You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

2015-07-22
BRION, J.
Second, bare allegations of bias and prejudice are not enough, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence, to overcome the presumption that a judge will undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to law and evidence without fear or favor.[53] Nothing on record shows that the petitioner ever submitted evidence of bias and prejudice.
2015-01-21
CARPIO, J.
Sen. Estrada also claimed that under the circumstances, he has "no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, except through this Petition."[11] Sen. Estrada applied for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to restrain public respondents from conducting further proceedings in OMB-C-C-13-0313 and OMB-C-C-13-0397. Finally, Sen. Estrada asked for a judgment declaring that (a) he has been denied due process of law, and as a consequence thereof, (b) the Order dated 27 March 2014, as well as the proceedings in OMB-C-C-13-0313 and OMB-C-C-13-0397 subsequent to and affected by the issuance of the 27 March 2014 Order, are void.[12]
2014-09-02
PERALTA, J.
On May 8, 2013, petitioners ABS-CBN and the KBP filed its Opposition/Comment[22]  to the said Motion. Not long after, ABC followed suit and filed its own Opposition to the Motion[23] filed by the respondent.
2014-04-23
PEREZ, J.
The conduct of preliminary investigation is subject to the requirements of both substantive and procedural due process. Preliminary investigation is considered as a judicial proceeding wherein the prosecutor or investigating officer, by the nature of his functions, acts as a quasi-judicial officer.[13] Even at the stage of petition for review before the Secretary of Justice, the requirements for substantive and procedural due process do not abate.