Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AMADO O. IBAÑEZ v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 187951 2012-06-25	WELLEX GROUP v. SANDIGANBAYAN SERENO, J.
On 25 October 2007, President Arroyo granted former President Estrada executive clemency through a Pardon, which he accepted on 26 October 2007.[2] The Pardon, however, expressly stipulates as follows: The forfeitures imposed by the Sandiganbayan remain in force and in full, including all writs and processes issued by the Sandiganbayan in pursuance hereof, except for the bank account(s) he owned before his tenure as President.[3]
	GR No. 187951 2012-06-25	WELLEX GROUP v. SANDIGANBAYAN SERENO, J.
In the plunder case, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed an Opposition[8] to the Motion to Quash of the former President. It rebutted his averments of movant Estrada and asserted its position that the Writ of Execution sought to be quashed did not vary the 12 September 2007 Decision of the Sandiganbayan, but in fact only implemented Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080,[9] the Plunder Law, under which his was convicted.[10]
	GR No. 187951 2012-06-25	WELLEX GROUP v. SANDIGANBAYAN SERENO, J.
On 22 February 2008, Sheriff Urieta submitted a Sheriffs Progress Report on the implementation of the Amended Writ of Execution. The report stated, among others, that Banco De Oro Unibank, Inc. (BDO), having acquired Equitable PCl-Bank, informed his office that the Jose Velarde Account was under the Constructive Distraint issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Thus, the assets under the said account could not yet be delivered to the Sandiganbayan pursuant to the Writ of Execution, pending the termination of the investigation conducted by the National Investigation Division of the BIR.[15]
	GR No. 187951 2012-06-25	WELLEX GROUP v. SANDIGANBAYAN SERENO, J.
"Section 6. Prescription of Crimes The crime punishable under this Act shall prescribe in twenty (20) years. However, the rights of the State to receive properties unlawfully acquired by public officers from them or from their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel.[39]
	GR Nos. 163972-77 2008-03-28	JOSELITO RANIERO J. DAAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In People of the Philippines v. Estrada,[20] the Sandiganbayan, in its Resolution dated March 14, 2007, approved the Plea Bargaining Agreement entered into by the prosecution and one of the accused, Charlie "Atong" Ang. The agreement
	GR NOS. 157294-95 2006-11-30	JOSEPH VICTOR G. EJERCITO v. SANDIGANBAYAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
Petitioner contends that since plunder is neither bribery nor dereliction of duty, his accounts are not excepted from the protection of R.A. 1405. Philippine National Bank v. Gancayco[7] holds otherwise:Cases of unexplained wealth are similar to cases of bribery or dereliction of duty and no reason is seen why these two classes of cases cannot be excepted from the rule making bank deposits confidential. The policy as to one cannot be different from the policy as to the other. This policy expresses the notion that a public office is a public trust and any person who enters upon its discharge does so with the full knowledge that his life, so far as relevant to his duty, is open to public scrutiny.
	GR No. 148560 2001-11-19	JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN BELLOSILLO, J.
I submit that the charge against petitioner in the Amended Information in Criminal Case No. 26558 does not constitute "plunder" under R.A. No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. If at all, the acts charged may constitute offenses punishable under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019) or the Revised Penal Code. Hence, the information charging petitioner with plunder must be quashed. Such quashal, however, should be without prejudice to the filing of new informations for acts under R.A. No. 3019, of the Revised Penal Code and other laws. Double jeopardy would not bar the filing of the same because the dismissal of the case is made with the express consent of the petitioner-accused.[142]