Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JAIME GUINHAWA v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 200465 2015-04-20	JOCELYN ASISTIO Y CONSINO v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
In criminal cases, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the averments of the complaint or Information, in relation to the law prevailing at the time of the filing of the complaint or Information, and the penalty provided by law for the crime charged at the time of its commission.[17] Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended, provides that the MeTC has exclusive jurisdiction over offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years, irrespective of the amount of fine:Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases. - Except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
	GR No. 159746 2012-07-18	SPS. RAMON MENDIOLA AND ARACELI N. MENDIOLA v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
Apparently, the Makati RTC had the erroneous impression that the Manila RTC did not have jurisdiction over the complaint of petitioners because the property involved was situated within the jurisdiction of the Makati RTC. Thereby, the Makati RTC confused venue of a real action with jurisdiction. Its confusion was puzzling, considering that it was well aware of the distinction between venue and jurisdiction, and certainly knew that venue in civil actions was not jurisdictional and might even be waived by the parties.[44] To be clear, venue related only to the place of trial or the geographical location in which an action or proceeding should be brought and does not equate to the jurisdiction of the court. It is intended to accord convenience to the parties, as it relates to the place of trial, and does not restrict their access to the courts.[45] In contrast, jurisdiction refers to the power to hear and determine a cause,[46] and is conferred by law and not by the parties.[47]
	GR NO. 168217 2006-06-27	JOY LEE RECUERDO v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
Estafa through false pretense or fraudulent act under Paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, is committed as follows: By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. The essential elements of the felony are: (1) a check is postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the time it is issued; (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee thereof.[10] It is criminal fraud or deceit in the issuance of a check which is made punishable under the Revised Penal Code, and not the non-payment of a debt.[11] Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct by false or misleading allegations or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.[12] Concealment which the law denotes as fraudulent implies a purpose or design to hide facts which the other party ought to have.[13] The postdating or issuing of a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank or his funds deposited therein are not sufficient to cover the amount of the check is a false pretense or a fraudulent act.[14]
	GR NO. 165265 2006-02-06	MARIBEL B. JARDELEZA v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
Fraudulent concealment presupposes a duty to disclose the truth and that disclosure was not made when opportunity to speak and inform was present, and that the party to whom the duty of disclosure as to a material fact was due was thereby induced to act to his injury.[81] Fraud is not confined to words or positive assertions; it may consist as well of deeds, acts or artifice of a nature calculated to mislead another and thus allow one to obtain an undue advantage.