Anda di halaman 1dari 5

[G.R. No. 118821.

February 18, 2000] Upon the return of the records of the case to the Office of said filing, respondent judge did not act upon petitioners
the Provincial Prosecutor for Maguindanao, it was assigned pending Motion to Set Aside the Warrant of Arrest.
to 2nd Assistant Prosecutor Enok T. Dimaraw for further
investigation. In addition to the evidence presented during
ABDULA, petitioners, vs. HON. JAPAL M. GUIANI, in his Hence, this Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition wherein
the initial investigation of the murder charge, two new
capacity as Presiding Judge, of Branch 14 of the Regional petitioners pray for the following:
affidavits of witnesses were submitted to support the
Trial Court of Cotabato City, respondent.
charge of murder against herein petitioners and the other
respondents in the murder complaint. Thus, Prosecutor "1. upon filing of this petition, a
DECISION Dimaraw treated the same as a refiling of the murder temporary restraining order be issued
charge and pursuant to law, issued subpoena to the enjoining the implementation and
respondents named therein.[6] On December 6, 1994, herein execution of the order of arrest dated
petitioners submitted and filed their joint counter- January 3, 1995 and enjoining the
affidavits. respondent judge from further
At bench is a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set proceeding with Criminal Case No. 2376
aside the warrant of arrest issued by herein respondent entitled People of the Philippines vs.
After evaluation of the evidence, Prosecutor Dimaraw, in a
Japal M. Guiani, then presiding judge of Branch 14 of the Bai Unggie D. Abdula, et al. upon such
Resolution dated 28 December 1994,[7] found a prima
Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City, ordering the arrest of bond as may be required by the
facie case for murder against herein petitioners and three
petitioners without bail in Criminal Case No. 2376 for Honorable Court;
(3) other respondents.[8] He thus recommended the filing of
charges against herein petitioners Bai Unggie Abdula and
Odin Abdula, as principals by inducement, and against the 2. this petition be given due course and
The antecedent facts of the case are as follows: three (3) others, as principals by direct participation. the respondent be required to answer;

On 24 June 1994, a complaint for murder, docketed as I.S. Likewise in this 28 December 1994 Resolution, Provincial 3. after due hearing, the order of
No. 94-1361, was filed before the Criminal Investigation Prosecutor Salick U. Panda, who conducted the earlier arrest dated January 3, 1995 be set
Service Command, ARMM Regional Office XII against herein preliminary investigation of the murder charge, added a aside and declared void ab initio and
petitioners and six (6) other persons[1] in connection with notation stating that he was inhibiting himself from the the respondent judge be disqualified
the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC case and authorizing the investigating prosecutor to dispose from hearing Criminal Case No. 2376
Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao.[2] The complaint of the case without his approval. The reasons he cited were entitled People of the Philippines vs.
alleged that herein petitioners paid the six other that the case was previously handled by him and that the Bai Unggie D. Abdula, et al."[16]
respondents the total amount of P200,000.00 for the death victim was the father-in-law of his son.[9]
of Abdul Dimalen.[3]
In a Resolution[17] dated 20 February 1995, this Court
On 2 January 1995, an information for murder dated 28 resolved to require respondent judge to submit a comment
Acting on this complaint, the Provincial Prosecutor of December 1994[10] was filed against the petitioner spouses to the petition. The Court further resolved to issue a
Maguindanao, Salick U. Panda, in a Resolution dated 22 and Kasan Mama, Cuenco Usman and Jun Mama before temporary restraining order[18] enjoining the respondent
August 1994[4], dismissed the charges of murder against Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City, judge from implementing and executing the Order of Arrest
herein petitioners and five other respondents on a finding then the sala of respondent judge. This information was dated 3 January 1995 and from further proceeding with
that there was no prima facie case for murder against signed by investigating prosecutor Enok T. Dimaraw. A Criminal Case No. 2376.
them. Prosecutor Panda, however, recommended the filing notation was likewise made on the information by
of an information for murder against one of the Provincial Prosecutor Panda, which explained the reason
At the onset, it must be noted that petitions
respondents, a certain Kasan Mama. Pursuant to this for his inhibition.[11]
for certiorari and prohibition require that there be no
Resolution, an information for murder was thereafter filed
appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
against Kasan Mama before the sala of respondent Judge.
