Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. DANTE TAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AM No. RTJ-12-2336 2014-11-12	ESTHER P. MAGLEO v. PRESIDING JUDGE ROWENA DE JUAN-QUINAGORAN MENDOZA, J.
People v. Tan[31] eruditely instructs that double jeopardy will not attach when the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as where the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a sham. In addition, in People v. Bocar,[32] this Court rule that there is no double jeopardy when the prosecution was not allowed to complete its presentation of evidence by the trial court.
	GR No. 171671 2012-06-18	PEOPLE v. ARISTEO E. ATIENZA PERALTA, J.
Clearly, double jeopardy has set in. The elements of double jeopardy are (1) the complaint or information was sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction; (2) the court had jurisdiction; (3) the accused had been arraigned and had pleaded; and (4) the accused was convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed without his express consent.[27]
	GR No. 193065 2012-02-27	DEUTSCHE BANK AG v. CA MENDOZA, J.
Indeed, the consolidation of actions is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and its action in consolidating will not be disturbed in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion.[36] Grave abuse of discretion defies exact definition, but it generally refers to capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.[37]
	GR No. 172777 2011-10-19	BENJAMIN B. BANGAYAN v. SALLY GO BANGAYAN MENDOZA, J.
Grave abuse of discretion has been defined as that capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. "The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility."[43] The party questioning the acquittal of an accused should be able to clearly establish that the trial court blatantly abused its discretion such that it was deprived of its authority to dispense justice.[44]