Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VICTOR ONGSON v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 197472 2015-09-07	REPUBLIC v. REV. CLAUDIO R. CORTEZ DEL CASTILLO, J.
Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution, as well as Section 1 of Rule 36 and Section 1, Rule 120 of the Rules on Civil Procedure, similarly state that a decision, judgment or final order determining the merits of the case shall state, clearly and distinctly, the facts and the law on which it is based. Pertinently, the Court issued on January 28, 1988 Administrative Circular No. 1, which requires judges to make complete findings of facts in their decision, and scrutinize closely the legal aspects of the case in the light of the evidence presented, and avoid the tendency to generalize and to form conclusion without detailing the facts from which such conclusions are deduced.[33]
	GR NO. 145006 2006-08-30	DAVID TAN v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The elements of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. Blg. 22) are: (1) making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply on account or for value; (2) knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.[15]
	GR NO. 168486 2006-06-27	NOE S. ANDAYA v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Thus, in Alonto v. People,[37] Dico v. Court of Appeals[38] and Ongson v. People,[39] we acquitted the accused for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 ("The Bouncing Checks Law") because there was a variance between the identity and date of issuance of the check alleged in the information and the check proved by the prosecution during trial: This Court notes, however, that under the third count, the information alleged that petitioner issued a check dated May 14, 1992 whereas the documentary evidence presented and duly marked as Exhibit "I" was BPI Check No. 831258 in the amount of P25,000 dated April 5, 1992. Prosecution witness Fernando Sardes confirmed petitioner's issuance of the three BPI checks (Exhibits "G," "H," and "I"), but categorically stated that the third check (BPI Check No. 831258) was dated May 14, 1992, which was contrary to that testified to by private complainant Violeta Tizon, i.e., BPI check No. 831258 dated April 5, 1992. In view of this variance, the conviction of petitioner on the third count (Criminal Case No. Q-93-41751) cannot be sustained. It is on this ground that petitioner's fourth assignment of error is tenable, in that the prosecution's exhibit, i.e., Exhibit "I" (BPI Check No. 831258 dated April 5, 1992 in the amount of P25,000) is excluded by the law and the rules on evidence. Since the identity of the check enters into the first essential element of the offense under Section 1 of B.P. 22, that is, that a person makes, draws or issues a check on account or for value, and the date thereof involves its second element, namely, that at the time of issue the maker, drawer or issuer knew that he or she did not have sufficient funds to cover the same, there is a violation of petitioner's constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the offense charged in view of the aforesaid variance, thereby rendering the conviction for the third count fatally defective.[40] (Underscoring supplied) Similarly, in the case of Burgos v. Sandiganbayan,[41] we upheld the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the accusation against him in a case involving a variance between the means of committing the violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 alleged in the information and the means found by the Sandiganbayan: Common and foremost among the issues raised by petitioners is the argument that the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting them on a finding of fact that was not alleged in the information. They contend that the information charged them with having allowed payment of P83,850 to Ricardo Castañeda despite being aware and knowing fully well that the surveying instruments were not actually repaired and rendered functional/operational. However, their conviction by the Sandiganbayan was based on the finding that the surveying instruments were not repaired in accordance with the specifications contained in the job orders.