[1] Antonio v.

Reyes
Statistics never lie, but lovers often do, quipped a sage. This sad truth has unsettled many
a love transformed into matrimony. Any sort of deception between spouses, no matter the
gravity, is always disquieting. Deceit to the depth and breadth unveiled in the following
pages, dark and irrational as in the modern noir tale, dims any trace of certitude on the
guilty spouse’s capability to fulfill the marital obligations even more. (J. Tinga; G.R. No.
155800; March 10, 2006)

[2] Palaganas v. People

For what is a man, what has he got? If not himself, then he has naught. To say the things
he truly feels; And not the words of one who kneels. The record shows I took the blows -
And did it my way!

The song evokes the bitterest passions. This is not the first time the song "My Way" has
triggered violent behavior resulting in people coming to blows. In the case at bar, the few
lines of the song depicted what came to pass when the victims and the aggressors tried to
outdo each other in their rendition of the song. (J. Chico-Nazario; G.R. No. 165483;
September 12, 2006)

[3] Oposa v. Factoran

While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is
less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a
right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than
self-preservation and self-perpetuation — aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners —
the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions.
As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they
are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned
in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless
the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies
by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing
upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second,
the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation,
but also for those to come — generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth
incapable of sustaining life. (J. Davide, Jr; G.R. No. 101083; July 30, 1993)

[4] People v. Salinas

In rape cases, there are no half measures or even quarter measures nor is their gravity
graduated by the inches of entry. Partial penile penetration is as serious as full
penetration; the rape is deemed consummated in either case. In a manner of speaking,
bombardment of the drawbridge is invasion enough even if the troops do not succeed in
entering the castle. (J. Cruz; G.R. No. 107204; May 6, 1994)

[5] Chua-Qua v. Clave

With the finding that there is no substantial evidence of the imputed immoral acts, it
follows that the alleged violation of the Code of Ethics governing school teachers would
have no basis. Private respondent utterly failed to show that petitioner took advantage of
her position to court her student. If the two eventually fell in love, despite the disparity in
their ages and academic levels, this only lends substance to the truism that the heart has
reasons of its own which reason does not know. But, definitely, yielding to this gentle and
universal emotion is not to be so casually equated with immorality. The deviation of the
circumstances of their marriage from the usual societal pattern cannot be considered as a
defiance of contemporary social mores. (J. Regalado; G.R. No. 49549; August 30, 1990)

[6] Calalang v. Williams

Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the
humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that
justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. (J.
Laurel; G.R. No. 47800; December 2, 1940)

[7] DECS v. San Diego

There can be no question that a substantial distinction exists between medical students and
other students who are not subjected to the NMAT and the three-flunk rule. The medical
profession directly affects the very lives of the people, unlike other careers which, for this
reason, do not require more vigilant regulation. The accountant, for example, while
belonging to an equally respectable profession, does not hold the same delicate
responsibility as that of the physician and so need not be similarly treated.

There would be unequal protection if some applicants who have passed the tests are
admitted and others who have also qualified are denied entrance. In other words, what the
equal protection requires is equality among equals.

The Court feels that it is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality education as a
guarantee of the Constitution: one must show that he is entitled to it because of his
preparation and promise. The private respondent has failed the NMAT five times. While his
persistence is noteworthy, to say the least, it is certainly misplaced, like a hopeless love. (J.
Cruz; G.R. No. 89572; December 21, 1989)

[8] Santiago v. COA

Retirement laws should be interpreted liberally in favor of the retiree because their
intention is to provide for his sustenance, and hopefully even comfort, when he no longer
has the stamina to continue earning his livelihood. After devoting the best years of his life
to the public service, he deserves the appreciation of a grateful government as best
concretely expressed in a generous retirement gratuity commensurate with the value and
length of his services. That generosity is the least he should expect now that his work is
done and his youth is gone. Even as he feels the weariness in his bones and glimpses the
approach of the lengthening shadows, he should be able to luxuriate in the thought that he
did his task well, and was rewarded for it. (J. Cruz; G.R. No. 92284; July 12, 1991)

