Scribd
Upload
235 views1 page

Carino v. Castro

The document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Carmencita G. Cariño and Merlin de Castro. It discusses that Cariño filed a complaint against de Castro for violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The Assistant City Prosecutor found prima facie evidence and recommended indictment. De Castro was charged in trial court. The Supreme Court ruled that only the Office of the Solicitor General can bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.

Uploaded by

Lau Nunez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
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
235 views1 page

Carino v. Castro

The document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Carmencita G. Cariño and Merlin de Castro. It discusses that Cariño filed a complaint against de Castro for violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The Assistant City Prosecutor found prima facie evidence and recommended indictment. De Castro was charged in trial court. The Supreme Court ruled that only the Office of the Solicitor General can bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.

Uploaded by

Lau Nunez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
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

CARMENCITA G. CARIÑO v. MERLIN DE CASTRO, GR No.

176084, 2008-04-
30

Facts:

Petitioner Carmencita G. Cariño filed a complaint-affidavit for


violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against respondent Merlin de Castro
before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. After conducting
preliminary investigation, Assistant City Prosecutor ManuelB. Sta. Cruz,
Jr., issued a Resolution finding prima facie evidence and recommending
respondent's indictment. Accordingly, respondent was charged with five
(5) counts of violation of BP 22 before the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Manila, Branch 13.

Issue:

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion.

Ruling:

We held that only the OSG can bring or defend actions on behalf of
the Republic or represent the People or state in criminal proceedings
pending in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.

You might also like