Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SHEALA P. MATRIDO v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 181111 2015-08-17	JACKSON PADIERNOS Y QUEJADA v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
The well-settled doctrine is that the allegations in the Information determine the nature of the offense, and not the technical name that the public prosecutor assigns in the preamble of the Information. From a legal point of view, and in a very real sense, the accused is not concerned with the technical name of the crime of which he stands charged. It in no way aids him in a defense on the merits. His attention should be directed and his interest should be on the facts alleged. The real question is not "did he commit a crime given in the law with some technical and specific name," but "did he perform the acts alleged in the body of the information in the manner therein set forth."[50]
	GR No. 203466 2015-02-25	CHERRY ANN M. BENABAYE v. PEOPLE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
It bears to stress that a sum of money received by an employee on behalf of an employer is considered to be only in the material possession of the employee.[42] The material possession of an employee is adjunct, by reason of his employment, to a recognition of the juridical possession of the employer. So long as the juridical possession of the thing appropriated did not pass to the employee-perpetrator, the offense committed remains to be theft, qualified or otherwise.[43] Hence, conversion of personal property in the case of an employee having mere material possession of the said property constitutes theft, whereas in the case of an agent to whom both material and juridical possession have been transferred, misappropriation of the same property constitutes Estafa.[44]
	GR No. 204025 2014-11-26	MARIA LINA S. VELAYO v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
To reiterate then, it is well-settled that when the money, goods, or any other personal property is received by the offender from the offended party in trust or on commission or for administration, the offender acquires both material or physical possession and juridical possession of the thing received.[29]
	GR No. 202243 2013-08-07	ROMULO L. NERI v. SANDIGANBAYAN VELASCO JR., J.
From a legal point of view, and in a very real sense, it is of no concern to the accused what is the technical name of the crime of which he stands charged. It in no way aids him in a defense on the merits. That to which his attention should be directed, and in which he, above all things else, should be most interested, are the facts alleged. The real question is not did he commit the crime given in the law in some technical and specific name, but did he perform the acts alleged in the body of the information in the manner therein set forth.[27] (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 170863 2013-03-20	ENGR. ANT V. ZAPANTA v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
The elements of qualified theft, punishable under Article 310 in relation to Articles 308 and 309 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), are: (a) the taking of personal property; (b) the said property belongs to another; (c) the said taking be done with intent to gain; (d) it be done without the owner's consent; (e) it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things; and (f) it be done under any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the RPC, i.e., with grave abuse of confidence.[18]
	GR No. 193250 2012-04-25	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. AMELIO TRIA VELASCO JR., J.
The third element, intent to gain or animus lucrandi, is an internal act that is presumed from the unlawful taking by the offender of the thing subject of asportation.[37] This element is immediately discernable from the circumstances narrated in the affidavits submitted by PNB's employees. In particular, it is plain from Tria's misrepresentation that the person he called Atty. Reyes was a valued client of PNB-MWSS who was authorized to encash the manager's check and his act of revising his functions as stated in the Minutes of the Meeting referred to by Veniegas to make it appear that he had been tasked with "accompanying valued client/clients to QC Circle Branch for encashment of MCs merely to identify the bearer/payee and confirmation of the MC whenever we are short in cash."
	GR No. 193479 2011-10-19	PEOPLE v. BERNARD G. MIRTO VELASCO JR., J.
The duty to collect payments is imposed on accused-appellant because of his position as Branch Manager. Because of this employer-employee relationship, he cannot be considered an agent of UCC and is not covered by the Civil Code provisions on agency. Money received by an employee in behalf of his or her employer is considered to be only in the material possession of the employee.[33]
	GR No. 179033 2010-09-06	PEOPLE v. FELICIANO ANABE Y CAPILLAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
As defined, theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, but without violence against, or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take the personal property of another without the latter's consent.[39] Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act that is presumed from the unlawful taking by the offender of the thing subject of asportation.[40]
	GR No. 165582 2010-07-09	LUIS CHITO BUENSOCESO LOZANO v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
As defined, theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, but without violence against, or intimidation of persons or force upon things, shall take the personal property of another without the latter's consent. If committed with grave abuse of confidence, the crime of theft becomes qualified.[18]