Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALFREDO L. AZARCON v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 183587 2015-04-20	LEXBER v. CAESAR M. BRION, J.
[37] Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan, 335 Phil. 1202, 1215 (1997).
	GR No. 148076 2011-01-21	ANTONIO M. CARANDANG v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO BERSAMIN, J.
In fine, Carandang was correct in insisting that being a private individual he was not subject to the administrative authority of the Ombudsman and to the criminal jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.[38]
	GR No. 164785 2009-04-29	ELISEO F. SORIANO v. MA. CONSOLIZA P. LAGUARDIA VELASCO JR., J.
[12] Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 116033, February 26, 1997, 268 SCRA 747.
	GR No. 164527 2007-08-15	FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY VELASCO, JR., J.
Basic in administrative law is the doctrine that a government agency or office has express and implied powers based on its charter and other pertinent statutes. Express powers are those powers granted, allocated, and delegated to a government agency or office by express provisions of law. On the other hand, implied powers are those that can be inferred or are implicit in the wordings of the law[63] or conferred by necessary or fair implication in the enabling act.[64] In Angara v. Electoral Commission, the Court clarified and stressed that when a general grant of power is conferred or duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for the exercise of the one or the performance of the other is also conferred by necessary implication.[65] It was also explicated that when the statute does not specify the particular method to be followed or used by a government agency in the exercise of the power vested in it by law, said agency has the authority to adopt any reasonable method to carry out its functions.[66]
	GR Nos. 140199-200 2002-02-06	FELICITO S. MACALINO v. SANDIGANBAYAN PARDO, J.
"2. Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any officer or employee of the Government, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as any government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, to perform and expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties." Inasmuch as the PNCC has no original charter as it was incorporated under the general law on corporations, it follows inevitably that petitioner is not a public officer within the coverage of R. A. No. 3019, as amended. Thus, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over him. The only instance when the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private individual is when the complaint charges him either as a co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a public officer who has been charged with a crime within the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan.[11]