Lawyerly

GR No. 170475

2007-06-07

GARCIA, J.

Conformably with this Court's decision in People v. Mateo,[11] modifying the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court insofar as they provide for direct appeals from the RTC to this Court in cases where the penalty imposed by the trial court is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the case was referred to the CA for appropriate action and disposition, whereat it was docketed as CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00720.

GR NO. 171272

2007-06-07

PEOPLE v. LEOSON DELA CRUZ Y ECHECHE

QUISUMBING, J.

Following People v. Mateo,[30] the cases were transferred to the Court of Appeals for review.

GR NO. 170471

2007-05-11

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO BUBAN

QUISUMBING, J.

Following People v. Mateo,[25] the case was transferred from this Court to the Court of Appeals.

GR No. 174656

2007-05-11

PEOPLE v. ZALDY IBAÑEZ Y FRANCISCO

QUISUMBING, J.

Following People v. Mateo,[11] the case was transferred and referred to the Court of Appeals. Upon review, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision[12] dated May 31, 2006, affirming with modification the decision of the lower court. The fallo of the decision reads:

GR NO. 174470

2007-04-27

PEOPLE v. FILOMINO LIZANO Y MARVILLA APPELLANT.

TINGA, J.

From the decision in Criminal Case No. 2857-C, appellant directly appealed to this Court. Conformably with our ruling in People v. Mateo,[17] the appeal was remanded to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review.

GR NO. 171349

2007-04-27

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO P. NOVERAS

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The case initially came up to this Court via notice of appeal; however, in deference to the ruling in People v. Mateo,[29] the case was transferred to the CA.

GR NO. 170636

2007-04-27

PEOPLE v. SONNY MAYAO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

On elevation of the case to this Court, it was referred to the Court of Appeals per People v. Mateo.[23]

GR NO. 173197

2007-04-24

PEOPLE v. ROGER DE GUZMAN Y LAUCHANGCO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused Roger de Guzman GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as civil indemnity and the additional amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) as moral damages.[5] Appellant filed a notice of appeal.[6] The trial court ordered the transmittal of the entire records of the case to this Court. Thereafter, this Court ordered the referral of the case to the Court of Appeals conformably with the ruling in the case of People v. Mateo.[7]

GR NO. 172118

2007-04-24

PEOPLE v. WARLITO C. FERNANDEZ

CALLEJO, SR., J.

SO ORDERED.[40] The records of the case were initially transmitted to this Court on automatic review. However, conformably with the ruling in People v. Mateo,[41] which modified "Sections 3 and 10 of Rule 122, Section 13 of Rule 124, Section 3 of Rule 125 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, and any other rule insofar as they provide for direct appeals from the RTC to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment," the Court issued a Resolution[42] dated November 16, 2004 referring the case to the CA.

GR NO. 169643

2007-04-13

PEOPLE v. FILOMINO L. VILLANUEVA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The case was initially elevated to this Court on automatic review. In deference to the ruling in People of the Philippines v. Mateo,[30] however, the case was transferred to the CA.

GR NO. 168174

2007-04-13

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO REYES Y ABREMATEA

QUISUMBING, J.

SO ORDERED.[6] Reyes appealed. In line with our ruling in People v. Mateo,[7] we referred the present case to the Court of Appeals.[8]

GR NO. 173050

2007-04-13

PEOPLE v. AC-MAD PANDAPATAN Y DIMALAPANG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Inasmuch as the penalty it imposed was the death penalty, the trial court forwarded the records of the case to the Supreme Court for automatic review pursuant to Section 10, Rule 122 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.[6] However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[7] the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.[8]

GR NO. 168326

2007-04-11

PEOPLE v. PATRICIO PIOQUINTO

CORONA, J.

The case was forwarded to this Court for automatic review but we subsequently referred it to the CA per People v. Mateo.[28] As stated earlier, the CA affirmed the RTC decision.

