This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-07-25 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| This CA ruling in the Administrative Case which had already attained its finality on November 30, 2004"[22] has effectively and decisively determined the issue of malice in the present petition. We see no cogent reason why this Court should not be bound by it. In Constantino v. Sandiganbayan (First Division)[23] the Court ruled: Although the instant case involves a criminal charge whereas Constantino involved an administrative charge, still the findings in the latter case are binding herein because the same set of facts are the subject of both cases. What is decisive is that the issues already litigated in a final and executory judgment preclude by the principle of bar by prior judgment, an aspect of the doctrine of res judicata. and even under the doctrine of "law of the case," the re-litigation of the same issue in another action. It is well established that when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, so long as it remains unreversed. it should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them. The dictum therein laid down became the law of the case and what was once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision continues to be binding between the same parties as long as the facts on which the decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court. Hence, the binding effect and enforceability of that dictum can no longer be resurrected anew since such issue had already been resolved and finally laid to rest, if not by the principle of res judicata. at least by conclusiveness of judgment. (Citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2012-07-18 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do wrong or cause damage.[65] Mere bad faith or partiality and negligence per se are not enough for one to be held liable under the law since the act of bad faith or partiality must in the first place be evident or manifest, respectively, while the negligent deed should both be gross and inexcusable.[66] Negligence consists in the disregard of some duty imposed by law; a failure to comply with some duty of care owed by one to another.[67] Negligence is want of care required by the circumstances. It is a relative or comparative, not an absolute term and its application depends upon the situation of the parties, and the degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably impose.[68] | |||||
|
2010-04-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Contrary to the argument of petitioners, there is no substituted information. The Information dated August 17, 2007 filed in Criminal Case No. SB-08 CRM 0263 charged the same offense, that is, violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. Only the mode of commission was modified. While jurisprudence, the most recent being Talaga, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,[17] provides that there are two (2) acts or modes of committing the offense, thus: a) by causing any undue injury to any party, including the government; or b) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference, it does not mean that each act or mode constitutes a distinct offense. An accused may be charged under either mode[18] or under both should both modes concur.[19] | |||||
|
2010-04-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Contrary to the argument of petitioners, there is no substituted information. The Information dated August 17, 2007 filed in Criminal Case No. SB-08 CRM 0263 charged the same offense, that is, violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. Only the mode of commission was modified. While jurisprudence, the most recent being Talaga, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,[17] provides that there are two (2) acts or modes of committing the offense, thus: a) by causing any undue injury to any party, including the government; or b) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference, it does not mean that each act or mode constitutes a distinct offense. An accused may be charged under either mode[18] or under both should both modes concur.[19] | |||||
|
2009-07-13 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The only difference is that the instant case is a criminal case whereas the case in Smith Bell was a civil case. However, the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment also applies in criminal cases. As we declared in Constantino v. Sandiganbayan (First Division):[22] | |||||