This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-08-31 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| While it is true that the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy to inquire into questions of violations of constitutional right,[59] this Court, however, does not find the conditions of Major Aquino's confinement to be a proper subject of inquiry in the instant Petition. | |||||
|
2005-08-25 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| However, a mere allegation of a violation of one's constitutional right is not sufficient. The courts will extend the scope of the writ only if any of the following circumstances is present: (a) there is a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the unlawful restraint of a person; (b) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or (c) an excessive penalty is imposed and such sentence is void as to the excess.[13] Whatever situation the petitioner invokes, the threshold remains high. The violation of constitutional right must be sufficient to void the entire proceedings.[14] | |||||
|
2000-02-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| "The issue of "DNA tests" as a more accurate and authoritative means of identification than eye-witness identification need not be belabored. The accused were all properly and duly identified by the prosecution's principal witness…DNA testing proposed by petitioners to have an objective and scientific basis of identification of "semen samples to compare with those taken from the vagina of the victim" are thus unnecessary or are forgotten evidence too late to consider now."[27] | |||||