Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Fernandez V Ca

    Uploaded by

    Mark Fernandez
    9 views1 page
    The petitioner was convicted of raping a minor and filed motions to have the charge amended and for reinvestigation, which were denied by the trial court. The petitioner then brought the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, questioning if this was the proper action to appeal the trial court's denial. The Supreme Court ruled that a petition for certiorari was the correct appeal process when a motion for reinvestigation is denied.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    333.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The petitioner was convicted of raping a minor and filed motions to have the charge amended and for reinvestigation, which were denied by the trial court. The petitioner then brought the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, questioning if this was the proper action to appeal the trial court's denial. The Supreme Court ruled that a petition for certiorari was the correct appeal process when a motion for reinvestigation is denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views1 page

    Fernandez V Ca

    Uploaded by

    Mark Fernandez
    The petitioner was convicted of raping a minor and filed motions to have the charge amended and for reinvestigation, which were denied by the trial court. The petitioner then brought the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, questioning if this was the proper action to appeal the trial court's denial. The Supreme Court ruled that a petition for certiorari was the correct appeal process when a motion for reinvestigation is denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    FULL TITLE: FERNANDEZ V CA

    TOPIC: RULE 42

    STATEMENT OF THE FACTS:


    Petitioner was charged with and convicted of the crime of rape of a minor. From the decision, petitioner filed a Motion
    for Reinvestigation, praying that the trial court direct the Office of the Prosecutor to conduct a preliminary
    investigation in accordance with the Rules of Court. Reynaldo also asked that the charge filed against him be amended
    to acts of lasciviousness, instead of rape, claiming that under Republic Act 8353, the act of complained of is not
    covered as one of the instances of rape. The trial court denied the Motion for Reinvestigation, as well as the Motion
    for Reconsideration. By virtue of such denial, petitioner brought a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court,
    under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the appeal taken is the proper action.

    RULING:

    You might also like