This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-03-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| x x x [a] conspiracy is in its nature a joint offense. One person cannot conspire alone. The crime depends upon the joint act or intent of two or more persons. Yet, it does not follow that one person cannot be convicted of conspiracy. So long as the acquittal or death of a co-conspirator does not remove the bases of a charge for conspiracy, one defendant may be found guilty of the offense.[19] | |||||
|
2011-11-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The issue of GSIS's alleged exemption under RA 8291 had been finally decided against GSIS in G.R. No. 173391, when this Court denied GSIS's petition for review. The denial rendered the CA Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 87821 final and executory. GSIS's attempt to resurrect the same issue by interjecting the same in this proceeding is barred by the principle of "law of the case," which states that "determinations of questions of law will generally be held to govern a case throughout all its subsequent stages where such determination has already been made on a prior appeal to a court of last resort."[49] The Decision in G.R. No. 173391 allowing the execution of the judgment against GSIS is the "law of the case" and controls the proceedings below which are already in the execution stage. | |||||
|
2007-12-19 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Expounding on the doctrine of the law of the case, this Court, in Villa v. Sandiganbayan,[24] held:The doctrine has been defined as "that principle under which determination of questions of law will generally be held to govern a case throughout all its subsequent stages where such determination has already been made on a prior appeal to a court of last resort. It is "merely a rule of procedure and does not go to the power of the court, and will not be adhered to where its application will result in an unjust decision. It relates entirely to questions of law, and is confined in its operation to subsequent proceedings in the same case. | |||||