Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    Pages 38 601 Macapagal Arroyo vs. People 63

    Uploaded by

    Dan Millado
    The Supreme Court ruled that granting the petitions for certiorari to annul the Sandiganbayan's denial of the demurrers to evidence in the case against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Benigno Aguas was valid. While Rule 119 Section 23 normally prohibits appealing or seeking certiorari from an interlocutory order denying a demurrer, the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to correct any grave abuse of discretion by any branch that amounts to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In this case, the Sandiganbayan was guilty of grave abuse of discretion by denying the demurrers despite insufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or expect a guilty verdict. Therefore, notwithstanding the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pages 38 601 Macapagal Arroyo vs. People 63

    Uploaded by

    Dan Millado
    48 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that granting the petitions for certiorari to annul the Sandiganbayan's denial of the demurrers to evidence in the case against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Benigno Aguas was valid. While Rule 119 Section 23 normally prohibits appealing or seeking certiorari from an interlocutory order denying a demurrer, the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to correct any grave abuse of discretion by any branch that amounts to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In this case, the Sandiganbayan was guilty of grave abuse of discretion by denying the demurrers despite insufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or expect a guilty verdict. Therefore, notwithstanding the

    Original Title

    pages-38-601-Macapagal-Arroyo-vs.-People-63

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that granting the petitions for certiorari to annul the Sandiganbayan's denial of the demurrers to evidence in the case against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Benigno Aguas was valid. While Rule 119 Section 23 normally prohibits appealing or seeking certiorari from an interlocutory order denying a demurrer, the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to correct any grave abuse of discretion by any branch that amounts to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In this case, the Sandiganbayan was guilty of grave abuse of discretion by denying the demurrers despite insufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or expect a guilty verdict. Therefore, notwithstanding the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    48 views2 pages

    Pages 38 601 Macapagal Arroyo vs. People 63

    Uploaded by

    Dan Millado
    The Supreme Court ruled that granting the petitions for certiorari to annul the Sandiganbayan's denial of the demurrers to evidence in the case against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Benigno Aguas was valid. While Rule 119 Section 23 normally prohibits appealing or seeking certiorari from an interlocutory order denying a demurrer, the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to correct any grave abuse of discretion by any branch that amounts to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In this case, the Sandiganbayan was guilty of grave abuse of discretion by denying the demurrers despite insufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or expect a guilty verdict. Therefore, notwithstanding the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    #63. Macapagal-Arroyo vs. People, G.R. No.

    220598, July 19, 2016, pages 38, 601

    April 18, 2017

    G.R. No. 220598

    GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, Petitioner,


    vs.
    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN, (First Division), Respondents

    Facts:
    On July 19, 2016, the Supreme Court grants the petitions for certiorari; ANNULS and
    SETS ASIDE the resolutions issued in Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 by the
    Sandiganbayan on April 6, 2015 and September 10, 2015; GRANTS the petitioners' respective
    demurrers to evidence; DISMISSES Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 as to the petitioners
    GLORIAMACAPAGAL-ARROYO and BENIGNOAGUAS for insufficiency of evidence;
    ORDERS the immediate release from detention of said petitioners; and MAKES no
    pronouncements on costs of suit.

    On August 3, 2016, the State, through the Office of the Ombudsman, has moved for the
    reconsideration of the decision, submitting that the Supreme Court’s giving due course to
    certiorari action assailing an interlocutory order denying the demurrer to evidence violates Rule
    119, Section 23 of the Rules of Court and committed grave errors which amount to a violation or
    deprivation of the state’s fundamental right to due process of law.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the grant of petitions for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order denying
    demurrer of evidence by the Supreme Court violates Rule 119, Section 23 of the Rules of Court,
    which provides that an order denying the demurrer to evidence shall not be reviewable by
    appeal or by certiorari before judgement.

    Ruling:
    No, the grant of petitions for certiorari by the Supreme Court is valid and constitutional.

    Section 1 Article 8 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that, “ The judicial
    power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by
    law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
    involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
    there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
    part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.” In addition, in the Court decided
    cases, GR No. 220953, “In the exercise of judicial power is to correct grave abuse of discretion
    amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
    Government cannot be thwarted by rules of procedure to the contrary or for the sake of the
    convenience of one side. This is because the Court has the bounden constitutional duty to strike
    down grave abuse of discretion whenever and wherever it is committed.
    In this case, the Sandiganbayan as the trial court was guilty of grave abuse of discretion
    when it capriciously denied the demurrers to evidence despite the absence of competent and
    sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment for plunder, and despite the absence of the factual
    bases to expect a guilty verdict. Thus, notwithstanding the interlocutory character and effect of
    the denial of the demurrers to evidence, the petitioners as the accused could avail themselves
    of the remedy of certiorari when the denial was tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

    You might also like