This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-08-03 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Verily, it bears stressing that the trial court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the Secretary of Justice, in spite of being affirmed by the appellate courts, since it is mandated to independently evaluate or assess the merits of the case and it may either agree or disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. Reliance on the resolution of the Secretary of Justice alone would be an abdication of the trial court's duty and jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case.[48] Thus, the trial court may make an independent assessment of the merits of the case based on the affidavits and counter-affidavits, documents, or evidence appended to the Information; the records of the public prosecutor which the court may order the latter to produce before it; or any evidence already adduced before the court by the accused at the time the motion is filed by the public prosecutor.[49] The trial court should make its assessment separately and independently of the evaluation of the prosecution or of the Secretary of Justice. This assessment should be embodied in the written order disposing of the motion to dismiss or the motion to withdraw the information.[50] | |||||
|
2006-10-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, it appears on record that on January 29, 2004, pursuant to COMELEC En Banc Resolution dated September 11, 2003, two Informations[7] against petitioner had already been filed with the Regional Trial Court of Bontoc, Mountain Province (RTC), involving the very same charges subject of the present petition. In People v. Odilao,[8] the Court reiterated the rule set forth in Crespo v. Mogul,[9] to wit: The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal [in this case, the COMELEC] for the purpose of determining whether a prima facie case exists warranting the prosecution of the accused is terminated upon the filing of the information in the proper court. In turn, as above stated, the filing of said information sets in motion the criminal action against the accused in Court. Should the fiscal find it proper to conduct a reinvestigation of the case, at such stage, the permission of the Court must be secured. After such reinvestigation the finding and recommendations of the fiscal should be submitted to the Court for appropriate action. x x x once the case had already been brought to Court whatever disposition the fiscal may feel should be proper in the case thereafter should be addressed for the consideration of the Court. x x x | |||||