This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-11-24 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| At this point, it bears reiterating that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the factual findings of the RTC, especially when affirmed by the CA, are generally held binding and conclusive on the Court.[20] We emphasize that while jurisprudence has provided exceptions[21] to this rule, the petitioner carries the burden of proving that one or more exceptional circumstances are present in the case.[22] The petitioner must additionally show that the cited exceptional circumstances will have a bearing on the results of the case.[23] In the instant case, the Court finds that none of the exceptions are present . Thus, there is no cogent reason to depart from the findings of both the RTC and the CA that petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. | |||||
|
2014-08-06 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The elements of estafa through abuse of confidence under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code[48] are: "(a) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same; (b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt; (c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (d) there is demand by the offended party to the offender."[49] | |||||