Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANTONIO TAN v. AMELITO BALLENA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 209464 2015-07-01	DANDY L. DUNGO v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
Criminal law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in themselves called acts mala in se; and acts which would ot be wrong but for the fact that positive law forbids them, called acts mala prohibita. This distinction is important with reference to the intent with which a wrongful act is done. The rule on the subject is that in acts mala in se, the intent governs; but in acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has the law been violated? When an act is illegal, the intent of the offender is immaterial.[64] When the doing of an act is prohibited by law, it is considered injurious to public welfare, and the doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself.[65]
	GR No. 141809 2013-04-08	JOSEFINA F. INGLES v. ESTRELLA T. ESTRADA PEREZ, J.
The pronouncement in Altres is based on the recognition that the purpose of verifying a petition or complaint, i.e., to assure the court that such petition or complaint was filed in good faith; and that the allegations therein are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation,[135] can sufficiently be achieved even if only one of the several petitioners or plaintiffs signs the verification.[136] As long the signatory of the verification is competent, there is already substantial compliance with the requirement.
	GR No. 179003 2013-01-09	ANTONIO L. TAN v. YOSHITSUGU MATSUURA REYES, J.
We then ruled in Tan v. Ballena[34] that while the findings of prosecutors are reviewable by the DOJ, this does not preclude courts from intervening and exercising our own powers of review with respect to the DOJ's findings. In the exceptional case in which grave abuse of discretion is committed, as when a clear sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence to support a finding of probable cause is ignored, the CA may take cognizance of the case via a petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[35]
	GR No. 189191 2012-02-29	MID-ISLANDS POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. CA SERENO, J.
It is a well-settled principle that rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed. In deciding a case, the appellate court has the discretion whether or not to dismiss the same, which discretion must be exercised soundly and in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, taking into account the circumstances of the case. It is a far better and more prudent cause of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case to attain the ends of justice, rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice.[23] (Citations omitted.)
	GR No. 165412 2011-05-30	GEORGE MILLER v. SECRETARY HERNANDO B. PEREZ VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It is well-settled that the determination of probable cause for the purpose of filing an information in court is an executive function which pertains at the first instance to the public prosecutor and then to the Secretary of Justice.[31] The Secretary of Justice may reverse or modify the resolution of the prosecutor, after which he shall direct the prosecutor concerned either to file the corresponding information without conducting another preliminary investigation, or to dismiss or move for dismissal of the complaint or information with notice to the parties.[32]
	GR No. 175887 2010-11-24	HEIRS OF LATE NESTOR TRIA v. ATTY. EPIFANIA OBIAS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The findings of the prosecutor with respect to the existence or non-existence of probable cause is subject to the power of review by the DOJ. Indeed, the Secretary of Justice may reverse or modify the resolution of the prosecutor, after which he shall direct the prosecutor concerned either to file the corresponding information without conducting another preliminary investigation, or to dismiss or move for dismissal of the complaint or information with notice to the parties.[41] Ordinarily, the determination of probable cause is not lodged with this Court. Its duty in an appropriate case is confined to the issue of whether the executive or judicial determination, as the case may be, of probable cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with abuse of discretion amounting to want of jurisdiction.
	GR No. 183891 2010-08-03	ROMARICO J. MENDOZA v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
Failure to comply with the law being malum prohibitum, intent to commit it or good faith is immaterial.[13]
	GR No. 180986 2008-12-10	NORBERTO ALTRES v. CAMILO G. EMPLEO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Very recently, in Tan, et al. v. Ballena, et al.,[22] the verification and certification against forum shopping attached to the original petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals was signed by only two out of over 100 petitioners and the same was filed one day beyond the period allowed by the Rules. The appellate court initially resolved to dismiss the original petition precisely for these reasons, but on the therein petitioners' motion for reconsideration, the appellate court ordered the filing of an amended petition in order to include all the original complainants numbering about 240. An amended petition was then filed in compliance with the said order, but only 180 of the 240 original complainants signed the verification and certification against forum shopping. The Court of Appeals granted the motion for reconsideration and resolved to reinstate the petition.