This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-08-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In terms of its effects on the prompt disposition of cases, consolidation could cut both ways. It may expedite trial or it could cause delays. Cognizant of this dichotomy, the Court, in Dacanay v. People,[24] stated the dictum that "the resulting inconvenience and expense on the part of the government cannot not be given preference over the right to a speedy trial and the protection of a person's life, liberty or property." Indeed, the right to a speedy resolution of cases can also be affected by consolidation. As we intoned in People v. Sandiganbayan, a case involving the denial by the anti-graft court of the prosecution's motion to consolidate a criminal case for indirect bribery with another case for plunder, consolidation should be refused if it will unduly expose a party, private respondent in that instance, to totally unrelated testimonies, delay the resolution of the indirect bribery case, muddle the issues, and expose him to the inconveniences of a lengthy and complicated legal battle in the plunder case. Consolidation, the Court added, has also been rendered inadvisable by supervening events in particular, if the testimonies sought to be introduced in the joint trial had already been heard in the earlier case.[25] | |||||
|
2005-08-22 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Domingo and his wife, respondent Prima Cabreros, took physical possession of the lots. In 1976, they had the tax declarations in the name of Maura Caputol cancelled and transferred to them.[6] | |||||
|
2005-07-22 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Domingo and his wife, respondent Prima Cabreros, took physical possession of the lots. In 1976, they had the tax declarations in the name of Maura Caputol cancelled and transferred to them.[6] | |||||