[9] Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA

It appears that there is absence of empathy between petitioner and private respondent.
That is — a shared feeling which between husband and wife must be experienced not only
by having spontaneous sexual intimacy but a deep sense of spiritual communion. Marital
union is a two-way process. An expressive interest in each other's feelings at a time it is
needed by the other can go a long way in deepening the marital relationship. Marriage is
definitely not for children but for two consenting adults who view the relationship with love
amor gignit amorem, respect, sacrifice and a continuing commitment to compromise,
conscious of its value as a sublime social institution. (J. Torres, Jr; G.R. No. 119190;
January 16, 1997)

[10] People v. Takbobo

The nuptial vows which solemnly intone the matrimonial promise of love "(f)or better or for
worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part," are
sometimes easier said than done, for many a marital union figuratively ends on the reefs of
matrimonial shoals. In the case now before us for appellate review, the marriage literally
ended under circumstances which the criminal law, disdainful of romanticism, bluntly calls
the felony of parricide. (J. Regalado; G.R. No. 102984; June 30, 1993)

[11] Concerned Employee v. Mayor

Had respondent desisted from continuing her affair with Leao after learning he was
married, this would have exhibited not only prudence on her part, but also a willingness to
respect a legal institution safeguarded by our laws and the Constitution. Yet her
persistence in maintaining sexual relations with Leao after that revelation instead
manifests a willful subversion of the legal order, a disposition we are unwilling to condone,
even if avowed in the name of love. The Court, like all well-meaning persons, has no desire
to dash romantic fancies, yet in the exercise of its duty, is all too willing when necessary to
raise the wall that tears Pyramus and Thisbe asunder. (J. Tinga; A.M. No. P-02-1564;
November 23, 2004)

[12] Lejano v. People

In our criminal justice system, what is important is, not whether the court entertains
doubts about the innocence of the accused since an open mind is willing to explore all
possibilities, but whether it entertains a reasonable, lingering doubt as to his guilt. For, it
would be a serious mistake to send an innocent man to jail where such kind of doubt hangs
on to ones inner being, like a piece of meat lodged immovable between teeth.

Will the Court send the accused to spend the rest of their lives in prison on the testimony of
an NBI asset who proposed to her handlers that she take the role of the witness to the
Vizconde massacre that she could not produce? (J. Abad; G.R. No. 176389; December 14,
2010)

[13] In Re: Cunanan

The judicial department of government is responsible for the plane upon which the
administration of justice is maintained. Its responsibility in this respect is exclusive. By
committing a portion of the powers of sovereignty to the judicial department of our state
government, under 42a scheme which it was supposed rendered it immune from
embarrassment or interference by any other department of government, the courts cannot
escape responsibility for the manner in which the powers of sovereignty thus committed to
the judicial department are exercised.

The relation at the bar to the courts is a peculiar and intimate relationship. The bar is an
attached of the courts. The quality of justice dispense by the courts depends in no small
degree upon the integrity of its bar. An unfaithful bar may easily bring scandal and
reproach to the administration of justice and bring the courts themselves into disrepute. (J.
Diokno; In Re: Cunanan; March 18, 1954)
[14] Tañada v. Tuvera
The days of the secret laws and the unpublished decrees are over. This is once again an
open society, with all the acts of the government subject to public scrutiny and available
always to public cognizance. This has to be so if our country is to remain democratic, with
sovereignty residing in the people and all government authority emanating from them. (J.
Cruz; G.R. No. L-63915; December 29, 1986)

[15] LCP v. COMELEC

The Supreme Court is not final because it is infallible; it is infallible because it is final. And
because its decisions are final, even if faulty, there must be every energy expended to
ensure that the faulty decisions are few and far between. The integrity of the judiciary rests
not only upon the fact that it is able to administer justice, but also upon the perception and
confidence of the community that the people who run the system have done justice. (J.
Bersamin quoting J. Robert Jackson; G.R. No. 176951; June 28, 2011)

[16] Joaquin v. Javellana

Hence, a judge's official conduct and his behavior in the performance of judicial duties
should be free from the appearance of impropriety and must be beyond reproach. One who
occupies an exalted position in the administration of justice must pay a high price for the
honor bestowed upon him, for his private as well as his official conduct must at all times be
free from the appearance of impropriety. Because appearance is as important as reality in
the performance of judicial functions, like Caesar's wife, a judge must not only be pure but
also beyond suspicion. A judge has the duty to not only render a just and impartial decision,
but also render it in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to its fairness and
impartiality, and also as to the judge's integrity.

