This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-09-18 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners further assert that the policy guidelines are invalid for having been applied retroactively. According to petitioners, the ERC applied the policy guidelines to periods of PPA implementation prior to the issuance of its 14 January 2005 Order.[101] In Republic v. Sandiganbayan,[102] this Court recognized the basic rule "that no statute, decree, ordinance, rule or regulation (or even policy) shall be given retrospective effect unless explicitly stated so."[103] A law is retrospective if it "takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation and imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect of transactions or consideration already past."[104] | |||||
|
2010-01-19 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Moreover, as the lower court noted, it is improbable that the police fabricated Aleman's confession and just forced him to sign it. The confession has details that only the person who committed the crime could have possibly known.[12] What is more, accused Datulayta's confession corroborate that of Aleman in important details. Under the doctrine of interlocking confessions, such corroboration is circumstantial evidence against the person implicated in it.[13] | |||||
|
2008-10-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Even though Pancho, Jr., Dequillo and Romeo did not participate in the actual abduction of the victim, they should still be held liable, as the courts below did, because of the existence of conspiracy. Conspiracy is a unity of purpose and intention in the commission of a crime.[26] Where conspiracy is established, the precise modality or extent of participation of each individual conspirator becomes secondary since the act of one is the act of all.[27] The degree of actual participation in the commission of the crime is immaterial. | |||||
|
2008-02-12 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| More than that, petitioner's first Answer may be taken against him, as he executed it in the course of the administrative proceedings below. This is pursuant to Rule 130, Section 26 of the Rules of Court which provides that the "act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given against him." In People v. Lising,[41] the Court held:Extrajudicial statements are as a rule, admissible as against their respective declarants, pursuant to the rule that the act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given against him. This is based upon the presumption that no man would declare anything against himself, unless such declarations were true. A man's act, conduct and declarations wherever made, provided they be voluntary, are admissible against him, for the reason that it is fair to presume that they correspond with the truth and it is his fault if they are not. | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| With regard to the supposed deficiency in Laila's sworn statement, we have frequently observed that a sworn statement or an affidavit does not purport to be a complete compendium of the details of the event narrated by the affiant.[21] Being taken ex parte, a sworn statement is almost always incomplete and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestion or for want of suggestions and inquiries.[22] While her sworn statement may have been scanty on details, Laila testified sufficiently on relevant matters on the stand. She testified that she not only saw Abelardo and his companion, whom she later identified in court as the accused-appellant Porferio Esguerra, walking towards Prudencio's house; she also recounted seeing Porferio enter Prudencio's house and fire successive shots at Prudencio.[23] | |||||