GR NO. 172324

2007-04-04

PEOPLE v. CELINO NABONG Y OSENAR

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Due to the imposition of death penalty on appellants, the case was directly elevated to this Court for review. This Court, however, referred the case to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review, conformably with the ruling in the case of People v. Mateo.[8]

GR NO. 170836

2007-04-04

PEOPLE v. RICARDO FERNANDO Y MONTIAS

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The case was referred to the Court of Appeals, following People v. Mateo,[18] for intermediate review of criminal cases imposing death penalty, life imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua.[19]

GR NO. 170193

2007-04-04

PEOPLE v. ARIEL PAOYO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Upon the filing by Paoyo of a Notice of Appeal,[11] the records of the case were transmitted to this Court which transferred the case to the Court of Appeals, however, by Resolution of September 22, 2004,[12] following People v. Mateo[13] which calls for intermediate review by the appellate court of criminal cases imposing the penalty of death, life imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua.[14]

GR NO. 169431

2007-04-04

PEOPLE v. JERRY RAPEZA Y FRANCISCO

TINGA, J.

As Mike Regino was at large, only appellant was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty. Forthwith, joint trial ensued which resulted in the judgment of guilt against appellant as co-principal for two (2) counts of murder, with conspiracy and evident premeditation attending the commission of the felonies. Both cases were thereafter elevated to this Court on automatic review, but later referred to the Court of Appeals per People v. Mateo.[7] The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of guilt.[8]

GR NO. 173795

2007-04-03

PEOPLE v. LOIDA R. SORIANO

TINGA, J.

Initially, the appeal was brought before us. Conformably with People v. Mateo[11] however, this Court in a Resolution[12] dated 28 February 2005 resolved to transfer the instant case to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review.

GR NO. 175316

2007-03-28

PEOPLE v. ROGER DURANO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The case was brought before this Court on automatic review, however, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[18] the case was referred to the Court of Appeals.

GR NO. 172226

2007-03-23

PEOPLE v. HERMINIGILDO SENIERES

TINGA, J.

The judgment of conviction was elevated to the Court for automatic review. In a Resolution[30] dated 27 September 2004 of the Court in G.R. Nos. 147286-87,[31] the cases were transferred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to the Court's ruling in People v. Mateo.[32]

GR NO. 173243

2007-03-23

PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO CASELA

TINGA, J.

With the death penalty imposed on appellant, the case was elevated to this Court on automatic review. However, pursuant to this Court's ruling in People v. Mateo,[20] the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals.[21]

GR NO. 174194

2007-03-20

PEOPLE v. EDWIN AUSA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In view of the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed on appellant, the case was brought to this Court for automatic review. Thereafter, this case was referred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo.[22]

GR NO. 171020

2007-03-14

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PANGILINAN Y TRINIDAD

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Inasmuch as the penalty it imposed was the death penalty, the trial court forwarded the records of the case to the Supreme Court for automatic review pursuant to Section 10, Rule 122 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.[14] However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[15] the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.[16]

GR NO. 169933

2007-03-09

SU ZHI SHAN v. PEOPLE

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The records of the case were transmitted to this Court on August 1, 2001 for automatic review.[12] In view, however, of the ruling in People v. Mateo,[13] this Court transferred the case to the Court of Appeals on October 19, 2004.[14]

GR NO. 170849

2007-03-07

PEOPLE v. EDUARDO MORAN JR. Y GORDULA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

All-told, accused's attempt to exculpate himself of liability based on his testimony alone, cannot prevail vis-à-vis AAA's testimony which was given in clear, straight-forward and convincing manner.[5] Appellant filed a notice of appeal.[6] The trial court ordered the transmittal of the entire records of the case to this Court. Thereafter, this Court ordered the referral of the case to the Court of Appeals conformably with the ruling in the case of People v. Mateo.[7]

GR NO. 171314

2007-03-06

PEOPLE v. PATERNO OLIQUINO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Appellant seasonably appealed his case before this Court. In our Resolution dated 29 September 2004, we transferred the case to the Court of Appeals pursuant to our holding in the case of People v. Mateo.[35]

GR NO. 171448

2007-02-28

PEOPLE v. CHARLIE COMILA

GARCIA, J.

