Category: Uncategorized


CASE 2019-0045: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DATU ANDAL “UNSAY” AMPATUAN, JR., ET AL. (CRIMINAL CASE NOS. Q-09-162148-72/Q-09-162216-31/Q-10-162652-66/Q-10-163766/GL-Q-12-178638)

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

 

SCD-2019-0045-PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DATU ANDAL “UNSAY” AMPATUAN, JR., ET AL.

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

Guidelines on the Live Media Coverage of the Promulgation of People of the Philippines Vs. Datu Andal “Unsay” Ampatuan, Jr., et al.

 

TO READ THE GUIDELINES, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT OPEN GO TO DOWNLOAD AND THE FILE APPEARS AS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

 

SCD-2019-0038-Guidelines on the Live Media Coverage of the Promulgation of People of the Philippines Vs. Datu Andal “Unsay” Ampatuan, Jr., et al. 

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2019-0010: RAQUIL-ALI M. LUCMAN, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SANDIGANBAYAN 2ND DIVISION, RESPONDENTS (G.R. NO. 238815, 18 MARCH 2019, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (SUBJECT/S: VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (C) OF RA 3019.) (BRIEF TITLE: LUCMAN VS PEOPLE)

 

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March 9, 2018 and the Resolution dated April 23, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan in Crim. Case No. SB-13-CRM-0595 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Raquil-Ali M. Lucman is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 3 (c) of Republic Act No. 3019 or the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,” and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to nine (9) years, as maximum, with perpetual disqualification from public office.

SO ORDERED.”

 

 

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

“After a judicious review of the case, the Court is convinced that the SB correctly convicted Lucman for violating Section 3 (c) of RA 3019. It is undisputed that Lucman was a public officer at the time the offense was committed, then being the OIC-RED of the DENR, Region XII. As the OIC-RED, he had the authority to grant applications for Free Patents, such as the ones filed by private complainants.[21] It was likewise established through the testimony of Bualan and the evidence on record that Lucman demanded Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00) and actually received One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,500,000.00)[22] from private complainants, and that these amounts were for and in consideration of the grant of their applications.[23]

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to overturn the SB’s findings, as there is no showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of this case, and considering further the fact that it was in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of the parties’ witnesses.[24] As such, Lucman’s conviction for violation of Section 3 (c) of RA 3019 must stand.

As regards the proper penalty to be imposed on Lucman, Section 9 (a)[25] of RA 3019, as amended,[26] states that the prescribed penalties for a violation of the said crime includes, inter alia, imprisonment for a period of six (6) years and one (1) month to fifteen (15) years and perpetual disqualification from public office. Taking into consideration the provision of the Indeterminate Sentence Law,[27] which states that “in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by acts of the Philippine Legislature, otherwise than by the Revised Penal Code, the court shall order the accused to be imprisoned for a minimum term, which shall not be less than the minimum term of imprisonment provided by law for the offense, and for a maximum term which shall not exceed the maximum fixed law,”[28] the Court deems it proper to modify Lucman’s sentence to imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to nine (9) years, as maximum, with perpetual disqualification to hold public office.”

  

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SC-2019-0010-SC CASE G.R. NO G.R. NO. 238815, 18 MARCH 2019- RAQUIL-ALI M. LUCMAN VS PEOPLE ET AL..

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.