This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-09-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Section 265 of the Omnibus Election Code was amended by Section 43 of R.A. No. 9369,[71] which reads: Section 43. Section 265 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 is hereby amended to read as follows: | |||||
|
2000-07-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| "The Special Civil Action Of Certiorari Or Prohibition Is Not The Proper Remedy Against Interlocutory Orders Such As Those Assailed In These Proceedings; I.E., An Order Denying A Motion To Quash The Information, And One Declaring The Accused To Have Waived His Right To Present Evidence And Considering The Case Submitted For Decision. As Pointed Out By The Office Of The Solicitor General (Citing Nierras V. Dacuycuy, 181 Scra 1 [1990]), And Acharon V. Purisima, Et Al., 13 Scra 309; People V. Madaluyo, 1 Scra 990), The Established Rule Is That When Such An Adverse Interlocutory Order Is Rendered, The Remedy Is Not To Resort Forthwith To Certiorari Or Prohibition, But To Continue With The Case In Due Course And, When An Unfavorable Verdict Is Handed Down To Take An Appeal In The Manner Authorized By Law. It Is Only Where There Are Special Circumstances Clearly Demonstrating The Inadequacy Of An Appeal That The Special Civil Action Of Certiorari Or Prohibition May Exceptionally Be Allowed. The Court Has Been Cited To No Such Special Circumstances In The Cases At Bar."[50] In The Case At Bar, There Is No Showing Of Such Special Circumstances. The Jurisdiction Of The Ombudsman Over The Complaint Is Not Even Questioned By Petitioner[51] As His Motion To Quash The Information Is Based On The Allegedly "Highly Anomalous Preliminary Investigation" That Amounted To A Denial Of His Rights To Due Process And To Speedy Disposition Of The Charge Against Him. However, An Incomplete Preliminary Investigation[52]Or The Absence Thereof[53] May Not Warrant The Quashal Of An Information. In Such Cases, The Proper Procedure Is For The Sandiganbayan To Hold In Abeyance Any Further Proceedings Conducted And To Remand The Case To The Ombudsman For Preliminary Investigation Or Completion Thereof. However, Granting Arguendo That The Preliminary Investigation Was Sham And Highly Anomalous In This Case, That Defect Was Cured When The Above Procedure Was In Fact Observed By The Sandiganbayan. Hence, On The Issue Alone Of The Propriety Of The Remedy Sought By Petitioner, The Instant Petition For Certiorari And Prohibition Must Fail. However, In The Interest Of Justice, We Shall Resolve The Issue Of Whether Or Not The Ombudsman Conducted The Preliminary Investigation Erroneously And Irregularly. | |||||