Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MANUEL P. MARTINEZ v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR Nos. 164669-70 2009-10-30	LIEZL CO v. HAROLD LIM Y GO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moreover, the trial judge did not positively state that the evidence presented against the respondents was insufficient for a prima facie case, nor did the aforequoted Order include a discussion of the merits of the case based on an evaluation or assessment of the evidence on record. In other words, the dismissal of the case was based upon considerations other than the judge's own personal individual conviction that there was no case against the respondents. Thus, the trial judge improperly relinquished the discretion that he was bound to exercise, and the Orders dated 11 February 2004 and 29 June 2004 are invalid for having been issued in grave abuse of discretion.[30]
	AM No. RTJ-07-2058 2009-04-07	DOLORES S. BAGO v. JUDGE ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Crespo v. Mogul,[14] the Court laid down the rule that once a complaint or information is filed before the trial court, any disposition of the case, as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused, rests on the sound discretion of the said court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already before the trial court, the fiscal cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The trial court is the best and sole judge of what to do with the case before it. The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the trial court which has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of the investigation.[15]
	GR No. 177583 2009-02-27	LOURDES BALTAZAR v. JAIME CHUA Y IBARRA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as [to] its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. In observance of the tenet spelled out in Crespo, the Court in Martinez v. Court of Appeals[11] lamented the trial court's grant of the motion to dismiss filed by the prosecution, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice, as the judge merely relied on the conclusion of the prosecution, thereby failing to perform his function of making an independent evaluation or assessment of the merits of the case.
	GR No. 174016 2008-07-28	SEVERINO C. BALTAZAR v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of the investigation.[52] We have likewise held that once a case has been filed with the court, it is that court, no longer the prosecution, which has full control of the case, so much so that the information may not be dismissed without its approval. Significantly, once a motion to dismiss or withdraw the information is filed, the court may grant or deny it, in the faithful exercise of judicial discretion. In doing so, the trial judge must himself be convinced that there was indeed no sufficient evidence against the accused, and this conclusion can be arrived at only after an assessment of the evidence in the possession of the prosecution. What was imperatively required was the trial judge's own assessment of such evidence, it not being sufficient for the valid and proper exercise of judicial discretion merely to accept the prosecution's word for its supposed insufficiency.[53]
	GR NO. 167910 2007-07-17	MUSTAPHA M. GANDAROSA v. EVARISTO FLORES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Jurisprudence, however, is also explicit that once a motion to dismiss is filed, the trial judge may grant or deny it, not out of subservience to the Secretary of Justice, but in faithful exercise of judicial prerogative.[48] Hence, in the determination thereof, trial judges are required to make their own independent assessment. Citing Martinez v. Court of Appeals,[49] the Court in Roberts, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[50] said:Whether to approve or disapprove the stand taken by the prosecution is not the exercise of discretion required in cases like this. The trial judge must himself be convinced that there was indeed no sufficient evidence against the accused, and this conclusion can be arrived at only after an assessment of the evidence in the possession of the prosecution. What was imperatively required was the trial judge's own assessment of such evidence, it not being sufficient for the valid and proper exercise of judicial discretion merely to accept the prosecution's word for its supposed insufficiency.
	GR NO. 168617 2007-02-19	BERNADETTE L. ADASA v. CECILLE S. ABALOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Besides, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised in, and be subject of, a petition for review on certiorari since this Court is not a trier of facts. This being the case, this Court cannot review the evidence adduced by the parties before the prosecutor on the issue of the absence or presence of probable cause.[20]
	GR NO. 139618 2006-07-11	STEVENS N. FUENTES v. SANDIGANBAYAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
We hold that the exercise of judicial discretion, with respect to a motion to withdraw the Information filed by the prosecution, is not limited to the mere approval or disapproval of the stand taken by the prosecution. The court must itself be convinced that there is indeed no sufficient evidence against the accused and this conclusion can only be reached after an assessment of the evidence in the possession of the prosecution. What is required is the court's own assessment of such evidence.[15]