Scribd Logo
Carica

Benvenuto in Scribd!

  • Mendoza vs. People

    Caricato da

    maricar bernardino
    9 visualizzazioni2 pagine
    digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formati disponibili

    PDF o leggi online da Scribd

    Hai trovato utile questo documento?

    Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

    Segnala questo documento
    digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    9 visualizzazioni2 pagine

    Mendoza vs. People

    Caricato da

    maricar bernardino
    digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    di 2
    APRIT. CASuS us ALFREDO C. MENDOZA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and JUNO CARS, INC. G.R. NO. 197293, 21 Apsil 2014, THIRD DIVISION (Leonen ) phrase “upon probable ‘atme to be delerenined personally ty the judge afer ccaminaticn amor cath or afrmation of the complainant and the witnesis be may prsdice” lions a eormiuaton of provable ase by he jude ex parte Juno CarsIne, hized Alfiedo C. Mendoza asa trade-in /used car supervisor Upon a partial audit conducted by its dealer/operator, ic was discovered that five (3) cats heel been sold and released by Mendoza without the dealer's or the finance manager's permistion. ‘he said audit also showed that the buyers of the said cars macle payments but Mendoza fated to remit snch payments. Juno Cars Filed a complaint against Mendova alleging that the latter pilfered an amount te ity prejudice and damage. Mendoza raised Juno Cary’ supposed falluse to prove ownesship over the five (6) cars or its right to possess them with the purported unremicied payments. Hence, it could not have suffered damage, Prosecutor Rey F, Delgado issned 2 resolution finding: probable cause and, sscommending the filing of information against Mendoza for qualified theft and eetaja. The RTC thea issued an order dismissing che complaint stating that the ‘evidence adduced does not support 4 finding of probable euse for dhe offenses. Jano Cars thea fled a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the determination of probable eause and the decision whether ot not file x criminal case in court rightfully belongs to the public prosceutos. The CA then teversed the decision of the RYC and reinstated the case, ruling that trial court acted without oF in excess of iss jurisdiction in supplinting the public prosecutors fadings Uf probable cause with her own findings of insulliciency of evidence and lack of probable cause. ISSUE: “May the trial couct dismiss an information filed by the prosecutor on the basis of its own independent Ending of lick of probable cause? UST VAW TAW REVIEW. YOR. LYIM, No. 2: ApRUL 2004 oy RECENY JURISPRUDENEL RULING: Yes. While the information tiled by Prosecutur Delgado was valid, Jadge Capeo-Lmali sill had the discretion to makeher own findiaus of whether probable ‘cause existed to order the arrest of Mendoza and proceed with trial’The exceutive detertnination of probable cause concerns itself with wether there ig enough evidence £0 support an Information being fled, The judicial determination of probable cause, on the other hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. The Constination prob irs the issuance of search warrants of wartants of atrest where the judge has not personelly determined the existence of probable cause, ‘The phrase “upon probable cause ro he deveemined personally by the judge ‘fice examination under veth or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses ‘he may produce” allows a deterinination of probable cause by the judge ex parte. For this season, Scetion 6, paragraph (a) of Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure mandates the judge co “immediately dismiss the eave if the evidence on recoed fail t0 establish probable cause.” Accondingl, with the present laws and jutigpradence on the matier, Judge Capco-Lmali correctly dismissed the case against Mendozs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDGAR JUMAWAN GR. NO. 187495, 21 April 2014, FIRST DIVISION (Reyes |.) A marriage fico sisi not be sewed ac a Heente for a hnrband w forcibly nape ‘his mie wath inpumity, Tlasbands de no! have property rights ever their ss" butkes, Sessal intercon, albeit within the realm of tnarriags, if nol consensual, ic expe, Accused-appellant dvr Jumewan is macried ra KKK, to whom he has lived together and raised four (4) children, As the owsset, conjugal intimacy did ‘ot cause marital problems between KKK and Jumawan. However, through the years, he started ta he broval in bed. The physical pain she experiences during lovemaking caused her to resist his sexual ambush ‘Lais evenmualy lec the spouses to quarrel upon his complaint that she fais to artend ty him. KKK said that Jamaovan freed her

    Potrebbero piacerti anche