This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-01-18 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| 1) As of audit date, March 5 and 6, 2009, Branch 27, Sta. Cruz had a total caseload of 507 cases consisting of 280 criminal cases and 227 civil cases based on the records actually presented to, and examined by, the audit team. 2) Out of the total number of pending criminal cases, no further action was taken after varying considerable periods of time in 14 cases.[2] 3) Pending incidents and motions filed by parties in 8 criminal cases[3] were left unresolved for more than one (1) year in 3 cases, and three months in 2 cases. 4) Twenty-nine (29) criminal cases[4] submitted for decision, the earliest in 2001, were undecided. 5) Of the 227 civil cases lodged in the court, no setting for hearing and no further action was taken on 46 cases.[5] 6) Twenty-four (24) civil cases[6] have pending motions/incidents awaiting resolution, the earliest since 2002. 7) Fifty-seven (57) civil cases[7] submitted for decision from 2000 to 2009 were undecided at the time of the audit. 8) In the course of the audit in Branch 27, Sta. Cruz, several records of criminal cases were found to be incomplete. The records were not paginated. Certificates of arraignment, minutes of hearings and notices of hearing were missing from the files. 9) The record of one case, Criminal Case No. 12178,[8] an appealed case submitted for resolution, is missing and is in the possession of Judge Leonida as per certification issued by Atty. Bernadette Platon, the Branch Clerk of Court.[9] | |||||
|
2000-06-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| These attempts of the accused to discredit Gregorio obviously cannot hold ground. Neither can they bolster his alibi. For alibi to be believed it must be shown that (a) the accused was in another place at the time of the commission of the offense, and (b) it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene.[12] | |||||
|
2000-06-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| For the defense of alibi to prosper, the following must be established: (a) the presence of the accused-appellant in another place at the time of the commission of the offense; and, (b) physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime.[37] These requisites were not fulfilled in this case. Considering that accused-appellants themselves admitted that they were in the same municipality as the place where the offense occurred, it cannot be said that it was physically impossible for them to have committed the crime. On the contrary, they were in the immediate vicinity of the area where the robbery took place. Thus, their defense of alibi cannot prosper. | |||||