Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

YOLANDA GARCIA v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 164800 2009-07-22	REPUBLIC v. ESTATE OF ALFONSO LIM VELASCO JR., J.
Fraud may be defined as the voluntary execution of a wrongful act, or a willful omission, knowing and intending the effects which naturally and necessarily arise from such act or omission.[21] In its general sense, fraud is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts and omissions and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of another.[22] Fraud is also described as embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can device, and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and any unfair way by which another is cheated.[23] Fraudulent, on the other hand, connotes intentionally wrongful, dishonest, or unfair.[24]
	GR No. 176744 2009-06-05	PEOPLE v. ADELADO ANGUAC Y RAGADAO VELASCO JR., J.
In a Decision dated August 29, 2006, the CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC. It, however, treated the crime of rape charged in Criminal Case No. RTC 2757-I as a violation of Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610 instead of Sec. 5(a) as found by the trial court, pursuant to the dictum "the real nature of the crime charged is determined by the facts alleged in the Information and not by the title or designation of the offense contained in the caption of the Information."[7] Monetary awards were likewise modified. The case was disposed of as follows:
	GR No. 163866 2005-07-29	ISIDRO OLIVAREZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
On appeal, the decision of the trial court[8] was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The motion for reconsideration[9] filed by the accused was denied.[10] Hence, this petition for review[11] on the following grounds: The Honorable Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in not holding that the essential elements in Violation of Section 5, Article III of Republic Act 7610, which are age of the offended party and that she is an abused or exploited child as defined in the law, not having been alleged in the Information, petitioner/accused cannot be found guilty of said offense and must be acquitted.
	GR No. 159218 2004-03-30	SALVADOR S. ABUNADO v. PEOPLE YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The real nature of the crime charged is determined by the facts alleged in the Information and not by the title or designation of the offense contained in the caption of the Information. It is fundamental that every element of which the offense is comprised must be alleged in the Information. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be alleged in the Information must be determined by reference to the definition and essential elements of the specific crimes.[10]