Professional Documents
Culture Documents
180010
2. Alonte vs. Savellano Jr. 287 SCRA 245
3. Cruz vs. CA 388 SCRA 72
4. Antiporda vs. Garchitorena 321 SCRA 551
5. Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. vs. Supergreen, Inc. 518 SCRA 750
6. Agbayani vs. Sayo 89 SCRA 699
7. Foz, Jr. vs. People GR No. 167764
8. Bonifacio, et al vs. RTC of Makati GR No. 184800
9. Mobilia Products vs. Umezawa GR No. 149357
10. Lacson vs. Executive Secretary 301 SCRA 289
11. Cuyos vs. Garcia 160 SCRA 302
ISSUE: Whether or not Alonte has been denied criminal due process.
HELD: The SC ruled that Savellano should inhibit himself from further deciding
on the case due to animosity between him and the parties. There is no showing
that Alonte waived his right. The standard of waiver requires that it “not only must
be voluntary, but must be knowing, intelligent, and done with sufficient
awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” Mere silence
of the holder of the right should not be so construed as a waiver of right, and the
courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver. Savellano has
not shown impartiality by repeatedly not acting on numerous petitions filed by
Alonte. The case is remanded to the lower court for retrial and the decision
earlier promulgated is nullified.
4. Antiporda vs Garchitorena (1999) G.R. 133289
Facts:
Accused Mayor Licerio Antiporda and others were charged for the crime of
kidnapping, the case was filed in the first division of Sandiganbayan.
Subsequently, the Court ordered the prosecution to submit amended information,
which was complied evenly and the new information contained the place where
the victim was brought.
Issue (1): WON the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the offense
charged.
Held: No. The original Information filed with the Sandiganbayan did not mention
that the offense committed by the accused is office-related. It was only after the
same was filed that the prosecution belatedly remembered that a jurisdictional
fact was omitted therein.
However, we hold that the petitioners are estopped from assailing the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan for in the supplemental arguments to motion for
reconsideration and/or reinvestigation filed with the same court, it was they who
“challenged the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over the case and clearly
stated in their Motion for Reconsideration that the said crime is work connected.
We therefore hold that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case
because of estoppel and it was thus vested with the authority to order the
amendment of the Information.
Issue (2): WON reinvestigation must be made anew.