Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROLANDO L. BALDERAMA v. PEOPLE and JUAN S. ARMAMENTO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 206866 2015-09-02	PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
As already stated, Apelo was accused of committing the crime of Direct Bribery, which has the following elements: (a) that the accused is a public officer; (b) that he received directly or through another some gift or present, offer or promise; (c) that such gift, present or promise has been given in consideration of his commission of some crime, or any act not constituting a crime, or to refrain from doing something which is his official duty to do; and (d) that the crime or act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public officer.[27] On the other hand, Cu and Zate were accused of committing the crime of Corruption of Public Officials, the elements of which are as follows: (a) that the offender makes offers or promises, or gives gifts or presents to a public officer; and (b) that the offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents are given to a public officer under circumstances that will make the public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery.[28] In addition, all private respondents were charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019. The essential elements of such crime are as follows: (a) that the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions (or a private individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers[29]); (b) that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (c) that his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions.[30]
	GR No. 205561 2014-09-24	DIONISIO B. COLOMA v. SANDIGANBAYAN MENDOZA, J.
Settled is the rule that the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan in cases before this Court are binding and conclusive in the absence of a showing that they come under the established exceptions, such as: (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is a grave abuse of discretion; 4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) said findings of facts are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; and (6) the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are premised on the absence of evidence on record.[8]
	GR No. 168544 2009-03-31	LINDA CADIAO-PALACIOS v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive upon this Court[32] save in the following cases: 1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjecture; 2) the inference made is manifestly an error or founded on a mistake; 3) there is grave abuse of discretion; 4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; 5) the findings of fact are premised on a want of evidence and are contradicted by evidence on record;[33] and 6) said findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based.[34] The instant case does not fall under any of the foregoing exceptions.
	GR Nos. 166086-92 2009-02-13	ELENO T. REGIDOR v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
Likewise, petitioners' reliance on the affidavits of desistance executed by the private complainants fails to impress this Court. Our ruling in Balderama v. People[43] is instructive:A recantation or an affidavit of desistance is viewed with suspicion and reservation. The Court looks with disfavor upon retractions of testimonies previously given in court. It is settled that an affidavit of desistance made by a witness after conviction of the accused is not reliable, and deserves only scant attention. The rationale for the rule is obvious: affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from witnesses, usually through intimidation or for a monetary consideration. Recanted testimony is exceedingly unreliable. There is always the probability that it will later be repudiated. Only when there exist special circumstances in the case which when coupled with the retraction raise doubts as to the truth of the testimony or statement given, can retractions be considered and upheld.
	GR NOS. 156147-54 2007-02-26	CIPRIANO L. LUBRICA v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
Thereafter, all the accused, except petitioner, individually elevated their convictions to us.[6] Consequently, the decision and resolution of the Sandiganbayan became final and executory with respect to petitioner upon the lapse of the appeal period.