This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-07-07 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Indeterminate Sentence Law, under Section 2,[24] is not applicable to, among others, cases where the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year. In determining "whether an indeterminate sentence and not a straight penalty is proper, what is considered is the penalty actually imposed by the trial court, after considering the attendant circumstances, and not the imposable penalty."[25] In the case at bar, since the maximum of the imposable penalty is six months, then the possible maximum term that can be actually imposed is surely less than one year. Hence, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to the present case. As a result, and in view of the attendant circumstances in this case, we deem it proper to impose a straight penalty of four months and one day of arresto mayor and delete the imposition of fine. | |||||
|
2008-06-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Civil Case No. 1281[6] is a complaint that Menendez filed on April 4, 1996 with the RTC for the declaration of the inexistence of lease contract, recovery of possession of land, and damages against the petitioner and Josefa after the RTC dismissed the respondent spouses' counterclaim in Civil Case No. 1239. The complaint alleged that Josefa, who had previously sold Lot 1220-D to Menendez, leased it, together with Lot 1220-E, to the petitioner. Menendez further averred that the petitioner and Josefa were in bad faith in entering their contract of lease as they both knew that Josefa did not own the leased lots. Menendez prayed, among others, that this lease contract between Josefa and the petitioner be declared null and void. | |||||