This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-02-02 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| On 14 November 2003, respondents filed before the trial court a petition for prohibition with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction.[12] Respondents claimed that they were denied the benefits which GSIS employees were entitled under Resolution No. 306. Respondents also sought to restrain and prohibit petitioners from implementing Resolution Nos. 197 and 372. Respondents claimed that the denial of the employee benefits due them on the ground of their pending administrative cases violates their right to be presumed innocent and that they are being punished without hearing. Respondent Molina also added that he had already earned his right to the step increment before Resolution No. 372 was enacted. Respondents also argued that the three resolutions were ineffective because they were not registered with the University of the Philippines (UP) Law Center pursuant to the Revised Administrative Code of 1987.[13] | |||||
|
2000-12-04 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| Based on the aforecited rule, three (3) things are enjoined of the trial court after a plea of guilty to a capital offense is entered by the accused: 1. The trial court must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea; 2. The trial court must require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability through the requisite quantum of evidence; and 3. The trial court must ask the accused if he desires to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires.[25] It must be emphasized that the said procedure is mandatory and any judge who fails to observe it commits grave abuse of discretion.[26] | |||||