It is obvious, therefore, that while judges should possess proficiency in law in order that
they can competently construe and enforce the law, it is more important that they should
act and behave in such a manner that the parties before them should have confidence in
their impartiality. (J. Vitug; A.M. No. RTJ-00-1601; November 13, 2001)

[17] Cebu Royal Plant v. Deputy Minister of Labor

We take this opportunity to reaffirm our concern for the lowly worker who, often at the
mercy of his employers, must look up to the law for his protection. Fittingly, that law
regards him with tenderness and even favor and always with faith and hope in his capacity
to help in shaping the nation's future. It is error to take him for granted. He deserves our
abiding respect. How society treats him will determine whether the knife in his hands shall
be a caring tool for beauty and progress or an angry weapon of defiance and revenge. The
choice is obvious, of course. If we cherish him as we should, we must resolve to lighten "the
weight of centuries" of exploitation and disdain that bends his back but does not bow his
head. (J. Cruz; G.R. No. L-58639; August 12, 1987)

[18] The Shell Company v. National Labor Union

It is argued that the laborer can rest during the day after having worked the whole night.
But can the repose by day produce to the human body the same complete recuperative
effects which only the natural rest at night can give him? It is also said that due to our
warm climate, some prefer to work at night, thus avoiding the heat of the day. But this is
true only in words but not in actual practice. We believe that since time immemorial the
universal rule is that a man works at night due to some driving necessity rather than for
reasons of convenience. (J. Briones; GR No. L-1309; July 26, 1948)

[19] People v. Olesco

In rape, the ‘sweetheart’ defense must be proven by compelling evidence: first, that the
accused and the victim were lovers; and, second, that she consented to the alleged sexual
relations. The second is as important as the first, because this Court has held often enough
that love is not a license for lust. (J. Del Castillo; G.R. No. 174861; April 11, 2011)

[20] Republic v. Cagandahan

Biologically, nature endowed respondent with a mixed (neither consistently and
categorically female nor consistently and categorically male) composition. Respondent has
female (XX) chromosomes. However, respondents body system naturally produces high
levels of male hormones (androgen). As a result, respondent has ambiguous genitalia and
the phenotypic features of a male.

Respondent here has simply let nature take its course and has not taken unnatural steps to
arrest or interfere with what he was born with. And accordingly, he has already ordered his
life to that of a male. Respondent could have undergone treatment and taken steps, like
taking lifelong medication, to force his body into the categorical mold of a female but he did
not. He chose not to do so. Nature has instead taken its due course in respondents
development to reveal more fully his male characteristics.

In so ruling we do no more than give respect to (1) the diversity of nature; and (2) how an
individual deals with what nature has handed out. In other words, we respect respondents
congenital condition and his mature decision to be a male. Life is already difficult for the
ordinary person. We cannot but respect how respondent deals with his unordinary state
and thus help make his life easier, considering the unique circumstances in this case. (J.
Quisumbing; G.R. No. 166676; September 12, 2008)

[21] Brillante v. CA
"Good name in man and woman, dear my Lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who
steals my purse steals trash; tis Something, nothing; But he that filches from me my good
name Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed." (Shakespeare:
Othello, III, iii, 155) Every man has a right to build, keep and be favored with a good name.
This right is protected by law with the recognition of slander and libel as actionable wrongs,
whether as criminal offenses or tortious conduct. xxx Our laws on defamation provide for
sanctions against unjustified and malicious injury to a persons reputation and honor.
(Updated September 19, 2017; J. Tinga; G.R. Nos. 118757 & 121571; October 19, 2004)
The following are jurisprudential gems that must be read by every law student in order to
fully understand criminal law. This list is updated from time to time.

