This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-11-19 |
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. | |||||
|
2013-08-28 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It cannot be gainsaid that "[i]t is the [C]ourt's bounden duty to assess independently the merits of a motion x x x."[27] In this case, the RTC complied with this duty by making its own independent assessment of the merits of respondents' Motion to Dismiss. A reading of the RTC's Order will show that in resolving said motion, it judiciously examined the Complaint and the documents attached thereto as well as the other pleadings filed in connection with the said motion.[28] Based on these, it made an extensive discussion of its observations and conclusions. This is apparent from the following portions of the said Order, to wit:x x x In the instant case, the plaintiffs' complaint does not even mention specifically the amount of their demand outside of their claim for damages and attorney's fees. They are only demanding the payment of their alleged commission/compensation and that of the late Severino Cabrera which they fixed at 5% of Lot No. 1782-B allegedly with an area of 24 hectares. They did not also state the total monetary value of Lot 1782-B neither did they mention the monetary equivalent of 5% of Lot No. 1782-B. In short, the complaint fails to establish that this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim. | |||||
|
2012-10-03 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Regrettably, a perusal of the RTC's Orders reveals that the trial court relied solely on the Resolution of the DOJ Secretary and his determination that the Informations for estafa against Soriano ought to be withdrawn. The trial court abdicated its judicial power and refused to perform a positive duty enjoined by law. On one occasion, we have declared that while the recommendation of the prosecutor or the ruling of the Secretary of Justice is persuasive, it is not binding on courts.[16] We shall return to this point shortly. | |||||