This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-11-28 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Thus, in Yambot v. Armovit,[64] this Court reiterated the mandate of judges to make a personal evaluation of records submitted in support of criminal complaints filed before their respective salas: Crespo v. Mogul 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. It may therefore grant or deny at its option a motion to dismiss or to withdraw the information 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.[65] x x x. (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2012-07-11 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| However, once a complaint or an information is filed in court giving it jurisdiction over the criminal case, a reinvestigation thereof by the prosecutor requires prior permission from the court.[10] If reinvestigation is allowed, the findings and recommendations of the prosecutor should be submitted to the court for appropriate action.[11] If the prosecutor moves for the withdrawal of the information or the dismissal of the case, the court may grant or deny the motion. It may even order the trial to proceed with the proper determination of the case on the merits, according to its sound discretion.[12] The court "is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it."[13] Thus, in Yambot v. Armovit,[14] we ruled: [The court] may therefore grant or deny at its option a motion to dismiss or to withdraw the information 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. 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, 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. (Emphasis supplied and citations omitted) | |||||