This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-01-21 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| We also note the separate opinion of Justice Isagani Cruz in People v. Mendoza[28] where he stated: I am bothered by the improvident plea of guilty made by accused Juan Magalop, presumably upon the advice of his counsel, Atty. Isidro L. Caracol of the CLAO (now the PAO). It would seem that this lawyer was less than conscientious when he advised his indigent client to admit a crime the man did no[t] commit. As the ponencia observes, "outside of his improvident plea of guilt, there is absolutely no evidence against him presented or forthcoming. From the evidence of the prosecution, there is no way by which Magalop could have been implicated." | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| x x x In criminal actions brought before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, the authority to represent the State is solely vested in the OSG. This is pursuant to Section 35 (1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book III of the Administrative Code of 1987, as amended, providing that the OSG shall represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings. In People v. Eduarte,[2] People v. Nano,[3] and People v. Mendoza,[4] we ruled that "only the Solicitor General may bring or defend actions on behalf of the People of the Philippines once such actions are brought before the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court." | |||||