Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VICENTE PALU-AY v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 187409 2011-11-16	PEOPLE v. CA REYES, A., J.
In Palu-ay v. Court of Appeals, [7] we held that: It is well-settled that in criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil liability. Thus, in the prosecution of the offense, the complainant's role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General. Only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. The private offended party or complainant may not take such appeal. However, the said offended party or complainant may appeal the civil aspect despite the acquittal of the accused. (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 172777 2011-10-19	BENJAMIN B. BANGAYAN v. SALLY GO BANGAYAN MENDOZA, J.
As regards Sally Go's assertion that she had been denied due process, an evaluation of the records of the case proves that nothing can be further from the truth. Jurisprudence dictates that in order for a decision of the trial court to be declared null and void for lack of due process, it must be shown that a party was deprived of his opportunity to be heard.[47] Sally Go cannot deny that she was given ample opportunity to present her witnesses and her evidence against petitioners. Thus, her claim that she was denied due process is unavailing.
	GR No. 125698 2001-07-19	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO HAPA Y EBASCO PARDO, J.
It is well settled that the right to be heard by himself and counsel is one of the constitutional rights guaranteed to an accused. Not only this but he likewise has the right to present evidence in his defense.[36] Due process of law in judicial proceedings requires that he must be given an opportunity to be heard. He has the right to be present and defend in person at every stage of the proceedings.[37] A decision would only be void for lack of due process if, as a result, a party is deprived of the opportunity to be heard.[38]