Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR NO. 172989 2007-06-19	PEOPLE v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Furthermore, the instant petition lacks merit. It seeks to impose a harsher penalty upon respondent in clear violation of Section 2 of Rule 122. Indeed, both the accused and the prosecution may appeal a criminal case, but the government may do so only if the accused would not be placed in double jeopardy. Moreover, the prosecution cannot appeal on the ground that the accused should have been given a more severe penalty.[17]
	GR NO. 150157 2007-01-25	MAURICIO MANLICLIC v. MODESTO CALAUNAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Admittedly, respondent failed to show the concurrence of all the requisites set forth by the Rules for a testimony given in a former case or proceeding to be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. Petitioner PRBLI, not being a party in Criminal Case No. 684-M-89, had no opportunity to cross-examine the three witnesses in said case. The criminal case was filed exclusively against petitioner Manliclic, petitioner PRBLI's employee. The cases dealing with the subsidiary liability of employers uniformly declare that, strictly speaking, they are not parties to the criminal cases instituted against their employees.[23]
	GR NO. 160355 2005-05-16	PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES v. HEIRS OF EDUARDO MANGAWANG CALLEJO, SR., J.
By way of comment on the petition, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contends that the decision of the RTC convicting Ancheta of the crime charged had become final and executory, following the dismissal of his appeal before the CA. The decision of the RTC was conclusive on the petitioner, not only with regard to its civil liability but also as to the amount thereof, absent any collusion between the accused-employee and the private complainant. The petitioner was not a direct party in the criminal case; hence, was not entitled to a copy of the decision of the RTC or to appeal therefrom; it was, likewise, not entitled to be furnished a copy of the CA Resolution dated November 10, 2000 and the Order of the RTC dated June 5, 2001. Hence, according to the OSG, it cannot complain of denial of its right to due process. The OSG further asserts that the petition at bar is premature, considering that no writ of execution has yet been issued by the RTC, and cites the ruling of this Court in Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. People[16] to buttress its stance.
	GR NO. 129472 2005-04-12	MARCELO LASOY v. MONINA A. ZENAROSA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v. People,[39] the Court affirming the finality of a decision in a criminal case, citing Section 7, Rule 120 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, stated:A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be modified or set aside before it becomes final or before appeal is perfected. Except where the death penalty is imposed a judgment [of conviction] becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or when the accused has waived in writing his right to appeal, or has applied for probation.
	GR NO. 143380 2005-04-11	OLIMPIO PANGONOROM v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
Pursuant to Article 103, an employer may be subsidiarily liable for the employee's civil liability in a criminal action when there is adequate evidence establishing (1) that he is indeed the employer of the convicted employee; (2) that he is engaged in some kind of industry; (3) that the employee committed the offense in the discharge of his duties; and (4) that the execution against the employee has not been satisfied due to insolvency.[31]
	GR NO. 143380 2005-04-11	OLIMPIO PANGONOROM v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on subsidiary liability - Articles 102 and 103 - are deemed written into the judgments in cases to which they are applicable. Thus, in the dispositive portion of its decision, the trial court need not expressly pronounce the subsidiary liability of the employer.[32]
	GR NO. 158615 2005-03-04	SPS. FORTUNATA V. BANIQUED AND TEOFILO BANIQUED v. TERESITA S. RAMOS CALLEJO, SR., J.
In a catena of cases,[20] the Court has ruled that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a procedural remedy of statutory origin, a remedy that may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by the provisions of law authorizing such exercise. Hence, the legal requirements must be strictly complied with. It would be incorrect to consider the requirements of the rules on appeal as merely harmless and trivial technicalities that can be discarded. Indeed, deviations from the rules cannot be tolerated. In these times when court dockets are clogged with numerous litigations, such rules have to be followed by parties with greater fidelity, so as to facilitate the orderly disposition of cases. After a judgment has become final, vested rights are acquired by the winning party. If the proper losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, then the former has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of the case. Thus, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the trial court did not commit any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied the petitioners' motion to elevate the records to the CA.