Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RAFAEL T. FLORES v. LYDIA QUERUBIN LAYOSA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 172035 2012-07-04	FERNANDO Q. MIGUEL v. SANDIGANBAYAN BRION, J.
While the suspension of a public officer under this provision is mandatory,[37] the suspension requires a prior hearing to determine "the validity of the information"[38] filed against him, "taking into account the serious and far reaching consequences of a suspension of an elective public official even before his conviction."[39] The accused public official's right to challenge the validity of the information before a suspension order may be issued includes the right to challenge the (i) validity of the criminal proceeding leading to the filing of an information against him, and (ii) propriety of his prosecution on the ground that the acts charged do not constitute a violation of R.A. No. 3019 or of the provisions on bribery of the Revised Penal Code.[40]
	GR No. 185493 2011-02-02	LTC. ROBERTO K. GUILLERGAN v. PEOPLE ABAD, J.
The Information alleged that Guillergan committed falsification by making it appear in several public documents that P1,519,000.00 in AFP funds intended for the CIAs' payroll were paid for that purpose when in truth these were just given to Rio, resulting in damage and prejudice to the government. Although the charge was estafa in relation to Article 171 of the RPC, the facts alleged in the information sufficiently made out a case for violation of Article 172 of which Guillergan was convicted. What is important is that the Information described the latter offense intelligibly and with reasonable certainty, enabling Guillergan to understand the charge against him and suitably prepare his defense.[15]
	GR No. 168309 2008-01-29	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. MARIAN D. TORRES and MARICAR D. TORRES NACHURA, J.
But it cannot even be said that no damage was suffered by the government. When respondents collected their salaries on the basis of falsified DTRs, they caused injury to the government. The falsification of one's DTR to cover up one's absences or tardiness automatically results in financial losses to the government because it enables the employee concerned to be paid salaries and to earn leave credits for services which were never rendered. Undeniably, the falsification of a DTR foists a fraud involving government funds.[28]
	GR NO. 146217 2006-04-07	ANUNCIO C. BUSTILLO v. SANDIGANBAYAN CARPIO, J.
As used in Section 13, the term "fraud" is understood in its generic sense,[14] that is, referring to "an instance or an act of trickery or deceit especially when involving misrepresentation."[15] The Information alleges that petitioner and his co-accused "feloniously ma[d]e it appear in official documents that municipal funds totalling [thirty thousand pesos] (P30,000.00) were expended for the purchase of lumber from Estigoy Lumber when, in truth and in fact, as both accused well knew, said lumber were actually purchased from Rowena Woodcraft, a single proprietorship owned by accused Rowena G. Bustillo." This suffices to classify the charge as "involving fraud upon government" as contemplated in Section 13.
	GR NO. 129472 2005-04-12	MARCELO LASOY v. MONINA A. ZENAROSA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In other words, if the offense is stated in such a way that a person of ordinary intelligence may immediately know what is meant, and the court can decide the matter according to law, the inevitable conclusion is that the information is valid. It is not necessary to follow the language of the statute in the information. The information will be sufficient if it describes the crime defined by law.[36]