Thereafter, and consistent with its pronouncement in People v. Mateo,[9] the Court, via its Resolution[10] of September 22, 2004, transferred the cases to the Court of Appeals (CA) "for appropriate action and disposition." In the CA, the cases were assigned one docket number and thereat docketed as CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 01615.

GR NO. 174056

2007-02-27

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO GUMIMBA Y MORADANTE

TINGA, J.

With the death penalty imposed on appellant, the case was elevated to this Court on automatic review. Pursuant to this Court's decision in People v. Mateo,[19] the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals.

GR NO. 171019

2007-02-23

PEOPLE v. RAFAEL STA. MARIA Y INDON

GARCIA, J.

From the aforesaid decision, appellant went directly to this Court. Pursuant to our pronouncement in People v. Mateo,[6] which modified the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court insofar as they provide for direct appeals from the RTC to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the Court transferred the appeal to the CA for appropriate action and disposition, whereat it was docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00802.

GR NO. 170233

2007-02-22

PEOPLE v. JESUS NUEVAS Y GARCIA

TINGA, J.

In a Resolution[22] dated 22 September 2004 of the Court in G.R. Nos. 153641-42,[23] the cases were transferred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to the Court's ruling in People v. Efren Mateo.[24]

GR NO. 172019

2007-02-12

PEOPLE v. BOISAN CABUGATAN Y MACARAMBON

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As the trial court meted a penalty of life imprisonment, the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo.[30]

GR NO. 170234

2007-02-08

PEOPLE v. BERNARDO F. NICOLAS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Since the penalty imposed by the trial court was life imprisonment, the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo.[19]

GR NO. 174277

2007-02-08

PEOPLE v. SAMUEL DIUNSAY-JALANDONI

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Conformably with our ruling in People v. Mateo,[6] the records of this case were forwarded to the Court of Appeals for review. On June 13, 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered its assailed Decision affirming appellant's conviction and increasing the amount of civil indemnity from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00:

GR NO. 172966

2007-02-08

PEOPLE v. EUGENIO PILIIN Y GARCIA

TINGA, J.

The records of this case were originally transmitted to this Court on automatic review. However, pursuant to the ruling in People v. Mateo,[16] this Court issued a Resolution[17] dated 24 August 2004 transferring the case to the Court of Appeals.

GR NO. 169060

2007-02-06

PEOPLE v. JOEY CONCEPCION Y PEREZ

TINGA, J.

Conformably with this Court's decision in People v. Mateo,[26] appellant's appeal was remanded to the Court of Appeals. On 9 May 2005, the appellate court rendered its decision affirming the appellant's conviction, with modification as to appellant's civil indemnity. The dispositive portion of the decision states:

GR NO. 174280

2007-01-30

PEOPLE v. RAYMOND BATIANCILA Y MORALDE

SO ORDERED.[11] In view of the penalty imposed, the case was elevated to this Court for automatic review. However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[12] the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals which rendered the assailed Decision dated January 31, 2006, affirming the trial court in toto; hence, the instant appeal.[13]

GR NO. 172323

2007-01-29

PEOPLE v. JUDY SALIDAGA Y QUINTANO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Accused's defense of denial and alibi cannot outweigh or overcome the positive and unequivocal narration of AAA on how she was ravished by the accused. The record is bereft of any proof that AAA is actuated by ill-motive in charging accused of a very serious crime. Accused's asseveration that he and AAA were live-in partners from June to November, 2002, even if true, cannot weaken the clear, candid and categorical statement of AAA that accused sexually abused her on December 16, 2002.[11] A Notice of Appeal[12] was seasonably filed by appellant and the trial court ordered the transmittal of the entire records of the case to this Court. Subsequently, we ordered the referral of the case to the Court of Appeals conformably with our decision in the case of People v. Mateo.[13]

