Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALICIA F. RICAFORTE v. LEON L. JURADO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 182573 2014-04-23	RAY SHU v. JAIME DEE BRION, J.
In arriving at these conclusions, the city prosecutor already delved into the merits of the respondents' defense. This is contrary to the well-settled rule that the validity and merits of a party's defense and accusation, as well as admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level.[34] The allegations adduced by the prosecution will be put to test in a full-blown trial in which evidence shall be analyzed, weighed, given credence or disproved.[35] The preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence.[36] Simply put, in determining probable cause, the average man weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to the rules of evidence that, as a rule, is outside his technical knowledge.[37]
	GR No. 182573 2014-04-23	RAY SHU v. JAIME DEE BRION, J.
In arriving at these conclusions, the city prosecutor already delved into the merits of the respondents' defense. This is contrary to the well-settled rule that the validity and merits of a party's defense and accusation, as well as admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level.[34] The allegations adduced by the prosecution will be put to test in a full-blown trial in which evidence shall be analyzed, weighed, given credence or disproved.[35] The preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence.[36] Simply put, in determining probable cause, the average man weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to the rules of evidence that, as a rule, is outside his technical knowledge.[37]
	GR No. 179367 2014-01-29	UNILEVER PHILIPPINES v. MICHAEL TAN BRION, J.
The determination of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to believe that it was committed by the accused.[24] It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.[25] What is merely required is "probability of guilt." Its determination, too, does not call for the application of rules or standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits.[26] Thus, in concluding that there is probable cause, it suffices that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the very offense charged.
	GR No. 159186 2009-06-05	JESSE Y. YAP v. MONICO G. CABALES PERALTA, J.
Further, We held in Ricaforte v. Jurado,[27] that:The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check; that is, a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. In Lozano v. Martinez, we have declared that it is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making and circulation of worthless checks. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by the law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order. In People v. Nitafan, we said that a check issued as an evidence of debt - though not intended to be presented for payment - has the same effect as an ordinary check and would fall within the ambit of B.P. Blg. 22.
	GR No. 127327 2009-02-13	LIBERATA AMBITO v. PEOPLE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making or issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. It is not the nonpayment of an obligation which the law punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by the law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order.[25] Thus, the mere act of issuing a worthless check - whether as a deposit, as a guarantee or even as evidence of pre-existing debt - is malum prohibitum.[26]
	GR No. 133608 2008-08-26	TIONG ROSARIO v. ALFONSO CO AZCUNA, J.
Whereas, the gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check; that is, a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment.[41] It is designed to prevent damage to trade, commerce, and banking caused by worthless checks. In Lozano v. Martinez,[42] this Court declared that it is not the nonpayment of an obligation which the law punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making and circulation of worthless checks. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by the law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order. The prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender in order to deter him and others from committing the same or similar offense, to isolate him from society, to reform and rehabilitate him or, in general, to maintain social order.[43] Hence, the criminal prosecution is designed to promote the public welfare by punishing offenders and deterring others.