This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-09-24 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Undoubtedly, the above-quoted falls under Section 5 (a) of R.A. 7610, the appellant acting as a procurer of a child and inducing the latter into prostitution. It must be remembered that the character of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they may be conclusions of law, but by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information.[28] The sufficiency of an information is not negated by an incomplete or defective designation of the crime in the caption or other parts of the information but by the narration of facts and circumstances which adequately depicts a crime and sufficiently apprises the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[29] | |||||
|
2006-06-30 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| But errors of judgment not relating to jurisdiction are, as a rule, correctable only by appeal, not by the extraordinary remedy of certiorari.[6] For, as long as a court acts within its jurisdiction, any supposed error committed in the exercise thereof will amount to nothing more than an error of judgment reviewable and may be corrected by a timely appeal. To stress, the assailed CA decision came to the fore on account of private respondent's appeal thereto from the RTC decision. It is neither claimed nor pretended by the petitioners that the appellate court was without jurisdiction to entertain or act on that appeal, which appeal necessarily threw the whole case wide open for the consideration of the appellate court, not simply on the points urged by the petitioners, but on all other grounds found legal and valid by that court to warrant the grant or dismissal of the appeal. In fact, given the very nature of the complaint filed by the petitioners before the trial court, which is to permanently enjoin the private respondent from fencing her property wherein the alleged right-of-way exists, the resolution of the case inevitably calls for the determination of the question of whether, in the first place, petitioners are entitled to the claimed right-of-way. | |||||
|
2006-01-25 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial. It is not a trial of the case on the merits.[19] Its sole purpose is to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether the respondent is probably guilty of the crime.[20] It is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence.[21] Hence, if the investigating prosecutor is already satisfied that he can reasonably determine the existence of probable cause based on the parties' evidence thus presented, he may terminate the proceedings and resolve the case. | |||||
|
2005-07-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| [34] Reyes v. Camilon, G.R. No. 46198, 20 December 1990, 192 SCRA 445, 453. | |||||