This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-10-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The Court is now faced with one of the predicaments I discussed in my Dissenting and Concurring Opinion in Colinares v. People.[1] The question regarding the application of the Probation Law is again inescapably intertwined with the present petition. Consequently, I must reiterate my assertions and arguments in Colinares to the case at bar. | |||||
|
2015-06-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It also bears emphasis that the factual findings of the appellate court generally are conclusive, and carry even more weight when said court affirms the findings of the trial court, absent any showing that the findings are totally devoid of support in the records, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute grave abuse of discretion.[28] In this case, the CA, the RTC and the MCTC all agree that the issue of improper venue was already resolved by the Regional State Prosecutor when he held that “there are sufficient evidences (sic) indicating that the falsification took place in Jagna.”[29] The Court perceives no compelling reason to disturb such factual finding. | |||||
|
2014-09-22 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In the recent case of Lito Corpuz v. People of the Philippines,[26] we recognized the "perceived injustice" brought about by the range of penalties that the courts continue to impose on crimes against property, such as estafa, committed today based on the amount of damage measured by the value of money eight years ago in 1932. This Court, however, cannot modify these range of penalties in our decisions, as such action would be an impermissible encroachment upon the power of the legislative branch of government and would constitute proscribed judicial legislation. | |||||
|
2014-09-17 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Maximum: 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years[32] | |||||