This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2008-07-23 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| More than the delay in the resolution of Blanco's pending motion, however, what caught the Court's attention is respondent judge's admission that due to inadvertence, the court "proceeded with the Estafa cases in the same way it handled the Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 cases up to the arraignment and preliminary conference stage."[7] In other words, no preliminary investigation was conducted despite the fact that in three of the charges for estafa,[8] the penalties corresponding to the amounts involved exceed four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, in which case, the conduct of a preliminary investigation is required under Section 1, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Respondent judge sought to remedy this "inadvertence" in his Order[9] dated 11 October 2007, in which he endorsed Criminal Case Nos. 21804, 21807 and 21808 to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal for the requisite preliminary investigation. | |||||