This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-04-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| To bolster their claim for a reinvestigation of the offense, petitioners cited the case of Matalam v. Sandiganbayan. [22] The same is inapplicable to petitioners' case. In Matalam, there was indeed a substantial amendment which entitled the accused to another preliminary investigation. The recital of facts constituting the offense charged therein was definitely altered. In the original information, the prohibited act allegedly committed by the petitioner was the illegal and unjustifiable refusal to pay the monetary claims of the private complainants, whereas in the amended information, it is the illegal dismissal from the service of the private complainants. In the case at bar, there is no substantial amendment to speak of. As discussed previously, the Information in Criminal Case No. 26319 was already dismissed by the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan in view of the petitioners' Motion to Quash. As such, there is nothing more to be amended. | |||||
|
2005-06-30 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In this case, the respondent was charged with qualified theft of P762,076.35. In People v. Cañales,[31] the Court ruled that the penalty for qualified theft under Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code, taking into account the value of the property stolen, is reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalty of death, with no possibility of pardon before the lapse of forty years:We now come to the correctness of the penalty imposed by the respondent court. We quote the well-researched disquisition of the appellate court, viz.: | |||||