Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ODIN SECURITY AGENCY v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 180681 2013-03-18	ROLANDO Z. TIGAS v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN SERENO, C.J.
Secondly, as regards the finding of probable cause, it appears extant that the exercise of the wide prerogative by the Office of the Ombudsman was not whimsical, capricious or arbitrary,[23] given the supporting documentary evidence it had appreciated together with the NBI and the Sandiganbayan. In the determination of probable cause, absolute certainty of evidence is not required, for opinion and reasonable belief are sufficient.[24] Besides, any other defense contesting the finding of probable cause that is highly factual in nature[25] must be threshed out in a full-blown trial, and not in a special civil action for certiorari before this Court.[26]
	AM No. RTJ-07-2058 2009-04-07	DOLORES S. BAGO v. JUDGE ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court likewise held that once a case has been filed with the trial court, it is that court, no longer the prosecution, which has full control of the case, so much so that the Information may not be dismissed without its approval. Significantly, once a motion to dismiss or withdraw the Information is filed, the court may grant or deny it, in the faithful exercise of judicial discretion. In doing so, the trial judge must himself be convinced that there was indeed no sufficient evidence against the accused, and this conclusion can be arrived at only after an assessment of the evidence in the possession of the prosecution. What was imperatively required was the trial judge's own assessment of such evidence, it not being sufficient for the valid and proper exercise of judicial discretion merely to accept the prosecution's word for its supposed insufficiency.[16]
	GR No. 174016 2008-07-28	SEVERINO C. BALTAZAR v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of the investigation.[52] We have likewise held that once a case has been filed with the court, it is that court, no longer the prosecution, which has full control of the case, so much so that the information may not be dismissed without its approval. Significantly, once a motion to dismiss or withdraw the information is filed, the court may grant or deny it, in the faithful exercise of judicial discretion. In doing so, the trial judge must himself be convinced that there was indeed no sufficient evidence against the accused, and this conclusion can be arrived at only after an assessment of the evidence in the possession of the prosecution. What was imperatively required was the trial judge's own assessment of such evidence, it not being sufficient for the valid and proper exercise of judicial discretion merely to accept the prosecution's word for its supposed insufficiency.[53]
	GR NO. 142030 2005-04-21	ARTURO GALLARDO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the same vein, respondent Sandiganbayan could not be blamed for not considering the findings of the special prosecutor because the rule is that in case of conflict in the conclusions of the Ombudsman and the special prosecutor, it is the former's decision that shall prevail since the Office of the Special Prosecutor is under the supervision and control of the Ombudsman.[23] Moreover, once a case has been filed with the court, it is that court, no longer the prosecution, which has full control of the case, so much so that the information may grant or deny it, in the faithful exercise of judicial discretion.[24] The court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it.[25] In the instant case, respondent court is convinced that there is adequate evidence against the petitioners. Absence of proof that it gravely abused its discretion, the conclusion arrived at by the Sandiganbayan in its assailed resolution, will not be disturbed.