This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-06-26 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| His above authority enables the Ombudsman to carry out his constitutional mandate to ensure accountability in the public service.[6] It gives the Ombudsman wide latitude in using an accused discharged from the information to increase the chances of conviction of the other accused and attain a higher prosecutorial goal.[7] Immunity statutes seek to provide a balance between the state's interests and the individual's right against self-incrimination. To secure his testimony without exposing him to the risk of prosecution, the law recognizes that the witness can be given immunity from prosecution.[8] In such a case, both interests and rights are satisfied. | |||||
|
2009-04-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Placido L. Mapa, Jr. pleaded transactional immunity from all PCGG-initiated civil cases and criminal proceedings or investigations, pursuant to an Agreement with the Government affirmed by this Court in Mapa, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan.[22] And he argued that the offenses charged had prescribed since the discovery thereof should be reckoned, at the latest, from the time GCFI was sequestered by the PCGG on July 27, 1987, which was more than ten years before the filing of the complaint with the Ombudsman (the date of filing, as determined by the Ombudsman, is October 1, 1997); and that at any rate, the DBP loan actually released was only P29 million and the same was secured by collateral worth P116,754,760 more or less.[23] | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| (6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate and where appropriate, prosecute cases or violations of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices. This power to prosecute necessarily involves the power to determine who shall be prosecuted, and the corollary right to decide whom not to prosecute.[57] Evidently, must this power to prosecute also include the right to determine under which laws prosecution will be pursued. The courts cannot dictate the prosecution nor usurp its discretionary powers. As a rule, courts cannot interfere with the prosecutor's discretion and control of the criminal prosecution.[58] Its rationale cannot be doubted. For the business of a court of justice is to be an impartial tribunal, and not to get involved with the success or failure of the prosecution to prosecute.[59] Every now and then, the prosecution may err in the selection of its strategies, but such errors are not for neutral courts to rectify, any more than courts should correct the blunders of the defense.[60] | |||||
|
2005-11-25 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The reasons or motives of the PCGG in agreeing to so broad an immunity agreement are not evidently determinable, yet ultimately excluded from the scope of judicial inquiry. In Mapa v. Sandiganbayan,[24] the Court was asked to rule on the range and power of the courts to review the exercise of discretion of the PCGG in granting immunity pursuant to Section 5 of E.O. No. 14. The Court, speaking through now Senior Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno, ruled that such review "can go no further than to pass upon [the immunity grant's] procedural regularity", and is especially limited to the questions of "(a) whether the person claiming immunity has provided information or testimony in any investigation conducted by the PCGG in the discharge of its functions; (b) whether in the bona fide judgment of the PCGG, the information or testimony given would establish the unlawful manner in which the respondent, defendant or accused has acquired or accumulated the property or properties in question; and (c) whether in the bona fide judgment of the PCGG, such information or testimony is necessary to ascertain or prove the guilt or civil liability of the respondent, defendant or accused."[25] | |||||