Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 183446 2012-11-13	REPUBLIC v. ESTATE OF HANS MENZI PEREZ, J.
On 2 April 1992 the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution[8] lifting the writ of sequestration issued by the PCGG. This was questioned by the Republic through a petition for certiorari docketed before this Court as G.R. No. 107377. In a Resolution dated 16 July 1996, the Court reversed and set aside the assailed resolution and referred the case back to the Sandiganbayan "for resolution of the preliminary question of whether there is prima facie factual basis for PCGG's sequestration order."[9] It was pursuant to the foregoing resolution that the Sandiganbayan went on to conduct hearings on the matter and, later, to issue the Resolution dated 13 April 1998, discounting the factual bases for PCGG's sequestration order and granting the Estate's motion to lift the writ of sequestration over the shares of stock, assets, properties, records and documents of HMHMI.[10] Dissatisfied with the Resolution and the Sandiganbayan's 26 August 1998 denial of its motion for reconsideration,[11] the Republic filed the petition for certiorari docketed before this Court as G.R. No. 135789.[12]
	GR No. 183446 2012-11-13	REPUBLIC v. ESTATE OF HANS MENZI PEREZ, J.
On 2 April 1992 the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution[8] lifting the writ of sequestration issued by the PCGG. This was questioned by the Republic through a petition for certiorari docketed before this Court as G.R. No. 107377. In a Resolution dated 16 July 1996, the Court reversed and set aside the assailed resolution and referred the case back to the Sandiganbayan "for resolution of the preliminary question of whether there is prima facie factual basis for PCGG's sequestration order."[9] It was pursuant to the foregoing resolution that the Sandiganbayan went on to conduct hearings on the matter and, later, to issue the Resolution dated 13 April 1998, discounting the factual bases for PCGG's sequestration order and granting the Estate's motion to lift the writ of sequestration over the shares of stock, assets, properties, records and documents of HMHMI.[10] Dissatisfied with the Resolution and the Sandiganbayan's 26 August 1998 denial of its motion for reconsideration,[11] the Republic filed the petition for certiorari docketed before this Court as G.R. No. 135789.[12]
	GR No. 166859 2011-04-12	REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN BERSAMIN, J.
The Republic also filed its Comment,[34] but COCOFED denied the admitted facts summarized in the order of February 23, 2004.[35]
	GR No. 165878 2010-03-30	PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. H. E. HEACOCK CARPIO MORALES, J.
The task of ascertaining the validity of writs of sequestration issued by the PCGG, when called into question, is the sole province of the Sandiganbayan, the issues involved therein being factual in nature. It is well settled that the Sandiganbayan has full authority to decide any and all incidents pertaining to an ill-gotten case, including the propriety of the issuance of the writs of sequestration.[25]
	GR No. 164403 2008-03-04	COSMOS BOTTLING CORPORATION v. PABLO NAGRAMA REYES, R.T., J.
In Republic v. Sandiganbayan,[38] the Court ruled:x x x A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. In contrast, a question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation.[39] For the sake of brevity, We shall label this the law application and calibration dichotomy.
	GR No. 152578 2005-11-23	REPUBLIC v. ESTATE OF HANS MENZI TINGA, J.
The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. It is not our function to examine and weigh all over again the evidence presented by the parties in the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan.[18]