Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ZENAIDA V. SAZON v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 209845 2015-07-01	MELCHOR G. MADERAZO v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
Well-entrenched is the rule that factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive upon this Court, except where: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjectures; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; and (6) the findings of fact are premised on an absence of evidence on record.[8]
	GR No. 181354 2013-02-27	SIMON A. FLORES v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
The issue of whether Flores indeed acted in self-defense is basically a question of fact. In appeals to this Court, only questions of law may be raised and not issues of fact. The factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are, thus, binding upon this Court.[28] This Court, nevertheless, finds no reason to disturb the finding of the Sandiganbayan that Flores utterly failed to prove the existence of self-defense.
	GR No. 181902 2011-08-31	PEOPLE v. EDGAR EVANGELIO Y GALLO PERALTA, J.
In this case, the prosecution established that appellant and his three co-accused took the pieces of jewelry and valuables of the spouses BBB and CCC by means of violence and intimidation. Appellant and his co-accused barged into the house of the victims armed with a handgun and knives and tied the hands and feet of the members of the household. The perpetrators then asked for the location of the pieces of jewelry and valuables. BBB was also tied and was struck in the head with a gun causing him to fall face down on the floor with blood oozing from his left eyebrow. He was able to see the perpetrators going out of the house carrying bags and the jewelry box of his wife. Intent to gain, or animus lucrandi, as an element of the crime of robbery, is an internal act; hence, presumed from the unlawful taking of things.[17] Having established that the personal properties of the victims were unlawfully taken by the appellant, intent to gain was sufficiently proven. Thus, the first three elements of the crime were clearly established.