Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BENJAMIN RIVERA v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR Nos. 147026-27 2009-09-11	CAROLINA R. JAVIER v. FIRST DIVISION OF SANDIGANBAYAN PERALTA, J.
Before the Court is a petition for certiorari[1] under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Carolina R. Javier in Criminal Case Nos. 25867 and 25898, entitled "People of the Philippines, Plaintiff versus Carolina R. Javier, Accused," seeking to nullify respondent Sandiganbayan's: (1) Order[2] dated November 14, 2000 in Criminal Case No. 25867, which denied her Motion to Quash Information; (2) Resolution[3] dated January 17, 2001 in Criminal Case No. 25898, which denied her Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Quash Information; and (3) Order[4] dated February 12, 2001, declaring that a motion for reconsideration in Criminal Case No. 25898 would be superfluous as the issues are fairly simple and straightforward.
	GR Nos. 147026-27 2009-09-11	CAROLINA R. JAVIER v. FIRST DIVISION OF SANDIGANBAYAN PERALTA, J.
On October 10, 2000, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash Information,[23] averring that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction to hear Criminal Case No. 25867 as the information did not allege that she is a public official who is classified as Grade "27" or higher. Neither did the information charge her as a co-principal, accomplice or accessory to a public officer committing an offense under the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction. She also averred that she is not a public officer or employee and that she belongs to the Governing Board only as a private sector representative under R.A. No. 8047, hence, she may not be charged under R.A. No. 3019 before the Sandiganbayan or under any statute which covers public officials. Moreover, she claimed that she does not perform public functions and is without any administrative or political power to speak of - that she is serving the private book publishing industry by advancing their interest as participant in the government's book development policy.
	GR Nos. 147026-27 2009-09-11	CAROLINA R. JAVIER v. FIRST DIVISION OF SANDIGANBAYAN PERALTA, J.
On February 26, 1996, petitioner was appointed to the Governing Board as a private sector representative for a term of one (1) year.[6] During that time, she was also the President of the Book Suppliers Association of the Philippines (BSAP). She was on a hold-over capacity in the following year. On September 14, 1998, she was again appointed to the same position and for the same period of one (1) year.[7] Part of her functions as a member of the Governing Board is to attend book fairs to establish linkages with international book publishing bodies. On September 29, 1997, she was issued by the Office of the President a travel authority to attend the Madrid International Book Fair in Spain on October 8-12, 1997.[8] Based on her itinerary of travel,[9] she was paid P139,199.00[10] as her travelling expenses.
	GR Nos. 147026-27 2009-09-11	CAROLINA R. JAVIER v. FIRST DIVISION OF SANDIGANBAYAN PERALTA, J.
On February 26, 1996, petitioner was appointed to the Governing Board as a private sector representative for a term of one (1) year.[6] During that time, she was also the President of the Book Suppliers Association of the Philippines (BSAP). She was on a hold-over capacity in the following year. On September 14, 1998, she was again appointed to the same position and for the same period of one (1) year.[7] Part of her functions as a member of the Governing Board is to attend book fairs to establish linkages with international book publishing bodies. On September 29, 1997, she was issued by the Office of the President a travel authority to attend the Madrid International Book Fair in Spain on October 8-12, 1997.[8] Based on her itinerary of travel,[9] she was paid P139,199.00[10] as her travelling expenses.
	GR Nos. 147026-27 2009-09-11	CAROLINA R. JAVIER v. FIRST DIVISION OF SANDIGANBAYAN PERALTA, J.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[16]
	GR No. 178301 2009-04-24	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO 'BOTONG' MALIBIRAN ACCUSED AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Appellant's seeming indifference or lack of emotions cannot be categorically quantified as an indicium of her guilt. There is no hard and fast gauge for measuring a person's reaction or behavior when confronted with a startling, not to mention horrifying, occurrence. It has already been stated that witnesses of startling occurrences react differently depending upon their situation and state of mind, and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience. The workings of the human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable, and people react differently -- some may shout, some may faint and others may be shocked into insensibility.[15]