Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 82 views

    MAZA V TURLA

    Uploaded by

    Lolit Carlos
    This case involves a petition filed by former party-list representatives Liza Maza, Saturnino Ocampo, Teodoro Casino, and Rafael Mariano challenging subpoenas issued against them to testify in a criminal investigation. The Regional Trial Court ruled that the proper investigation procedure was not followed. The Supreme Court partially grants the petition, setting aside the trial court's orders, finding compelling circumstances warrant the high court's exercise of jurisdiction given the petitioners were sitting representatives when the case was filed. The ruling also aims to ensure a more thorough review of the trial court's actions given the Court of Appeals' collegiate nature.

    Copyright:

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

    MAZA V TURLA

    Uploaded by

    Lolit Carlos
    82 views2 pages
    This case involves a petition filed by former party-list representatives Liza Maza, Saturnino Ocampo, Teodoro Casino, and Rafael Mariano challenging subpoenas issued against them to testify in a criminal investigation. The Regional Trial Court ruled that the proper investigation procedure was not followed. The Supreme Court partially grants the petition, setting aside the trial court's orders, finding compelling circumstances warrant the high court's exercise of jurisdiction given the petitioners were sitting representatives when the case was filed. The ruling also aims to ensure a more thorough review of the trial court's actions given the Court of Appeals' collegiate nature.

    Original Title

    61. MAZA v TURLA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a petition filed by former party-list representatives Liza Maza, Saturnino Ocampo, Teodoro Casino, and Rafael Mariano challenging subpoenas issued against them to testify in a criminal investigation. The Regional Trial Court ruled that the proper investigation procedure was not followed. The Supreme Court partially grants the petition, setting aside the trial court's orders, finding compelling circumstances warrant the high court's exercise of jurisdiction given the petitioners were sitting representatives when the case was filed. The ruling also aims to ensure a more thorough review of the trial court's actions given the Court of Appeals' collegiate nature.

    Copyright:

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

    MAZA V TURLA

    Uploaded by

    Lolit Carlos
    This case involves a petition filed by former party-list representatives Liza Maza, Saturnino Ocampo, Teodoro Casino, and Rafael Mariano challenging subpoenas issued against them to testify in a criminal investigation. The Regional Trial Court ruled that the proper investigation procedure was not followed. The Supreme Court partially grants the petition, setting aside the trial court's orders, finding compelling circumstances warrant the high court's exercise of jurisdiction given the petitioners were sitting representatives when the case was filed. The ruling also aims to ensure a more thorough review of the trial court's actions given the Court of Appeals' collegiate nature.

    Copyright:

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

    MAGSAYSAY, MAE CHLOE C.

    60. MAZA v TURLA

    PETITIONER: Liza Maza, Saturnino Ocampo, Teodoro Casino, and Rafael Mariano
    RESPONDENTS: Hon. Evelyn Turla, Floro F. Florendo et al
    DOCKET NO: 187094
    DATE: February 15, 2017
    PONENTE: Leonen, J:
    TOPIC: General Provisions

    FACTS:

     Petitioners are former members of the House of Representatives. Liza represented Gabriela Women’s
    Party, while Saturnino and Teodoro represented Bayan Muna Party-List, while Rafael represented
    Anakpawis Party-list.

     Inspector Palomo named 19 individuals, including Petitioners, who were allegedly responsible for the
    death of Carlito Bayudang, Jimmy Peralta, and Danilo Felipe.

     On February 2, 2007, Investigating Prosecutor Antonio Ll. Lapus, Jr. issued a subpoena requiring
    petitioners to testify at the hearings scheduled on February 16 and 23, 2007.

     The panel of prosecutors issued on April11,2008 a Joint Resolution, reviewed and approved by Officer-in-
    charge Provincial Prosecutor Floro F. Florendo.

     On April 21, 2008, petitioners also filed a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause with Prayer
    to Dismiss the Case Outright on the Palayan cases. The panel of prosecutors opposed the motion. And
    Petitioners filed a reply on May 12, 2008.
     After the motion was heard by the RTC, both parties submitted their respective memoranda.

     Judge Turla held that the proper procedure for investigation was not followed.

    ISSUE: THE PETITION SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR VIOLATING THE HIERARCHY OF COURTS.

    RULING: This petition is an exception to the principle of hierarchy of courts. The Court of Appeals is primarily
    designed as an appellate court that reviews the determination of facts and law made by the trial courts. It is
    collegiate in nature. This nature ensures more standpoints in the review of the actions of the trial court. But the
    Court of Appeals also has original jurisdiction over most special civil actions. Unlike the trial courts, its writs can
    have a nationwide scope. It is competent to determine facts and, ideally, should act on constitutional issues that
    may not necessarily be novel unless there are factual questions to determine.

    In this case, the presence of compelling circumstances warrants the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction. At the time
    the petition was filed, petitioners were incumbent party-list representatives. The possibility of their arrest and
    incarceration should the assailed Orders be affirmed, would affect their representation of their constituents in
    Congress.

    Although the circumstances mentioned are no longer present, the merits of this case necessitate this Court's
    exercise of jurisdiction.
    DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed Orders dated July 18, 2008 and
    December 2, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court, Palayan City, Branch 40 in Criminal Case Nos. 1879-P and 1880-P are
    SET ASIDE.

    You might also like