This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-01-07 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Displeased with the RTC's May 7, 2002 Order, petitioner elevated the matter to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari[23] under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. On August 5, 2003, the CA rendered a Decision[24] declaring that the RTC exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding the 5% monthly interest but at the same time pronouncing that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in subsequently reducing the rate of interest to 12% per annum. In so ruling, the CA ratiocinated: Indeed, We are convinced that the Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction when it granted 5% monthly interest instead of the 12% per annum prayed for in the complaint. However, the proper remedy is not to amend the judgment but to declare that portion as a nullity. Void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation (Leonor vs. CA, 256 SCRA 69). No legal rights can emanate from a resolution that is null and void (Fortich vs. Corona, 312 SCRA 751). | |||||
|
2011-11-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| This Court has held that to justify conviction for malversation of public funds or property, the prosecution has only to prove that the accused received public funds or property and that he could not account for them, or did not have them in his possession and could not give a reasonable excuse for their disappearance. An accountable public officer may be convicted of malversation even if there is no direct evidence of misappropriation, and the only evidence is that there is a shortage in his accounts which he has not been able to satisfactorily explain.[38] | |||||
|
2011-08-31 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| An accountable public officer, within the purview of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, is one who has custody or control of public funds or property by reason of the duties of his office.[21] The nature of the duties of the public officer or employee, the fact that as part of his duties he received public money for which he is bound to account and failed to account for it, is the factor which determines whether or not malversation is committed by the accused public officer or employee. Hence, a school principal of a public high school, such as petitioner, may be held guilty of malversation if he or she is entrusted with public funds and misappropriates the same. | |||||
|
2009-08-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners made an issue of the affidavit of recantation repudiating the earlier one laying the blame on them. The affidavit of recantation executed by a witness prior to the trial cannot prevail over the testimony made during the trial.[17] Jovencio effectively repudiated the contents of the affidavit of recantation. The recantation would hardly suffice to overturn the trial court's finding of guilt, which was based on a clear and convincing testimony given during a full-blown trial. As held by this Court, an affidavit of recantation, being usually taken ex parte, would be considered inferior to the testimony given in open court.[18] A recantation is exceedingly unreliable, inasmuch as it is easily secured from a poor and ignorant witness, usually through intimidation or for monetary consideration.[19] Considering the age, the social standing and the economic status of witness Jovencio, it is not far-fetched that the combination of these factors impelled him to affix his signature to the recanting affidavit. Besides, Jovencio explained why he executed the second affidavit or the affidavit of recantation, which supposedly exonerated petitioners. He had been threatened by a certain Wilson, who was a relative of petitioners. Jovencio testified: Q: Alright, in Exh. C specifically C-1, you mentioned that, you said that somebody fetched me in the evening of May 7, 1999 who told me that Rey Andrade wanted to talk to me regarding the incident, who was that somebody who fetched you in the house? | |||||