This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-07-18 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| However, at this point, this Court cannot grant petitioners' plea to resolve the merits of their petition for indirect contempt; it is the CA that should properly try the same. Aside from the fact that the CA is the court against which the alleged contempt was committed, a hearing is required in resolving a charge for indirect contempt. The respondent in an indirect contempt charge may not be convicted on the basis of written pleadings alone.[19] | |||||
|
2013-11-25 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court is not persuaded. Indeed, contempt is not a criminal offense.[37] However, a charge for contempt of court partakes of the nature of a criminal action.[38] Rules that govern criminal prosecutions strictly apply to a prosecution for contempt.[39] In fact, Section 11 of Rule 71[40] of the Rules of Court provides that the appeal in indirect contempt proceedings may be taken as in criminal cases. This Court has held that an alleged contemner should be accorded the same rights as that of an accused.[41] Thus, the dismissal of the indirect contempt charge against respondent amounts to an acquittal, which effectively bars a second prosecution.[42] | |||||
|
2013-06-25 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| It is clear from the foregoing rules that the respondent of a petition for protection order should be apprised of the charges imputed to him and afforded an opportunity to present his side. Thus, the fear of petitioner of being "stripped of family, property, guns, money, children, job, future employment and reputation, all in a matter of seconds, without an inkling of what happened" is a mere product of an overactive imagination. The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. "To be heard" does not only mean verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also through pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.[107] | |||||