The following day, or on 3 January 1995, the respondent ordinary course of law available to the petitioner.[19] In the
judge issued a warrant[12] for the arrest of petitioners. instant case, it cannot be said that petitioners have no
In an Order dated 13 September 1994[5], respondent Judge Upon learning of the issuance of the said warrant, other remedy available to them as there is pending before
ordered that the case, now docketed as Criminal Case No. petitioners filed on 4 January 1995 an Urgent Ex- the lower court an Urgent Motion[20] praying for the lifting
2332, be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further parte Motion[13] for the setting aside of the warrant of and setting aside of the warrant of arrest. Ordinarily, we
investigation. In this Order, respondent judge noted that arrest on 4 January 1995. In this motion, petitioners argued would have dismissed the petition on this ground and let
although there were eight (8) respondents in the murder that the enforcement of the warrant of arrest should be the trial court decide the pending motion. However, due to
case, the information filed with the court "charged only held in abeyance considering that the information was the length of time that the issues raised in the petition
one (1) of the eight (8) respondents in the name of Kasan prematurely filed and that the petitioners intended to file have been pending before the courts, it behooves us to
Mama without the necessary resolution required under a petition for review with the Department of Justice. decide the case on the merits in order to preclude any
Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court to show further delay in the resolution of the case.
how the investigating prosecutor arrived at such a
A petition for review[14] was filed by the petitioners with
conclusion." As such, the respondent judge reasons, the
the Department of Justice on 11 January 1995.[15] Despite Respondent Japal M. Guiani retired from the judiciary on
trial court cannot issue the warrant of arrest against Kasan
16 April 1996. For this reason, respondent is no longer the
presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court Branch 14 of accuser.[25] He claims that the anti-graft charge filed by reinvestigation considering that same had already been
Cotabato City; and the prayer of petitioner as to petitioners against him is a harassment suit concocted by dismissed as against them by the provincial prosecutor in
respondents disqualification from hearing Criminal Case No. them when they failed to lay their hands on the amount of his Resolution dated 22 August 1994.
2376 is now moot and academic. Thus, there remain two P1,119,125.00 of municipal funds which respondent had
issues left for the determination of the Court: first, the previously ruled as rightfully belonging to the municipal
A review of the pertinent dates in the petition however
legality of the second information for murder filed before councilors of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Respondent
show that respondent could not have been motivated by
respondents court; and second, the validity of the warrant vehemently denies having personally profited from the
the Ombudsmans complaint when he issued the 13
of arrest issued against petitioners. release of the municipal funds. Moreover, respondent
September 1994 Order. Petitioner Bai Unggie Abdula filed
points out that the allegations in the complaint seem to
the complaint before the Ombudsman of Cotabato City on
imply that the Vice Mayor of Kabuntalan, Bayoraiz
With respect to the first issue, petitioners aver that it is October 6, 1994[30] or about a month after the issuance of
Sarupada, was a party to the mandamus case filed with
the respondent judge himself who is orchestrating the filing the 13 September 1994 Order. As such, when respondent
respondents court when in truth, there was no case filed by
of the alleged murder charge against them. In support, issued the said Order, the same could not have been a
the vice mayor pending in his court. Finally, respondent
petitioners cite five (5) instances wherein respondent judge retaliatory act considering that at that time, there was as
denies berating petitioner Bai Unggie Abdula and uttering
allegedly issued illegal orders in a mandamus case pending yet no complaint against him.
