This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-03-05 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In the instant case, Miralles was charged with Qualified Trafficking, which under Section 10 (C) of R.A. No. 9208 is punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) but not more than Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00). Thus, by reason of the penalty prescribed by law, the grant of bail is a matter of discretion which can be exercised only by respondent judge after the evidence is submitted in a hearing. The hearing of the application for bail in capital offenses is absolutely indispensable before a judge can properly determine whether the prosecution's evidence is weak or strong.[19] | |||||
|
2006-07-17 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In their Comment, respondents submit that in all criminal cases, all initiatory pleadings, as well as subsequent proceedings, must be initiated by the government counsel because the injured party is the People of the Philippines and the private complainant is a mere witness to the offense allegedly committed by the accused.[5] Respondents rely on the cases of People v. Dacudao[6] and Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Veridiano II[7] to reiterate their position that a private prosecutor in a criminal case has no authority to act for the People of the Philippines. According to them, it is the government's counsel, the Solicitor General, who appears in criminal cases or incidents before the Supreme Court. | |||||