Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BERNARDO B. RESOSO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR Nos. 195011-19 2013-09-30	GREGORIO SINGIAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
Based on the foregoing, we find no showing that "the conclusions made by the [Sandiganbayan] on the sufficiency of the evidence of the prosecution at the time the prosecution rested its case, [were] manifestly mistaken."[52] The Sandiganbayan did not exercise its judgment in a whimsical or capricious manner. As we aptly held:Given the sufficiency of the testimonial and documentary evidence against petitioner, it would, therefore, be premature at this stage of the proceedings to conclude that the prosecution's evidence failed to establish petitioner's participation in the alleged conspiracy to commit the crime. Likewise, the Court cannot, at this point, make a categorical pronouncement that the guilt of the petitioner has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. As there is competent and sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment for the crime charged, it behooves petitioner to adduce evidence on his behalf to controvert the asseverations of the prosecution. Withal, respondent court did not gravely abuse its discretion when it found that there was a prima facie case against petitioner warranting his having to go forward with his defensive evidence.
	GR No. 149152 2007-02-02	RUFINO S. MAMANGUN v. PEOPLE GARCIA, J.
Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive upon the Court except where: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts and the findings of fact are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[5] None of these exceptions obtains in this case.
	GR NO. 140954 2005-04-12	HEIRS OF BERTULDO HINOG: BERTULDO HINOG II v. ACHILLES MELICOR AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Moreover, the remedy against an interlocutory order is generally not to resort forthwith to certiorari, but to continue with the case in due course and, when an unfavorable verdict is handed down, to take an appeal in the manner authorized by law.[43] Only when the court issued such order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief will certiorari be considered an appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order.[44] Such special circumstances are absolutely wanting in the present case.
	GR No. 153686 2003-07-22	LEANDRO A. SULLER v. SANDIGANBAYAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is a well-entrenched rule that factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive upon the Supreme Court except where: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjectures; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts and the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by evidence on record.[15] None of the above exceptions obtains in this case.
	GR No. 128606 2000-12-04	REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the final analysis, the resolution of this case hinges on questions of fact. It is axiomatic that factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive on the Supreme Court.[23] None of the exceptions to this rule[24] is present in this case.