This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-01-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The application of Ang Tibay, as amplified in GSIS, is not limited to those with pending preliminary investigations but even to those convicted by final judgment and already serving their sentences. The rule is well-settled that a judicial decision applies retroactively if it has a beneficial effect on a person convicted by final judgment even if he is already serving his sentence, provided that he is not a habitual criminal.[39] This Court retains its control over a case "until the full satisfaction of the final judgment conformably with established legal processes."[40] Applying Ang Tibay, as amplified in GSIS, to preliminary investigations will result in thousands of prisoners, convicted by final judgment, being set free from prison. | |||||
|
2013-09-11 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Under the principle of hierarchy of courts, direct recourse to this Court is improper because the Supreme Court is a court of last resort and must remain to be so in order for it to satisfactorily perform its constitutional functions, thereby allowing it to devote its time and attention to matters within its exclusive jurisdiction and preventing the overcrowding of its docket.[16] Nonetheless, the invocation of this Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari has been allowed in certain instances on the ground of special and important reasons clearly stated in the petition, such as, (1) when dictated by the public welfare and the advancement of public policy; (2) when demanded by the broader interest of justice; (3) when the challenged orders were patent nullities; or (4) when analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances called for and justified the immediate and direct handling of the case.[17] | |||||
|
2013-07-10 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, petitioner violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts which prohibits direct resort to this Court unless the appropriate remedy cannot be obtained in the lower tribunals.[9] In this case, petitioner should have first elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) which has concurrent jurisdiction, together with this Court, over special civil actions for certiorari.[10] Even so, this principle is not absolute and admits of certain exceptions, such as in this case, when it is demanded by the broader interest of justice.[11] | |||||
|
2013-07-03 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| We also agree with petitioner that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying PO2 Alvarez as a witness. Grave abuse of discretion defies exact definition, but it generally refers to capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.[18] Grave abuse of discretion arises when a lower court or tribunal violates the Constitution or grossly disregards the law or existing jurisprudence.[19] | |||||