It is an established doctrine that injunction will not lie to enjoin a criminal prosecution because public interest requires that criminal acts be immediately investigated and prosecuted for the protection of society (Asutilla v. PNB, 225 Phil. 40, 43 (1986). However, it is also true that various decisions of this Court have laid down exceptions to this rule, among which are: a. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; b. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; c. When there is a pre-judicial question which is sub[-]judice; d. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority; e. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; f. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent; g. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense; h. Where there is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; i. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance; j. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied; and] [k.] Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JOSEPH "JOJO" V. GREY, G.R. No. 180109, July 26, 2010, NACHURA, J.)
Friday, October 25, 2013
Posted by Christian G. Villasis at 11:33 AM
A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level (“inferior”) courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. (CONSTANCIO F. MENDOZA AND SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY OF BALATASAN, BULALACAO, ORIENTAL MINDORO VS. MAYOR ENRILO VILLAS ET AL., G.R. NO. 187256, FEB. 23, 2011, VELASCO, JR., J.)
Posted by Christian G. Villasis at 11:32 AM
Thursday, October 24, 2013
the Supreme Court now has the sole authority to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all courts. (GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) vs. HEIRS OF FERNANDO F. CABALLERO, G.R. Nos. 158090, October 4, 2010, PERALTA, J.).
Posted by Christian G. Villasis at 9:38 AM
The mandatory character of pre-trial is embodied in Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated January 15, 1999, and found its way in Section 2, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, which imposes a duty upon the plaintiff to promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial. x x x x To further show that the Court is serious in implementing the rules on pre-trial, in Alviola v. Avelino, A.M. No. MTJ-P-08-1697, February 29, 2008, the Supreme Court imposed the penalty of suspension on a judge who merely failed to issue a pre-trial order within ten (10) days after the termination of the pre-trial conference as mandated by Paragraph 8, Title I (A) of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC. x x x Here, respondent judge failed to conduct the pre-trial conference itself. It is elementary and plain that the holding of such a pre-trial conference is mandatory and failure to do so is inexcusable. When the law or procedure is so elementary, such as the provisions of the Rules of Court, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. (NPC VS. ADIONG, A.M. NO. RTJ-07-2060, JULY 27, 2011, VILLARAMA, J.)
Posted by Christian G. Villasis at 9:35 AM
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. (Rule 132, Sec. 34, Rules of Court). The offer of evidence is necessary because it is the duty of the court to rest its findings of fact and its judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties. Unless and until admitted by the court in evidence for the purpose or purposes for which such document is offered, the same is merely a scrap of paper barren of probative weight. (WESTMONT INVESTMENT CORPORATION VS. AMOS FRANCIS, JR., G.R. NO. 194128, DECEMBER 7, 2011, MENDOZA, J.).
Posted by Christian G. Villasis at 9:02 AM