This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-04-11 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| (a) That the offender received money, goods or other personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same; (b) That the offender misappropriated or converted such money, goods or other personal property, or denied his part in its receipt; (c) That the misappropriation or conversion or denial was to the prejudice of another; and (d) That the offended party made a demand on the offender for the delivery or return of such money, goods or other personal property.[12] | |||||
|
2010-04-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| With regard to the failure of the RTC to consider the fact that petitioner's outstanding receivables are sufficient to cover his indebtedness and that no written demand was made upon him hence his obligation has not yet become due and demandable, the CA stated that the mere query as to the whereabouts of the goods and/or money is tantamount to a demand.[9] | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| In the second place, in applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the court shall fix minimum and maximum penalties.[21] If the offense is punished by the Revised Penal Code, as in this case, 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.[22] The court shall fix the minimum penalty within the number of months or years covered by the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed by the Code for the offense without regard to any modifying circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime.[23] The court has the unqualified discretion to fix the term of the minimum penalty.[24] The only limitation is that it must be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense committed, without regard to its three (3) periods[25] or reference to the degrees into which it may be subdivided.[26] Then, the court shall fix the maximum period. In doing so, the court shall now consider the attending circumstances, finding whether any modifying circumstance attended the commission of the crime. In this case, there was no modifying circumstance, hence, the maximum penalty imposable must be within the range of the medium period of the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense.[27] The penalty prescribed by law for serious slander by deed under Article 359 of the Revised Penal Code is arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum or four (4) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months or a fine ranging from P200.00 to P1,000.00. The penalty next lower in degree is arresto mayor minimum and medium periods, or one (1) month and one (1) day to four (4) months. Consequently, the minimum shall be taken from any of its periods, but must be definite, say, one (1) month and one (1) day, as minimum. The maximum shall be taken from the medium period of the prescribed penalty, that is, within the range of one (1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional but also a specific, definite, fixed period, say, one (1) year and one (1) day, as maximum. Notice that the trial court imposed five months of arresto mayor as minimum, exceeding the range provided by law. However, the minimum fixed by the Court of Appeals was correct, that is, one (1) month and one (1) day of arresto mayor. The maximum fixed by the trial court of two (2) years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days was wrong as it exceeded the prescribed range because that period is within the maximum of the penalty prescribed by the Code, which could not be imposed in the absence of any aggravating circumstance. The maximum penalty fixed by the Court of Appeals (two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional) was also wrong because it exceeded the range of the medium period of the prescribed penalty. | |||||