This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2002-12-17 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Q After the money was delivered to Mar, what happened next? A When Mar was about to open the said plastic containing the money I took off my b[a]ll cap to signal my companions and then SPO1 Yatco and PO1 Agravante arrived and we int[ro]duced ourselves as policemen. SPO1 Yatco arrested alias Tess and PO1 Agravante arrested Mar and [re]covered the [boodle] money, sir."[22] Without doubt, the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs[23] and to prove the charge of illegal sale of shabu.[24] The clear, straightforward and consistent testimonies of PO3 | |||||
|
2002-11-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, provides that qualifying and the aggravating circumstances[39] must be alleged, otherwise they cannot be considered even if proven. This provision being favorable to the accused may be given retroactive effect in this case. In addition, "statutes regulating the procedure of the court will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that extent."[40] As the aggravating circumstance that the offense had been committed by an organized or syndicated crime group was not alleged in the information in this case, the same cannot be appreciated against accused-appellants. As to the amount of fine, the fine of P30,000.00 each imposed on the accused-appellants by the trial court should be increased to P500,000.00 in accordance with recent jurisprudence.[41] | |||||
|
2002-04-02 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| (h) Transfer of officers and employees in the civil service - Any public official who makes or causes any transfer or detail whatever of any officer or employee in the civil service including public school teachers, within the election period except upon prior approval of the Commission." Petitioner claims that Benipayo failed to secure the approval of the COMELEC en banc to effect transfers or reassignments of COMELEC personnel during the election period.[67] Moreover, petitioner insists that the COMELEC en banc must concur to every transfer or reassignment of COMELEC personnel during the election period. | |||||
|
2002-03-06 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The argument is without merit. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it. Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence as the same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties, indicating a common understanding between them with respect to the commission of the offense. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest.[26] | |||||