This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-01-25 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Where life or liberty is affected by its proceedings, courts must keep strictly within the limits of the law authorizing them to take jurisdiction and to try the case and render judgment thereon.[1] | |||||
|
2010-12-14 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Appellants, from the start of preliminary investigation, have repeatedly harped on the discrepancies and inconsistencies in Alfaro's first and second affidavits. However, this Court has repeatedly ruled that whenever there is inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight.[118] With greater relevance should this rule apply in situations when a subsequent affidavit of the prosecution witness is intended to amplify and correct inconsistencies with the first affidavit, the discrepancies having been adequately explained. We held in People v. Sanchez[119] | |||||
|
2009-10-09 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Fukuzume v. People,[10] the Court ruled: It is noted that it was only in his petition with the CA that Fukuzume raised the issue of the trial court's jurisdiction over the offense charged. Nonetheless, the rule is settled that an objection based on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the offense charged may be raised or considered motu proprio by the court at any stage of the proceedings or on appeal. Moreover, jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case cannot be conferred upon the court by the accused, by express waiver or otherwise, since such jurisdiction is conferred by the sovereign authority which organized the court, and is given only by law in the manner and form prescribed by law. While an exception to this rule was recognized by this Court beginning with the landmark case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, wherein the defense of lack of jurisdiction by the court which rendered the questioned ruling was considered to be barred by laches, we find that the factual circumstances involved in said case, a civil case, which justified the departure from the general rule are not present in the instant criminal case.[11] | |||||
|
2007-10-17 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| It is doctrinal that in criminal cases, venue is an essential element of jurisdiction;[15] and that the jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information.[16] | |||||
|
2006-11-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| x x x x As correctly enumerated by the CA, the elements of Estafa by means of deceit as defined under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: (1) that there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (2) that such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) that the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and (d) that as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.[11] The CA ruled that the deceit employed by petitioner consisted in his act of pretending "that he had the authority and capability to cover the payment of the realty taxes for he is influential in Las Pinas and has connections with the Assessor's & Treasurer's Offices being an alleged nephew of then incumbent Mayor Casimiro of Las Pinas City." | |||||