This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-11-24 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The CA, however, still upheld the ruling of the RTC, stating that "whatever perceived error the trial court may have committed is inconsequential as any intended amendment to the informations filed surely cannot cure the defects,"[32] and to justify such conclusion, the CA proceeded to decide the merits of the case based merely on the allegations in the Information. Such pronouncement, therefore, is speculative and premature without giving the prosecution the opportunity to present its evidence or, to at least, amend the Informations. In People v. Leviste, [33] we stressed that the State, like any other litigant, is entitled to its day in court; in criminal proceedings, the public prosecutor acts for and represents the State, and carries the burden of diligently pursuing the criminal prosecution in a manner consistent with public interest.[34] The prosecutor's role in the administration of justice is to lay before the court, fairly and fully, every fact and circumstance known to him or her to exist, without regard to whether such fact tends to establish the guilt or innocence of the accused and without regard to any personal conviction or presumption on what the judge may or is disposed to do.[35] The prosecutor owes the State, the court and the accused the duty to lay before the court the pertinent facts at his disposal with methodical and meticulous attention, clarifying contradictions and filling up gaps and loopholes in his evidence to the end that the court's mind may not be tortured by doubts; that the innocent may not suffer; and that the guilty may not escape unpunished.[36] In the conduct of the criminal proceedings, the prosecutor has ample discretionary power to control the conduct of the presentation of the prosecution evidence, part of which is the option to choose what evidence to present or who to call as witness.[37] Thus, the RTC and the CA, by not giving the State the opportunity to present its evidence in court or to amend the Informations, have effectively curtailed the State's right to due process. | |||||