This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-07-11 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Prosecutors have discretion and control over the criminal prosecution of offenders, as they are the officers tasked to resolve the existence of a prima facie case and probable cause that would warrant the filing of an information against the perpetrator.[5] The process of determining whether there is probable cause is ordinarily done through the conduct of a preliminary investigation.[6] If the prosecutor finds that the evidence he or she relies upon is insufficient for conviction, courts may not compel the former to initiate criminal prosecution or to continue prosecuting a proceeding originally initiated through a criminal complaint.[7] Consequently, a prosecutor who moves for the dismissal of a criminal case or the withdrawal of an information for insufficiency of evidence has authority to do so, and courts that grant the motion commit no error.[8] Furthermore, a prosecutor "may re-investigate a case and subsequently move for the dismissal should the re-investigation show either that the defendant is innocent or that his guilt may not be established beyond reasonable doubt."[9] | |||||
|
2006-07-11 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| As early as US v. Valencia,[8] this Court, through Justice Charles A. Willard, ruled that once an Information has been filed in court, the latter acquires jurisdiction over the case; and, accordingly, it is the court, not the fiscal, which has control over it. In US v. Barredo,[9] this Court explained that fiscals are not clothed with the power to dismiss or nolle prosequi criminal actions once these have been instituted, for the power to dismiss is solely vested in the court. The Barredo doctrine has continuously been applied through the years.[10] In other words, once a court acquires jurisdiction, the same continues until the termination of the case.[11] The rule, therefore, in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case, whether it be dismissal or the conviction or the acquittal of the accused, rests in the sound discretion of the court.[12] The only qualification to this exercise of the judicial prerogative is that the substantial rights of the accused must not be impaired[13] nor the People be deprived of the right to due process.[14] | |||||
|
2005-06-28 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In Crespo v. Mogul,[26] we underscored the cardinal principle that the public prosecutor controls and directs the prosecution of criminal offenses whose resolutions may be reviewed by the Secretary of Justice.[27] We held that where there is a clash of views between a judge who did not investigate and a fiscal who conducted a reinvestigation, those of the prosecutor should normally prevail.[28] | |||||
|
2001-07-06 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner submits that a prosecutor conducting a preliminary investigation performs a quasi-judicial function, citing Cojuangco v. PCGG,[4] Koh v. Court of Appeals,[5] Andaya v. Provincial Fiscal of Surigao del Norte[6] and Crespo v. Mogul.[7] In these cases this Court held that the power to conduct preliminary investigation is quasi-judicial in nature. But this statement holds true only in the sense that, like quasi-judicial bodies, the prosecutor is an office in the executive department exercising powers akin to those of a court. Here is where the similarity ends. | |||||
|
2000-10-18 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| with the Court of Appeals was not the proper remedy for private respondents. It should be noted that when the Petition was filed, the Information was already filed by the Provincial Prosecutor with the Regional Trial Court of Bacoor, Cavite. The criminal case commenced from that time at its course would now be under the direction of the trial court. As we held in Crespo v. Mogul - [11] The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for the purpose of determining whether a prima facie exists warranting the prosecution of the accused is terminated upon the filing of the information in the proper court. In turn, as above stated, | |||||