[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
71 views1 page

Cobarrubias v People: Petition Dismissal Issue

Cobarrubias was charged with four criminal cases in trial court. Two cases were dismissed in a court order, but Cobarrubias argued the wrong case was dismissed. The Court of Appeals ordered Cobarrubias to add the People of the Philippines as a respondent, as required, but dismissed the petition after he failed to do so initially. While failing to add an indispensable party is defective, it is not grounds for dismissal. The Court of Appeals should have allowed Cobarrubias' amended petition that did add the People of the Philippines, as technicalities should be set aside when justice would be frustrated.

Uploaded by

chiccostudent
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
71 views1 page

Cobarrubias v People: Petition Dismissal Issue

Cobarrubias was charged with four criminal cases in trial court. Two cases were dismissed in a court order, but Cobarrubias argued the wrong case was dismissed. The Court of Appeals ordered Cobarrubias to add the People of the Philippines as a respondent, as required, but dismissed the petition after he failed to do so initially. While failing to add an indispensable party is defective, it is not grounds for dismissal. The Court of Appeals should have allowed Cobarrubias' amended petition that did add the People of the Philippines, as technicalities should be set aside when justice would be frustrated.

Uploaded by

chiccostudent
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Cobarrubias v People

GR 160610

Facts: Cobarrubias was charged with 4 criminal cases, namely: frustrated homicide, homicide, violation of the Omnibus Election Code, and illegal possession of firearms. In a trial court order, 2 of the cases were dismissed (frustrated homicide and illegal possession of firearms). Cobarrubias filed a Motion for Correction of Clerical Error, alleging that in the dispositive portion of the order, the case for homicide should have been dismissed instead of illegal possession of firearms. The Motion was denied by the RTC, and the petition was elevated to the CA. The CA ordered Cobarrubias to implead the People of the Philippines as respondent. Section 2, Rule 110 states that: The complaint or information shall be in writing, in the name of the People of the Philippines and against all persons who appear to be responsible for the offense involved. Cobarrubias was not able to comply with the order, which led to the dismissal of his petition. He tried to rectify his error by filing an amended petition impleading the People of the Philippines as respondent, but was still dismissed by the CA. Issue: W/N the failure to implead the People of the Philippines as respondent warrants the dismissal of the petition NO Held: It is undisputed that the failure to implead the People of the Phils as party made the petition defective. However, failure to implead an indispensable party is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. In such as case, the remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. Parties may be added by order of the court, on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or such times as are just. CA should have granted Cobarrubias motion for reconsideration since he filed an amended petition impleading the People of the Philippines as respondent. After all, Cobarrubias rectified his error by moving for reconsideration and filing an Amended Petition. Technicalities may be set aside when the strict and rigid application of the rules will frustrate rather than promote justice.

You might also like