Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 437 views

    Nuclear Free Philippine Coalition.1

    Uploaded by

    Elle Taluban
    Respondent judge was denied of due process when PAEC reconsidered its orders and pleadings regarding the safety of the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant-1 without allowing NPC to participate. Respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction when he rendered a decision convicting two accused of violating Act 3023 for illegal possession of explosives, when the complaint charged them with violating P.D. 704, a crime under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. Respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when he rendered a judgment convicting two accused of illegal possession of explosives, a crime which fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, not the municipal court. His only jurisdiction was to

    Copyright:

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

    Nuclear Free Philippine Coalition.1

    Uploaded by

    Elle Taluban
    437 views3 pages
    Respondent judge was denied of due process when PAEC reconsidered its orders and pleadings regarding the safety of the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant-1 without allowing NPC to participate. Respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction when he rendered a decision convicting two accused of violating Act 3023 for illegal possession of explosives, when the complaint charged them with violating P.D. 704, a crime under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. Respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when he rendered a judgment convicting two accused of illegal possession of explosives, a crime which fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, not the municipal court. His only jurisdiction was to

    Original Description:

    NFPC v. NPC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Respondent judge was denied of due process when PAEC reconsidered its orders and pleadings regarding the safety of the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant-1 without allowing NPC to participate. Respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction when he rendered a decision convicting two accused of violating Act 3023 for illegal possession of explosives, when the complaint charged them with violating P.D. 704, a crime under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. Respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when he rendered a judgment convicting two accused of illegal possession of explosives, a crime which fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, not the municipal court. His only jurisdiction was to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    437 views3 pages

    Nuclear Free Philippine Coalition.1

    Uploaded by

    Elle Taluban
    Respondent judge was denied of due process when PAEC reconsidered its orders and pleadings regarding the safety of the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant-1 without allowing NPC to participate. Respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction when he rendered a decision convicting two accused of violating Act 3023 for illegal possession of explosives, when the complaint charged them with violating P.D. 704, a crime under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. Respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when he rendered a judgment convicting two accused of illegal possession of explosives, a crime which fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, not the municipal court. His only jurisdiction was to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Nuclear Free Philippine Coalition, et al., v.

    National Power Issue:


    Corporation et al. Whether or not respondent National Power Corporation is
    G.R. No. L-68474 denied of its right to due process
    February 11, 1986
    Plana, J. Ruling:
    Yes. NPC was denied of its right to due process.
    Facts:
    In G.R. No. 70632, petitioners question the competence of Acting on the motion filed herein, the Court orders PAEC to
    respondent PAEC (Philippine Atomic Energy Commission) reconsider its orders of May 31 and June 5, 1985, the urgent
    Commissioners to pass judgment on the safety of the Philippine mandatory injunction and/or restraining order dated August 3,
    Nuclear Power Plant-1 (PNPP-1) in PAEC Licensing Proceedings 1985, the second urgent motion for mandatory injunction dated
    No.1-77 without however seeking their ouster from office, although August 12, 1985, and the various pleadings and other documents
    “proven competence” is one of the qualifications prescribed by law submitted by the parties relative thereto. The paramount need of a
    for PAEC Commissioners. Petitioners also assails the validity of the reasonable assurance that the operation of PNPP-1 will not pose an
    motion filed by the NPC for the conversion of its construction undue risk to the health and safety of the people shall be
    permit into an operating license for PNPP-1 on the principal ground considered. Such dictates that the conduct of the inquiry into the
    that it contained no information regarding the financial safety aspects of PNPP-1 shall be characterized by sufficient latitude
    qualifications of NPC, its source of nuclear fuel and insurance in order to achieve the end in view, unfettered by technical rules of
    coverage for nuclear damage. Petitioners are final charging evidence (Section 38 of RA No. 5207). This is also in keeping with
    respondent PAEC Commissioners with bias and prejudgment. the requirements of due process in administrative proceedings.
    The Court resolved to restrain respondent PAEC
    Commissioners from further acting in PAEC Licensing Proceedings The present Court resolved to order respondent PAEC to re-
    No.1-77. This is because a prejudgment was made by the open the hearing on PNPP-1 in order to give petitioners sufficient
    respondent Commissioners through stating that the PNPP-1 was time to complete their cross-examination of the expert witnesses
    safe. This has amounted to grave abuse of discretion amounting to on quality assurance, to cross-examine the witnesses that
    lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Commissioners. A petitioners have failed to cross-examine on and after August 9,
    thorough investigation must first ensue before a judgment is given. 1985, and to complete the presentation of their evidence.
    Lt. Col. Rodrigo S. De Guzman and People of the Philippines v. which falls with the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFI. He further
    Municipal Trial Court Judge Marcelino M. Escalona, Florentino alleged that respondent Judge’s decision has no legal basis.
    Rodrigo, and Mariano Dayday
    G.R. No. L-51773 Issue:
    May 16, 1980 Whether or not respondent Judge has committed grave
    Melencio-Herrera, J. abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction

