This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2007-04-02 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Arias and the subsequent case of Magsuci v. Sandiganbayan[48] were held inapplicable in Escara v. People[49] because the person indicted therein had foreknowledge of the existence of an anomaly that should have put him on guard regarding the transaction. | |||||
|
2007-03-22 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In appeals to this Court from the Sandiganbayan, only questions of law may be raised, not issues of fact.[15] The factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are binding upon this Court. Admittedly, this general rule is subject to some exceptions, among them are: (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise or conjecture; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the lower court or agency; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) said findings of facts are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; and (6) the findings of fact by the Sandiganbayan are premised on the absence of evidence on record.[16] However, petitioners failed to establish any of these exceptional circumstances. | |||||
|
2007-03-06 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The penalty for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as provided under Section 9 of the same law, is imprisonment for not less than six years and one month nor more than 15 years, perpetual disqualification from public office, and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the Government of any prohibited interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to the salary and other lawful income of the accused. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, if the offense is punished by special law, the Court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum term shall not be less than the minimum prescribed by the same.[48] In the present case, the Court finds no error in the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan, except that the penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office should also be imposed. | |||||
|
2006-11-24 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| 4.) His action caused undue injury to the Government or any private party, or gave any party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to such parties. [10] | |||||
|
2005-08-28 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Facing imminent danger, the policemen had to act swiftly. Time was of the essence. It would have been foolhardy for the policemen to assume that Valino grabbed the M16 Armalite merely as a souvenir of a successful escape. As we have pointed out in Pomoy v. People[23]:Again, it was in the lawful performance of his duty as a law enforcer that petitioner tried to defend his possession of the weapon when the victim suddenly tried to remove it from his holster. As an enforcer of the law, petitioner was duty-bound to prevent the snatching of his service weapon by anyone, especially by a detained person in his custody. Such weapon was likely to be used to facilitate escape and to kill or maim persons in the vicinity, including petitioner himself. | |||||
|
2005-07-28 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Facing imminent danger, the policemen had to act swiftly. Time was of the essence. It would have been foolhardy for the policemen to assume that Valino grabbed the M16 Armalite merely as a souvenir of a successful escape. As we have pointed out in Pomoy v. People[23]:Again, it was in the lawful performance of his duty as a law enforcer that petitioner tried to defend his possession of the weapon when the victim suddenly tried to remove it from his holster. As an enforcer of the law, petitioner was duty-bound to prevent the snatching of his service weapon by anyone, especially by a detained person in his custody. Such weapon was likely to be used to facilitate escape and to kill or maim persons in the vicinity, including petitioner himself. | |||||