Padillo P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral
G.R. No. 137857 September damages, plus the costs. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
11, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE

PHIL. v. SANCHO MAGDATO
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 115054-66

Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
September 12, 2000 - PEOPLE-
OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
VICENTE MENIL Endnotes:

12, 2000 - FRANCISCO 1. Crim. Case No. 9758.
BAYOCA, ET AL. v. GAUDIOSO

NOGALES, ET AL. 2. Crim. cases Nos. 9776-9779.
G.R. No. 123111 September 3. People v. De los Reyes, G.R. No. 124895, 1 March 2000.

PHIL. v. JIMMY DAGAMI 4. G.R. No. 126282,20 June 2000.
G.R. No. 127444 September 5. G.R. Nos. 127026-27,31 May 2000.

PHIL. v. TIRSO D. C. VELASCO, 6. Decision, p. 9; Rollo, p. 47.
ET AL.
7. Id., p. 10; Id., p. 48.

13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE 8. People v. Bayona, G.R. Nos. 133343-44, 2 March 2000.
PHIL. v. LITO ROSALES

9. People v. Ferolino, G.R. Nos. 131730-31, 5 April 2000.

13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE 10. G.R.. No. 124453, 15 March 2000.
PHIL. v. CALIXTO ZINAMPAN,

ET AL. 11. Direct Examination of Ma. Victoria Padillo, TSN, 14 October
1997, pp. 7-12.

13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE 12. People v. Hofleña, G.R. No.134772, 22 June 2000; see Note 4.
PHIL. v. TIBOY ALBACIN

13. Ibid.
13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE 14. People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 124368, 8 June 2000.
PHIL. v. HILARION BERGONIO,
JR. 15. People v. Arillas, G.R. No. 130593, 19 June 2000.
A.M. No. 00-1281-MTJ.

September 14, 2000 - OFFICE
OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR v. SALVADOR Back to Home | Back to Main
B. MENDOZA
G.R. Nos. 104637-38 &

109797 September 14, 2000 -
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION,
ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET
AL.

PHIL. v. JOHNNY CALABROSO,
ET AL.

PHIL. v. EDGARDO ALORO

14, 2000 - SUBIC BAY
METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY,
ET AL. v. UNIVERSAL
INTERNATIONAL GROUP OF
TAIWAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 140269-70

September 14, 2000 - PHIL.
CARPET EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION ET AL. v. PHIL.
CARPET MANUFACTURING
CORP.
G.R. Nos. 143351 & 144129

September 14, 2000 - MA.
AMELITA C. VILLAROSA v.
HRET, ET AL.
15, 2000 - BAYER PHIL. v.

COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

PHIL. v. MELENCIO BALI-
BALITA
G.R. Nos. 135288-93

OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS
GIANAN

18, 2000 - ROSA LIM v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

18, 2000 - ELPIDIO M. SALVA,
ET AL. v. ROBERTO L.
MAKALINTAL, ET AL.

18, 2000 - VIRGILIO JIMENEZ,
ET AL. v. PATRICIA, INC.

18, 2000 - FELIPE GARCIA v.
G.R. Nos. 133373-77

OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO
CAMPOS
G.R. NO. 140268 September

PHIL. v. JOSE LLANES, ET AL.

18, 2000 - COLEGIO DE SAN
JUAN DE LETRAN v. ASSOC. OF
EMPLOYEES AND FACULTY OF
LETRAN, ET AL.

18, 2000 - MANUEL H.
AFIADO, ET AL. v. COMELEC

18, 2000 - ROLANDO E.
COLUMBRES v. COMELEC, ET
AL.
G.R. Nos. 136149-51

OF THE PHIL. v. WALPAN
LADJAALAM

PHIL. v. AMADEO TRELLES

20, 2000 - NATIONAL
IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

PHIL. v. DAVID BANAWOR, ET
AL.

PHILS. v. NEIL DUMAGUING

PHIL. v. ERNESTO ULEP

21, 2000 - MILAGROS A.
CORTES v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

21, 2000 - VICENTE GOMEZ v.

21, 2000 - INVESTORS
FINANCE CORP. v.
AUTOWORLD SALES CORP.

PHIL. v. ROLANDO ZASPA, ET
AL.

21, 2000 - PETRITA Y.
BONILLA v. COURT OF
APPEALS, , ET AL.

21, 2000 - TUNG CHIN HUI v.
RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.
A.M. No. P-00-1424 & MTJ-

00-1316 September 25, 2000 -
REYNALDO B. BELLOSILLO v.
DANTE DE LA CRUZ RIVERA

PHIL. v. EDGAR BACALSO

PHlL. v. ABE VALDEZ

PHIL. v. ARTEMIO BERZUELA

25, 2000 - AMELITA DOLFO v.
REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE
PROVINCE OF CAVITE, ET AL.
A.M. No. RTJ-93-986

September 26, 2000 -
EDUARDO C. DE VERA v.
WILLIAM LAYAGUE

PHIL. v. FERIGEL OLIVA

26, 2000 - INTRAMUROS
TENNIS CLUB v. PHIL.
TOURISM AUTHORITY (PTA)
G.R. Nos. 136012-16

OF THE PHIL. v. ULDARICO
HONRA, JR.

