This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-05-06 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| On the first issue, the petition for certiorari filed by respondent under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is inappropriate. It bears stressing that the Order of the RTC, granting the motion of the prosecution to withdraw the Informations and ordering the case dismissed, is final because it disposed of the case and terminated the proceedings therein, leaving nothing to be done by the court. Thus, the proper remedy is appeal.[21] | |||||
|
2008-09-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Crespo v. Mogul[9] instructs in a very clear manner 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 on the sound discretion of the said court, as it is the best and sole judge of what to do with the case before it. While the resolution of the prosecutorial arm is persuasive, it is not binding on the court.[10] It may therefore grant or deny at its option a motion to dismiss or to withdraw the information[11] based on its own assessment of the records of the preliminary investigation submitted to it, in the faithful exercise of judicial discretion and prerogative, and not out of subservience to the prosecutor.[12] While it is imperative on the part of a trial judge to state his/her assessment and reasons in resolving the motion before him/her,[13] he/she need not state with specificity or make a lengthy exposition of the factual and legal foundation relied upon to arrive at the decision.[14] | |||||
|
2008-05-20 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Neither do we agree with Pactolin that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction.[9] The rule in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case, be it dismissal, conviction, or acquittal of the accused, rests on the sound discretion of the court.[10] The only qualification to this exercise of judicial prerogative is that the substantial rights of the accused must not be impaired nor the People be deprived of the right to due process. As we have discoursed, no substantial right of Pactolin has been impaired nor has there been any violation of his right to due process. He had been adequately informed by the detailed litany of the charges leveled against him in the information. He had the occasion to confront witnesses against him and the opportunity to question documents presented by the prosecution. Under no circumstance in this case has his right to due process been violated. | |||||