This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-04-29 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| This is to resolve the Petition for Review on Certiorari, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, dated November 5, 2007, of petitioner Lito Corpuz (petitioner), seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision[1] dated March 22, 2007 and Resolution[2] dated September 5, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed with modification the Decision[3] dated July 30, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 46, San Fernando City, finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code. | |||||
|
2010-03-17 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| In our jurisdiction, the trend towards a strict attitude towards the allowance of bail pending appeal is anchored on the principle that judicial discretion -- particularly with respect to extending bail -- should be exercised not with laxity but with caution and only for strong reasons.[42] In fact, it has even been pointed out that "grave caution that must attend the exercise of judicial discretion in granting bail to a convicted accused is best illustrated and exemplified in Administrative Circular No. 12-94 amending Rule 114, Section 5."[43] | |||||
|
2009-04-07 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Two deaths having resulted from the treacherous attack, the OSG correctly argues that the accused should be sentenced for two counts of murder. The Information dated February 12, 2001 charged them for two distinct offenses of murder on the persons of Nestor Nodalo and Henry Argallon. Although under Section 13[30] Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, an information must charge only one offense, the accused failed to file a motion to quash information and thus waived their right to be tried for only one crime under one information pursuant to Section 9[31] Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. Moreover, an appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case for review and this includes the penalty, which may be increased.[32] | |||||
|
2007-07-06 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners are of the mistaken notion that receipt of the letter of transmittal and of the notice of appealed case is the reckoning point for the RTC to acquire jurisdiction over their appeal. This is contrary to the clear provision of Section 9, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court, which states, in part, that a party's appeal by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him upon the filing of the notice of appeal in due time. The RTC acting as an appellate court acquired jurisdiction over the case of the petitioners upon their filing of the notice of appeal on October 5, 1998. The filing of the notice of appeal in due time and the payment of the appropriate fees by the petitioners perfected their appeal in the RTC. As a necessary consequence thereof, the MTC was divested of jurisdiction over their case.[31] From the filing of the written notice of appeal, petitioners' appeal was perfected without need of any further act, and, consequently, the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case, both over the record and over the subject of the case.[32] | |||||
|
2006-10-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The right to bail emenates from of the right to be presumed innocent. It is accorded to a person in the custody of the law who may, by reason of the presumption of innocence he enjoys,[41] be allowed provisional liberty upon filing of a security to guarantee his appearance before any court, as required under specified conditions.[42] | |||||
|
2005-07-21 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In deciding a criminal case, the policy of the courts is always to look at the case in its entirety. The totality of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense are weighed, thus, averting general conclusions from isolated pieces of evidence. This means that an appeal of a criminal case opens its entire records for review.[9] | |||||