Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REYNALDO V. TUANDA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 199032 2014-11-19	RETIRED SPO4 BIENVENIDO LAUD v. PEOPLE PER CURIAM
In order for the de facto doctrine to apply, all of the following elements must concur: (a) there must be a de jure office; (b) there must be color of right or general acquiescence by the public; and (c) there must be actual physical possession of the office in good faith.[41]
	AM No. 13-04-03-SC 2013-12-10	RE: NOMINATION OF ATTY. LYNDA CHAGUILE LEONEN, J.
To be a de facto officer, all of the following elements must be present: 1) There must be a de jure office; 2) There must be color of right or general acquiescence by the public; and 3) There must be actual physical possession of the office in good faith.[58] (Underscoring supplied)
	AM No. 13-04-03-SC 2013-12-10	RE: NOMINATION OF ATTY. LYNDA CHAGUILE LEONEN, J.
We note that on May 16, 2013, signatories claiming to be delegates of the IBP Northern Luzon Region submitted to this Court a copy of an undated Resolution calling for an election to name Atty. Denis B. Habawel's successor as IBP Governor for Northern Luzon. We also note that on May 20, 2013, the same individuals submitted their Opposition to Atty. Chaguile's nomination as Atty. Habawel's replacement. On the basis of this, there appears to be a ground for arguing that there was no "general acquiescence by the public"[63] to Atty. Chaguile's having replaced Atty. Habawel.
	GR No. 174168 2009-03-30	SY TIONG SHIOU v. SY CHIM TINGA, J.
A prejudicial question comes into play generally in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed since howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. The reason behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions. It has two essential elements: (a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.[24]
	GR No. 171435 2008-07-30	ANTHONY T. REYES v. PEARLBANK SECURITIES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A prejudicial question is defined as one which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal.[32]
	GR NOS. 162748-50 2006-03-28	PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
A prejudicial question is defined as that which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court but the jurisdiction to try and resolve the question must be lodged in another court of tribunal. It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from "the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. It comes into play generally in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. [43] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
	GR NO. 140777 2005-04-08	ANTONIO ABACAN v. NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Technically, there would be no prejudicial question to speak of in this case, if we are to consider the general rule that a prejudicial question comes into play in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed, because howsoever the issue in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.[34] However, considering the rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question, being to avoid two conflicting decisions,[35] prudence dictates that we apply the principle underlying the doctrine to the case at bar.