People vs. Bon, G.R. No. 166401, 30 October 2006

People vs. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 135919, 09 May 2003, 403 SCRA 153
Velasco vs. People, G.R. No. 166479, 28 February 2006, 483 SCRA 649
Resay vs. People, G.R. No. 154502, 27 April 2007
People vs. Zeta, G.R. No. 178541, 27 March 2008
Quinto vs. Andres, G.R. No. 155791, 16 March 2005, 453 SCRA 511
People vs. Valledor, G.R. No. 129291, 03 July 2002, 383 SCRA 653
Perez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143838, 09 May 2002, 382 SCRA 182
People vs. Caballero, 149028-30, 02 April 2003, 400 SCRA 424
People vs. Palaganas, G.R. No. 165483, 12 September 2006
People vs. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 139542, 21 June 2001, 359 SCRA 220
G.R. No. 138943, 17 September 2001, 365 SCRA 373
People vs. Aca-ac, G.R. No. 142500, 20 April 2001, 357 SCRA 373
Valenzuela vs. People, G.R. No. 160188, 21 June 2007, 525 SCRA 306
People vs. Buntag, G.R. No. 123070, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 180
People vs. Comadre, G.R. No. 153559, 08 June 2004, 431 SCRA 366
People vs. Manijas, G.R. No. 148699, 15 November 2002, 391 SCRA 731
People vs. Compo, G.R. No. 112990, 28 May 2001, 358 SCRA 266
People vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 135204, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 299
People vs. Galvez, G.R. No. 157221, 30 March 2007
Ladonga vs. People, G.R. No. 141066, 17 February 2005, 451 SCRA 673
People vs. Enfectana, G.R. No. 132028, 19 April 2002, 381 SCRA 359
Manaban vs. CA, G.R. No. 150723, 11 July 2006, 494 SCRA 503
People vs. Pateo, G.R. No. 156786, 03 June 2004, 43O SCRA 604
People vs. Arnante, G.R. No. 148724, 15 October 2002, 391 SCRA 155
People vs. Court of Appeals and Tangan, G.R. Nos. 103613 and 105830, 23 February 2001,
352 SCRA 599
People vs. San Juan, G.R. No. 144505, 06 August 2002, 386 SCRA 400
People vs. Tejero, G.R. No. 135050, 19 April 2002, 381 SCRA 382
People vs. Geneblazo, G.R. No. 133580, 20 July 2001, 361 SCRA 572
People vs. Caguing, G.R. No. 139822, 06 December 2000, 347 SCRA 374
Sanchez vs. People, G.R. No. 161007, 06 December 2006
People vs. Vicente, G.R. No. 137296, 26 June 2003, 405 SCRA 40
Senoja vs. People, G.R. No. 160341, 19 October 2004, 440 SCRA 695
People vs. Dagani, G.R. No. 153875, 16 August 2006
People vs. Rabanal, G.R. No. 146687, 22 August 2002, 387 SCRA 85
Rimano vs. People, G.R. No.156567, 27 November 2003, 416 SCRA 569
People vs. Annibong, G.R. No. 139879, 08 May 2003, 403 SCRA 92
Ty vs. People, G.R. No. 149275, 27 September 2004, 439 SCRA 220
Mamangun vs. People, G.R. No. 149152, 02 February 2007
People vs. Robiños, G.R. No. 138453, 29 May 2002, 382 SCRA 751
Jose vs. People, G.R. No. 162052, 13 January 2005, 448 SCRA 116
People vs. Concepcion, G.R. No. 136844, 01 August 2002, 386 SCRA 74
People vs. Pacis, G.R. No. 146309, 18 July 2002, 384 SCRA 696
Chang vs. People, G.R. No. 165111, 21 July 2006, 496 SCRA 321
People vs. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 171019, 23 February 2007
People vs. Beltran, G.R. No. 168051, 27 September 2006
Romera vs. People, G.R No. 151978, 14 July 2004, 434 SCRA 467
People vs. Malejana, G.R. No. 145002, 24 January 2006, 479 SCRA 610
Andrada vs. People, G.R. No. 135222, 04 March 2005, 452 SCRA 685
People vs. Montinola, G.R. Nos. 131856-57, 09 July 2001, 360 SCRA 631
People vs. Dawaton, G.R. No. 146247, 17 September 2002, 389 SCRA 277
Davalos vs. People, G.R. No. 145229, 20 April 2006, 488 SCRA 84
Kimpo vs. Sandiganbayan
People vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. 133382, 09 March 2000, 327 SCRA 695
People vs. Villamor, G.R. Nos. 140407-08, 15 January 2002, 373 SCRA 254
People vs. Perreras, G.R. No. 139622, 31 July 2001, 362 SCRA 202)
People vs. Rios, G.R. No. 132632, 19 June 2000, 333 SCRA 823
People vs. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 98431, 15 January 2002, 373 SCRA 104
People vs. Taño, G.R. No. 133872, 05 May 2000, 331 SCRA 448
People vs. Arrojado, G.R. No. 130492, 31 January 2001, 350 SCRA 679
People vs. Silva, G.R. No. 140871, 08 August 2002, 387 SCRA 77
People vs. Librando, G.R. No. 132251, 06 July 2000, 335 SCRA 232
People vs. Mondijar, G.R. No. 141194, 21 November 2002, 392 SCRA 356
People vs. Campomanes, G.R. No. 132568, 06 February 2002, 376 SCRA 307
People vs. Ventura, G.R. Nos. 148145-46, 05 July 2004, 433 SCRA 389
People vs. Labuguen, G.R. No. 127849, 09 August 2000, 337 SCRA 488
People vs. Lobrigas, G.R. 147649, 17 December 2002, 394 SCRA 170
People vs. Sansaet, G.R. No. 139330, 06 February 2002, 376 SCRA 426
People vs. Ausa, G.R. No. 174194, 20 March 2007
People vs. Hammer, G.R. No. 147836, 17 December 2002, 394 SCRA 182
People vs. Hormina, G.R. No. 144383, 16 January 2004, 420 SCRA 102
People vs. Delmindo, G.R. No. 146810, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 546
People vs. Calago, G.R. No. 141122, 22 April 2002, 381 SCRA 448
People vs. Magbanua, G.R. No. 133004, 20 May 2004, 428 SCRA 617
People vs. Ilo, G.R. No. 140731, 21 November 2002, 392 SCRA 326
People vs. Caratao, G.R. No. 126281, 10 June 2003, 403 SCRA 482
People vs. Loterono, G.R. No. 146100, 13 November 2002, 391 SCRA 593
People vs. Escote, 140756, 04 April 2003, 400 SCRA 603
People vs. Ancheta, G.R. No. 143935, 04 June 2004, 431 SCRA 42
People vs. Costales, G.R. Nos. 141154-56, 15 January 2002, 373 SCRA 269
People vs. Catapang, G.R. No. 128126, 25 June 2001, 359 SCRA 459
People vs. Parreno, G.R. No. 144343, 07 July 2004, 433 SCRA 591
People vs. Enguito, G.R. No. 128812, 28 February 2000, 326 SCRA 508
People vs. Mallari, G.R. No. 145993, 17 June 2003, 404 SCRA 170
People vs. Catian, G.R. No. 139693, 24 January 2002, 374 SCRA 514
People vs. Baroy, G.R. Nos. 137520-22, 09 May 2002, 382 SCRA 56
People vs. Tadeo, G.R. Nos. 127660 and144011-12, 17 September 2002, 389 SCRA 20
People vs. Ladjaalam, G.R. Nos. 136149-51, 19 September 2000, 340 SCRA 617
People vs. Bernal, G.R. Nos. 132791 and 140465-66, 02 September 2002, 388 SCRA 211
People vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 123939, 28 May 2004, 430 SCRA 52
People vs. Roche, G.R. No. 115182, 06 April 2000, 330 SCRA 91
People vs. Garcia, G.R. Nos. 133489 and 143970, 15 January 2002, 373 SCRA 134
Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 134730, 18 September 2000, 340 SCRA 545
People vs. Tolentino, G.R. No. 139179, 03 April 2002, 380 SCRA 171)
People vs. Antonio, G.R. No. 128900, 14 July 2000, 335 SCRA 646
People vs. Obedo, G.R. No. 123054, 10 June 2003, 403 SCRA 431
People vs. Dimaano, G.R. No. 168168, 14 September 2005, 469 SCRA 647
People vs. Latupan, G.R. Nos. 112453-56, 28 June 2001, 360 SCRA 60
People vs. Ramirez, G.R. No. 138261, 17 April 2001, 356 SCRA 595
People vs. Sanidad, G.R. No. 146099, 30 April 2003, 402 SCRA 381
People vs. delos Santos, G.R. No. 131588, 27 March 2001, 355 SCRA 415
People vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 141125, 28 February 2002, 378 SCRA 266
People vs. Abungan, G.R. No. 136843, 28 September 2000, 341 SCRA 258
Recebido vs. People, G.R. No. 141931, 04 December 2000, 346 SCRA 881
