This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-02-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Finally, the disposition of this case should not end by merely declaring the trial court's order void. In the cases of Mosquera v. Panganiban,[22] and Perez v. Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc.,[23] the Court not only declared the order of the trial court invalid but also directed the trial court to resolve the case on the merits, make its own determination of probable cause and to state therein clearly the reason or reasons after due consideration of the evidence of the parties. | |||||
|
2006-07-11 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In Mosquera v. Panganiban,[16] the trial court failed to state a good reason for the withdrawal of the Information. We held that the exercise of the trial court's discretion is neither just nor fair. The ruling in Mosquera is applicable to the instant case. It bears reiterating that the Sandiganbayan merely relied on the arguments of private complainant. Thus, it relinquished its discretion it was duty bound to exercise. | |||||
|
2001-01-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Rule 122, ยง1 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that "(a)ny party may appeal from a judgment or final order, unless the accused will be placed in double jeopardy." It has been held that the word "party" in the provision in question includes not only the government and the accused but other persons as well, such as the complainant who may be affected by the judgment rendered in the criminal proceedings. The complainant has an interest in the civil liability arising from the crime, unless of course he has reserved to bring a separate civil action to recover the civil liability.[20] Hence, in the prosecution of the offense, the complainant's role is that of a witness for the prosecution.[21] Ordinarily, the appeal of criminal cases involves as parties only the accused, as appellants, and the State, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, as the appellee. The participation of the private offended party would be a mere surplusage, if the State were simply to seek the affirmation of a judgment of conviction. However, where the Office of the Solicitor General takes a contrary position and recommends, as in this case, the acquittal of the accused, the complainant's right to be heard on the question of award of indemnity and damages arises. In the interest of justice and equity and to provide perspective for this appeal, therefore, the Court hereby allows in this case the memorandum filed by complainant which is hereby admitted as part of the records of this appeal. | |||||