This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2005-02-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is axiomatic that where an accused appeals the decision against him, he throws open the whole case for review and it then becomes the duty of the Supreme Court to correct any error as may be found in the appealed judgment, whether it was made the subject of assignment of errors or not.[28] | |||||
|
2001-02-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Meanwhile, Tangan filed a separate petition for review under Rule 45, docketed as G.R. No. 105830.[16] Since the petition for certiorari filed by the Solicitor General remained unresolved, the two cases were consolidated.[17] The Office of the Solicitor General filed a manifestation in G.R. No. 105830, asking that it be excused from filing a comment to Tangan's petition for review, in order to avoid taking contradictory positions.[18] | |||||
|
2001-02-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| When the accused took the gun from his car and when he tried to get out of the car and the two Mirandas saw the accused already holding the gun, they started to grapple for the possession of the gun that it went off hitting Generoso Miranda at the stomach. The court believes that contrary to the testimony of the accused, he never lost possession of the gun for if he did and when the gun fell to the ground, it will not first explode or if it did, somebody is not holding the same, the trajectory of the bullet would not be perpendicular or horizontal.[33] The Court of Appeals agreed - | |||||