This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-08-06 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| To rule otherwise would leave the private respondent without any recourse to rectify the public injustice brought about by the trial court's Order, leaving her with only the standing to file administrative charges for ignorance of the law against the judge and the prosecutor. A party cannot be left without recourse to address a substantive issue in law.[73] | |||||
|
2009-12-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| This doctrine is laid down in our ruling in Heirs of Federico C. Delgado and Annalisa Pesico v. Luisito Q. Gonzalez and Antonio T. Buenaflor,[23] Cariño v. de Castro,[24] Mobilia Products, Inc. v. Umezawa,[25] Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz,[26] Perez v. Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc.,[27] and People v. Santiago,[28] where we held that only the OSG can bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic or represent the People or the State in criminal proceedings pending in this Court and the CA. | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| We are cognizant of our ruling in the cases of Perez v. Hagonoy,[15] Mobilia Products, Inc. v. Umezawa,[16] People v. Santiago,[17] and Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz,[18] where we held that only the OSG can bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic or represent the People or state in criminal proceedings pending in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. At the same time, we acknowledged in those cases that a private offended party, in the interest of substantial justice, and where there appears to be a grave error committed by the judge, or where there is lack of due process, may allow and give due course to the petition filed. However, the special circumstances prevailing in the abovementioned cases are not present in the instant case. In those cases, the petitioners availed of petition for certiorari under Rule 65. In the instant case, the petition was filed under Rule 45. Moreover, both the Metropolitan Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court found that petitioner was not duly authorized by the owner of the subject property to collect and receive rentals thereon. Thus, not only were the checks without valuable consideration; they were also issued for a non-existing account. With these undisputed findings, we cannot reconcile petitioner's allegation that she is the aggrieved party. Finally, petitioner cannot validly claim that she was denied due process considering that she availed of every opportunity to present her case. Thus, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the lower courts in dismissing the complaints. | |||||
|
2005-08-18 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The OSG filed its Comment[8] dated August 22, 2000, arguing that RA 26 presupposes that a title was previously issued by the Registry of Deeds in the name of the applicant which was subsequently lost or destroyed. In this case, the certification issued by the Registry of Deeds shows that said office did not issue a certificate of title covering Lot No. 4504. Even assuming that such a certificate of title was issued, the OSG avers that petitioners should have presented an authenticated copy of the decree of registration and not a mere certified photocopy. Moreover, they should have accompanied the petition with a plan and technical description of the property duly approved by the Land Registration Authority or with a certified true copy of the description taken from a prior certificate of title covering the same property pursuant to Sec. 12 of RA 26. | |||||
|
2004-12-16 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| In the present case, immediately after his determination of a probable cause, but before the termination of the preliminary investigation, respondent judge granted the accused bail in the amount of P120,000 each, later reducing this to P60,000 over the objection of the prosecution. This pronouncement was stated not in a resolution, but in a separate order declaring the finding on the existence of a probable cause and without any summary of his findings of fact and law supporting his action. The court's grant or refusal of bail must contain a summary of the evidence of the prosecution on the basis of which should be formulated the judge's own conclusion on whether such evidence is strong enough to indicate the guilt of the accused. The summary thereof is considered an aspect of procedural due process for both the prosecution and the defense; its absence will invalidate the grant or the denial of the application for bail.[16] Nowhere is such summary to be found in the order of respondent judge. | |||||
|
2004-11-26 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Respondent judge did not follow the above Rules and procedure enumerated in Cortes.[16] He did not conduct a hearing before he granted bail to the accused, thus depriving the prosecution of an opportunity to interpose objections to the grant of bail. Irrespective of his opinion on the strength or weakness of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, he should have conducted a hearing and thereafter made a summary of the evidence of the prosecution. The importance of a bail hearing and a summary of evidence cannot be downplayed, these are considered aspects of procedural due process for both the prosecution and the defense; its absence will invalidate the grant or denial of bail.[17] | |||||
|
2001-06-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The case of Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz,[7].citing the landmark case of Basco v. Rapatalo,[8].expounded on what this judicial discretion consists of, thus: When the grant of bail is discretionary, the prosecution has the burden of showing that the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong. However, the determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong, being a matter of judicial discretion remains with the judge. This discretion, by the very nature of things, may rightly be exercised only after evidence is submitted to the court at the hearing. Since the discretion is directed to the weight of the evidence and since evidence cannot properly be weighed if not duly exhibited or produced before the court, it is obvious that a proper exercise of judicial discretion requires that the evidence of guilt be submitted to the court, the petitioner having the right of cross-examination and to introduce evidence in rebuttal. | |||||
|
2000-12-15 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| In the recent case of Narciso vs. Romana-Cruz[11], we reiterated the doctrine enunciated in People vs. Calo[12] that: "While the rule is, as held by the Court of Appeals, only the Solicitor General may bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or the State in criminal proceeding pending in this Court and the Court of Appeals (Republic vs. Partisala, 118 SCRA 320 [1982]), the ends of substantial justice would be better served, and the issues in this action could be determined in a more just, speedy and inexpensive manner, by entertaining the petition at bar. As an offended party in a criminal case, private petitioner has sufficient personality and a valid grievance against Judge Adao's order granting bail to the alleged murderers of his (private petitioner's) father. | |||||