the words attributed to him in the petition. According to
in respondents sala filed against petitioner Mayor Bai
respondent, the last time petitioner Bai Unggie Abdula
Unggie Abdula. These allegedly illegal orders formed the
appeared in his sala on December 28, 1994, in connection With respect to the allegation that the respondent had no
basis for a criminal complaint which they filed on 6 October
with the lifting of an order for her apprehension in another legal authority to order a reinvestigation of the criminal
1994 against respondent and ten (10) others before the
case, he neither berated nor scolded her and in fact, he charge considering that the said charge had been previously
Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao.[21] In this
even lifted the said order of arrest. dismissed as against them, we hold that respondent did not
complaint, herein petitioners alleged that the respondent
abuse his discretion in doing so.[31]
judge illegally ordered the release of the total amount
of P1,119,125.00 from the municipal funds of Kabuntalan, In its Comment with Urgent Motion for the Lifting of the
Mindanao to a certain Bayoraiz Saripada, a purported niece Temporary Restraining Order dated 5 June 1995,[26] the It is true that under the circumstances, the respondent
of respondent judge. The Office of the Ombudsman for Office of the Solicitor-General states that petitioners judge, upon seeing that there were no records attached to
Mindanao, in an Order[22] dated 12 December 1994, found allegation that the respondent judge was biased and the complaint, could have simply ordered the office of the
"sufficient basis to proceed with the preliminary prejudiced was pure speculation as no proof was presented provincial prosecutor to forward the same. Upon receipt of
investigation of the case" and directed the respondents that respondent assumed the role of prosecutor. Moreover, these records, respondent judge would then have sufficient
therein to file their respective counter-affidavits and the OSG argued that the fact that the respondent judge basis to determine whether a warrant of arrest should
controverting evidence. From these facts, petitioners and petitioners had pending cases against each other did issue. However, from the bare terms of the questioned
argue, it is clear that it is the respondent judge himself not necessarily result in the respondents bias and order alone, we fail to see any illegal reason that could
who is orchestrating and manipulating the charges against prejudice. have motivated the judge in issuing the same. The order
the petitioner. merely stated that the records of the case should be
returned to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for
An analysis of these arguments shows that these should
further investigation or reinvestigation. He did not unduly
Petitioners further state that respondent judge exhibited have been properly raised in a motion for the
interfere with the prosecutors duty to conduct a
extreme hostility towards them after the filing of the said disqualification or inhibition of respondent judge. As
preliminary investigation by ordering the latter to file an
complaint before the Ombudsman. Petitioners claim that previously stated however, the issue as to whether
information against any of the respondents or by choosing
immediately after the issuance of the Order of the respondent should be disqualified from proceeding with the
the fiscal who should conduct the reinvestigation which are
Ombudsman requiring respondent judge to file his counter- case has been rendered moot and academic as he is no
acts certainly beyond the power of the court to do.[32] It
affidavit, respondent allegedly berated petitioner Bai longer hearing the case against petitioners. As such, there
was still the prosecutor who had the final say as to whom
Unggie Abdula in open court when she appeared before him is no need for a prolonged discussion on this issue. It is
to include in the information.[33]
in another case Allegedly, in full view of the lawyers and sufficient to say that in order to disqualify a judge on the
litigants, respondent judge uttered the following words in ground of bias and prejudice, petitioner must prove the
the Maguindanaoan dialect: same by clear and convincing evidence.[27] This is a heavy As pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General,
burden which petitioners have failed to discharge. This petitioners only imputed bias against the respondent judge
Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly and not against the investigating
"If I cannot put you in jail within your
indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter prosecutor.[34] Consequently, this imputation is of no
term, I will cut my neck. As long as I
can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial.[28] moment as the discretion to file an information is under
am a judge here, what I want will be
the exclusive control and supervision of the prosecutor and
not of respondent judge. Furthermore, petitioners cannot
Petitioners next argue that the act of respondent in motu
claim that they were denied due process in the
proprio ordering a reinvestigation of the murder charge
Respondent judge, in compliance with the Order of this reinvestigation of the charges against them as they actively
against them is another indication of the latters bias and
Court, filed a Comment dated 3 March 1995.[24] In this participated therein by submitting their joint counter-
prejudice.[29] They claim that the filing of their complaint
Comment, he argues that petitioners enumeration of affidavit.
against respondent motivated the latters Order of 13
"incontrovertible facts" is actually a list of misleading facts
September 1994 which ordered the return of the records of
which they are attempting to weave into Criminal Case No.
the murder case to the provincial prosecutor. Furthermore, Petitioners likewise allege that the information charging
2376 for the purpose of picturing respondent as a partial
they posit that the latter had no authority to order the petitioners with murder is null and void because it was
judge who abused his discretion to favor petitioners
filed without the authority of the Provincial Prosecutor. Having thus ruled on the validity of the information filed warrants of arrest depending on the circumstances of each
They note that in the Resolution dated 28 December 1994 against the respondents, we now address the issue as to case.[38]
and in the corresponding information, it clearly appears the legality of the warrant of arrest issued by respondent
that the same were not approved by the Provincial judge by virtue of the said information.
