Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BENJAMIN LEE v. CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 184861 2009-06-30	DREAMWORK CONSTRUCTION v. CLEOFE S. JANIOLA VELASCO JR., J.
Lee v. Court of Appeals[23] is even more poignant. In that case, we ruled that the issue of lack of valuable consideration for the issuance of checks which were later on dishonored for insufficient funds is immaterial to the success of a prosecution for violation of BP 22, to wit:Third issue. Whether or not the check was issued on account or for value.
	GR No. 154557 2008-02-13	PEOPLE v. The CA VELASCO JR., J.
x x x x It must be stressed that the abovementioned provision vested concurrent jurisdiction upon the said courts regardless of the imposable penalty. In fine, the jurisdiction of the trial court (RTC) over the case of the appellant was conferred by the aforecited law then in force (R.A. 6425 before amendment) when the information was filed. Jurisdiction attached upon the commencement of the action and could not be ousted by the passage of R.A. 7691 reapportioning the jurisdiction of inferior courts, the application of which to criminal cases is, to stress, prospective in nature.[20] (Emphasis supplied.) This Court categorically reiterated the above ruling in the 2003 case of Yu Oh v. Court of Appeals,[21] in the 2004 case of Alonto v. People,[22] and in the 2005 case of Lee v. Court of Appeals.[23]
	GR NO. 155619 2007-08-14	LEODEGARIO BAYANI v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Valuable consideration may consist either of some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the party who makes the contract; or some forbearance, detriment, loss of some responsibility to act; or labor or service given, suffered or undertaken by the other side. It is an obligation to do or not to do, in favor of the party who makes the contract, such as the maker or indorser.[25] It was shown in this case that the check was issued and exchanged for cash. This was the valuable consideration for which the check was issued.
	GR NO. 144054 2006-06-30	NIEVES A. SAGUIGUIT v. PEOPLE GARCIA, J.
However, in view of [SC] Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, as clarified by Administrative Circular No. 13-2001, establishing a rule of preference in the application of the penalties provided for in B.P. Blg. 22; and the recommendation of the Solicitor General in its Comment that the policy laid down in Vaca vs. Court of Appeals,[19] and Lim vs. People,[20] of redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness, be considered in favor of petitioner who is not shown to be a habitual delinquent or a recidivist, we find that the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals should be modified by deleting the penalty of imprisonment and imposing only a fine of xxx.[21]
	GR NO. 142509 2006-03-24	JOSE ALEMANIA BUATIS v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
An appeal in a criminal case throws the entire case for review and it becomes our duty to correct any error, as may be found in the appealed judgment, whether assigned as an error or not.[21] We find that the award of P20,000.00 as compensatory damages should be deleted for lack of factual basis. To be entitled to actual and compensatory damages, there must be competent proof constituting evidence of the actual amount thereof.[22] Respondent had not presented evidence in support thereof.
	GR NO. 156169 2005-08-12	VICTOR ONGSON v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
There is no merit in petitioner's contention that the checks were issued without valuable consideration. We have held that upon issuance of a check, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the same was issued for valuable consideration, which may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the party who makes the contract, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or some responsibility, to act, or labor, or service given, suffered or undertaken by the other side. It is an obligation to do, or not to do in favor of the party who makes the contract, such as the maker or endorser.[35]
	GR NO. 156169 2005-08-12	VICTOR ONGSON v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Recuerdo v. People, and Young v. Court of Appeals,[56] it was held that where there is neither proof nor allegation that the accused is not a first time offender, imposition of the penalty of fine instead of imprisonment is proper. Likewise, in Lee v. Court of Appeals,[57] we ruled that the policy laid down in Vaca v. Court of Appeals,[58] and Lim v. People,[59] of redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness, should be considered in favor of the accused who is not shown to be a habitual delinquent or a recidivist. Said doctrines squarely apply in the instant case there being no proof or allegation that petitioner is not a first time offender.