Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPO4 MARINO SOBERANO v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 197291 2013-04-03	DATU ANDAL AMPATUAN JR. v. SEC. LEILA DE LIMA BERSAMIN, J.
The prosecution of crimes pertains to the Executive Department of the Government whose principal power and responsibility are to see to it that our laws are faithfully executed. A necessary component of the power to execute our laws is the right to prosecute their violators. The right to prosecute vests the public prosecutors with a wide range of discretion the discretion of what and whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of factors that are best appreciated by the public prosecutors.[36] The public prosecutors are solely responsible for the determination of the amount of evidence sufficient to establish probable cause to justify the filing of appropriate criminal charges against a respondent. Theirs is also the quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether or not criminal cases should be filed in court.[37]
	GR No. 182677 2010-08-03	JOSE ANTONIO C. LEVISTE v. ELMO M. ALAMEDA CARPIO MORALES, J.
The prosecution of crimes appertains to the executive department of the government whose principal power and responsibility is to see that our laws are faithfully executed. A necessary component of this power to execute our laws is the right to prosecute their violators. The right to prosecute vests the prosecutor with a wide range of discretion - the discretion of what and whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of factors which are best appreciated by prosecutors.[43]
	GR NO. 142848 2006-06-30	EUGENE C. YU v. PRESIDING JUDGE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
More to the point is the recent case of Soberano v. People[12] where this Court held:An amendment of the information made before plea which excludes some or one of the accused must be made only upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of court in compliance with Section 14, Rule 110. Section 14, Rule 110 does not qualify the grounds for the exclusion of the accused. Thus, said provision applies in equal force when the exclusion is sought on the usual ground of lack of probable cause, or when it is for utilization of the accused as state witness, as in this case, or on some other ground.