	GR No. 170475 2007-06-07	PEOPLE v. EDWARD CORNELIO Y LUCENA GARCIA, J.
Conformably with this Court's decision in People v. Mateo,[11] modifying the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court insofar as they provide for direct appeals from the RTC to this Court in cases where the penalty imposed by the trial court is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the case was referred to the CA for appropriate action and disposition, whereat it was docketed as CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00720.
	GR NO. 171272 2007-06-07	PEOPLE v. LEOSON DELA CRUZ Y ECHECHE QUISUMBING, J.
Following People v. Mateo,[30] the cases were transferred to the Court of Appeals for review.
	GR NO. 170471 2007-05-11	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO BUBAN QUISUMBING, J.
Following People v. Mateo,[25] the case was transferred from this Court to the Court of Appeals.
	GR No. 174656 2007-05-11	PEOPLE v. ZALDY IBAÑEZ Y FRANCISCO QUISUMBING, J.
Following People v. Mateo,[11] the case was transferred and referred to the Court of Appeals. Upon review, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision[12] dated May 31, 2006, affirming with modification the decision of the lower court. The fallo of the decision reads:
	GR NO. 174470 2007-04-27	PEOPLE v. FILOMINO LIZANO Y MARVILLA APPELLANT. TINGA, J.
From the decision in Criminal Case No. 2857-C, appellant directly appealed to this Court. Conformably with our ruling in People v. Mateo,[17] the appeal was remanded to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review.
	GR NO. 171349 2007-04-27	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO P. NOVERAS CALLEJO, SR., J.
The case initially came up to this Court via notice of appeal; however, in deference to the ruling in People v. Mateo,[29] the case was transferred to the CA.
	GR NO. 170636 2007-04-27	PEOPLE v. SONNY MAYAO CARPIO MORALES, J.
On elevation of the case to this Court, it was referred to the Court of Appeals per People v. Mateo.[23]
	GR NO. 173197 2007-04-24	PEOPLE v. ROGER DE GUZMAN Y LAUCHANGCO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused Roger de Guzman GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as civil indemnity and the additional amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) as moral damages.[5] Appellant filed a notice of appeal.[6] The trial court ordered the transmittal of the entire records of the case to this Court. Thereafter, this Court ordered the referral of the case to the Court of Appeals conformably with the ruling in the case of People v. Mateo.[7]
	GR NO. 172118 2007-04-24	PEOPLE v. WARLITO C. FERNANDEZ CALLEJO, SR., J.
SO ORDERED.[40] The records of the case were initially transmitted to this Court on automatic review. However, conformably with the ruling in People v. Mateo,[41] which modified "Sections 3 and 10 of Rule 122, Section 13 of Rule 124, Section 3 of Rule 125 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, and any other rule insofar as they provide for direct appeals from the RTC to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment," the Court issued a Resolution[42] dated November 16, 2004 referring the case to the CA.
	GR NO. 169643 2007-04-13	PEOPLE v. FILOMINO L. VILLANUEVA CALLEJO, SR., J.
The case was initially elevated to this Court on automatic review. In deference to the ruling in People of the Philippines v. Mateo,[30] however, the case was transferred to the CA.
	GR NO. 168174 2007-04-13	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO REYES Y ABREMATEA QUISUMBING, J.
SO ORDERED.[6] Reyes appealed. In line with our ruling in People v. Mateo,[7] we referred the present case to the Court of Appeals.[8]
	GR NO. 173050 2007-04-13	PEOPLE v. AC-MAD PANDAPATAN Y DIMALAPANG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Inasmuch as the penalty it imposed was the death penalty, the trial court forwarded the records of the case to the Supreme Court for automatic review pursuant to Section 10, Rule 122 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.[6] However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[7] the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.[8]
	GR NO. 168326 2007-04-11	PEOPLE v. PATRICIO PIOQUINTO CORONA, J.
The case was forwarded to this Court for automatic review but we subsequently referred it to the CA per People v. Mateo.[28] As stated earlier, the CA affirmed the RTC decision.
	GR NO. 172324 2007-04-04	PEOPLE v. CELINO NABONG Y OSENAR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Due to the imposition of death penalty on appellants, the case was directly elevated to this Court for review. This Court, however, referred the case to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review, conformably with the ruling in the case of People v. Mateo.[8]