Brillante vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 118757 and 121571, 19 October 2004, 440 SCRA
541
Del Castillo vs. Torrecampo and People, G.R. No. 139033, 18 December 2002, 394 SCRA
221
Pangan vs. Gatbalite, G.R. No. 141718, 21 January 2005, 449 SCRA 144
People vs. Patriarca, G.R. No. 135457, 29 September 2000, 341 SCRA 464
Basilio vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113433, 17 March 2000, 328 SCRA 341
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines vs. People, G.R. No. 147703, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 526
Pangonorom and MMTC vs. People, G.R. No. 143380, 11 April 2005, 455 SCRA 211
Astorga vs. People, G.R No. 154130, 20 August 2004, 437 SCRA 152
People vs. Oliva, G.R. No. 106826, 18 January 2001, 341 SCRA 78
People vs. Silongan, G.R. No. 137182, 24 April 2003, 401 SCRA 459
Rivera vs. People, G.R. No. 138553, 30 June 2005, 462 SCRA 350
Adaza vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 154886, 28 July 2005, 464 SCRA 460
Goma vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 168437, 08 January 2009
Lumancas vs. Intas, G.R. No. 133472, 05 December 2000, 347 SCRA 22
Villanueva vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 162187, 18 November 2005, 475 SCRA 495
Fernando vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159751, 06 December 2006
Balderama vs. People, G.R. Nos. 147598-605, 28 January 2008
Merencillo vs. People, G.R. Nos. 142369-70, 13 April 2007
Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 155574, 20 November 2006
People vs. Ting Lan Uy, G.R. No. 157399, 17 November 2005, 475 SCRA 248
Barriga vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 161784-86, 26 April 2005, 457 SCRA 301
Perez vs. People, G.R. No. 164763, 12 February 2008
Pondevida vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 160929-31, 16 August 2005, 467 SCRA 219
Agullo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 132926, 20 July 2001, 361 SCRA 556
Chan vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 149613, 09 August 2005, 466 SCRA 190
Abdulla vs. People, G.R. No. 150129, 06 April 2005, 455 SCRA 78
Tetangco vs. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 156427, 20 January 2006, 479 SCRA 249
Rivera vs. People, G.R. No. 166326, 25 January 2006, 480 SCRA 188
People vs. Whisenhunt, G.R. No. 123819, 14 November 2001, 386 SCRA 586
People vs. Unlagada, G.R. No. 141080, 17 September 2002, 389 SCRA 224
Li vs. People, G.R. No. 127962, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 217
People vs. Buban, G.R. No. 166895, 24 January 2007
People vs. Olaybar, G.R. Nos. 130630-31, 01 October 2003, 412 SCRA 490
People vs. Fetalino, G..R. No. 174472, 19 June 2007
People vs. Jalosjos, G.R. Nos. 132875-76, 16 November 2001, 369 SCRA 179.
People vs. Basquez, G.R. No. 144035, 27 September 2001, 366 SCRA 154
People vs. Plurad, G.R. Nos. 138361-63, 03 December 2002, 393 SCRA 306
People vs. Soriano, G.R. Nos. 142779-95, 29 August 2002, 388 SCRA 140
People vs. Gondaway, G.R. Nos. 144344-68, 23 July 2002, 385 SCRA 155
People vs. Paycana, G.R. No. 179035, 16 April 2008
People vs. Muit, G.R. 181043, 08 October 2008
People vs. Mamantak, G.R. 174659, 28 July 2008
People vs. Suriaga, G.R. No. 123779, 17 April 2002, 381 SCRA 159
People vs. Tan, G.R. No. 177566, 26 March 2008
People vs. Castro, G.R. No. 132726, 23 July 2002, 385 SCRA 24
People vs. Ejandra, G.R. No. 134203, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 364
People vs. Solangon, G.R. No. 172693, 21 November 2007.
