Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ELVIRA AGULLO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 209464 2015-07-01	DANDY L. DUNGO v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
The petitioners attempted to attack the constitutionality of Section 4 of R.A. No. 8049 before the CA, but did not succeed. "[A] finding of prima facie evidence x x x does not shatter the presumptive innocence the accused enjoys because, before prima facie evidence arises, certain facts have still to be proved; the trial court cannot depend alone on such evidence, because precisely, it is merely prima facie. It must still satisfy that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. Neither can it rely on the weak defense the latter may adduce."[100]
	GR Nos. 163972-77 2008-03-28	JOSELITO RANIERO J. DAAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
[26] Agullo v. Sandiganbayan, 414 Phil. 86, 98 (2001).
	GR NO. 164575 2006-12-06	ROBERT P. WA-ACON v. PEOPLE VELASCO, JR., J.
In seeking the recall of his conviction, accused petitioner asserts that the unremitted amounts for the rice stocks and the money allegedly gained from the empty sacks were not used for his personal use and therefore, the fourth element of malversation that the accused appropriated, took, or misappropriated public funds or property for which he was accountable was not proven. According to petitioner, while he might have violated certain auditing rules and regulations, this violation is not tantamount to malversation. He leans on the rulings in Madarang v. Sandiganbayan,[11] and Agullo v. Sandiganbayan[12] that "it is essential to prove that there had been a conversion of public fund to personal use" and that "conversion must be affirmatively proved"; otherwise, the presumption is "deemed never to have existed at all."
	GR NO. 145229 2006-04-24	ROMEO L. DAVALOS v. PEOPLE GARCIA, J.
In convicting petitioner, the Sandiganbayan cites the presumption in Article 217, supra, of the Revised Penal Code, i.e., the failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, is prima facie evidence that he has put such missing fund or property to personal uses. The presumption is, of course, rebuttable. Accordingly, if the accused is able to present adequate evidence that can nullify any likelihood that he had put the funds or property to personal use, then that presumption would be at an end and the prima facie case is effectively negated. This Court has repeatedly said that when the absence of funds is not due to the personal use thereof by the accused, the presumption is completely destroyed; in fact, the presumption is never deemed to have existed at all.[17] In this case, however, petitioner failed to overcome this prima facie evidence of guilt.
	GR No. 145951 2003-08-12	PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Generally, factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive on us. This rule, however, admits of exceptions, such as 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 (5) the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are premised on a want of evidence and are contradicted by evidence on record.[11]