This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-08-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| As reflected in the above elements, the concept of a prejudicial question involves both a civil and a criminal case. There can be no prejudicial question to speak of if, technically, no civil case is pending.[129] | |||||
|
2015-04-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| At the outset, res judicata is a doctrine of civil law and thus has no bearing on criminal proceedings.[29] At any rate, petitioner's argument is incidentally related to double jeopardy which embrace's a prohibition against being tried for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information. | |||||
|
2011-06-08 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Double jeopardy attaches only (1) upon a valid indictment, (2) before a competent court, (3) after arraignment, (4) when a valid plea has been entered, and (5) when the defendant was convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.[2] We have held that none of these requisites applies where the Ombudsman only conducted a preliminary investigation of the same criminal offense against the respondent public officer.[3] The dismissal of a case during preliminary investigation does not constitute double jeopardy, preliminary investigation not being part of the trial.[4] | |||||
|
2009-03-12 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence explains that the Office of the Ombudsman is vested with the sole power to investigate and prosecute, motu proprio or on complaint of any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office, or agency when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.[42] The Ombudsman's power to investigate and to prosecute is plenary and unqualified.[43] | |||||