Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 154462 2011-01-19	SPS. RUBEN AND MYRNA LEYNES v. FORMER TENTH DIVISION OF CA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We reiterate the well-settled rule that certiorari is not available where the aggrieved party's remedy of appeal is plain, speedy and adequate in the ordinary course, the reason being that certiorari cannot co-exist with an appeal or any other adequate remedy. The existence and availability of the right to appeal are antithetical to the availment of the special civil action for certiorari. These two remedies are mutually exclusive.[17] The special civil action of certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal which the petitioner already lost.[18]
	GR No. 166510 2008-07-23	PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN 'KOKOY' T. ROMUALDEZ BRION, J.
The Sandiganbayan ruling granting Romuldez' motion to quash the Information shall, upon finality, close and terminate the proceedings against Romuldez; hence, it is a final ruling that disposes of the case and is properly reviewable by appeal.[19] The appeal, as Romualdez correctly maintains, is through Section 7 of Presidential Decree No. 1606 (as amended by Section 5 ofRepublic Act No. 8249), which provides that decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan are appealable to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law in accordance with Rule 45.
	GR No. 170691 2008-04-23	REBECCA E. BADIOLA v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Badiola's plea for a relaxation of the rules in the interest of substantial justice cannot likewise be heeded. While this Court, indeed, has the discretion to treat a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court,[53] the petition still needs to comply with the reglementary period for filing an appeal under Rule 45. This mandatory requirement is jurisdictional such that failure to do so renders the assailed decision final and executory, and deprives this Court of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment, much less to entertain the appeal.[54] Under Section 2 of Rule 45, the petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment.
	GR No. 169712 2008-03-14	MA. WENELITA TIRAZONA v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In this regard, it needs to be emphasized that before the Court may treat the present petition as having been filed under Rule 45, the same must comply with the reglementary period for filing an appeal. This requirement is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional such that failure to do so renders the assailed decision final and executory, and deprives this Court of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment, much less to entertain the appeal.[34] Since the instant petition was filed after the lapse of the extended period for filing an appeal, the same should be dismissed outright.
	GR NO. 157186 2007-10-19	ACTIVE REALTY v. BIENVENIDO FERNANDEZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
While on some occasions, the Court has treated a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 as having been filed under Rule 45 to serve the higher interest of justice, such liberal application of the rules finds no application if the petition is filed well beyond the reglementary period for filing a petition for review without any reason therefor.[49]
	GR NO. 172278 2007-03-29	LYDIA R. PAGADUAN v. COMELEC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
There is grave abuse of discretion where the public respondent acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its judgment as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.[7] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR NOS. 162748-50 2006-03-28	PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
While in the interest of justice, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be treated as having been filed under Rule 45, a liberal application of the rules does not herein lie for the present petition for certiorari was filed beyond the reglementary period for filing a petition for review. Parenthetically, petitioner did not even endeavor to explain why it failed to adopt the proper remedy. [34]