Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SOLAR TEAM ENTERTAINMENT v. ROLANDO HOW

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No.181021 2012-12-10	BURGUNDY REALTY CORPORATION v. JOSEFA 'JING' C. REYES PERALTA, J.
It is not disputed that decisions or resolutions of prosecutors are subject to appeal to the Secretary of Justice who, under the Revised Administrative Code,[9] exercises the power of direct control and supervision over said prosecutors; and who may thus affirm, nullify, reverse or modify their rulings. Review as an act of supervision and control by the justice secretary over the fiscals and prosecutors finds basis in the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies which holds that mistakes, abuses or negligence committed in the initial steps of an administrative activity or by an administrative agency should be corrected by higher administrative authorities, and not directly by courts.[10]
	GR No. 192898 2011-01-31	SPS. ALEXANDER TRINIDAD AND CECILIA TRINIDAD v. VICTOR ANG BRION, J.
In addition, the cases cited by the petitioners - Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v. How,[11] Roberts, Jr. v. CA,[12] and Dimatulac v. Villon[13] - were all decided prior to the amendment to Section 11 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which took effect on December 1, 2000. At the time these cases were decided, there was no 60-day limit on the suspension of arraignment.
	GR No. 175887 2010-11-24	HEIRS OF LATE NESTOR TRIA v. ATTY. EPIFANIA OBIAS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Further, it is well within the court's sound discretion to suspend arraignment to await the result of the justice secretary's review of the correctness of the filing of the criminal information.[36] There are exceptional cases, such as in Dimatulac v. Villon[37] wherein we have suggested that it would have been wiser for the court to await the justice secretary's resolution before proceeding with the case to avert a miscarriage of justice. Evidently however, this is not a hard and fast rule, for the court has complete control over the case before it.
	GR No. 152889 2009-06-05	ENRIQUE V. VIUDEZ II v. CA PERALTA, J.
Petitioner has put emphasis on his argument that the suspension of the proceedings in court, including the suspension of the implementation of a warrant of arrest pending a resolution of an appeal by the Secretary of Justice, is in consonance with jurisprudence laid down by this Court in Marcelo v. Court of Appeals, [34] Roberts, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, [35] Ledesma v. Court of Appeals,[36] Dimatulac v. Villon,[37] and Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v. How.[38]
	GR NO. 168617 2007-02-19	BERNADETTE L. ADASA v. CECILLE S. ABALOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The all too-familiar rule in statutory construction, in this case, an administrative rule[9] of procedure, is that when a statute or rule is clear and unambiguous, interpretation need not be resorted to.[10] Since Section 7 of the subject circular clearly and categorically directs the DOJ to dismiss outright an appeal or a petition for review filed after arraignment, no resort to interpretation is necessary.