This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-11-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It has to be made clear that the purpose of the searching inquiry is "not only to satisfy the trial judge himself but also to aid the Supreme Court in determining whether the accused really and truly understood and comprehended the meaning, full significance and consequences of his plea."[19] | |||||
|
2004-03-10 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME OF RAPE WITH HOMICIDE HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. Appellant argues that the voluntariness and due execution of his extra-judicial confession was not sufficiently established, considering that only his thumbprint was affixed on said document. He alleges that he customarily affixes his signature on all his documents. Appellant likewise argues that at the time his extra-judicial confession was taken, he was assisted by Atty. Vicente J. Agravante who was admonished by this Court for being remiss in his duties.[5] | |||||
|
2000-01-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| However, the petitioner must nevertheless be held to account for failure to extend to private respondent his right to an investigation before causing his dismissal. The rule is explicit as above discussed. The dismissal of an employee must be for just or authorized cause and after due process. Petitioner committed an infraction of the second requirement. Thus, it must be imposed a sanction for its failure to give a formal notice and conduct an investigation as required by law before dismissing petitioner from employment. Considering the circumstances of this case petitioner must indemnify the private respondent the amount of P1,000.00. The measure of this award depends on the facts of each case and the gravity of the omission committed by the employer. The fines imposed for violations of the notice requirement have varied from P1,000.00[22] to P2,000.00[23] to P5,000.00[24] to P10,000.00.[25] | |||||