This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2003-08-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In his Comment/Answer[13] filed on November 17, 1998, respondent Lopez denies committing any fraud, misconduct, or breach of duty to the court, and asserts he acted in good faith. According to him, what complainant Rosalina Biascan reported in her Inventory and Appraisal report was a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 24127 and not the Sampaloc property covered by TCT No. 34127. Also, his acquisition of subject property and the resulting issuance of TCT No. 193790 in his name was valid because the land was payment for his legal services under a valid contingent fee contract. Respondent claims that Maria Manuel Biascan offered to pay him 35% of the area of TCT No. 155384 for his legal services. Since there was no notice of lis pendens on TCT No. 155384, he accepted the offer and the Deed of Assignment was executed between them.[14] | |||||
|
2003-04-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Clearly, therefore, appellants cannot dictate upon the trial court which aspects of the judgment of conviction should be reviewed. Having filed a timely motion for reconsideration asking the court to acquit, or in the alternative, convict them of the lesser offense of homicide, appellants waived the defense of double jeopardy and effectively placed the evidence taken at the trial open for the review of the trial court. HHAt any rate, the issue of the attendant qualifying circumstance in the case at bar was squarely raised by the appellants in their alternative prayer for conviction for the lesser offense of homicide in view of the erroneous appreciation of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength which was not alleged in the information. Hence, the court a quo is not only empowered but also under obligation to rectify its mistake in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength instead of treachery. Verily, it is precluded from considering the attendance of a qualifying circumstance if the complaint or information did not allege such facts.[34] Even before the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure[35] took effect on December 1, 2000, qualifying circumstances were required to be so specified in the complaint or information, otherwise they cannot be appreciated against the accused. | |||||
|
2000-02-01 |
PURISIMA, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, where there is no evidence to indicate that the witness against the appellant has been actuated by an improper motive, and absent any compelling reason to conclude otherwise, the testimony of the witness should be given full faith and credit[6] for it is inconceivable for such a witness to openly concoct a story that would send an innocent man to jail, let alone, to the gallows or lethal injection chambers.[7] | |||||