ATTYtude

Search This Blog

Del Soccoro vs. Van Willsem

on September 16, 2020

Get link
Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps

Get link
Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps

Comments

ORIEL MAGNO, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents; G.R. No. 96132 June 26, 1992

CUE: accused acquitted of BP 22 for deceitful means of financer of warranty deposit TOPIC: Malum prohibitum as exception to the requirement of mens rea CRIME: 4 counts of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 Accused: petitioner ORIEL MAGNO FACTS: 3 checks - P5,038.43 1 check - P10,076.87 1. Oriel Magno, lacking fund in acquiring complete set of equipment to make his car repair shop operational, approached Corazon Teng, Vice President of Mancor Industries. 2. VP Teng referred Magno to LS Finance and Management Corporation, advising its Vice President, Joey Gomez, that Mancor was willing to supply the pieces of equipment needed if LS Finance could accommodate Magno and and provide him credit facilities. 3. The arrangement went on requiring Magno to pay 30% of the total amount of the equipment as warranty deposit but Magno couldn't afford to pay so he requested VP Gomez to look for third party who could lend him that amount. 4. Without Magno's knowledge, Corazon was the one w...

Albenson Enterprises v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 88694, 11 January 1993

Topic: Art. 19, 20, & 21 FACTS: Petitioner Albenson Enterprises Corporation delivered to Guaranteed Industries, Inc. at Baltao Building mild steel plates which the latter ordered and as part of the payment, a bouncing check was issued by one “Eugenio Baltao”. Petitioner, in a sincere attempt to collect the sum of money due them, filed a criminal complaint against private respondent Eugenio S. Baltao after the latter refused to make good the amount of the bouncing check despite demand. However, there was a mistake of identity as there were two “Eugenio Baltaos” conducting business in the same building – Eugenio S. Baltao and his son, Eugenio Baltao III. It was found that the signature of the check was not of Eugenio S. Baltao and because of the alleged unjust filing of a criminal case against him, respondent Baltao filed a complaint for damages anchored on Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code against petitioners. ISSUE: Whether or not the principle of abuse of rights (Article 1...

People VS. Lamahang; G.R. No. L-43530 August 3, 1935

TOPIC: Indeterminate Offense – it is one where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain. Its nature in relation to is objective is ambiguous FACTS: At early dawn on March 2, 1935, policeman Jose Tomambing, who was patrolling his beat on Delgado and C.R. Fuentes streets of the City of Iloilo, caught the accused Arelio Lamahang (an habitual delinquent) in the act of making an opening with an iron bar on the wall of a store of cheap goods located in Fuentes street. At that time the owner of the store, Tan Yu, was sleeping inside with another Chinaman. The accused had only succeeded in breaking one board and in unfastening another from the wall, when the policeman showed up, who instantly arrested him and placed him under custody. The Court of First Instance of Iloilo, finding the accused guilty of attempted robbery ISSUE: Whether or not the accused was erroneously charged guilty of attempted robbery? HELD: Yes. The court ruled that the accused was g...

Powered by Blogger

Del Soccoro vs. Van Willsem

Comments

Post a Comment