This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-07-31 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We first resolve the threshold issue of the propriety of passing upon questions of fact in this review. The narrow ambit of review prescribed under Section 1 of Rule 45,[19] limiting the scope of our inquiry to questions of law only enforces our ordinary certiorari jurisdiction efficiently. By sparing the Court from the task of parsing through factual questions, we are able to swiftly dispose of such appeals. This rule, of course, admits of exceptions applicable to those rare petitions whose peculiar factual milieu justifies relaxation of the Rules such as when the Court of Appeals made erroneous inferences, arrived at a conclusion based on speculation or conjectures, or overlooked undisputed facts which, if duly considered, lead to a different conclusion.[20] As shown in the discussion below, however, none of these grounds obtain here. We thus proceed with our review without disturbing the Court of Appeals' factual findings. | |||||
|
2013-06-26 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "Estafa is generally committed when (a) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence, or by means of deceit, and (b) the offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation."[37] "[D]eceit 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."[38] | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As to the alleged illegality of Pepino's arrest, it is settled that any irregularity attending the arrest of an accused should be timely raised in a motion to quash the Information at any time before arraignment, failing which he is deemed to have waived.[32] Since Pepino did not raise such alleged irregularity early on, he is now estopped. | |||||
|
2010-04-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In the absence of evidence showing the direct participation of the accused in the commission of the crime, conspiracy must be established by clear and convincing evidence in order to convict the accused.[136] Given our observation that the involvement of Rosales was not merely of a person under coercion, there is reasonable doubt as to Bobby Bringas' involvement for it was Jimboy Bringas who brought or recruited Sulayao and Calaguas from Pampanga. There is therefore a palpable reasonable doubt of the existence of conspiracy on the part of Bobby Bringas. The presence of reasonable doubt as to the existence of conspiracy suffices to negate not only the participation of the accused in the commission of the offense as principal but also, in the absence of proof implicating the accused as accessory or accomplice, the criminal liability of the accused.[137] Consequently, Bobby Bringas must be acquitted from the crime of kidnapping for ransom. | |||||