This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-03-11 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crime committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of this section in relation to their office. In People v. Montejo,[11] we ruled that an offense is said to have been committed in relation to the office if the offense is "intimately connected" with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his official functions. This intimate relation between the offense charged and the discharge of official duties must be alleged in the Information.[12] This is in accordance with the rule that the factor that characterizes the charge is the actual recital of the facts in the complaint or information.[13] Hence, where the information is wanting in specific factual averments to show the intimate relationship/connection between the offense charged and the discharge of official functions, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the case.[14] | |||||
|
2001-12-07 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In People vs. Magallanes, about nine (9) to ten (10) months had already elapsed before accused challenged the denial of their motions for bail as embodied in their comment. The Court ruled that even if said comment were to be treated as petition for certiorari, still the same would not prosper for not having been seasonably filed. [18] | |||||