Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JACK SORREL Y VILLAR

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 207950 2014-09-22	PEOPLE v. MARK JASON CHAVEZ Y BITANCOR LEONEN, J.
However, this statement is considered as hearsay, with no evidentiary value, since Chavez's mother was never presented as a witness during trial to testify on her statement.[57]
	GR No. 182555 2010-09-07	LENIDO LUMANOG v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Records indicate that immediately after the incident, elements of the CPDC, PNP-NCR at Camp Karingal were already coordinating with investigators of Station 8-CPDC who had turned over to said office the evidence gathered and referred the witnesses present at the crime scene.[14] As a result of follow-up operations, Joel de Jesus, alias "Tabong," was apprehended on June 19, 1996 at his house at Dahlia St., Fairview, Quezon City. He executed his Sinumpaang Salaysay dated June 20, 1996 and Karagdagang Sinumpaang Salaysay dated June 21, 1996.[15]
	GR No. 180363 2009-04-28	EDGAR Y. TEVES v. COMELEC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Abduction with consent[37] Bigamy[38] Concubinage[39] Smuggling[40] Rape[41] Estafa through falsification of a document[42] Attempted Bribery[43] Profiteering[44] Robbery[45] Murder, whether consummated or attempted[46] Estafa[47] Theft[48] Illicit Sexual Relations with a Fellow Worker[49] Violation of BP Bldg. 22[50] Falsification of Document[51] Intriguing against Honor[52] Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law[53] Violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Drug-pushing)[54] Perjury[55] Forgery[56] Direct Bribery[57] Frustrated Homicide[58]
	GR No. 153660 2003-06-10	PRUDENCIO BANTOLINO v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. BELLOSILLO, J.
To reiterate, administrative bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical niceties of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law. Indeed, the Revised Rules of Court and prevailing jurisprudence may be given only stringent application, i.e., by analogy or in a suppletory character and effect. The submission by respondent, citing People v. Sorrel,[12]that an affidavit not testified to in a trial, is mere hearsay evidence and has no real evidentiary value, cannot find relevance in the present case considering that a criminal prosecution requires a quantum of evidence different from that of an administrative proceeding. Under the Rules of the Commission, the Labor Arbiter is given the discretion to determine the necessity of a formal trial or hearing. Hence, trial-type hearings are not even required as the cases may be decided based on verified position papers, with supporting documents and their affidavits.