Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. MARLENE OLERMO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 178300 2009-03-17	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO REYES Y PAJE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The right to counsel is a fundamental right and is intended to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit something false.[71] The right to counsel attaches upon the start of the investigation, i.e., when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or admissions from the accused.[72] The lawyer called to be present during such investigation should be, as far as reasonably possible, the choice of the accused. If the lawyer is one furnished in behalf of accused, he should be competent and independent; that is, he must be willing to fully safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused.[73] A competent and independent counsel is logically required to be present and able to advice and assist his client from the time the latter answers the first question asked by the investigator until the signing of the confession. Moreover, the lawyer should ascertain that the confession was made voluntarily, and that the person under investigation fully understood the nature and the consequence of his extra-judicial confession vis-a-vis his constitutional rights. [74]
	GR No. 175229 2009-01-29	PEOPLE v. LOURDES LO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
There are three ways of committing estafa under the above-quoted provision: (1) by using a fictitious name; (2) by falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; and (3) by means of other similar deceits. Under this class of estafa, the element of deceit is indispensable.[43] In the present case, the deceit consists of accused-appellants' false statement or fraudulent representation which was made prior to, or at least simultaneously with, the delivery of the money by the complainants. To convict for this type of crime, it is essential that the false statement or fraudulent representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive which induces the complainant to part with the thing of value.[44]
	GR No. 170813 2008-04-16	B.F. METAL v. SPS. ROLANDO M. LOMOTAN AND LINAFLOR LOMOTAN AND RICO UMUYON TINGA, J,
Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages.[10] Actual damages are such compensation or damages for an injury that will put the injured party in the position in which he had been before he was injured. They pertain to such injuries or losses that are actually sustained and susceptible of measurement. To justify an award of actual damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss. Credence can be given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts.[11]
	GR No. 170583 2007-09-12	ERNESTO M. FULLERO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The territorial jurisdiction of a court is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint or information as regards the place where the offense charged was committed.[68] It should also be emphasized that where some acts material and essential to the crime and requisite to its consummation occur in one province or city and some in another, the court of either province or city has jurisdiction to try the case, it being understood that the court first taking cognizance of the case will exclude the others.[69]
	GR No. 162126 2004-12-09	RCL FEEDERS PTE. v. HERNANDO PEREZ YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The fraud must be alleged to have been personally committed by respondent prior to or simultaneously with the payment or delivery of money. If there be no such prior or simultaneous false statement or fraudulent representation, any subsequent act of the accused, however fraudulent or suspicious it may appear, cannot serve as basis for prosecution for that class of estafa.[22]
	GR Nos. 114967-68 2004-01-26	PEOPLE v. CRISPIN BILLABER Y MATBANUA TINGA, J,
There are three ways of committing estafa under Article 315 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code: (1) by using a fictitious name; (2) by falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; and (3) by means of other similar deceits. Under this class of estafa, the element of deceit is indispensable.[77]
	GR No. 148810 2003-11-18	PEOPLE v. HEVER PAULINO Y BIYAYA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Finally, the trial court correctly awarded civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim. Civil indemnity is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of murder or homicide.[24] Likewise, the trial court was correct in not awarding actual, moral and exemplary damages because the prosecution failed to present competent evidence to prove the same. To justify an award of actual damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss.[25] Further, in murder cases, moral damages cannot be granted in the absence of proof therefor[26] and exemplary damages without any aggravating circumstance.[27]