	GR NO. 170836 2007-04-04	PEOPLE v. RICARDO FERNANDO Y MONTIAS CARPIO MORALES, J.
The case was referred to the Court of Appeals, following People v. Mateo,[18] for intermediate review of criminal cases imposing death penalty, life imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua.[19]
	GR NO. 170193 2007-04-04	PEOPLE v. ARIEL PAOYO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Upon the filing by Paoyo of a Notice of Appeal,[11] the records of the case were transmitted to this Court which transferred the case to the Court of Appeals, however, by Resolution of September 22, 2004,[12] following People v. Mateo[13] which calls for intermediate review by the appellate court of criminal cases imposing the penalty of death, life imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua.[14]
	GR NO. 169431 2007-04-04	PEOPLE v. JERRY RAPEZA Y FRANCISCO TINGA, J.
As Mike Regino was at large, only appellant was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty. Forthwith, joint trial ensued which resulted in the judgment of guilt against appellant as co-principal for two (2) counts of murder, with conspiracy and evident premeditation attending the commission of the felonies. Both cases were thereafter elevated to this Court on automatic review, but later referred to the Court of Appeals per People v. Mateo.[7] The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of guilt.[8]
	GR NO. 173795 2007-04-03	PEOPLE v. LOIDA R. SORIANO TINGA, J.
Initially, the appeal was brought before us. Conformably with People v. Mateo[11] however, this Court in a Resolution[12] dated 28 February 2005 resolved to transfer the instant case to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review.
	GR NO. 175316 2007-03-28	PEOPLE v. ROGER DURANO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The case was brought before this Court on automatic review, however, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[18] the case was referred to the Court of Appeals.
	GR NO. 172226 2007-03-23	PEOPLE v. HERMINIGILDO SENIERES TINGA, J.
The judgment of conviction was elevated to the Court for automatic review. In a Resolution[30] dated 27 September 2004 of the Court in G.R. Nos. 147286-87,[31] the cases were transferred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to the Court's ruling in People v. Mateo.[32]
	GR NO. 173243 2007-03-23	PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO CASELA TINGA, J.
With the death penalty imposed on appellant, the case was elevated to this Court on automatic review. However, pursuant to this Court's ruling in People v. Mateo,[20] the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals.[21]
	GR NO. 174194 2007-03-20	PEOPLE v. EDWIN AUSA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In view of the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed on appellant, the case was brought to this Court for automatic review. Thereafter, this case was referred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo.[22]
	GR NO. 171020 2007-03-14	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PANGILINAN Y TRINIDAD CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Inasmuch as the penalty it imposed was the death penalty, the trial court forwarded the records of the case to the Supreme Court for automatic review pursuant to Section 10, Rule 122 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.[14] However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[15] the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.[16]
	GR NO. 169933 2007-03-09	SU ZHI SHAN v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
The records of the case were transmitted to this Court on August 1, 2001 for automatic review.[12] In view, however, of the ruling in People v. Mateo,[13] this Court transferred the case to the Court of Appeals on October 19, 2004.[14]
	GR NO. 170849 2007-03-07	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO MORAN JR. Y GORDULA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
All-told, accused's attempt to exculpate himself of liability based on his testimony alone, cannot prevail vis-à-vis AAA's testimony which was given in clear, straight-forward and convincing manner.[5] Appellant filed a notice of appeal.[6] The trial court ordered the transmittal of the entire records of the case to this Court. Thereafter, this Court ordered the referral of the case to the Court of Appeals conformably with the ruling in the case of People v. Mateo.[7]
