Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR Nos. 137355-58 2007-09-25	EUGENIO U. CABALLERO v. SANDIGANBAYAN GARCIA, J.
Under settled jurisprudence,[14] the following elements need to be proven in order to constitute a violation of Section 3(h) of RA No. 3019: The accused is a public officer;
	GR NO. 171396 2006-05-03	PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
(3) Lim v. Executive Secretary,[54] while the Court noted that the petitioners may not file suit in their capacity as taxpayers absent a showing that "Balikatan 02-01" involves the exercise of Congress' taxing or spending powers, it reiterated its ruling in Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora,[55] that in cases of transcendental importance, the cases must be settled promptly and definitely and standing requirements may be relaxed.
	GR NO. 149175 2005-10-25	JAIME H. DOMINGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN AZCUNA, J.
The essential elements of the violation of said provision are as follows: 1) The accused is a public officer; 2) he has a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction; 3) he either: a) intervenes or takes part in his official capacity in connection with such interest, or b) is prohibited from having such interest by the Constitution or by law.[28]