Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN 'KOKOY' T. ROMUALDEZ

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 191641 2015-09-02	EDMUNDO NAVAREZ v. ATTY. MANUEL ABROGAR III BRION, J.
Nonetheless, in the spirit of liberality that pervades the Rules of Court[4] and in the interest of substantial justice,[5] this Court has, on appropriate occasions, treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari, particularly when: (1) the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period to file a petition for review on certiorari;[6] (2) the petition avers errors of judgment;[7] and (3) when there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules.[8] Considering that the present petition was filed within the extension period granted by this Court and avers errors of law and judgment, this Court deems it proper to treat the present petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari in order to serve the higher ends of justice.
	GR No. 169385 2015-08-26	TEOFILO GIANGAN v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
His action caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.[21]
	GR No. 213455 2015-08-11	JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
An Information only needs to state the ultimate facts constituting the offense; the evidentiary and other details (i.e., the facts supporting the ultimate facts) can be provided during the trial.[28]
	GR No. 192591 2012-07-30	EFREN L. ALVAREZ v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The action of the accused caused undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.[44]
	GR No. 190122 2011-01-10	SPS. ISAGANI AND DIOSDADA CASTRO v. SPS. REGINO SE AND VIOLETA DELA CRUZ CARPIO MORALES, J.
Indeed, the rule is well-entrenched that for grave abuse of discretion to exist as a valid ground for the nullification of an injunctive writ, there must be a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Or the power must be exercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. [7]
	GR No. 178429 2009-10-23	SECOND DIVISION JOSE C. GO v. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS BRION, J.
Under the Constitution, a person who stands charged of a criminal offense has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[12] The Rules of Court, in implementing the right, specifically require that the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense, including the qualifying and aggravating circumstances, must be stated in ordinary and concise language, not necessarily in the language used in the statute, but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged and the attendant qualifying and aggravating circumstances present, so that the accused can properly defend himself and the court can pronounce judgment.[13] To broaden the scope of the right, the Rules authorize the quashal, upon motion of the accused, of an Information that fails to allege the acts constituting the offense.[14] Jurisprudence has laid down the fundamental test in appreciating a motion to quash an Information grounded on the insufficiency of the facts alleged therein. We stated in People v. Romualdez[15] that: The determinative test in appreciating a motion to quash xxx is the sufficiency of the averments in the information, that is, whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the offense as defined by law without considering matters aliunde. As Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure requires, the information only needs to state the ultimate facts; the evidentiary and other details can be provided during the trial.
	GR No. 180988 2009-08-28	JULIE'S FRANCHISE CORPORATION v. CHANDLER O. RUIZ CARPIO, J.
The special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is intended to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[11] The writ of certiorari is directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions that acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[12] To justify the issuance of the writ of certiorari, the abuse of discretion must be grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all, in contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to having acted without jurisdiction.[13]
	GR No. 174350 2008-08-13	SPS. BERNYL BALANGAUAN KATHERENE BALANGAUAN v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Be that as it may, alternatively, if the decision of the appellate court is attended by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, then such ruling is fatally defective on jurisdictional ground and may be questioned even after the lapse of the period of appeal under Rule 45[26] but still within the period for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.