This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2013-10-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Ganzon's acts met the criteria in Largo v. Court of Appeals. To begin with, he was not acting in a private capacity when he acted menacingly towards Arlos, it being clear that his resentment of his poor performance rating, surely a matter that concerned his performance of duty, motivated his confronting the latter. Moreover, it did not matter that his acts were committed outside of office hours, because they were intimately connected to the office of the offender. An act is intimately connected to the office of the offender if it is committed as the consequence of the performance of the office by him, or if it cannot exist without the office even if public office is not an element of the crime in the abstract. This was the thrust in Alarilla v. Sandiganbayan,[19] with the Court citing ample jurisprudence.[20] | |||||
|
2013-09-30 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| At the outset, we emphasize that "[t]he resolution of a demurrer to evidence should be left to the exercise of sound judicial discretion. A lower court's order of denial shall not be disturbed, that is, the appellate courts will not review the prosecution's evidence and precipitately decide whether such evidence has established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, unless accused has established that such judicial discretion has been gravely abused, thereby amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction. Mere allegations of such abuse will not suffice."[46] | |||||
|
2012-09-05 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Still, the Sandiganbayan's error in not allowing Reyes to ask for leave to file a demurrer to the evidence cannot be regarded as capricious and whimsical as to constitute grave abuse of discretion.[25] Courts have wide latitude for denying the filing of demurrers to evidence.[26] Indeed, an order denying a motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself is not subject to appeal or certiorari action before judgment.[27] The remedy is to assign the order of denial as an error on appeal after judgment.[28] | |||||
|
2010-09-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Also, in the case Alarilla v. Sandiganbayan,[20] where the public official was charged with grave threats, this Court ruled:x x x In the case at bar, the amended information contained allegations that the accused, petitioner herein, took advantage of his official functions as municipal mayor of Meycauayan, Bulacan when he committed the crime of grave threats as defined in Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code against complainant Simeon G. Legaspi, a municipal councilor. The Office of the Special Prosecutor charged petitioner with aiming a gun at and threatening to kill Legaspi during a public hearing, after the latter had rendered a privilege speech critical of petitioner's administration. Clearly, based on such allegations, the crime charged is intimately connected with the discharge of petitioner's official functions. This was elaborated upon by public respondent in its April 25, 1997 resolution wherein it held that the "accused was performing his official duty as municipal mayor when he attended said public hearing" and that "accused's violent act was precipitated by complainant's criticism of his administration as the mayor or chief executive of the municipality, during the latter's privilege speech. It was his response to private complainant's attack to his office. If he was not the mayor, he would not have been irritated or angered by whatever private complainant might have said during said privilege speech." Thus, based on the allegations in the information, the Sandiganbayan correctly assumed jurisdiction over the case. | |||||
|
2009-07-30 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide a case is conferred by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action unless such statute provides for a retroactive application thereof.[12] Jurisdiction is moreover determined by the allegations or averments in the complaint or petition.[13] | |||||
|
2008-07-14 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Applied uniformly is the familiar rule that the jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide a case is conferred by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action, unless such statute provides for a retroactive application thereof.[10] In this case, at the time the criminal information for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide with violation of the Automobile Law (now Land Transportation and Traffic Code) was filed, Section 32(2) of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129[11] had already been amended by Republic Act No. 7691. [12] The said provision thus reads:Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases.--Except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: | |||||
|
2004-10-18 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Generally, jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action.[8] When petitioner filed the ejectment case on May 17, 1979, the applicable law was PD 1367, Section 1 of which provided that:labor arbiters shall not entertain claims for moral or other forms of damages. | |||||
|
2004-04-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| A little over a month later, the Court, in Deloso vs. Domingo,[5] pronounced that the Ombudsman, under the authority of Section 13 (1) of the 1987 Constitution, has jurisdiction to investigate any crime committed by a public official, elucidating thus: As protector of the people, the office of the Ombudsman has the power, function and duty to "act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials" (Sec. 12) and to "investigate x x x any act or omission of any public official x x x when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient." (Sec. 13[1].) The Ombudsman is also empowered to "direct the officer concerned," in this case the Special Prosecutor, "to take appropriate action against a public official x x x and to recommend his prosecution" (Sec. 13[3]). | |||||
|
2003-09-16 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Well-settled is the principle that the jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action.[55] Here, the applicable law is Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1606,[56] as amended by P.D. No. 1861.[57] Section 4, paragraph (a) thereof provides:"SECTION 4. Jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise: | |||||