Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR Nos. 175045-46 2010-03-03	ENGR. RICARDO L. SANTILLANO v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
Go, citing Luciano v. Estrella,[19] Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,[20] and Domingo v. Sandiganbayan, laid to rest the debate on a private person's culpability in cases involving RA 3019 by unequivocally stating that private persons found acting in conspiracy with public officers may be held liable for the applicable offenses found in Sec. 3 of the law.
	GR No. 172602 2009-04-16	HENRY T. GO v. FIFTH DIVISION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In its Motion for Reconsideration, respondent Office of the Special Prosecutor argues, citing Meneses v. People,[1] Balmadrid v. Sandiganbayan,[2] Domingo v. Sandiganbayan,[3] and Singian v. Sandiganbayan,[4] that private persons when conspiring with public officers may be held liable for violation of Section 3(g) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019.
	GR NO. 172602 2007-04-13	HENRY T. GO v. FIFTH DIVISION CALLEJO, SR., J.
The case of Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan[17] is instructive. In the said case, Gregorio Singian, Jr., a private person who was then Executive Vice-President of Integrated Shoe, Inc. (ISI), together with some officers of the Philippine National Bank (PNB), was charged with violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of RA 3019 in connection with the loan accommodations that the said bank extended to ISI which were characterized as behest loans.