This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-11-24 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The conformity of the Public Prosecutor to the Urgent Motion to Compel the Armed Forces of the Philippines to Surrender Custody of Accused to the Olongapo City Jail is not a mere "superfluity."[127] In Jimenez v. Sorongon,[128] this court held that in criminal cases, the People is the real party in interest, which means allowing a private complainant to pursue a criminal action on his own is a rare exception:[129] | |||||
|
2015-08-17 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Here in this Rule 45 petition, petitioner argues that the RTC erred when it concluded that "there is no evidence of conspiracy against private respondent Ang." Petitioner goes on to enumerate circumstances that collectively amount to a finding that based on probable cause, respondent conspired with the accused in defrauding Anlud Metal Recycling Corporation.[31] | |||||
|
2015-07-15 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The Court has stressed that the People of the Philippines, being the real party in interest in every criminal proceedings, can be represented only by the OSG in criminal proceedings in the CA or in this Court.[26] Yet, this rule admits of exceptions, for as pronounced in Rodriguez v. Gadiane:[27] | |||||
|
2015-03-18 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The MTC further cited lack of jurisdiction over the person of petitioner accused as ground for denying petitioner's motion for re-determination of probable cause, as the motion was filed prior to his arrest. However, custody of the law is not required for the adjudication of reliefs other than an application for bail.[27] In Miranda v. Tuliao,[28] which involved a motion to quash warrant of arrest, this Court discussed the distinction between custody of the law and jurisdiction over the person, and held that jurisdiction over the person of the accused is deemed waived when he files any pleading seeking an affirmative relief, except in cases when he invokes the special jurisdiction of the court by impugning such jurisdiction over his person. Thus:In arguing, on the other hand, that jurisdiction over their person was already acquired by their filing of the above Urgent Motion, petitioners invoke our pronouncement, through Justice Florenz D. Regalado, in Santiago v. Vasquez: | |||||
|
2014-08-06 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Accordingly, jurisprudence holds that if there is a dismissal of a criminal case by the trial court or if there is an acquittal of the accused, it is only the OSG that may bring an appeal on the criminal aspect representing the People. [29] The rationale therefor is rooted in the principle that the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action is the People and not the petitioners who are mere complaining witnesses. For this reason, the People are therefore deemed as the real parties in interest in the criminal case and, therefore, only the OSG can represent them in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in this Court.[30] In view of the corollary principle that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or by the party entitled to the avails of the suit,[31] an appeal of the criminal case not filed by the People as represented by the OSG is perforce dismissible. The private complainant or the offended party may, however, file an appeal without the intervention of the OSG but only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned.[32] He may also file a special civil action for certiorari even without the intervention of the OSG, but only to the end of preserving his interest in the civil aspect of the case. [33] | |||||