    Facts: Ruling:
    A Complaint was filed charging the accused Florentino Yes. Respondent Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction when
    Rodrigo and Mariano Dayday with “Ilegal Possession of Explosive he rendered the questioned Decision of August 6, 1979.
    locally known as “dinamita” (P.D. No. 1058)”. The Complaint filed against the two accused specifically
    The complaint was precipitated by the fact, as disclosed by alleged that they willfully and unlawfully possessed in their banca
    the Sworn Statements of CIC Carlos Dosdos and Sgt. Jose Andales explosives locally known as “dinamita” purposely intended for use
    that when they conducted a seaborne patrol along Daanbantayan, in illegal fishing in violation of P.D. No. 1058, an amendatory decree
    Cebu, they spotted accused Rodrigo and Dagdag aboard a banca. As increasing the penalties for certain forms of illegal fishing and for
    they approached a banca, Rodrigo attempted to light a bottle of other acts made punishable under P.D. No. 704 (Fisheries Decree of
    dynamite but which the succeeded ill slopping. Both were arrested 1975).
    and three bottles of dynamite and two fishnets were confiscated The Solicitor General (for petitioner People of the
    from them. Philippines) was correct in his Comment that respondent Judge’s
    Instead of conducting a preliminary investigation, reference to P.D. No. 9 was misplaced for there is no mention at all
    respondent Judge motu propio treated the Complaint as one for of, nor any reference to, P.D. No. 9 in the Complaint.
    violation of Act 3023. He then proceeded to arraign accused both of Jurisdiction over cases involving illegal possession of
    whom pleaded guilty, and rendered judgment on August 6, 1979. explosives intended for illegal fishing and certain other acts
    Both accused have served their sentence. prohibited under Presidential Decree No. 704 is now within the
    Herein petitioner Lt. Col De Guzman, instituted the present exclusive original jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance.
    certiorari proceedings to contest the course of action taken and the Since the purpose of preliminary investigation proper is to
    judgment rendered by respondent Judge. He alleged that the determine whether or not the accused should be released or held
    offense charged was one for possession of explosives intended for for trial before the competent Court the only jurisdiction of a
    illegal fishing under P.D. No. 704, as amended by P.D. No. 1058, and Municipal Judge at the preliminary investigation proper, where the
    not for violation of Act 3023 and that the penalty provided is one offense charged does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Municipal
    Court, is either to elevate the case to the proper Court with his
    findings on preliminary investigation or, in the absence of probable
    cause to believe an accused guilty, to dismiss the case. He cannot
    decide the case on the merits and if he does, he acts without
    jurisdiction.
    Therefore, it was erroneous for respondent Judge to have
    rendered judgment and to have convicted the accused for illegal
    possession of explosives under Act No. 3023 considering that his
    Court had no jurisdiction over the offense charged in the Complaint,
    and, hence, was bereft of authority to determine the character of
    the crime committed. His only jurisdiction was to elevate or dismiss
    the case. He could not decide the case on the merits.

    Republic of the Philippines v. Hon. Roman Cansino, Jr.


    G.R. No. L-17923
    May 26, 1962
    Concepcion, J.

    Facts:

    You might also like