This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-09-28 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| It is not open to question thatin a criminal proceeding, the court having jurisdiction over the offense has the power to order upon conviction of an accusedthe seizure of (a) the instruments to commit the crime, including documents, papers, and other effects that are the necessary means to commit the crime; and (b) contraband, the ownership or possession of which is not permitted for being illegal. As justification for the first, the accused must not profit from his crime, or must not acquire property or the right to possession of property through his unlawful act.[12]As justification for thesecond, to return to the convict from whom thecontraband was taken, in one way or another,is not prudent or proper, because doing so will give rise to a violation of the law for possessing the contraband again.[13]Indeed, the court having jurisdiction over the offense has theright to dispose of property used in the commission of the crime, such disposition being an accessory penalty to be imposed on the accused, unless the property belongs to a third person not liable for the offense that it was used as the instrument to commit.[14] | |||||
|
2005-02-17 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| On May 17, 1999, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of petitioner.[18] It held that the provisions of the penal code were made applicable to special penal laws in the decisions of this Court in People vs. Parel, [19] U.S. vs. Ponte, [20] and U.S. vs. Bruhez.[21] It noted that Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code itself provides that its provisions shall be supplementary to special laws unless the latter provide the contrary. The Court of Appeals stressed that since B.P. Blg. 22 does not prohibit the applicability in a suppletory character of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the principle of conspiracy may be applied to cases involving violations of B.P. Blg. 22. Lastly, it ruled that the fact that petitioner did not make and issue or sign the checks did not exculpate her from criminal liability as it is not indispensable that a co-conspirator takes a direct part in every act and knows the part which everyone performed. The Court of Appeals underscored that in conspiracy the act of one conspirator could be held to be the act of the other. | |||||