This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-10-26 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| One last point. Petitioner Go filed the two petitions before the CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 58639 and CA-G.R. SP No. 62296 involving incidents arising from the proceedings in Crim. Case No. 98-1643. It can be observed from the two petitions that they do not reflect the conformity of the trial prosecutor assigned to said criminal case. This is in breach of Sec. 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court that requires that all criminal actions shall be prosecuted "under the direction and control of a public prosecutor." Although in rare occasions, the offended party as a "person aggrieved" was allowed to file a petition under Rule 65 before the CA without the intervention of the Solicitor General,[55] the instant petitions before the CA, as a general rule, should be filed by the Solicitor General on behalf of the State and not solely by the offended party.[56] | |||||
|
2006-07-17 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner argues that a person aggrieved may file a special civil action for certiorari and that "person" includes the complainant or the offended party.[2] Petitioner cited the cases of De La Rosa v. Court of Appeals[3] and People v. Calo[4] to support her claim that a special action on an order issued by a lower court in a criminal case may be filed by the private offended party. | |||||