Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BLAS BALDEBRIN v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 164891 2011-06-06	VIRGINIA M. GUADINES v. SANDIGANBAYAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
When the defendants by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part, and the other performing another part so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts though apparently independent, were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments, the court will be justified in concluding that said defendants were engaged in a conspiracy. [36] In this case, the finding of conspiracy was well-supported by evidence.
	GR No. 146949 2009-02-13	NARCISO C. LOGUINSA v. SANDIGANBAYAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In appeals to this Court from the Sandiganbayan, only questions of law may be raised, not issues of fact. 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.[13]
	GR No. 150873 2009-02-10	ZENAIDA V. SAZON v. SANDIGANBAYAN NACHURA, J.
In appeals to this Court from the Sandiganbayan, only questions of law may be raised, not issues of fact. The factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are binding upon this Court.[31] The Supreme Court should not be burdened with the task of re-examining the evidence presented during the trial of the case. This rule, however, admits of exceptions, to wit: 1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise or conjectures; 2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; 3) there is 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 fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; and 6) the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are premised on an absence of evidence on record.[32] However, we find no reason to disturb the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan, as none of these exceptions is present in this case.