This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-10-08 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| In a letter dated 7 June 1995,[4] petitioner sought a clarification of its exemption from the expanded withholding tax under Revenue Regulation (R.R.) No. 6-94. It alleged that this request for clarification was a reiteration of its letter dated 19 October 1994. It argued that as a tax-exempt establishment under E.O. No. 46, it should not be subjected to the 1.1/2% expanded withholding taxes on certain income payments that were withheld by credit card companies in compliance with R.R. No. 6-94. In relation thereto, petitioner also inquired on the procedure for the refund of accumulated taxes withheld by credit card companies amounting to P1.8 million as of 31 December 1994. | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The appellate court, by Decision[37] of February 7, 2005, holding that the zonal valuation established under D.O. 40-97 should be the basis in computing the provisional value of the properties, and that the valuation made by the TCRPV was neither binding nor effective for failure to comply with the guidelines relative to the establishment of zonal values of real properties under Revenue Memorandum Order No. 56-89,[38] as amended by Revenue Memorandum Order No. 56-94,[39] granted PHIVIDEC's petition and accordingly directed the RTC to issue a writ of possession in favor of PHIVIDEC. | |||||
|
2002-07-31 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| charge only one (1) offense. This is important to apprise the accused fully of the charge against him so that he may not be confused in his defense.[18] Furthermore, an accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information since he has that right under the Constitution to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. To convict him of an offense other than that charged in the complaint or information would violate that constitutional right.[19] Hence, the trial court appropriately convicted the accused of and meted the capital penalty for only one (1) count of rape with homicide. It is axiomatic that the accused can only be convicted for a crime duly charged and proved. Besides, this case was brought to us on automatic review and not upon the initiative of the accused themselves. We are thus called upon to re-examine only their conviction for a single offense, as found by the trial court, and inquire only into the propriety of the imposition of the death penalty. As to the civil liability of the accused, current jurisprudence sets an indemnity of P100,000.00 for the victim Myrna Alibio since her rape was effectively qualified by circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized by applicable laws, namely, the death of the rape | |||||
|
2002-02-19 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The remedy of petitioner would have been to move to quash the Information at any time before entering a plea[12] on the ground that more than one offense was charged in the Information.[13] The failure of petitioner to assert this ground in a motion to quash before she pleaded to the Information is deemed a waiver.[14] Consequently, she may be validly convicted of as many offenses as are charged in the Information and may be proved by the People.[15] Luckily for petitioner, the trial court found her guilty only of violating Sec. 217 of BP Blg. 881 and exonerated her of the other charges. | |||||