Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSE ANTONIO C. LEVISTE v. ELMO M. ALAMEDA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 197293 2014-04-21	ALFREDO C. MENDOZA v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
It is also settled that "once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case, whether as to its dismissal or the conviction or the acquittal of the accused, rests in the sound discretion of the court."[40]
	GR Nos. 164068-69 2013-11-19	ROLANDO P. DE LA CUESTA v. SANDIGANBAYAN ABAD, J.
But while it is true that the prosecution has the quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in court, once the case is filed, any disposition the prosecutor may afterwards deem proper should be addressed to the court for its consideration and approval.[37] It is the court's bounden duty to assess independently the merits of the same.[38] The only qualification is that the action of the court must not impair the substantial right of the accused or the right of the People to due process of law.[39] This has not happened in the cases below.
	GR No. 178947 2013-06-26	VIRGINIA DE LOS SANTOSDIO v. CA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The second is one made by the judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused. In this respect, the judge must satisfy himself that, on the basis of the evidence submitted, there is a necessity for placing the accused under custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. If the judge, therefore, finds no probable cause, the judge cannot be forced to issue the arrest warrant.[48] Notably, since the judge is already duty-bound to determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused immediately upon the filing of the information, the filing of a motion for judicial determination of probable cause becomes a mere superfluity,[49] if not a deliberate attempt to cut short the process by asking the judge to weigh in on the evidence without a full- blown trial.
	GR No. 199082 2012-09-18	JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PERALTA, J.
There might have been overzealousness on the part of the Joint Committee in terminating the investigation, endorsing the Joint Resolution to the Comelec for approval, and in filing the information in court. However, speed in the conduct of proceedings by a judicial or quasi-judicial officer cannot per se be instantly attributed to an injudicious performance of functions.[145] The orderly administration of justice remains the paramount consideration with particular regard to the peculiar circumstances of each case.[146] To be sure, petitioners were given the opportunity to present countervailing evidence. Instead of complying with the Joint Committee's directive, several motions were filed but were denied by the Joint Committee. Consequently, petitioners' right to submit counter-affidavit and countervailing evidence was forfeited. Taking into account the constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases and following the procedures set forth in the Rules on Criminal Procedure and the Comelec Rules of Procedure, the Joint Committee finally reached its conclusion and referred the case to the Comelec. The latter, in turn, performed its task and filed the information in court. Indeed, petitioners were given the opportunity to be heard. They even actively participated in the proceedings and in fact filed several motions before the Joint Committee. Consistent with the constitutional mandate of speedy disposition of cases, unnecessary delays should be avoided.
	GR No. 196231 2012-09-04	EMILIO A. GONZALES III v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Notwithstanding this earlier ruling by the Sandiganbayan, the OSP, unexplainably, chose to plea bargain with the accused Major General Garcia as if its evidence were suddenly insufficient to secure a conviction. At this juncture, it is not amiss to emphasize that the "standard of strong evidence of guilt which is sufficient to deny bail to an accused is markedly higher than the standard of judicial probable cause which is sufficient to initiate a criminal case."[76] Hence, in light of the apparently strong case against accused Major General Garcia, the disciplining authority would be hard- pressed not to look into the whys and wherefores of the prosecution's turnabout in the case.