The OSG further argues that the case of Allado vs.
Prosecutor as it was signed only by the investigating
Diokno, relied upon by petitioners, has no application in
prosecutor, Anok T. Dimaraw.
On this issue, petitioners, citing the case of Allado vs. the case at bar considering that in the cited case, the
Diokno[35] argue that the warrant for his arrest should be documents submitted before the court failed to establish
Petitioners contention is not well-taken. recalled considering that the respondent judge "did not any probable cause as they were conflicting and
personally examine the evidence nor did he call the contradictory. Significantly, the OSG continues, petitioners
complainant and his witnesses in the face of their could not point out a single flaw in the evidence presented
The pertinent portion of the Rules of Court on this matter
incredible accounts." As proof, he points to the fact that by the prosecutor to negate the existence of probable
state that "(n)o complaint or information shall be filed or
the information was filed at around 4:00 p.m. of the cause. Finally, the OSG points out that petitioners
dismissed by an investigating fiscal without the prior
January 2, 1995 and the order of arrest was immediately unfounded allegations cannot prevail over the well-settled
written authority or approval of the provincial or city fiscal
issued the following day or on January 3, 1995. Moreover, rule that official duty is presumed to be regularly
or chief state prosecutor (underscoring ours)." In other
petitioner argues, respondent judge did not even issue an performed.[39]
words, a complaint or information can only be filed if it is
order stating that there is probable cause for the issuance
approved or authorized by the provincial or city fiscal or
of the warrant of arrest, a clear violation of the guidelines
chief state prosecutor. After a careful analysis of these arguments, we find merit
set forth in the Allado case.
in the contention of petitioners.
In the case at bench, while the Resolution and the
Respondent, in his Comment, denies any irregularity in the
Information were not approved by Provincial Prosecutor The pertinent provision of the Constitution reads:
issuance of the warrant of arrest. He argues as follows:
Salick U. Panda, the filing of the same even without his
approval was authorized. Both the Resolution and
"Section 2 [Article III]. The right of the
information contain the following notation:* "Written authority having been granted
people to be secure in their persons,
by the Provincial Prosecutor, as
houses, papers, and effects against
required by the third paragraph of
"The herein Provincial Prosecutor is unreasonable searches and seizures of
Section 4, Rule 112 of (the) Rules on
inhibiting himself from this case and whatever nature and for any purpose
Criminal Procedure, and there having
Investigating Prosecutor Enok Dimaraw shall be inviolable, and no search
been no reason for the respondent to
may dispose of the case without his warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
doubt the validity of the certification
approval on the following ground: except upon probable cause to be
made by the Assistant Prosecutor that a
determined personally by the judge
preliminary investigation was
after examination under oath or
That this case has been previously conducted and that probable cause was
affirmation of the complainant and the
handled by him, and whose findings found to exist as against those charged
witnesses he may produce and
differ from the findings of Investigating in the Information filed, and
particularly describing the place to be
Prosecutor Dimaraw; and the victim is a recognizing the prosecutions legal
searched and the persons or things to
relative by affinity, he being a father- authority to initiate and control
be seized." (Undersoring supplied.)