PHIL. v. JURRIE DUBRIA

26, 2000 - DOMINGA A.
SALMONE v. EMPLOYEES’
COMPENSATION COMMISSION,
ET AL.
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1319

ROLANDO A. SULLA v.
RODOLFO C. RAMOS
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1447

LEONARDO DARACAN, ET AL.
v. ELI G.C. NATIVIDAD

PHILS. v. PABLO F. EMOY, ET
AL.

PHILS. v. ELMEDIO CAJARA

PHIL. v. OSCAR NOGAR
G.R. Nos. 97138-39

OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN
TEMANEL, ET AL.

PHIL. v. MINA LIBRERO

PHIL. v. ARMANDO QUILATAN

PHIL. v. PEDRO ABUNGAN, ET
AL.

28, 2000 - ROSENDO C.
CARTICIANO, ET AL. v. MARIO
NUVAL

28, 2000 - ROBERTO
FERNANDEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL., ET AL.
A.M. No. 00-3-01-CTA

September 29, 2000 - RE:
JUDGE ERNESTO D. ACOSTA
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1589

September 29, 2000 - JEANET
N. MANIO v. JOSE ENER S.
FERNANDO

29, 2000 - FLORENTINO
ZARAGOZA, ET AL. v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

PHIL. v. SANTIAGO CARUGAL,
ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 124671-75

OF THE PHIL. v. LINDA
SAGAYDO

PHIL v. RODEL SAMONTE

PHIL. v. RONALDO PONCE

29, 2000 - CHAN SUI BI, ET
AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

PHILS. v. RONALD VITAL

29, 2000 - ROGER POSADAS,
ET AL. v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

PHIL. v. MARIO ABENDAN

PHIL. v. DOMINADOR DE LA
ROSA, ET AL.

29, 2000 - PURITA ALIPIO v.

PHIL. v. LOURDES GAMBOA

PHIL. v. JOSE PATRIARCA, ET
AL.

29, 2000 - FAR EAST BANK
AND TRUST COMPANY v.

PHIL. v. MARIVIC GENOSA
G.R. Nos. 137379-81

OF THE PHILS. v. ARTURO
GARCIA

29, 2000 - PHILIPPINE
COCONUT AUTHORITY v.
CORONA INTERNATIONAL

29, 2000 - PILIPINAS BANK v.

29, 2000 - JUANITA
NARZOLES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET
AL.
Copyright © 1995 - 2021 REDiaz

People v. Faustino

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

People v. Faustino

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Faustino

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. Nos. 133373-77 September 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

…O CAMPOS : September 2000 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions 4/23/21, 4:38 PM

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

September 2000 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

[G.R. Nos. 133373-77. September 18, 2000.]

On 5 October 1996 Campos again sexually assaulted Marjorita. First, he

Accused-appellant insists in this appeal that he could not be convicted of

But a medical examination is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. In

It is of no moment either that the medical certificate fails to show that

That there was no medical examination report presented, sign of resistance

of the youthful credulity of the complainants in sexually petting them, must

Evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best

1, 2000 - HUERTA ALBA

G.R. No. 134763 September

G.R. No. 137785 September One hundred meters, more or less.

. . . did you go to the house of Faustino Campos as directed by your

G.R. No. 90828 September

A: He was there alone . . .

PHIL. v. ADORACION SEVILLA

Q: Why did you say that?

A.M. No. MTJ-00-1307

September 6, 2000 - you inside the bedroom?

September 6, 2000 - JULIETA what did he do?

G.R. No. 133625 September Q: What else, if there was any?

G.R. No. 126036 September A: No, ma’am.

G.R. No. 143385 September A: I felt pain. 11

8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE

11, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE

G.R. No. 115054-66

G.R. No. 138201 September

BAYOCA, ET AL. v. GAUDIOSO

13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE

G.R. No. 127444 September 5. G.R. Nos. 127026-27,31 May 2000.

13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE

G.R. No. 126402 September

PHIL. v. LITO ROSALES

G.R. No. 126781 September

PHIL. v. CALIXTO ZINAMPAN,

G.R. No. 133918 September

PHIL. v. TIBOY ALBACIN

A.M. No. 00-1281-MTJ.

G.R. Nos. 104637-38 &

G.R. No. 126368 September

G.R. No. 129208 September

G.R. No. 131680 September

G.R. No. 140269-70

G.R. Nos. 143351 & 144129

G.R. No. 109269 September

15, 2000 - BAYER PHIL. v.

G.R. No. 134266 September

G.R. Nos. 135288-93

G.R. No. 130038 September

G.R. No. 132603 September

G.R. No. 134651 September

G.R. No. 134730 September

G.R. Nos. 133373-77

G.R. NO. 140268 September

G.R. No. 141471 September