Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BRIGIDO B. PAREDES v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 200751 2015-08-17	MONICO LIGTAS v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
Thus, considering the difference in the quantum of evidence, as well as the procedure followed and the sanctions imposed in criminal and administrative proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding on the other. Notably, the evidence presented in the administrative case may not necessarily be the same evidence to be presented in the criminal cases.[82] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
	GR No. 175991 2011-08-31	JOSE R. CATACUTAN v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
This action undertaken by the trial court and sustained by the appellate court was not without legal precedent. In Paredes v. Court of Appeals,[28] this Court ruled: It is indeed a fundamental principle of administrative law that administrative cases are independent from criminal actions for the same act or omission. Thus, an absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar to an administrative prosecution, or vice versa. One thing is administrative liability; quite another thing is the criminal liability for the same act.
	GR No. 164577 2010-07-05	PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN MENDOZA, J.
Petitioner would also make much of the principle in law that the dismissal of the administrative case does not necessarily prevent a criminal prosecution from proceeding. Indeed, the dismissal of an administrative case does not bar the filing of a criminal prosecution for the same or similar acts subject of the administrative complaint. Neither does the disposition in one case inevitably govern the resolution of the other case/s and vice versa. Administrative liability is one thing; criminal liability for the same act is another.[22] The distinct and independent nature of one proceeding from the other can be attributed to the following: first, the difference in the quantum of evidence required and, correlatively, the procedure observed and sanctions imposed; and second, the principle that a single act may offend against two or more distinct and related provisions of law, or that the same act may give rise to criminal as well as administrative liability.[23]