Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LETICIA R. MERCIALES v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 183652 2015-02-25	PEOPLE v. CA PERALTA, J.
Here, AAA filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, albeit at the instance of her private counsel, primarily imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA when it acquitted private respondents. As the aggrieved party, AAA clearly has the right to bring the action in her name and maintain the criminal prosecution. She has an immense interest in obtaining justice in the case precisely because she is the subject of the violation. Further, as held in Dela Rosa v. CA,[21] where the Court sustained the private offended party's right in a criminal case to file a special civil action for certiorari to question the validity of the judgment of dismissal and ruled that the Solicitor General's intervention was not necessary, the recourse of the complainant to the Court is proper since it was brought in her own name and not in that of the People of the Philippines. In any event, the OSG joins petitioner's cause in its Comment,[22] thereby fulfilling the requirement that all criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor.[23]
	GR No. 178607 2012-12-05	DANTE LA. JIMENEZ v. EDWIN SORONGON BRION, J.
While there may be rare occasions when the offended party may be allowed to pursue the criminal action on his own behalf[39] (as when there is a denial of due process), this exceptional circumstance does not apply in the present case.
	GR No. 166884 2012-06-13	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. LAMBERTO C. PEREZ BRION, J.
Based on jurisprudence, there are two exceptions when a private party complainant or offended party in a criminal case may file a petition with this Court, without the intervention of the OSG: (1) when there is denial of due process of law to the prosecution, and the State or its agents refuse to act on the case to the prejudice of the State and the private offended party;[39] and (2) when the private offended party questions the civil aspect of a decision of the lower court.[40]
	GR Nos. 153304-05 2012-02-07	PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN BRION, J.
The petitioner claims that the State was denied due process because of the nonfeasance committed by the special prosecutor in failing to present sufficient evidence to prove its case. It claims that the prosecutor failed to protect the State's interest in the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan. To support its position, petitioner cites the case of Merciales v. Court of Appeals[19] where the Court nullified the dismissal of the criminal cases due to the serious nonfeasance committed by the public prosecutor.
	GR No. 182336 2009-12-23	ELVIRA O. ONG v. JOSE CASIM GENIO NACHURA, J.
While there may be rare occasions when the offended party may be allowed to pursue the criminal action on his own behalf,[29] as when there is a denial of due process, this exceptional circumstance does not obtain in the instant case.
	GR No. 168918 2009-03-02	PEOPLE v. HERMENEGILDO DUMLAO Y CASTILIANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted of their jurisdiction. Where the denial of the fundamental right to due process is apparent, a decision in disregard of the right is void for lack of jurisdiction.[28] In the instant case, there was no error of judgment but a denial of due process resulting in loss of jurisdiction. Respondent Dumlao would not be placed in double jeopardy because, from the very beginning, the Sandiganbayan had acted without jurisdiction. Precisely, any ruling issued without jurisdiction is, in legal contemplation, necessarily null and void and does not exist.[29] Otherwise put, the dismissal of the case below was invalid for lack of a fundamental prerequisite, that is, due process. In rendering the judgment of dismissal, the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, for a judgment which is void for lack of due process is equivalent to excess or lack of jurisdiction.[30] This being the case, the prosecution is allowed to appeal because it was not given its day in court.
	GR NO. 165996 2005-10-17	RODOLFO G. VALENCIA v. SANDIGANBAYAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Furthermore, the haphazard manner by which Prosecutor Salindong handled the case for the State will not pass unnoticed by the Court. It is the duty of the public prosecutor to bring the criminal proceedings for the punishment of the guilty. Concomitant with this is the duty to pursue the prosecution of a criminal action and to represent the public interest.[30] With these standards, we thus find Prosecutor Salindong remiss in the performance of his responsibilities. He gravely abused his discretion by resting the case without adducing evidence for the State and without ensuring that petitioner had signed the Joint Stipulation of Facts before it was submitted to the Sandiganbayan. As a result, the prosecution was denied due process.