Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HERMENEGILDO M. MAGSUCI v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 166967 2013-01-28	EDNA J. JACA v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
As described by the prosecution, the offices involved in the processing of cash advances are technically independent of each other; one office does not form part of, or is strictly under, another. Thus, each has independent functions to perform to ensure that the funds of the local government are disbursed properly and are well accounted for. While the Court views Gaviola's failure to inquire further before affixing his signature despite the absence of the "particulars of payment" in the disbursement vouchers as negligence on his part,[103] to additionally affix his signature despite the lack of supporting documents only shows a gross and inexcusable disregard of the consequences of his act as approving authority. If Gaviola bothered to glance at the supporting documents, he could have signaled to his co-accused that their acts or omissions opened an opportunity for Badana to commit malversation that would result in a loss to the local government's coffers.
	GR No. 185195 2010-03-17	VIOLETA BAHILIDAD v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
There is conspiracy "when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it." Conspiracy is not presumed. Like the physical acts constituting the crime itself, the elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. While conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence, for it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, all taken together, however, the evidence must be strong enough to show the community of criminal design. For conspiracy to exist, it is essential that there must be a conscious design to commit an offense. Conspiracy is the product of intentionality on the part of the cohorts. [6]
	GR Nos. 181999 & 182001-04 2009-09-02	OFELIA C. CAUNAN v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
Aggrieved, petitioners and the other accused appealed to the COA which eventually denied the appeal. Surprisingly, on motion for reconsideration, the COA excluded petitioner Marquez from liability for the disallowances based on our rulings in Arias v. Sandiganbayan[8] and Magsuci v. Sandiganbayan.[9]
	GR No. 147333 2004-08-12	ROSALIA* M. DUGAYON v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
On the issue of conspiracy, petitioner relies on Magsuci v. Sandiganbayan,[15] which cited Arias v. Sandiganbayan,[16] as precedent to prove the high improbability of her conspiring with her co-accused. She quotes,
	GR No. 144784 2002-09-03	PEDRO G. SISTOZA v. ANIANO DESIERTO IN HIS CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN BELLOSILLO, J.
relied upon supporting documents apparently dependable as well as certifications of regularity made by responsible public officers of three (3) office divisions of the Bureau of Corrections before affixing his signature on the purchase order. In Alejandro v. People,[23] evident bad faith was ruled out because the accused gave his approval to the questioned disbursement after relying on the certification of the bookkeeper on the availability of funds for the expenditure and since the act of relying upon a subordinate's certification of regularity cannot be considered gross inexcusable negligence. In Magsuci v. Sandiganbayan[24] this Court similarly rejected the theory of criminal liability where the head of office in discharging his official duties relied upon an act of his subordinate. The fact that petitioner had knowledge of the status of Elias General Merchandising as being only the second lowest bidder does not ipso facto characterize petitioner's act of reliance as recklessly imprudent without which the crime could not have been
	AM No. P-99-1316 2001-08-31	KENNETH S. NEELAND v. ILDEFONSO M. VILLANUEVA BELLOSILLO, J.
To be sure, the act of respondent Villanueva, Jr., for which he stands charged - failing to diligently supervise his subordinate - did not constitute gross misconduct which would have justified separation from the service; neither was it as evil as the dishonest acts involved in the jurisprudence of old whereby the payment of back salaries would certainly be odious and insulting to the sensibilities of honest workers. What is at stake here is a simple case of isolated oversight, which does not call for dismissal from the service. If it were, then most civil servants would by now be rotting away for being out of work. The rule has thus been instituted that "x x x [a]ll heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinates and on the good faith of those who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations x x x x There has to be some added reason why he should examine each voucher in such detail."[13]