in-law of his son. criminal prosecution (Rule 110, Section
5) and considering that the court
cannot interfere in said prosecutions It must be stressed that the 1987 Constitution requires the
(Signed) Salick U. Panda
authority (People vs. Moll, 68 Phil. judge to determine probable cause "personally," a
626), the respondent issued the requirement which does not appear in the corresponding
Provincial Prosecutor warrant for the arrest of the accused provisions of our previous constitutions. This emphasis
pursuant to paragraph (a), section 6, evinces the intent of the framers to place a greater degree
Rule 112;"[36] of responsibility upon trial judges than that imposed under
It must be stressed that the Rules of Court speak of
previous Constitutions.[40]
authority or approval by the provincial, city, or chief state
prosecutor. The notation made by Prosecutor Panda clearly The OSG, in defending the act of respondent judge, argues
shows that Investigating Prosecutor Dimaraw was that the allegation that respondent did not personally In Soliven vs. Makasiar, this Court pronounced:
authorized to "dispose of the case without his approval." In examine the evidence is not supported by current
issuing the resolution and in filing the information, the jurisprudence. In support, the OSG invokes the
"What the Constitution underscores is
investigating prosecutor was acting well within the pronouncement in Soliven vs. Makasiar[37] that "(I)n
the exclusive and personal
authority granted to him by the provincial prosecutor. satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause, the
responsibility of the issuing judge to
Thus, this resolution is sufficient compliance with the judge is not required to personally examine the
satisfy himself of the existence of
aforecited provision of the Rules of Court. complainant and his witnesses." Moreover, the OSG points
probable cause. In satisfying himself of
out that the judge enjoys a wide degree of latitude in the
the existence of probable cause for the
determination of probable cause for the issuance of
issuance of a warrant of arrest, the
judge is not required to personally which to legally sustain his own findings In the case at bench, respondent admits that he issued the
examine the complainant and his on the existence (or nonexistence) of questioned warrant as there was "no reason for (him) to
witnesses. Following established probable cause to issue an arrest order. doubt the validity of the certification made by the
doctrine and procedure, he shall: (1) This responsibility of determining Assistant Prosecutor that a preliminary investigation was
personally evaluate the report and the personally and independently the conducted and that probable cause was found to exist as
supporting documents submitted by the existence or nonexistence of probable against those charged in the information filed." The
fiscal regarding the existence of cause is lodged in him by no less than statement is an admission that respondent relied solely and
probable cause and, on the basis the most basic law of the land. completely on the certification made by the fiscal that
thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or Parenthetically, the prosecutor could probable cause exists as against those charged in the
(2) if on the basis thereof he finds no ease the burden of the judge and speed information and issued the challenged warrant of arrest on
probable cause, he may disregard the up the litigation process by forwarding the sole basis of the prosecutors findings and
fiscals report and require the to the latter not only the information recommendations. He adopted the judgment of the
submission of supporting affidavits of and his bare resolution finding probable prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause as his
witnesses to aid him in arriving at a cause, but also so much of the records own.
conclusion as to the existence of and the evidence on hand as to enable
probable cause." the His Honor to make his personal and
Although the prosecutor enjoys the legal presumption of
separate judicial finding on whether to
regularity in the performance of his official duties, which in
issue a warrant of arrest.
Ho vs. People[41] summarizes existing jurisprudence on the turn gives his report the presumption of accuracy, nothing
matter as follows: less than the fundamental law of the land commands the
Lastly, it is not required that judge to personally determine probable cause in the
the complete or entire records of the issuance of warrants of arrest. A judge fails in this
"Lest we be too repetitive, we only
case during the preliminary constitutionally mandated duty if he relies merely on the
wish to emphasize three vital matters
investigation be submitted to and certification or report of the investigating officer.
once more: First, as held in Inting, the
examined by the judge. We do not
determination of probable cause by the
intend to unduly burden trial courts by
prosecutor is for a purpose different To be sure, we cannot determine beforehand how cursory
obliging them to examine the complete
from that which is to be made by the or exhaustive the respondents examination of the records
records of every case all the time
judge. Whether there is reasonable should be.[42] The extent of the judges examination
simply for the purpose of ordering the
ground to believe that the accused is depends on the exercise of his sound discretion as the
arrest of an accused. What is required,
guilty of the offense charged and circumstances of the case require. In the case at bench,
rather, is that the judge must
should be held for trial is what the the respondent had before him two different informations
have sufficient supporting documents
prosecutor passes upon. The judge, on and resolutions charging two different sets of suspects. In
(such as the complaint, affidavits,
the other hand, determines whether a the face of these conflicting resolutions, it behooves him
counter-affidavits, sworn statements of
warrant of arrest should be issued not to take the certification of the investigating prosecutor
witnesses or transcript of stenographic
against the accused, i.e., whether at face value. The circumstances thus require that
notes, if any) upon which to make his
there is a necessity for placing him respondent look beyond the bare certification of the
independent judgment or, at the very
under immediate custody in order not investigating prosecutor and examine the documents
least, upon which to verify the findings
to frustrate the ends of justice. Thus, supporting the prosecutors determination of probable
of the prosecutor as to the existence of
even if both should base their findings cause. The inordinate haste that attended the issuance of
probable cause. The point is: he cannot
on one and the same proceeding or the warrant of arrest and respondents own admission are
rely solely and entirely on the
evidence, there should be no confusion circumstances that tend to belie any pretense of the
prosecutors recommendation, as
as to their distinct objectives. fulfillment of this duty.
