This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-02-12 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| When CJ Panganiban reached the compulsory age of retirement on December 7, 2006, he was credited with eleven (11) years, one (1) month and twenty-seven (27) days or 11.15844 years of government service. The Office of Administrative Services (OAS) did not include in the computation his 4-year service as Legal Counsel to the DepEd and its then Secretary, Alejandro R. Roces (Former Education Secretary Roces), and as Consultant to the BNE in a concurrent capacity, from January 1962 to December 1965, on the ground that consultancy "is not considered government service pursuant to Rule XI (Contract of Services/Job Orders) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292."[1] Having failed to meet the twenty (20) years length of service then required under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 910,[2] the OAS considered him eligible to receive only the 5-year lump sum payment under said law. | |||||
|
2011-06-06 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| a) the offender is a public officer; b) the accused takes advantage of his official position; c) accused knows that what he imputes is false; d) the falsity involves a material fact; e) there is a legal obligation for him to narrate the truth; f) and such untruthful statements are not contained in an affidavit or a statement required by law to be sworn in. [38] | |||||
|
2010-03-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The Sandiganbayan faulted petitioner for immediately encashing the check, insisting that she should have deposited the check first. Such insistence is unacceptable. It defies logic. The check was issued in petitioner's name and, as payee, she had the authority to encash it. The Disbursement Voucher (No. 101-2002-01-822) clearly states that she is the WIP treasurer, and the purpose of the voucher is "to cash advance financial assistance from grants and donations for Winds Malugon, Sarangani as per supporting papers hereto attached." Petitioner's action cannot, in itself, be considered as specious. There was no showing that petitioner had foreknowledge of any irregularity committed in the processing and disbursement of the check,[12] or that the COA Rules required that the check had to be deposited in the bank first, or that an evaluation report from the provincial agriculturist had to be submitted. Evil intent must unite with the unlawful act for a crime to exist. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. There can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting. As a general rule, ignorance or mistake as to particular facts, honest and real, will exempt the doer from felonious responsibility.[13] | |||||
|
2004-12-17 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| Conspiracy must be established separately from the crime itself and must meet the same degree of proof, i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt. While conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence, for it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, all taken together, the evidence must reasonably be strong enough to show community of criminal design.[27] | |||||
|
2003-07-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| To be sure, an oath of office is a qualifying requirement for a public office; a prerequisite to the full investiture with the office. It is only when the public officer has satisfied the prerequisite of oath that his right to enter into the position becomes plenary and complete.[33] However, once proclaimed and duly sworn in office, a public officer is entitled to assume office and to exercise the functions thereof. The pendency of an election protest is not sufficient basis to enjoin him from assuming office or from discharging his functions.[34] Unless his election is annulled by a final and executory decision,[35] or a valid execution of an order unseating him pending appeal is issued, he has the lawful right to assume and perform the duties of the office to which he has been elected. | |||||