Tapiador v. Ledesma

"Substantial evidence does not necessarily import preponderance of evidence as is required in an ordinary civil case; rather, it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."

G.R. No. 129124. March 15, 2002

RENATO A. TAPIADOR, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and ATTY. RONALDO P. LEDESMA, Respondents.

Clay & Feather International, Inc. (CFII) v. Lichaytoo

"Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. Probable cause is meant such set of facts and circumstances, which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the offense charged in the Information, or any offense included therein, has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. In determining probable cause, the average person weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he has no technical knowledge. He relies on common sense. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than bare suspicion, but it requires less than evidence that would justify a conviction."

          "A finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry as to whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. It is enough that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief.  A trial is intended precisely for the reception of prosecution evidence in support of the charge. The court is tasked to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented by the parties at a trial on the merits." 

         

          "To constitute the crime of Theft, defined and penalized under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, the following elements must be established that: (1) there be taking of personal property; (2) said property belongs to another; (3) the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) the taking be accomplished without use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things."

          "Theft is qualified under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code under the following circumstances: (1) if the theft is committed by a domestic servant; (2) if the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence; (3) if the property stolen is a (a) motor vehicle, (b) mail matter, or (c) large cattle; (4) if the property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation; (5) if the property is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery; or (6) if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident, or civil disturbance."

"The counter-allegations of respondents essentially delve on evidentiary matters that are best passed upon in a full-blown trial. The issues upon which the charges are built pertain to factual matters that cannot be threshed out conclusively during the preliminary stage of the case. Precisely, there is a trial for the presentation of prosecution's evidence in support of the charge^. The presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits. The validity and merits of a party’s defense or accusation, as well as admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level."

 G.R. No. 193105   May 30, 2011

This case involves 5 counts of qualified theft among owners of a gun shop. Informations were filed but were later dismissed. the issue was brought to the Supreme court. the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the dismissal of the informations against the respondents.

LVM Construction Corporation, represented by its Managing Director, Andres Chua Lao Vs. F.T. Sanchez/SOCOR/KIMWA (Joint Venture), et al.

"Indeed, a contract constitutes the law between the parties who are, therefore, bound by its stipulation which, when couched in clear and plain language, should be applied according to their literal tenor."

  

"VAT is a uniform tax levied on every importation of goods, whether or not in the course of trade or business, or imposed on each sale, barter, exchange or lease of goods or properties or on each rendition of services in the course of trade or business. It is a tax on transactions, imposed at every stage of the distribution process on the sale, barter, exchange of goods or property, and on the performance of services, even in the absence of profit attributable thereto. As an indirect tax that may be shifted or passed on to the buyer, transferee or lessee of the goods, properties or services, VAT should be understood not in the context of the person or entity that is primarily, directly and legally liable for its payment, but in terms of its nature as a tax on consumption."

G.R. No. 181961. December 5, 2011

LVM Construction Corporation, represented by its Managing Director, Andres Chua Lao Vs. F.T. Sanchez/SOCOR/KIMWA (Joint Venture), et al.

This is a collection of sum of money case between the contractor of the DPWH and its subcontractor.

The contractor failed to pay its sub-contractor despite the termination of the contract and insist that it has a right to deduct from the retention money the VAT that it paid to the government.

The Supreme Court disagrees and raised the concept that contracting parties can not change unilaterally the terms of the conrtract and re-explained the concept of Value Added Tax.

Polsotin et al v. De Guia Enterprises

 A worker cannot be deprived of his job, a property right, without satisfying the requirements of due process. As enshrined in our bill of rights, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

G.R. No. 172624. December 5, 2011

Pablo Polsotin, Jr. et al. Vs. De Guia Enterprises, Inc

This case zeroes in on the concept that technical rules may be set aside in the interest of substantial justice.

Petitioners in this case filed an illegal dismissal case against their employee but was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter. They filed an appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission but it was not given due course for failure to comply with the rules on certification of non-forum shopping. The said ruling was sustained in the Court of Appeals when brought to its jurisdiction through a certiorari.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter on the ground that technical rules must gave way to substantial justice considering that the employees were not represented by a counsel in this case.