Respondent Court did in this case.
Although the prosecutor enjoys the
Second, since their objectives are legal presumption of regularity in the Clearly, respondent judge, by merely stating that he had
different, the judge cannot rely solely performance of his official duties and no reason to doubt the validity of the certification made by
on the report of the prosecutor in functions, which in turn gives his report the investigating prosecutor has abdicated his duty under
finding probable cause to justify the the presumption of accuracy, the the Constitution to determine on his own the issue of
issuance of a warrant of arrest. Constitution, we repeat, commands the probable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest.
Obviously and understandably, the judge to personally determine probable Consequently, the warrant of arrest should be declared null
contents of the prosecutors report will cause in the issuance of warrants of and void.
support his own conclusion that there is arrest. This Court has consistently held
reason to charge the accused for an that a judge fails in his bounden duty if
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition
offense and hold him for trial. he relies merely on the certification or
for certiorari and prohibition is GRANTED. The temporary
However, the judge must the report of the investigating officer."
restraining order we issued on 20 February 1995 in favor of
decide independently. Hence, he must (citations omitted)
petitioners insofar as it enjoins the implementation and
have supporting evidence, other
execution of the order of arrest dated 3 January 1995 is
than the prosecutors bare report, upon
made permanent. Criminal Case No. 2376 is REMANDED to
Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City for a La Tondena Distillers, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 209
proper determination of whether a warrant of arrest should SCRA 544.
be issued and for further proceedings. Ho vs. People, 280 SCRA 365.
Lim, Sr. vs. Felix, supra.

Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Purisima,

JJ., concur.

The six other respondents in I.S. No. 94-1361 are Undong
Dumamba Magelna, Kongan Mabang, Badrudin Mamad,
Guialal Kudarat, Kasan Mama and Cuenco Usman.
Records, p. 57.
Rollo, pp. 57-58.
Annex "L Petition; Rollo, pp. 57-60.
Annex "M", Petition; Rollo, p. 61.
Rollo. p. 62.
Annex "N", Petition, Rollo, pp. 62-67.
The three other respondents are Kasan Mama, Cuenco
Usman and Jun Mama.
Rollo, p. 67.
Annex "O," Petition; Rollo, pp. 68-69.
Rollo, p. 69.
Annex "P", Petition; Rollo, p. 70.
Annex "Q", Petition; Rollo, pp. 71-75.
Annex "R", Petition; Rollo, pp. 76-88.
The Petition for Review was subsequently dismissed by
the Department of Justice in a Resolution dated 6 June
Rollo, pp. 22-28.
Rollo, p. 81.
Rollo, pp. 82-83.
Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court.
Annex "Q", Petition; Rollo, pp. 71-73.
Annex "I", Petition; Rollo, pp. 42-52.
Annex "J", Petition; Rollo, pp. 53-54.
Rollo, p. 8.
Rollo, pp. 95-101.
Rollo, p. 3.
Rollo, pp. 116-123.
Webb vs. People, 276 SCRA 243.
Aparicio vs. Andal, 175 SCRA 569.
Rollo, p. 12.
Rollo, p. 12.
Placer vs. Villanueva, December 29, 1983.
Abugotal vs. Tiro, 66 SCRA 196.
Lim, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 279.
Rollo, p. 119.
Rollo, p. 67 and 69.
232 SCRA 192.
Rollo, pp. 96-97.
167 SCRA 398.
Lim vs. Felix, 187 SCRA 292.