Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 166836 2013-09-04	SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES v. SEC. HERNANDO B. PEREZ BERSAMIN, J.
The submission is unfounded. The rule on prejudicial question makes no distinction as to who is allowed to raise the defense. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos. When the law makes no distinction, we ought not to distinguish.[36]
	GR No. 192799 2012-10-24	ROLEX RODRIGUEZ Y OLAYRES v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
While Neypes was silent on the applicability of the "fresh period rule" to criminal cases, the issue was squarely addressed in Yu v. Tatad,[9] which expanded the scope of the doctrine in Neypes to criminal cases in appeals of conviction under Sec. 6, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Thus, the Court held in Yu: While Neypes involved the period to appeal in civil cases, the Court's pronouncement of a "fresh period" to appeal should equally apply to the period for appeal in criminal cases under Section 6 of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure x x x.[10]
	GR No. 192164 2011-10-12	CUYCO v. PEOPLE SERENO, J.
As a final point, while we held in Yu v. Samson-Tatad[14] that the rule in Neypes is also applicable to criminal cases regarding appeals from convictions in criminal cases under Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, nevertheless, the doctrine is not applicable to this case, considering that petitioner's Motion for Probation was filed out of time.