This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-07-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Subsequently, petitioners wrote a letter[11] dated July 29, 1998 addressed to Portes requesting for the processing of their HSDC gratuity pay. Attached in their letter were OGCC Opinion No. 078 and a letter[12] from the Presidential Management Staff (PMS), dated June 29, 1998, concurring with the OGCC's opinion. | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| and that I am not registered as a voter in any other precinct."[27] Petitioners cannot be said to have been denied due process on the claim that the election offenses charged against them by private respondent are entirely different from those for which they stand to be accused of before the RTC, as charged by the COMELEC. In the first place, there appears to be no incongruity between the charges as contained in the Complaint-Affidavit and the Informations filed before the RTC, notwithstanding the denomination by private respondent of the alleged violations to be covered by Section 261(y)(2) and Section 261(y)(5) of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 12 of Republic Act No. 8189. Evidently, the Informations directed to be filed by the COMELEC against petitioners, and which were, in fact, filed with the RTC, were based on the same set of facts as originally alleged in the private respondent's Complaint-Affidavit. | |||||
|
2001-10-02 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The absence of proof that petitioner received any notice informing her of the fact that her checks were dishonored and giving her five banking days within which to make arrangements for payment of the said checks prevents the application of the disputable presumption that she had knowledge of the insufficiency of her funds at the time she issued the checks. Absent such presumption, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that petitioner had knowledge of the insufficiency of her funds when she issued the said checks, otherwise, she cannot be held liable under the law.[17] | |||||