Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO v. JUSTICE FRANCIS GARCHITORENA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 181626 2011-05-30	SANTIAGO PAERA v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
To limit his liability to one count of Grave Threats, petitioner tries to fit the facts of the case to the concept of "continued crime" (delito continuado) which envisages a single crime committed through a series of acts arising from one criminal intent or resolution.[11] To fix the penalty for his supposed single continued crime, petitioner invokes the rule for complex crime under Article 48 of the RPC imposing the penalty for the most serious crime, applied in its maximum period.
	GR No. 184537 2010-04-23	QUINTIN B. SALUDAGA v. SANDIGANBAYAN MENDOZA, J.
R.A. 3019, Section 3, paragraph (e), as amended, provides as one of its elements that the public officer should have acted by causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or by giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. The use of the disjunctive term "or" connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Section 3 paragraph (e), or as aptly held in Santiago, as two (2) different modes of committing the offense. This does not however indicate that each mode constitutes a distinct offense, but rather, that an accused may be charged under either mode or under both.[15]
	GR Nos. 170339 2010-03-09	ROLANDO E. SISON v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
The fourth element is likewise present. While it is true that the prosecution was not able to prove any undue injury to the government as a result of the purchases, it should be noted that there are two ways by which Section 3(e) of RA 3019 may be violated--the first, by causing undue injury to any party, including the government, or the second, by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. Although neither mode constitutes a distinct offense,[22] an accused may be charged under either mode or both.[23] The use of the disjunctive "or" connotes that the two modes need not be present at the same time. In other words, the presence of one would suffice for conviction.[24]
	GR No. 173637 2009-04-21	DANTE T. TAN v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We emphasize that in determining the right of an accused to speedy trial, courts are required to do more than a mathematical computation of the number of postponements of the scheduled hearings of the case. A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is clearly insufficient,[28] and particular regard must be given to the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.[29]
	GR NO. 169251 2006-12-20	DEMIE L. URIARTE v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
27) Utmost care should be taken that the full christian and surname appearing in the existing 1978 tax declaration must exactly be the same christian and surname which has to be carried forward to the field sheets. For obvious reasons, no transfer or change of ownership of real property be made by assessors or appraisers in the process of general revision. The primary purpose of general revision is not to transfer or change ownership of property from one person to another during the period of revision but to update or upgrade property values for real property taxation purposes. However, real property declared for the first time shall be appraised and assessed for taxation purposes. Lands declared for the first time shall be accepted provided the declaration is supported by corresponding certification of the Bureau of Forest Development and the Bureau of Lands that the land so declared is in the alienable or disposable area (emphasis supplied). The third element provides for the modalities in which the crime may be committed, namely: (a) by causing undue injury to any party, including the Government; or (b) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference.[74] The use of the disjunctive term "or" connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Sec. 3, par. (e), or as aptly held in Santiago v. Garchitorena,[75] as two (2) different modes of committing the offense. This does not, however, indicate that each mode constitutes a distinct offense, rather, that an accused may be charged under either mode or under both.
	GR NO. 161877 2006-03-23	ARIEL C. SANTOS v. PEOPLE GARCIA, J.
As may be noted, what contextually is punishable is the act of causing any undue injury to any party, or the giving to any private party of unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of the public officer's functions. In Uy vs. Sandiganbayan,[12] and again in Santiago vs. Garchitorena,[13] the Court has made it abundantly clear that the use of the disjunctive word "or" connotes that either act of (a) "causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government"; and (b) "giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference," qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended. This is not to say, however, that each mode constitutes a distinct offense but that an accused may be proceeded against under either or both modes.
	GR NO. 155076 2006-02-27	LUIS MARCOS P. LAUREL v. ZEUS C. ABROGAR CALLEJO, SR., J.
As a general prerequisite, a motion to quash on the ground that the Information does not constitute the offense charged, or any offense for that matter, should be resolved on the basis of said allegations whose truth and veracity are hypothetically committed;[41] and on additional facts admitted or not denied by the prosecution.[42] If the facts alleged in the Information do not constitute an offense, the complaint or information should be quashed by the court. [43]
	GR No. 136082 2000-05-12	FRANKLIN P. BAUTISTA v. SANDIGANBAYAN BELLOSILLO, J.
Petitioner likewise avers that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying his Motion to Quash the Information as there were at least two (2) offenses charged - the giving of unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference to the casual employees in question, and causing undue injury to the Municipality of Malita. Petitioner invokes Santiago v. Garchitorena[16] where it was held that there were two (2) ways of violating Sec. 3, par. (e), of RA 3019, namely, (a) by causing undue injury to any party, including the Government, and (b) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference, and as such, he argues that each constitutes two (2) distinct offenses that should be charged in separate informations.