This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-03-08 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Pursuant to its constitutional mandate to "promulgate accounting and auditing rules, and regulations including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds and properties,"[25] the COA promulgated the amended Rules under COA Circular No. 85-55-A[26] dated September 8, 1985. With respect to excessive expenditures, these shall be determined by place and origin of goods, volume or quantity of purchase, service warranties, quality, special features of units purchased and the like.[27] | |||||
|
2009-03-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| It is to be noted that the decision to accept or reject a plea bargaining agreement is within the sound discretion of the court subject to certain requirements of statutes or rules.[34] In Daan v. Sandiganbayan,[35] the Court defined plea bargaining as a process, in criminal cases, whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval. It usually involves the defendant's pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that for the graver charge.[36] | |||||