	GR NO. 171314 2007-03-06	PEOPLE v. PATERNO OLIQUINO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Appellant seasonably appealed his case before this Court. In our Resolution dated 29 September 2004, we transferred the case to the Court of Appeals pursuant to our holding in the case of People v. Mateo.[35]
	GR NO. 171448 2007-02-28	PEOPLE v. CHARLIE COMILA GARCIA, J.
Thereafter, and consistent with its pronouncement in People v. Mateo,[9] the Court, via its Resolution[10] of September 22, 2004, transferred the cases to the Court of Appeals (CA) "for appropriate action and disposition." In the CA, the cases were assigned one docket number and thereat docketed as CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 01615.
	GR NO. 174056 2007-02-27	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO GUMIMBA Y MORADANTE TINGA, J.
With the death penalty imposed on appellant, the case was elevated to this Court on automatic review. Pursuant to this Court's decision in People v. Mateo,[19] the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals.
	GR NO. 171019 2007-02-23	PEOPLE v. RAFAEL STA. MARIA Y INDON GARCIA, J.
From the aforesaid decision, appellant went directly to this Court. Pursuant to our pronouncement in People v. Mateo,[6] which modified the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court insofar as they provide for direct appeals from the RTC to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the Court transferred the appeal to the CA for appropriate action and disposition, whereat it was docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00802.
	GR NO. 170233 2007-02-22	PEOPLE v. JESUS NUEVAS Y GARCIA TINGA, J.
In a Resolution[22] dated 22 September 2004 of the Court in G.R. Nos. 153641-42,[23] the cases were transferred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to the Court's ruling in People v. Efren Mateo.[24]
	GR NO. 172019 2007-02-12	PEOPLE v. BOISAN CABUGATAN Y MACARAMBON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As the trial court meted a penalty of life imprisonment, the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo.[30]
	GR NO. 170234 2007-02-08	PEOPLE v. BERNARDO F. NICOLAS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Since the penalty imposed by the trial court was life imprisonment, the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo.[19]
	GR NO. 174277 2007-02-08	PEOPLE v. SAMUEL DIUNSAY-JALANDONI YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Conformably with our ruling in People v. Mateo,[6] the records of this case were forwarded to the Court of Appeals for review. On June 13, 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered its assailed Decision affirming appellant's conviction and increasing the amount of civil indemnity from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00:
	GR NO. 172966 2007-02-08	PEOPLE v. EUGENIO PILIIN Y GARCIA TINGA, J.
The records of this case were originally transmitted to this Court on automatic review. However, pursuant to the ruling in People v. Mateo,[16] this Court issued a Resolution[17] dated 24 August 2004 transferring the case to the Court of Appeals.
	GR NO. 169060 2007-02-06	PEOPLE v. JOEY CONCEPCION Y PEREZ TINGA, J.
Conformably with this Court's decision in People v. Mateo,[26] appellant's appeal was remanded to the Court of Appeals. On 9 May 2005, the appellate court rendered its decision affirming the appellant's conviction, with modification as to appellant's civil indemnity. The dispositive portion of the decision states:
	GR NO. 174280 2007-01-30	PEOPLE v. RAYMOND BATIANCILA Y MORALDE
SO ORDERED.[11] In view of the penalty imposed, the case was elevated to this Court for automatic review. However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[12] the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals which rendered the assailed Decision dated January 31, 2006, affirming the trial court in toto; hence, the instant appeal.[13]
	GR NO. 172323 2007-01-29	PEOPLE v. JUDY SALIDAGA Y QUINTANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Accused's defense of denial and alibi cannot outweigh or overcome the positive and unequivocal narration of AAA on how she was ravished by the accused. The record is bereft of any proof that AAA is actuated by ill-motive in charging accused of a very serious crime. Accused's asseveration that he and AAA were live-in partners from June to November, 2002, even if true, cannot weaken the clear, candid and categorical statement of AAA that accused sexually abused her on December 16, 2002.[11] A Notice of Appeal[12] was seasonably filed by appellant and the trial court ordered the transmittal of the entire records of the case to this Court. Subsequently, we ordered the referral of the case to the Court of Appeals conformably with our decision in the case of People v. Mateo.[13]

PEOPLE v. EFREN MATEO Y GARCIA