This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-08-31 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| His action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.[31] | |||||
|
2011-07-06 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In order to hold a person liable under this provision, the following elements must concur: (1) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; (2) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and (3) his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.[26] | |||||
|
2011-06-06 |
VILLARAMA, JR., 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 misapprehension of facts and the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[22] Petitioner failed to establish any of the foregoing exceptional circumstances. | |||||
|
2011-02-14 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Generally, factual findings of the anti-graft court are conclusive upon the Supreme 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 misapprehension of facts and the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by evidence on record.[52] | |||||