Thursday, September 18, 2014

JUSTICE PERALTA:

     Instances when presence of accused is required by law: Section 14(2), Article III of the Constitution, authorizing trials in absentia, allows the accused to be absent at the trial but not at certain stages of the proceedings, to wit: (a) at arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or of guilt; (b) during trial, whenever necessary for identification purposes; and (c) at the promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a light offense, in which case, the accused may appear by counsel or representative. At such stages of the proceedings, his presence is required and cannot be waived (PEOPLE vs. DE GRANO, 2009, Peralta, J.).

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

JUSTICE PERALTA:

        Well-established is the rule that when a motion to quash in a criminal case is denied, the remedy is not a petition for certiorari, but for petitioners to go to trial, without prejudice to reiterating the special defenses invoked in their motion to quash

          The above general rule, however admits of several exceptions, one of which is when the court, in denying the motion to dismiss or motion to quash, acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, then certiorari or prohibition lies. (JAVIER VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, 2009, PERALTA, J.).

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

JUSTICE PERALTA:

   The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only. (OMBUDSMAN vS. VENTURA, 2009, Peralta, J.)

Monday, September 15, 2014

JUSTICE PERALTA:

     QUAHAL OF THE SEARCH WARRANT: In view of the withdrawal of the Information for Robbery, the quashal of the subject search warrants and the determination of the issue of whether or not there was probable cause warranting the issuance by the RTC of the said search warrants for respondents’ alleged acts of robbery has been rendered moot and academic. (TAN vs. SY TIONG GUE, 2010, PERALTA, J.).

Friday, September 12, 2014

JUSTICE PERALTA:

     Plain view: Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. The “plain view” doctrine applies when the following requisites concur:

       (a)      the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area;

        (b)      the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent;

        (c)      it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.

      The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused.

          The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent. (MICLAT VS. PEOPLE, 2011, PERALTA, J.).