This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2005-08-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The case of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Court of Tax Appeals[48] involved a similar factual milieu. There the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued Memorandum Circular No. 4-71 revoking an earlier circular for being "erroneous for lack of legal basis." When the prior circular was still in effect, petitioner therein relied on it and consummated its transactions on the basis thereof. We held, thus:. . . .Petitioner was no longer in a position to withhold taxes due from foreign corporations because it had already remitted all film rentals and no longer had any control over them when the new Circular was issued. . . . | |||||
|
2005-07-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The case of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Court of Tax Appeals[48] involved a similar factual milieu. There the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued Memorandum Circular No. 4-71 revoking an earlier circular for being "erroneous for lack of legal basis." When the prior circular was still in effect, petitioner therein relied on it and consummated its transactions on the basis thereof. We held, thus:. . . .Petitioner was no longer in a position to withhold taxes due from foreign corporations because it had already remitted all film rentals and no longer had any control over them when the new Circular was issued. . . . | |||||
|
2002-03-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Conviction based merely on speculation and conjecture cannot satisfy the question of evidence required for a pronouncement of guilt, i.e. proof beyond reasonable doubt of his complicity in the crime.[6] It is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish its case with that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind, with evidence which stands or falls on its merits, and which cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Unless it discharges the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the latter need not even offer evidence in his behalf. Thus, when the guilt of the accused has not been proven with moral certainty, such as the case at bar, it is a policy of long standing that the presumption of innocence of the accused must be favored and his exoneration be granted as a matter of right.[7] | |||||
|
2001-10-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Significantly, the prosecution has adequately established the allegation in the information that Analyn was only 5 1/2 years old at the time of her rape. She was born on November 5, 1990 as evidenced by her Certificate of Live Birth.[33] It must be stressed that in cases of statutory rape, as in this case where the age of the victim was established with certainty to be below seven years as shown by her birth certificate and testimonial evidence, force is not an essential element since the absence of free consent is presumed when the woman is below such age.[34] Therefore, to convict appellant in the case at bar, the only circumstance that needs to be proved is the fact of intercourse which was sufficiently substantiated by the prosecution.[35] | |||||