This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-08-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| By Decision[18] of October 21, 2002, the CA affirmed the twin resolutions of the Secretary of Justice. Citing jurisprudence[19] wherein we ruled that while novation does not extinguish criminal liability, it may prevent the rise of such liability as long as it occurs prior to the filing of the criminal information in court.[20] Hence, according to the CA, "[j]ust as Universal cannot be held responsible under the bills purchase transactions on account of novation, private respondents, who acted in complicity with the former, cannot be made liable [for] the same transactions."[21] The CA added that "[s]ince the dismissal of the complaint is founded on legal ground, public respondents may not be compelled by mandamus to file an information in court."[22] | |||||
|
2007-08-08 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Thus, novation has been invoked to reverse convictions in cases where an underlying contract initially defined the relation of the parties such as the contract in sale on commission in Estafa cases[17] or the contract in sale of goods in cases of violation of the Trust Receipts Law.[18] Further, the party invoking novation must prove that the new contract did indeed take effect.[19] | |||||