This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-07-07 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| (1) That the offender is a public officer whether in the service or separated therefrom; (2) That he must be an accountable officer for public funds or property; (3) That he is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the COA or to a provincial auditor; and, (4) That he fails to do so for a period of two months after such account should be rendered.[18] | |||||
|
2012-10-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In view of the provisions of R.A. 7055, the military tribunals cannot exercise jurisdiction over respondents' case since the offense for which they were charged is not included in the enumeration of "service-connected offenses or crimes" as provided for under Section 1 thereof. The said law is very clear that the jurisdiction to try members of the AFP who commit crimes or offenses covered by the RPC, and which are not service-connected, lies with the civil courts. Where the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be taken to mean exactly what it says and the court has no choice but to see to it that its mandate is obeyed. There is no room for interpretation, but only application.[22] Hence, the RTC cannot divest itself of its jurisdiction over the alleged crime of multiple murder. | |||||
|
2008-08-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Unlike an examination of a defense witness which, pursuant to Section 5, Rule 119 of the previous Rules, and now Section 13, Rule 119 of the present Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, may be taken before any "judge, or, if not practicable, a member of the Bar in good standing so designated by the judge in the order, or, if the order be made by a court of superior jurisdiction, before an inferior court to be designated therein," the examination of a witness for the prosecution under Section 15 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (December 1, 2000) may be done only "before the court where the case is pending."[32] Rule 119 categorically states that the conditional examination of a prosecution witness shall be made before the court where the case is pending. Contrary to petitioners' contention, there is nothing in the rule which may remotely be interpreted to mean that such requirement applies only to cases where the witness is within the jurisdiction of said court and not when he is kilometers away, as in the present case. Therefore, the court may not introduce exceptions or conditions. Neither may it engraft into the law (or the Rules) qualifications not contemplated.[33] When the words are clear and categorical, there is no room for interpretation. There is only room for application.[34] | |||||
|
2008-07-21 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners' invocation of the pendency before this Court of Francisco Soriano v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc.[19] along with Vector Shipping Corporation and Francisco Soriano v. American Home Assurance Co. and Sulpicio Lines, Inc.[20] is unavailing. It may be noted that in a Resolution dated February 13, 2006, this Court denied the petition in Francisco Soriano v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc. for its failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the challenged decision as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. As a result, the CA decision[21] dated November 17, 2003 holding that Sulpicio Lines has a right to reimbursement and indemnification from the third-party defendants Soriano and Vector Shipping, who are the same petitioners in this case, was sustained by this Court. Considering that in the cases which have reached this Court, we have consistently upheld the third-party liability of petitioners, we see no cogent reason to deviate from this ruling. | |||||