Posts

In Samson v. Daway,10 the Court explained that while the pendency of a petition for review is a ground for suspension of the arraignment, the aforecited provision limits the deferment of the arraignment to a period of 60 days reckoned from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office. It follows, therefore, that after the expiration of said period, the trial court is bound to arraign the accused or to deny the motion to defer arraignment.

  THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 192898               January 31, 2011 SPOUSES ALEXANDER TRINIDAD and CECILIA TRINIDAD,  Petitioners, vs. VICTOR ANG,  Respondent. R E S O L U T I O N BRION,  J.: We resolve the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner spouses Alexander Trinidad and Cecilia Trinidad (petitioners) to challenge our Resolution of September 29, 2010. Our Resolution denied the petition for review on certiorari for its failure to state the material dates of receipt of the order 1  of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 44, Masbate City, and of filing the motion for reconsideration, in violation of Sections 4(b) 2  and 5, 3  Rule 45, in relation to Section 5(d), 4  Rule 56 of the Rules of Court. Antecedent Facts On September 3, 2007, the Office of the City Prosecutor, Masbate City, issued a Resolution recommending the filing of an Information for Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 against the petitio...
1 comment
Read more

SEC. 11. Suspension of Arraignment. – Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended in the following cases: (a) The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which effectively renders him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto. In such case, the court shall order his mental examination and, if necessary, his confinement for such purpose; (b) There exists a prejudicial question; and (c) A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either the Department of Justice, or the Office of the President; Provided, that the period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office.

  THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 192898               January 31, 2011 SPOUSES ALEXANDER TRINIDAD and CECILIA TRINIDAD,  Petitioners, vs. VICTOR ANG,  Respondent. R E S O L U T I O N BRION,  J.: We resolve the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner spouses Alexander Trinidad and Cecilia Trinidad (petitioners) to challenge our Resolution of September 29, 2010. Our Resolution denied the petition for review on certiorari for its failure to state the material dates of receipt of the order 1  of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 44, Masbate City, and of filing the motion for reconsideration, in violation of Sections 4(b) 2  and 5, 3  Rule 45, in relation to Section 5(d), 4  Rule 56 of the Rules of Court. Antecedent Facts On September 3, 2007, the Office of the City Prosecutor, Masbate City, issued a Resolution recommending the filing of an Information for Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 against the petitio...
Post a Comment
Read more

Sec. 11. Suspension of Arraignment. – Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended in the following cases: x x x x (c) A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either the Department of Justice, or the Office of the President; Provided, that the period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office.

  THIRD DIVISION March 11, 2015 G.R. No. 176033 FELILIBETH AGUINALDO and BENJAMIN PEREZ,  Petitioners, vs. REYNALDO P. VENTUS and JOJO B. JOSON,  Respondents. D E C I S I O N PERALTA,  J.: Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to nullify and set aside the Decision 1  dated August 11, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) and its December 4, 2006 Resolution 2  in CA-G.R. SP No. 92094. The CA dismissed for lack of merit the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 filed by petitioners Felilibeth Aguinaldo and Benjamin Perez, praying for the following reliefs: (1) the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin the public respondent Judge Felixberto T. Olalia from implementing the Orders dated May 16, 2005 and August 23, 2005; (2) the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to annul the said Orders, and (3) the dismissal of the estafa case against them for having bee...
1 comment
Read more