Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ZENON R. PEREZ v. PEOPLE and SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 190583 2015-12-07	MARIA PAZ FRONTRERAS Y ILAGAN v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
This is not to promote monetary crisis as an excuse to commit a crime or to embolden a person entrusted with funds or properties to feloniously access the same, but rather to underscore the utmost consideration in the Court's exercise of its discretional power to impose penalties, that is - a guilty person deserves the penalty given the attendant circumstances and commensurate with the gravity of the offense committed.[80] From such standpoint, the Court finds it prudent that unless the foregoing analogous mitigating circumstances are appreciated in her favor, the petitioner will be penalized excessively.
	GR No. 195032 2013-02-20	ISABELO A. BRAZA v. SANDIGANBAYAN MENDOZA, J.
Section 16, Article III of the Constitution declares in no uncertain terms that "[A]ll persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies." The right to a speedy disposition of a case is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays, or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.[37] The constitutional guarantee to a speedy disposition of cases is a relative or flexible concept.[38] It is consistent with delays and depends upon the circumstances. What the Constitution prohibits are unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive delays which render rights nugatory.[39]
	GR No. 158413 2012-02-08	CELSO M. MANUEL v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION) CAN BE SHORTENED TO: MANUEL V. SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION) MENDOZA, J.
It bears stressing that the full restitution of the amount malversed will not in any way exonerate an accused, as payment is not one of the elements of extinction of criminal liability. Under the law, the refund of the sum misappropriated, even before the commencement of the criminal prosecution, does not exempt the guilty person from liability for the crime. At most, then, payment of the amount malversed will only serve as a mitigating circumstance akin to voluntary surrender, as provided for in paragraph 7 of Article 13 in relation to paragraph 10 of the same Article of the Revised Penal Code.[31]
	GR No. 175352 2009-07-15	DANTE V. LIBAN v. RICHARD J. GORDON CARPIO, J.
Just like the Local Water Districts, the PNRC was created through a special charter. However, unlike the Local Water Districts, the elements of government ownership and control are clearly lacking in the PNRC. Thus, although the PNRC is created by a special charter, it cannot be considered a government-owned or controlled corporation in the absence of the essential elements of ownership and control by the government. In creating the PNRC as a corporate entity, Congress was in fact creating a private corporation. However, the constitutional prohibition against the creation of private corporations by special charters provides no exception even for non-profit or charitable corporations. Consequently, the PNRC Charter, insofar as it creates the PNRC as a private corporation and grants it corporate powers,[27] is void for being unconstitutional. Thus, Sections 1,[28] 2,[29] 3,[30] 4(a),[31] 5,[32] 6,[33] 7,[34] 8,[35] 9,[36] 10,[37] 11,[38] 12,[39] and 13[40] of the PNRC Charter, as amended, are void.
	GR No. 166096 2008-09-11	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. RAMON BRIGIDO L. VELASCO REYES, R.T., J.
Perez v. People,[59] is illustrative on this score. Perez, an acting municipal treasurer, submitted two contradicting answers explaining the location of the missing funds under his custody and control: the first, reiterating his previous verbal admission before the audit team that part of the money was used to pay for the loan of his late brother, another portion was spent for the food of his family, and the rest for his medicine; and the second, claiming that the alleged missing amount was in the possession and custody of his accountable personnel at the time of the audit examination.
	GR No. 154155 2008-08-06	OMBUDSMAN v. BEN C. JURADO REYES, R.T., J.
In making a determination of what constitutes a violation of the right to the speedy disposition of cases, this Court has time and again employed the balancing test. The balancing test first adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo[16] was crucial in the Court's resolution of the recent case of Perez v. People:[17]