Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DACUDAO v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE GONZALES

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 209330 2016-01-11	SECRETARY LEILA DE LIMA v. MARIO JOEL T. REYES LEONEN, J.
In Spouses Dacudao v. Secretary of Justice,[56] a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus was filed against the Secretary of Justice's issuance of a department order. The assailed order directed all prosecutors to forward all cases already filed against Celso de los Angeles of the Legacy Group to the Secretariat of the Special Panel created by the Department of Justice.
	GR No. 207145 2015-07-28	GIL G. CAWAD v. FLORENCIO B. ABAD PERALTA, J.
Based on the foregoing, it must be recalled that administrative regulations, such as the DBM-DOH Joint Circular herein, enacted by administrative agencies to implement and interpret the law they are entrusted to enforce are entitled to great respect.[31] They partake of the nature of a statute and are just as binding as if they have been written in the statute itself. As such, administrative regulations have the force and effect of law and enjoy the presumption of legality. Unless and until they are overcome by sufficient evidence showing that they exceeded the bounds of the law,[32] their validity and legality must be upheld.
	GR Nos. 212140-41 2015-01-21	SENATOR JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA v. BERSAMIN CARPIO, J.
The purpose in determining probable cause is to make sure that the courts are not clogged with weak cases that will only be dismissed, as well as to spare a person from the travails of a needless prosecution.[26] The Ombudsman and the prosecution service under the control and supervision of the Secretary of the Department of Justice are inherently the fact-finder, investigator, hearing officer, judge and jury of the respondent in preliminary investigations. Obviously, this procedure cannot comply with Ang Tibay, as amplified in GSIS. However, there is nothing unconstitutional with this procedure because this is merely an Executive function, a part of the law enforcement process leading to trial in court where the requirements mandated in Ang Tibay, as amplified in GSIS, will apply. This has been the procedure under the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. To now rule that Ang Tibay, as amplified in GSIS, should apply to preliminary investigations will mean that all past and present preliminary investigations are in gross violation of constitutional due process.