This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-01-09 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| (1) that the offender is a public officer, employee or notary public; (2) that he takes advantage of his official position; (3) that he falsifies a document by causing it to appear that a person or persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.[50] | |||||
|
2011-10-19 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Under the equipoise rule, where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses. The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a conviction.[26] Such is not the situation in this case because the prosecution was able to prove by adequate evidence that Disbursing Officer Haron failed to account for funds under his custody and control upon demand, specifically for the P21,045,570.64 illegally withdrawn from the said funds. In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is sufficient proof that the accountable officer had received public funds, that he did not have them in his possession when demand therefor was made, and that he could not satisfactorily explain his failure to do so. Direct evidence of personal misappropriation by the accused is hardly necessary in malversation cases.[27] | |||||
|
2011-02-02 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Second. The Information alleged that Guillergan committed the offense charged by "causing it to appear that persons participated in an act or a proceeding when they did not in fact so participate."[22] In People v. Yanson-Dumancas,[23] the Court held that a person may induce another to commit a crime in two ways: 1) by giving a price or offering a reward or promise; and 2) by using words of command. In this case, the Sandiganbayan found that Guillergan ordered Butcon to sign the "receive" portion of the payrolls as payee to make it appear that persons whose names appeared on the same had signed the document when they in fact did not.[24] | |||||
|
2009-02-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In this case, the petitioners are charged under Article 171, paragraphs 2 and 7 of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioners Regidor and Zapatos, as Mayor, and Member and Temporary Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang Panglungsod, respectively, made it appear that private complainants, among others, participated in the Sangguniang Panglungsod sessions when they did not in fact so participate,[26] and issued, in authenticated forms, the assailed resolutions purporting to be copies of original documents when no such originals exist. | |||||