Professional Documents
Culture Documents
191261
Facts:
DK, the complainant, testified that at around 2:00 a.m. on June 26,
2004 she went to sleep, leaving the lights on, at her cousins rented room.
She was startled when somebody entered the room after she had turned
off the lights. The intruder, a man, poked a knife at DK and threatened to
kill her if she made any noise. He removed DKs clothes and undressed
himself. He then succeeded in ravishing her. When the man was about to
leave, DK turned the light on and she saw his face. DK recognized him as
the same person who passed by her cousins room several times in the
afternoon of the previous day, June 25, 2004. Later, she identified the
accused Jenny Tumambing as her rapist.
Issue:
Held:
Facts:
Charged with homicide, the herein appellant, on May 13, 1933, was
convicted of said crime and sentenced by the Court of First Instance of
Laguna.
Issue:
Held:
The court finds that the appellant's true name is Pedro Narvaes, not
Primo Narvaes as can be seen from the different evidences presented.
But, when the appellant was arraigned under the name of Pedro
Narvaes, which is the name appearing in the information, he merely
entered his plea of "not guilty" under the said name. It was on that occasion
that he should have for the first time raised the question of his identity, by
filing a demurrer based on the court's lack of jurisdiction over his person,
inasmuch as he was then considered as Pedro Narvaes, not Primo
Narvaes.
Facts:
Issue:
Won the special prosecutor can validly question the orders of the court
Held:
Considering that the two orders complained of are legal and valid,
and that they were issued by the respondent judges, in the exercise of
sound judicial discretion, for the protection of the rights and interests of
respondent Joseph Arcache, the petition for certiorari filed in this case is,
therefore, hereby denied and dismissed.
Us vs Go Chamco L-6861-65
Facts:
After hearing the evidence, each of the defendants was found guilty
of the crime charged in the complaint, and sentenced to be imprisoned for
a period of six months and to pay a fine of P500, and each was disqualified
from holding any public office or giving testimony in any court in the
Philippine Islands, until said sentence should be reversed. The defendants
appealed the case contending that the lower court erred in overruling the
demurrer to each of the complaints presented by the prosecuting attorney
for the city of Manila.
Issue:
Won the information filed was not sufficient and did not amount to the crime
Held:
Facts:
Almost a year later, or on February 3, 1969, and while the light threat
case was still pending, he was charged in the same court, with a different
offense, frustrated theft, allegedly committed against the Commonwealth
Foods, Inc. In two separate decisions rendered on September 10, 1969,
the Municipal Court convicted him of the two charges. He appealed both
decisions to the Court of First Instance.
Petitioner claims that the threat case was never tried in the lower
court so the charge therein should not have been dismissed on the ground
of lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Respondents, on the other hand,
claim that there was joint trial of the threat case and the theft case, and
since the prosecution failed to present evidence respecting the alleged
threat, the case was properly dismissed on the stated ground.
Issue:
Held:
Facts:
The Accused appealed the decision of the trial court on the grounds
that the said court did not give credence to his testimony given.
Issue:
Held:
Facts:
Issue:
WON the appellate court gravely erred in affirming the decision of the trial
court convicting the petitioner of the crime of qualified theft despite the fact
that the prosecution tried to prove during the trial the crime of estafa thus
denying the petitioner the right to be informed of the nature and cause of
accusation against her
Held: