Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RODRIGO R. DUTERTE v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 13 times or more.

	GR No. 197953 2015-08-05	PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN BRION, J.
Armando F. Chan[12] (Vice Mayor) - Chan took the stand to prove that the respondents conspired with each other in falsifying the mayor's permit and the subject OR. He testified that as the presiding officer of the Sangguniang Bayan, he received from the Commission on Audit (COA) a copy of the COA Audit Report for the calendar year 1998. The report found that the municipality failed to conduct public bidding for several projects, which included the pakyaw contracts entered into by De Luna and the municipality. As a consequence, a committee was formed to investigate the alleged irregularities. The committee later found that irregularities had indeed been committed. Thus, a complaint for violation of the anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019) was filed against Mayor Saludaga, De Luna, and a certain SPO2 Negro.
	GR Nos. 212140-41 2015-01-21	SENATOR JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA v. BERSAMIN CARPIO, J.
Any lawyer worth his salt knows that quanta of proof and adjective rules vary depending on whether the cases to which they are meant to apply are criminal, civil or administrative in character. In criminal actions, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required for conviction; in civil actions and proceedings, preponderance of evidence, as support for a judgment; and in administrative cases, substantial evidence, as basis for adjudication. In criminal and civil actions, application of the Rules of Court is called for, with more or less strictness. In administrative proceedings, however, the technical rules of pleading and procedure, and of evidence, are not strictly adhered to; they generally apply only suppletorily; indeed, in agrarian disputes application of the Rules of Court is actually prohibited.[17]
	GR No. 182601 2014-11-10	JOEY M. PESTILOS v. MORENO GENEROSO BRION, J.
Rules 27 and 28 of the Provisional Law for the Application of the Penal Code were substantially incorporated in Section 6, Rule 109 of the 1940 Rules of Court as follows:[50]
	GR No. 178511 2008-12-04	MA. BELEN FLORDELIZA C. ANG-ABAYA v. EDUARDO G. ANG YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In order that probable cause to file a criminal case may be arrived at, or in order to engender the well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, the elements of the crime charged should be present.[28] This is based on the principle that every crime is defined by its elements, without which there should be - at the most - no criminal offense.
	GR Nos. 156399-400 2008-06-27	VICTOR JOSE TAN UY v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN BRION,J.
A preliminary investigation is held before an accused is placed on trial to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecution; to protect him from an open and public accusation of a crime, as well as from the trouble, expenses, and anxiety of a public trial. It is also intended to protect the state from having to conduct useless and expensive trials. While the right is statutory rather than constitutional, it is a component of due process in administering criminal justice. The right to have a preliminary investigation conducted before being bound for trial and before being exposed to the risk of incarceration and penalty is not a mere formal or technical right; it is a substantive right. To deny the accused's claim to a preliminary investigation is to deprive him of the full measure of his right to due process.[29]
	GR Nos. 174902-06 2008-02-15	ALFREDO R. ENRIQUEZ v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Respondent's belated excuse, as alleged in its Comment on the present petition, that the prosecutors assigned to these cases are still reviewing and evaluating them with extreme care to arrive at a just determination is not only unreasonable but also an afterthought. This same excuse was rejected by this Court in Duterte v. Sandiganbayan,[23] thus:On the other hand, the Office of the Ombudsman failed to present any plausible, special or even novel reason which could justify the four-year delay in terminating its investigation. Its excuse for the delay the many layers of review that the case had to undergo and the meticulous scrutiny it had to entail has lost its novelty and is no longer appealing, as was the invocation in the Tatad case.
	GR NO. 134887 2006-07-27	PHILIPPINE AGILA SATELLITE v. SEC. JOSEFINA TRINIDAD LICHAUCO CARPIO MORALES, J.
f) subjected to a preliminary investigation. (Underscoring supplied) From the above-quoted provision, a complaint at the evaluation stage may be dismissed outright only for want of palpable merit. Want of palpable merit obviously means that there is no basis for the charge or charges. If the complaint has prima facie merit, however, the investigating officer shall recommend the adoption of any of the actions enumerated above from (b) to (f).[15]
	GR Nos. 146368-69 2004-10-18	MADELEINE MENDOZA-ONG v. SANDIGANBAYAN QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioner's reliance on the doctrines in Tatad v. Sandiganbayan,[14] Duterte v. Sandiganbayan,[15] and Angchangco, Jr. v. Ombudsman[16] is misplaced.
	GR No. 149453 2003-04-01	PEOPLE v. PANFILO M. LACSON CALLEJO, SR., J.
Continue.[20] In his memorandum in lieu of the oral argument filed with the Court of Appeals, the respondent declared in no uncertain terms that:Soon thereafter, the SC in early 1999 rendered a decision declaring the Sandiganbayan without jurisdiction over the cases. The records were remanded to the QC RTC: Upon raffle, the case was assigned to Branch 81. Petitioner and the others promptly filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause (Annex B). He asked that warrants for his arrest not be issued. He did not move for the dismissal of the Informations, contrary to respondent OSG's claim.[21] The respondent's admissions made in the course of the proceedings in the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive on him. The respondent is barred from repudiating his admissions absent evidence of palpable mistake in making such admissions.[22]