Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROMULO PALENCIA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 185491 2012-07-11	JULIETA E. BERNARDO v. ANDREW L. TAN SERENO, J.
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the 24 November 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA).[1] The present controversy stems from the 29 June 2006 and 8 September 2006 Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)[2] granting the withdrawal of the Informations filed against respondents for violation of Sections 5 (first Information), 17 (second Information), and 20 (third Information) in relation to Section 39 of Presidential Decree No. 957, otherwise known as "The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protective Decree of 1976" (P.D. 957).
	GR No. 185209 2010-06-28	PEOPLE v. RENE BARON Y TANGAROCAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
The appellant's attempt to evade criminal liability by insisting that he acted under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury fails to impress. To avail of this exempting circumstance, the evidence must establish: (1) the existence of an uncontrollable fear; (2) that the fear must be real and imminent; and (3) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed.[13] A threat of future injury is insufficient. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the accused to escape.[14]
	GR No. 171399 2009-05-08	VICENTA CANTEMPRATE v. CRS REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TINGA, J.
Indeed, under Section 25 of P.D. No. 957, among the obligations of a subdivision owner or developer is the delivery of the subdivision lot to the buyer by causing the transfer of the corresponding certificate of title over the subject lot.[34] The provision states:Sec. 25. Issuance of Title. The owner or developer shall deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit. No fee, except those required for the registration of the deed of sale in the Registry of Deeds, shall be collected for the issuance of such title. In the event a mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding at the time of the issuance of the title to the buyer, the owner or developer shall redeem the mortgage or the corresponding portion thereof within six months from such issuance in order that the title over any fully paid lot or unit may be secured and delivered to the buyer in accordance herewith. In the instant case, the contract to sell itself expressly obliges the vendor to cause the issuance of the corresponding certificate of title upon full payment of the purchase price, to wit:
	GR NO. 162090 2007-01-31	SPS. HOWARD T. CO CHIEN AND SUSAN Y. CO CHIEN v. STA. LUCIA REALTY PUNO, CJ.
The Authority, upon proper application therefor, shall issue to such owner or dealer of a registered project a license to sell the project if, after an examination of the registration statement filed by said owner or dealer and all the pertinent documents attached thereto, he is convinced that the owner or dealer is of good repute, that his business is financially stable, and that the proposed sale of the subdivision lots or condominium units to the public would not be fraudulent.[15]
	GR NO. 159659 2006-10-16	RUBEN S. SIA v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
Moreover, the jurisdiction of the court or agency is determined by the allegations in the complaint. It cannot be made to depend on the defenses made by the defendant in his Answer or Motion to Dismiss. If such were the rule, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the defendant.[12] The informations rest the cause of action on the petitioners' failure to register the Contracts to Sell in accordance with Section 17 of P.D. No. 957. The penalty imposable is a fine of not more than Twenty Thousand Pesos and/or imprisonment of not more than ten years.[13] Once again, clearly, the offense charged is well within the jurisdiction of the trial court.