Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JESSE YOUNG v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 149995 2007-09-28	ISIDRO PABLITO M. PALANA v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, as clarified by Administrative Circular No. 13-2001, the alternative penalty of fine may be imposed in lieu of imprisonment considering that the prosecution failed to prove or allege that petitioner is not a first-time offender.[30] Hence, in lieu of imprisonment, a fine of P200,000.00 shall be imposed upon petitioner.[31]
	GR NO. 144054 2006-06-30	NIEVES A. SAGUIGUIT v. PEOPLE GARCIA, J.
While the decisions of the trial court and that of the CA dated March 16, 1998 and June 28, 2000, respectively, were promulgated before SC Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 and its subsequent clarificatory circular took effect, there is no legal impediment to their application under the premises, favorable as they are to the accused. What is more, the pleadings before us contain no indication that petitioner was a habitual delinquent or recidivist, a circumstance strongly arguing for the application, as we did in Young v. Court of Appeals,[18] of the latest stare decisis towards modifying the penalties imposable herein. In an earlier case likewise on all fours with this case, the Court held:However, in view of [SC] Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, as clarified by Administrative Circular No. 13-2001, establishing a rule of preference in the application of the penalties provided for in B.P. Blg. 22; and the recommendation of the Solicitor General in its Comment that the policy laid down in Vaca vs. Court of Appeals,[19] and Lim vs. People,[20] of redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness, be considered in favor of petitioner who is not shown to be a habitual delinquent or a recidivist, we find that the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals should be modified by deleting the penalty of imprisonment and imposing only a fine of xxx.[21]
	GR NO. 156169 2005-08-12	VICTOR ONGSON v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Recuerdo v. People, and Young v. Court of Appeals,[56] it was held that where there is neither proof nor allegation that the accused is not a first time offender, imposition of the penalty of fine instead of imprisonment is proper. Likewise, in Lee v. Court of Appeals,[57] we ruled that the policy laid down in Vaca v. Court of Appeals,[58] and Lim v. People,[59] of redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness, should be considered in favor of the accused who is not shown to be a habitual delinquent or a recidivist. Said doctrines squarely apply in the instant case there being no proof or allegation that petitioner is not a first time offender.