Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOEL P. LIBUIT v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 176114 2015-04-08	GRACE SAN DIEGO Y TRINIDAD v. CA PERALTA, J.
It is settled that absent any showing that the findings are totally devoid of support in the records, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute grave abuse of discretion, the factual findings of the appellate court generally are conclusive, and carry even more weight when said court affirms the findings of the trial court.[12] Petitioner is of the opinion that the CA erred in affirming the factual findings of the RTC. She insists that the prosecution was not able to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt because there was no proof in the audit that the cooperative had really so much funds and that in consequence there was deficiency of some Php6,000,000 when compared to pertinent bank statements. As such, petitioner asserts that it is essential for a successful prosecution for theft that the existence of the personality stolen be established by qualitative evidence, so the prosecution must fail if no such proof of good quality was adduced.[13]
	GR No. 180016 2014-04-29	LITO CORPUZ v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
The factual findings of the appellate court generally are conclusive, and carry even more weight when said court affirms the findings of the trial court, absent any showing that the findings are totally devoid of support in the records, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute grave abuse of discretion.[4] Petitioner is of the opinion that the CA erred in affirming the factual findings of the trial court. He now comes to this Court raising both procedural and substantive issues.
	GR No. 166758 2012-06-27	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. VICENTE ATILANO BRION, J.
(1) that money, goods, or other personal properties are received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same; (2) that there is a misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender.[23]
	GR No. 182276 2010-03-29	DIONISIO AW v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
All given, we find the petitioner's testimony unconvincing. Petitioner's allegations now are nothing but a rehash of arguments he unsuccessfully raised before the trial court and the Court of Appeals. It must be stressed that all the grounds raised by the petitioner now involve factual issues already passed upon twice below, and are inappropriate in a Petition for Review under Rule 45, which allows only questions of law to be raised.[44]
	GR No. 184702 2009-10-02	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER TALITA ABAD, J.
Since this Court's appreciation of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses is hampered by the fact that its members took no part at the trial, it must of necessity lend weight to the trial court's factual findings especially since there is no showing that its findings are palpably unsound or have nothing to support them in the record. The trial judge had the benefit of observing the witnesses first hand, their emotions or lack of it, their spontaneity or reluctance, their bodily reactions to interrogations, or the slight changes in the expressions on their faces. These send strong signs of falsehood or truth in testimonies. For this reason, the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court from such testimonies are usually entitled to much weight.[17]
	GR Nos. 172785-86 2009-06-18	CRUZVALE v. JOSE ARMANDO L. EDUQUE QUISUMBING, J.
To be held liable for estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code, the following elements must concur: (1) that money, goods, or other personal properties are received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same; (2) that there is a misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender.[28]
	GR No. 171121 2008-08-26	GINA DIAZ Y JAUD v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In addition, it is well-settled that factual findings and conclusions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are entitled to great weight and respect, and will not be disturbed on review by us, in the absence of any clear showing that the lower courts overlooked certain facts or circumstances which would substantially affect the disposition of the case. The jurisdiction of this Court over cases elevated from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing or revising errors of law ascribed to the Court of Appeals. The factual findings of the appellate court generally are conclusive, and carry even more weight when said court affirms the findings of the trial court, absent any showing that the findings are totally devoid of support in the record or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute grave abuse of discretion.[47] In this case, we find no cogent reason to reverse the aforesaid findings.
	GR No. 166246 2008-04-30	ANTONIO NEPOMUCENO v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
The elements of estafa under Article 315 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: (1) that money, goods, or other personal properties are received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same; (2) that there is a misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and, (4) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender.[20]
	GR No. 156337 2007-09-28	UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. ALBERTO T. LOOYUKO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
On the other hand, the elements of estafa under Article 315 (1-b) of the RPC are as follows: (1) that money, goods, or other personal properties are received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same; (2) that there is a misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and, (4) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender.[29] Moreover, it is a settled rule that failure to account upon demand, for funds or property held in trust, is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.[30]