This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-03-02 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| On September 10, 1999, petitioner filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution of Judgment by Compromise Agreement[11] in Civil Case No. 9242. On October 25, 1999, petitioner then filed an Amended Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution[12] for the execution of the Supreme Court's July 15, 1999 Resolution. Mondragon opposed both motions on the ground that the issuance of a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 9242 was not proper. Before the trial court could resolve the motion or on November 12, 1999, Mondragon filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief and Specific Performance before the Angeles City RTC, Branch 60, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 9596 entitled Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corporation, et al. v. Clark Development Corporation (Second Mondragon Case).[13] Mondragon alleged in the petition that (1) CDC's cancellation/termination of the Compromise Agreement was null and void; (2) Mondragon had already substantially complied with its obligations under said agreement; and (3) CDC should be ordered to perform and comply with its obligations under the Compromise Agreement, and to implement in full the Compromise Agreement in so far as it allowed MLRC to settle the PhP 325 million compromise rentals not later than June 30, 2000, and, for this purpose, to accept any payment tendered by Mondragon as long as such was made not later than June 30, 2000. | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| "The criminal process includes the investigation prior to the filing of charges, the preliminary examination and investigation after charges are filed, and the period of trial. The Miranda rights or the Section 12(1) rights were conceived for the first of these three phases, that is, when the enquiry is under the control of police officers. It is in this situation that the psychological if not physical atmosphere of custodial investigations, in the absence of proper safeguards, is inherently coercive. Outside of this situation, Section 12(1) no longer applies."[11] To repeat, custodial investigation has been defined as questioning initiated by police officers after a person has been taken into custody or significantly deprived of freedom of action.[12] | |||||