This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-07-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Once a criminal action has been instituted by the filing of the Information with the court, the latter acquires jurisdiction and has the authority to determine whether to dismiss the case or convict or acquit the accused. Where the prosecution is convinced that the evidence is insufficient to establish the guilt of an accused, it cannot be faulted for moving for the withdrawal of the Information. However, in granting or denying the motion to withdraw, the court must judiciously evaluate the evidence in the hands of the prosecution. The court must itself be convinced that there is indeed no satisfactory evidence against the accused and this conclusion can only be reached after an assessment of the evidence in the possession of the prosecution.[34] In this case, the trial court had sufficiently explained the reasons for granting the motion for the withdrawal of the Information. The Court agrees with the dispositions made by the trial court. Corollarily, the RTC did not err in dismissing the petition (under Rule 65) filed by petitioner challenging the ruling of the MeTC. | |||||
|
2010-01-19 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| It is settled that, when confronted with a motion to withdraw an Information (on the ground of lack of probable cause to hold the accused for trial based on a resolution of the DOJ Secretary), the trial court has the duty to make an independent assessment of the merits of the motion.[25] It may either agree or disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary. Reliance alone on the resolution of the Secretary would be an abdication of the trial court's duty and jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case.[26] The court must itself be convinced that there is indeed no sufficient evidence against the accused.[27] | |||||