This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-04-25 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In more conventional words, this Court sustained the finding of qualified theft in People v. Salonga,[43] where the taking was done through the issuance of a check by the very person responsible for, and in custody of, the said check, viz: The crime charged is Qualified Theft through Falsification of Commercial Document. The information alleged that the accused took P36,480.30 with grave abuse of confidence by forging the signature of officers authorized to sign the subject check and had the check deposited in the account of Firebrake Sales and Services, a fictitious payee without any legitimate transaction with Metrobank. Theft is qualified if it is committed with grave abuse of confidence. The fact that accused-appellant as assistant cashier of Metrobank had custody of the aforesaid checks and had access not only in the preparation but also in the release of Metrobank cashier's checks suffices to designate the crime as qualified theft as he gravely abused the confidence reposed in him by the bank as assistant cashier. x x x (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2002-12-04 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that the foregoing legal formalities required by the fundamental law of the land apply only to extra-judicial confessions or admissions obtained during custodial investigations.[19] Indeed, the rights enumerated in the | |||||