Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ERNESTO NAVALLO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 211703 2014-12-10	EDELBERT C. UYBOCO v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
Findings of fact made by a trial court are accorded the highest degree of respect by an appellate tribunal and, absent a clear disregard of the evidence before it that can otherwise affect the results of the case, those findings should not be ignored.[5] Absent any clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness or capriciousness committed by the lower court, its findings of facts, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon this Court.[6]
	GR No. 187268 2013-09-04	JOVITO C. PLAMERAS v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
The Court reiterates the well-settled rule that, absent any clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness or capriciousness committed by the lower court, its findings of facts, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon this Court.[40] As held in the case of Navallo v. Sandiganbayan,[41] the Court ruled that "xxx Findings of fact made by a trial court are accorded the highest degree of respect by an appellate tribunal and, absent a clear disregard of the evidence before it that can otherwise affect the results of the case, those findings should not be ignored xxx." (Italics supplied)
	AM No. P-09-2598 2009-02-12	REPORT ON FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN MCTC-MADDELA PER CURIAM
In Navallo v. Sandiganbayan,[7] we held that an accountable officer may be convicted of malversation even in the absence of direct proof of misappropriation as long as there is evidence of shortage in his accounts which he is unable to explain.[8]
	AM No. P-04-1807 2008-12-23	TERESITA RETAZO v. LORNA A. VERDON PER CURIAM
In Navallo v. Sandiganbayan,[15] we held that an accountable officer may be convicted of malversation even in the absence of direct proof of misappropriation as long as there is evidence of shortage in his accounts which he is unable to explain. We also reiterate that public service requires the utmost integrity and strictest discipline. Thus, a public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity. No less than the Constitution declares that a public office is a public trust, and enjoins all public officers and employees to serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.[16] Those involved in the administration of justice must live up to the strictest standard of honesty and integrity in public service for the image of a court is mirrored in the conduct of the men and women who comprise it, from the judge to the least and lowest of its personnel.[17]
	GR No. 157399 2005-11-17	PEOPLE v. JOSE TING LAN UY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Neither does the constitutional provision on custodial investigation extends to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby the accused orally admits having committed the crime,[26] nor to a person undergoing an audit examination because an audit examiner is not a law enforcement officer.[27]