Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LITO BAUTISTA v. SHARON G. CUNETA-PANGILINAN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 188372 2015-11-25	BEAMS PHILIPPINE EXPORT CORPORATION v. MARIANITA CASTILLO REYES, J.
Moreover, in Bautista v. Cimeta-Pangilinan,[14] this Court held that in criminal cases, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case against him can only be appealed by the OSG, acting on behalf of the State. The private complainant or the offended party may question such acquittal or dismissal only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned.[15]
	GR No. 183652 2015-02-25	PEOPLE v. CA PERALTA, J.
Private respondents argue that the action should have been filed by the State through the OSG. True, in criminal cases, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case against him can only be appealed by the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the State. This is because the authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the Supreme Court and the CA is solely vested in the OSG.[20]
	AM No. RTJ-12-2336 2014-11-12	ESTHER P. MAGLEO v. PRESIDING JUDGE ROWENA DE JUAN-QUINAGORAN MENDOZA, J.
This Court is convinced that respondent judge acted in accordance with the law and jurisprudence. It was the February 2, 2011 Omnibus Order[26] which elucidated the clear legal basis why respondent judge continued the criminal case despite the earlier order granting the demurrer to evidence. Generally, if the trial court finds that the prosecution evidence is not sufficient and grants the accused's Demurrer to Evidence, the ruling is an adjudication on the merits of the case which is tantamount to an acquittal and may no longer be appealed.[27]
	GR No. 203605 2014-04-23	P & C INSP. LAWRENCE B. CAJIPE v. PEOPLE ABAD, J.
The OSG contends, however, that the reckoning point should be from the date the Department of Justice or the court gave it notice of the order of dismissal since, as held in Bautista v. Cuneta-Pangilinan,[12] the OSG alone has the authority to represent the People before the CA. But such a proposition is unfair. There is no reason for the RTC to serve copy of its judgments or final orders upon the OSG since it does not enter its appearance in criminal cases before it.
	GR No. 166995 2014-01-13	DENNIS T. VILLAREAL v. CONSUELO C. ALIGA PERALTA, J.
Petitioner took a procedural misstep when he filed the present petition without the representation of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). In Bautista v. Cuneta-Pangilinan,[15] We underscored: x x x The authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the Supreme Court and the CA is solely vested in the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). Section 35 (1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code explicitly provides that the OSG shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers. It shall have specific powers and functions to represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court and the CA, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party. The OSG is the law office of the Government.