This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-09-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| More importantly, there was no proof or even an allegation that the Joint Committee itself, tasked to conduct the requisite preliminary investigation against petitioners, made biased statements that would convey to the public that the members were favoring a particular party. Neither did the petitioners show that the President of the Philippines, the Secretary of Justice or the Chairman of the Comelec intervened in the conduct of the preliminary investigation or exerted undue pressure on their subordinates to tailor their decision with their public declarations and adhere to a predetermined result.[88] Moreover, insofar as the Comelec is concerned, it must be emphasized that the constitutional body is collegial. The act of the head of a collegial body cannot be considered as that of the entire body itself.[89] In equating the alleged bias of the above-named officials with that of the Joint Committee, there would be no arm of the government credible enough to conduct a preliminary investigation.[90] | |||||
|
2011-02-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| An abbreviated pace in the conduct of proceedings is not per se an indication of bias, however. So Santos-Concio v. Department of Justice[31] holds: Speed in the conduct of proceedings by a judicial or quasi-judicial officer cannot per se be instantly attributed to an injudicious performance of functions. For one's prompt dispatch may be another's undue haste. The orderly administration of justice remains as the paramount and constant consideration, with particular regard of the circumstances peculiar to each case. | |||||
|
2010-08-03 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Regarding petitioner's protestations of haste, suffice to state that the pace in resolving incidents of the case is not per se an indication of bias. In Santos-Concio v. Department of Justice,[67] the Court held: Speed in the conduct of proceedings by a judicial or quasi-judicial officer cannot per se be instantly attributed to an injudicious performance of functions. For one's prompt dispatch may be another's undue haste. The orderly administration of justice remains as the paramount and constant consideration, with particular regard of the circumstances peculiar to each case. | |||||
|
2010-02-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The ruling in Soriano v. Hon. Casanova has been adopted and elaborated upon in the recent case of Santos-Concio v. Department of Justice.[41] Instead of a transmittal letter from the BSP, the Court in Santos-Concio was faced with an NBI-NCR Report, likewise with affidavits of witnesses as attachments. Ruling on the validity of the witnesses' sworn affidavits as bases for a preliminary investigation, we held: The Court is not unaware of the practice of incorporating all allegations in one document denominated as "complaint-affidavit." It does not pronounce strict adherence to only one approach, however, for there are cases where the extent of one's personal knowledge may not cover the entire gamut of details material to the alleged offense. The private offended party or relative of the deceased may not even have witnessed the fatality, in which case the peace officer or law enforcer has to rely chiefly on affidavits of witnesses. The Rules do not in fact preclude the attachment of a referral or transmittal letter similar to that of the NBI-NCR. Thus, in Soriano v. Casanova, the Court held: | |||||