This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-08-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| However, it is also settled that this Court has full discretionary power to take cognizance of a petition filed directly with it if compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues raised, so warrant.[14] Under the present circumstances, the Court will take cognizance of this case as an exception to the principle of hierarchy of courts, considering that the Information against petitioner was filed way back in November 2001.[15] Any further delay in the resolution of the instant petition will be prejudicial to petitioner. Moreover, the principle may be relaxed when pure questions of law are raised as in this case.[16] | |||||
|
2010-05-06 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, when confronted with a motion to withdraw an Information on the ground of lack of probable cause based on a resolution of the DOJ Secretary, the bounden duty of the trial court is to make an independent assessment of the merits of such motion. Having acquired jurisdiction over the case, the trial court is not bound by such resolution, but is required to evaluate it before proceeding further with the trial and should embody such assessment in the order disposing the motion.[26] | |||||
|
2007-02-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Under the present circumstances however, we are willing to take cognizance of this case as an exception to the principle of hierarchy of courts. Cabarles invokes the jurisdiction of this Court in the interest of speedy justice since the information against him was filed way back in June 1999,[41] and almost eight years thereafter, no judgment has yet been rendered. Any further delay in the resolution of the instant petition will be prejudicial to Cabarles. Also, the Court has full discretionary power to take cognizance of the petition filed directly to it for compelling reasons or if warranted by the nature of the issues raised.[42] Since Section 24 is a new provision, and considering the irregularities in the issuance of the April 1, 2003 Order, it is necessary to resolve the issues raised in this petition. | |||||
|
2007-02-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Lastly, while there is authority[19] permitting the Court to make its own determination of probable cause, such, however, cannot be made applicable in the instant case. As earlier stated, the arraignment of petitioner constitutes a waiver of her right to preliminary investigation or reinvestigation. Such waiver is tantamount to a finding of probable cause. For this reason, there is no need for the Court to determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause. | |||||
|
2007-02-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the settled rule is that when an accused pleads to the charge, he is deemed to have waived the right to preliminary investigation and the right to question any irregularity that surrounds it.[18] This precept is also applicable in cases of reinvestigation as well as in cases of review of such reinvestigation. In this case, when petitioner unconditionally pleaded to the charge, she effectively waived the reinvestigation of the case by the prosecutor as well as the right to appeal the result thereof to the DOJ Secretary. Thus, with the arraignment of the petitioner, the DOJ Secretary can no longer entertain the appeal or petition for review because petitioner had already waived or abandoned the same. | |||||
|
2005-06-28 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The general rule is that a party is mandated to follow the hierarchy of courts. However, in exceptional cases, the Court, for compelling reasons or if warranted by the nature of the issues raised, may take cognizance of petitions filed directly before it.[50] In this case, the Court has opted to take cognizance of the petition, considering the nature of the issues raised by the parties. | |||||