This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-06-26 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Respondents further contend that Mercado should not be granted immunity because he also benefited from the unlawful transactions. But the immunity granted to Mercado does not blot out the fact that he committed the offense. While he is liable, the State saw a higher social value in eliciting information from him rather than in engaging in his prosecution.[16] | |||||
|
2011-10-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The power to grant immunity from prosecution is essentially a legislative prerogative.[55] The exclusive power of Congress to define crimes and their nature and to provide for their punishment concomitantly carries the power to immunize certain persons from prosecution to facilitate the attainment of state interests, among them, the solution and prosecution of crimes with high political, social and economic impact.[56] In the exercise of this power, Congress possesses broad discretion and can lay down the conditions and the extent of the immunity to be granted.[57] | |||||
|
2011-10-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| An immunity statute does not, and cannot, rule out a review by this Court of the Ombudsman's exercise of discretion. Like all other officials under our constitutional scheme of government, all their acts must adhere to the Constitution.[74] The parameters of our review, however, are narrow. In the first place, what we review are executive acts of a constitutionally independent Ombudsman.[75] Also, we undertake the review given the underlying reality that this Court is not a trier of facts. Since the determination of the requirements under Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court is highly factual in nature, the Court must, thus, generally defer to the judgment of the Ombudsman who is in a better position (than the Sandiganbayan or the defense) to know the relative strength and/or weakness of the evidence presently in his possession and the kind, tenor and source of testimony he needs to enable him to prove his case.[76] It should not be forgotten, too, that the grant of immunity effectively but conditionally results in the extinction of the criminal liability the accused-witnesses might have incurred, as defined in the terms of the grant.[77] This point is no less important as the grant directly affects the individual and enforces his right against self-incrimination. These dynamics should constantly remind us that we must tread softly, but not any less critically, in our review of the Ombudsman's grant of immunity. | |||||
|
2010-06-22 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Construing the above, the Court has ruled in a previous case that the scope of immunity offered by the PCGG may vary.[8] It has discretion to grant appropriate levels of criminal immunity depending on the situation of the witness and his relative importance to the prosecution of ill-gotten wealth cases. It can even agree, as in this case, to conditions expressed by the witness as sufficient to induce cooperation. | |||||
|
2008-10-06 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced.[7] It contemplates mutual concessions and mutual gains to avoid the expenses of litigation, or when litigation has already begun, to end it because of uncertainty of the result.[8] The process of compromise has long been allowed in our jurisdiction, and in the jurisdiction of other states as well.[9] | |||||
|
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] | |||||