Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. RODRIGO COLOSO AND ELISA COLOSO v. SECRETARY ERNESTO V. GARILAO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 205610 2014-07-30	PEOPLE v. RAMONITO VILLARTA Y RIVERA PEREZ, J.
Appellant Villarta was charged in three (3) separate Informations,[4] all dated 24 April 2006, for Violation of Sections 5 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs), 11 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and 15 (Illegal Use of Dangerous Drugs), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the accusatory portions of which read: CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14948-D
	GR No. 205610 2014-07-30	PEOPLE v. RAMONITO VILLARTA Y RIVERA PEREZ, J.
Appellant Armenta was charged in two (2) separate Informations,[8] all dated 24 April 2006, for Violation of Sections 11 and 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the accusatory portions of which read: CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14951-D
	GR No. 184056 2012-11-26	PEOPLE v. GEORGE EYAM Y WATANG DEL CASTILLO, J.
After evaluating the evidence for the prosecution and the defense, the trial court, in its Decision[8] dated March 8, 2006, found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of RA No. 9165 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P400,000.00.
	GR No. 185166 2011-01-26	PEOPLE v. MARK LESTER DELA ROSA Y SUELLO PEREZ, J.
In two separate Informations[6] both dated 26 September 2006, appellant Mark Lester Dela Rosa y Suello was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, which were respectively docketed as Criminal Case No. 06-1870 and Criminal Case No. 06-1871. The Informations read as follows: Criminal Case No. 06-1870
	GR No. 170072 2009-09-03	JOAQUIN P. OBIETA v. EDWARD CHEOK CORONA, J.
Unfortunately, the petition cannot be granted. It seeks a review of a matter that has been settled with finality by the trial court. Settled is the rule that once a decision acquires finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable. Thus, despite containing erroneous conclusions of fact or law, it can no longer be modified.[17]
	GR No. 179939 2008-09-29	PEOPLE v. GERALDINE MAGAT Y PADERON TINGA, J.
In a Decision[16] dated 21 February 2006, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the City of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 78 found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5[17] and 11[18] of R.A. No. 9165. Appellant filed a notice of appeal dated 7 March 2006 to the Court of Appeals.[19]
	GR No. 110478 2007-10-15	FERMIN MANAPAT v. CA NACHURA, J.
The CA's ruling on this point is incorrect. R.A. No. 7279 was enacted in 1992, almost two decades after the expropriation cases against the property owners herein were instituted with the RTC in 1977. Nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet, non praeteritis. A new statute should affect the future, not the past. The law looks forward, not backward.[74] Article 4 of the Civil Code even explicitly declares, "(l)aws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided."[75] In these consolidated cases, the Court finds that the language of R.A. No. 7279 does not suggest that the Legislature has intended its provisions to have any retroactive application. On the contrary, Section 49 of the said law indicates that it "shall take effect upon its publication in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation."[76] The law's prospective application being clearly stated, the Court cannot agree with the disposition of the appellate court that the subject lots not exceeding 300 sq m are exempt from expropriation.