This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2015-12-07 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Although we do not absolutely preclude the availment of the remedy of certiorari to correct an erroneous acquittal, the petitioner must clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the appellate court blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave and so severe as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice.[73] Chua failed to do so. | |||||
|
2013-04-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In People of the Philippines v. de Grano et. al.,[47] for instance, we permitted the private prosecutor to sign the certification in behalf of his client who went into hiding after being taken out of the witness protection program. This is the case that the OSG invoked in the certification against forum shopping signed by Associate Solicitor Millan-Decano who stated in her footnote that "Pursuant to People v. de Grano (G.R. No. 167710, June 5, 2009), the handling lawyers of the OSG may sign verification and certificate of non-forum shopping."[48] | |||||
|
2013-03-06 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| It has long been settled that the grant of a demurrer is tantamount to an acquittal. An acquitted defendant is entitled to the right of repose as a direct consequence of the finality of his acquittal.[15] This rule, however, is not without exception. The rule on double jeopardy is subject to the exercise of judicial review by way of the extraordinary writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court is endowed with the power to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.[16] Here, the party asking for the review must show the presence of a whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; a patent and gross abuse of discretion amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty imposed by law or to act in contemplation of law; an exercise of power in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility; or a blatant abuse of authority to a point so grave and so severe as to deprive the court of its very power to dispense justice.[17] In such an event, the accused cannot be considered to be at risk of double jeopardy.[18] | |||||
|
2013-01-30 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In any case, it is settled that the requirements of verification and certification against forum shopping are not jurisdictional.[24] Verification is required to secure an assurance that the allegations in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct, and not merely speculative.[25] Non-compliance with the verification requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective,[26] and is substantially complied with when signed by one who has ample knowledge of the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.[27] On the other hand, the certification against forum shopping is required based on the principle that a party-litigant should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in different fora.[28] While the certification requirement is obligatory, non-compliance or a defect in the certificate could be cured by its subsequent correction or submission under special circumstances or compelling reasons, or on the ground of "substantial compliance.[29]" | |||||
|
2011-10-12 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| In People of the Philippines v. De Grano,[12] we stated: When the Decision dated April 25, 2002 was promulgated, only Estanislao Lacaba was present. Subsequently thereafter, without surrendering and explaining the reasons for their absence, Joven, Armando, and Domingo joined Estanislao in their Joint Motion for Reconsideration. In blatant disregard of the Rules, the RTC not only failed to cause the arrest of the respondents who were at large, it also took cognizance of the joint motion. | |||||
|
2011-01-31 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Thus, the accused who failed to appear at the promulgation of the judgment of conviction shall lose the remedies available under the Rules of Court against the judgment--(a) the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration (Rule 121), and (b) an appeal from the judgment of conviction (Rule 122). However, the Rules allow the accused to regain his standing in court in order to avail of these remedies by: (a) his surrender, and (b) his filing of a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies, stating therein the reasons for his absence, within 15 days from the date of promulgation of judgment. If the trial court finds that his absence was for a justifiable cause, the accused shall be allowed to avail of the said remedies within 15 days from notice or order finding his absence justified and allowing him the available remedies against the judgment of conviction.[17] | |||||
|
2010-02-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| With respect to the certification of non-forum shopping, it has been held that the certification requirement is rooted in the principle that a party-litigant shall not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in different fora, as this practice is detrimental to an orderly judicial procedure. However, this Court has relaxed, under justifiable circumstances, the rule requiring the submission of such certification considering that, although it is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional. Not being jurisdictional, it can be relaxed under the rule of substantial compliance.[12] | |||||
|
2010-02-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| As to accused Egap, his act of escaping from his police escort during the pendency of his case and his subsequent unexplained absence during the promulgation of the decision convicting him of the crime charged has divested him of the right to avail himself of any remedy that may be available to him, including his right to appeal. In a recent case, this Court held that once an accused jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, or escapes from prison or confinement, he loses his standing in court; and unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from it.[54] Hence, insofar as accused Egap is concerned, the judgment against him became final and executory upon the lapse of fifteen (15) days from promulgation of the judgment. | |||||
|
2009-07-30 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The certification of non-forum shopping is rooted in the principle that a party-litigant should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in different fora, such act being detrimental to an orderly judicial procedure.[23] The petition, signed only by Tuising's counsel, conveniently failed to mention the fact that on 23 February 2004, prior to the filing of the petition, Jocson already filed with the trial court a Motion for Issuance of Alias Writ of Execution which reads: MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF ALIAS WRIT OF EXECUTION | |||||