Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. VS.

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 158312 2008-11-14	JOHN DY v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
Under Section 1[46] of P.D. No. 818, if the amount of the fraud exceeds P22,000, the penalty of reclusión temporal is imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional P10,000 but the total penalty shall not exceed thirty (30) years, which shall be termed reclusión perpetua.[47] Reclusión perpetua is not the prescribed penalty for the offense, but merely describes the penalty actually imposed on account of the amount of the fraud involved.
	GR NO. 158064 2005-06-30	PEOPLE v. HU RUEY CHUN CALLEJO, SR., J.
On August 23, 2002, Hu filed a motion for the reconsideration of the said order, contending that DOJ Department Circular No. 74 should be applied. He pointed out that the recommended bail in the said circular was based on the ruling of this Court in People v. Hernando.[10]
	GR No. 144785 2003-09-11	YOLANDA GARCIA v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Fraud, in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidences justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of another. It is a generic term embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can device, and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any unfair way by which another is cheated. Deceit is a specie of fraud.[12]
	GR No. 144785 2003-09-11	YOLANDA GARCIA v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, if the offense is punished by the Revised Penal Code, such as estafa, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum term of which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense. The penalty next lower should be based on the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense, without first considering any modifying circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime. The determination of the minimum penalty is left by law to the sound discretion of the court and it can be anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower without any reference to the periods into which it might be subdivided. The modifying circumstances are considered only in the imposition of the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.[15]
	GR No. 133028 2000-07-10	PEOPLE v. MEYNARD PANGANIBAN GONZAGA-REYES, J.
xxx As used in Presidential Decree No. 818, reclusion perpetua is not the prescribed penalty for the offense, but merely describes the penalty actually imposed on account of the amount of the fraud involved, which exceeds P22,000.00.[24] People vs. Hernando, G.R. No. 125214, promulgated October 28, 1999, summarizes the rules in determining the imposable penalty in such cases:Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, if the offense is punished by the Revised Penal Code, such as estafa, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum term of which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense.[25] The penalty next lower should be based on the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense, without first considering any modifying circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime. The determination of the minimum penalty is left by law to the sound discretion of the court and it can be anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower without any reference to the periods into which it might be subdivided. The modifying circumstances are considered only in the imposition of the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.[26] Applying the above rules to the instant case, accused-appellant shall suffer an indeterminate sentence, the maximum of which shall be reclusion temporal in its maximum period, plus one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00 of the amount of the fraud, but the total penalty shall not exceed thirty (30) years. The minimum of this indeterminate sentence shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense. Such penalty is prision mayor, with a duration of six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years.[27] In accord with standing jurisprudence[28], we fix the minimum period of the indeterminate sentence in the herein case at twelve (12) years.