People vs. Pastrana, G.R. No. 143644, 14 August 2002, 387 SCRA 342
People vs. Bernardo, G.R. No. 144316, 11 March 2002, 378 SCRA 708
Maderazo vs. People, G.R. No. 165065, 26 September 2006
People vs. Reyes, G.R. No.135682, 26 March 2003, 399 SCRA 528
De Guzman vs. People, G.R. No.166502, October 2008
People vs. Lara, G.R. No. 171449, 23 October 2006
People vs. Milliam, G.R. No. 129071, 31 January 2000, 324 SCRA 155
People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 153119, 13 April 2004, 427 SCRA 28
People vs. Jabiniao, G.R. No. 179499, 30 April 2008
People vs. Temanel, G.R. Nos. 97138-39, 28 September 2000, 341 SCRA 319
People vs. Zuela, G.R. No. 112177, 28 January 2000, 323 SCRA 589
People vs. Dinamling, G.R. No. 134605, 12 March 2002, 379 SCRA 107
People vs. Napalit, G.R. No. 142919, 04 February 2003, 396 SCRA 687
People vs. Fabon, G.R. No. 133226, 16 March 2000, 328 SCRA 302
People vs. Moreno, G.R. No. 140033, 25 January 2002, 374 SCRA 667
People vs. Verceles, G.R. No. 130650, 10 September 2002, 388 SCRA 515
People vs. Seguis, G.R. No. 135034, 18 January 2001, 349 SCRA 547
People vs. Gano, G.R. No. 134373, 28 February 2001, 353 SCRA 126
People vs. Regala
Laurel vs. Abrogar, G.R. No. 155076, 13 January 2009
People vs. dela Cruz, G.R. No. 125936, 23 February 2000, 326 SCRA 324
Cariaga vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143561, 09 June 2001, 358 SCRA 583
Roque vs. People, G.R. No. 138954, 25 November 2004, 444 SCRA 98
Murao vs. People, G.R. No. 141485, 30 June 2005, 462 SCRA 366
Nepomoceno vs. People, G.R. No. 166246, 30 April 2008
Cosme vs. People, G.R. No. 149753, 27 November 2006
Lee vs. People, G.R. No. 157781, 11 April 2005, 455 SCRA 256
Salazar vs. People, G.R. No. 149472, 15 October 2002, 391 SCRA 162
People vs. Comila, G.R. No. 171448, 28 February 2007
People vs. Dinglasan, G.R. No. 133645, 17 September 2002, 389 SCRA 71
People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 154159, 31 March 2005, 454 SCRA 635
People vs. Nagrampa, G.R. No. 146211, 06 August 2002, 386 SCRA 412
Flores vs. People, G.R. Nos. 146921-22, 31 January 2002, 375 SCRA 491
People vs. Holzer, G.R. No. 132323, 20 July 2000, 336 SCRA 319.
Dy vs. People, G.R. No. 158312, 14 November 2008
People vs. Ojeda, G.R. Nos. 104238-58, 03 June 2004, 430 SCRA 436
Ong vs. People, G.R. No. 165275, 23 September 2008
People vs. Durano, G.R. No. 175316, 28 March 2007
Recuerdo vs. People, G.R. No. 168217, 27 June 2006, 493 SCRA 517
People vs. Malngan, G.R. No. 170470, 26 September 2006
Manuel vs. People, G.R. No. 165482, 29 November 2005, 476 SCRA 461
Morigo vs. People, G.R. No. 145226, 06 February 2004, 422 SCRA 376
Binay vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 170643, 08 September 2006
Figueroa vs. People, G.R. No. 159813, 09 August 2006
Magno vs. People, G.R. No. 133896, 27 January 2006, 480 SCRA 276
Buatis vs. People, G.R. No. 142509, 24 March 2006, 485 SCRA 275
Brillante vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 118757 and 121571, 19 October 2004, 440 SCRA
541
Jalandoni vs. Hon. Secretary of Justice, G.R. Nos. 115239-40, 02 March 2000, 327 SCRA
107
Guingguing vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128959, 30 September 2005, 471 SCRA 196
220 CA-G.R. CR No. 13561, 06 November 1995
Fermin vs. People, G.R. No. 157643, 28 March 2008
Tulfo vs. People, G.R. No. 161032, 16 September 2008
Villanueva vs. People, G.R. No. 160351, 10 April 2006, 487 SCRA 42
Loney vs. People, G.R. No. 152644, 10 February 2006, 482 SCRA 194