Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BAGO Y MADRID

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 214865 2015-08-19	ROSVEE C. CELESTIAL v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
Jurisprudence, moreover, teaches that when the penalty of death cannot be imposed pursuant to Art. 74, the period of imprisonment should be fixed at forty (40) years of reclusion perpetua. Otherwise, there would be no difference at all between reclusion perpetua imposed as the penalty next higher in degree and reclusion perpetua imposed as the penalty fixed by law.[27] The proper penalty to be imposed in this case, therefore, is forty (40) years of reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties of death, for each count of qualified theft.[28]
	GR No. 176504 2008-09-03	FERDINAND A. CRUZ v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The elements of the crime of theft are the following: (1) there was a taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking was without the consent of the owner; (4) the taking was done with intent to gain; and (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against the person or force upon things.[12] Under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, theft is qualified when it is, among others, committed with grave abuse of confidence, to wit:ART. 310. Qualified theft. - The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed x x x with grave abuse of confidence x x x.
	GR NO. 165884 2007-04-23	CIELITO R. GAN v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We do not agree. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals convicted him because the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crime of Theft. The essential elements of theft are: (1) there was a taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking was without the consent of the owner; (4) the taking was done with intent to gain; and (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against the person or force upon things. [66] Clearly, all these elements have been shown. The Court of Appeals has this to say:Considering, then, from the totality of the prosecution's testimonial evidence that accused-appellant changed the procedure in regard to the receipt, audit and custody of cash/checks paid to the Wesleyan; that the subject funds were physically turned over by tellers Elsa A. Dantes and Mercedita S. Manio to accused-appellant but that said funds were not physically turned over by accused-appellant to treasurer Inocencia Sarmenta; and that the special external audit report confirmed the losses during the period indicated in the Informations, the conclusion that the funds were taken by accused-appellant is inevitable. Said circumstances, like pieces in a puzzle that fit in the right place, give such inference as they clearly show that actual physical possession of the subject funds last came in the hands of accused-appellant.[67] Petitioner argues there was no proof that the checks, as stated in the assailed decision, were encashed by him. This time, petitioner is correct that there is no evidence showing that he encashed the checks because the checks are not included in the cases filed against him. The subject matter of the ten informations filed against him are all cash as mentioned in the ten CTOS.
	GR NO. 158064 2005-06-30	PEOPLE v. HU RUEY CHUN CALLEJO, SR., J.
On August 27, 2002, the trial court issued an Order[11] denying the motion, in light of the ruling in People v. Bago,[12] where the Court held that the imposable penalty for qualified theft is reclusion perpetua; hence, bail is not a matter of right.
	GR No. 140937 2001-02-28	EXUPERANCIO CANTA v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
. . . the taking away by any means, methods or scheme, without the consent of the owner/raiser, of any of the abovementioned animals whether or not for profit or gain, or whether committed with or without violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things. The crime is committed if the following elements concur: (1) a large cattle is taken; (2) it belongs to another; (3) the taking is done without the consent of the owner; (4) the taking is done by any means, methods or scheme; (5) the taking is with or without intent to gain; and (6) the taking is accomplished with or without violence or intimidation against person or force upon things.[20]