Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ARTEMIO T. TORRES v. SPS. DRS. EDGARDO AGUINALDO AND NELIA T. TORRES-AGUINALDO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 175887 2010-11-24	HEIRS OF LATE NESTOR TRIA v. ATTY. EPIFANIA OBIAS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Preliminary investigation is executive in character. It does not contemplate a judicial function. It is essentially an inquisitorial proceeding, and often, the only means of ascertaining who may be reasonably charged with a crime.[54] Prosecutors control and direct the prosecution of criminal offenses, including the conduct of preliminary investigation, subject to review by the Secretary of Justice. The duty of the Court in appropriate cases is merely to determine whether the executive determination was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Resolutions of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review unless made with grave abuse. [55]
	GR No. 171536 2009-04-07	APRIL JOY ASETRE v. JUNEL ASETRE QUISUMBING, J.
It is only where the decision of the Justice Secretary is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction that the Court of Appeals may take cognizance of the case in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court of Appeals decision may then be appealed to this Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari.[32]
	GR No. 172677 2008-09-12	ISAGANI YAMBOT v. RAYMUNDO A. ARMOVIT NACHURA, J.
Crespo v. Mogul[9] instructs in a very clear manner that once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case as to its dismissal, or the conviction or acquittal of the accused, rests on the sound discretion of the said court, as it is the best and sole judge of what to do with the case before it. While the resolution of the prosecutorial arm is persuasive, it is not binding on the court.[10] It may therefore grant or deny at its option a motion to dismiss or to withdraw the information[11] based on its own assessment of the records of the preliminary investigation submitted to it, in the faithful exercise of judicial discretion and prerogative, and not out of subservience to the prosecutor.[12] While it is imperative on the part of a trial judge to state his/her assessment and reasons in resolving the motion before him/her,[13] he/she need not state with specificity or make a lengthy exposition of the factual and legal foundation relied upon to arrive at the decision.[14]
	GR No. 147065 2008-03-14	JUANITO CHAN y LIM v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE NACHURA, J.
In Crespo, the Court laid down the rule that once an Information is filed in court, any disposition of the case rests on the sound discretion of the court. In subsequent cases,[20] the Court clarified that Crespo does not bar the Justice Secretary from reviewing the findings of the investigating prosecutor in the exercise of his power of control over his subordinates. The Justice Secretary is merely advised, as far as practicable, to refrain from entertaining a petition for review of the prosecutor's finding when the Information is already filed in court. In other words, the power or authority of the Justice Secretary to review the prosecutor's findings subsists even after the Information is filed in court. The court, however, is not bound by the Resolution of the Justice Secretary, but must evaluate it before proceeding with the trial. While the ruling of the Justice Secretary is persuasive, it is not binding on courts.[21]
	GR No. 174874 2007-10-04	GILBERT G. GUY v. ASIA UNITED BANK GARCIA, J.
But to strike down the April 20, 2006 DOJ Secretary's Resolution as absolutely void and without effect whatsoever, as the assailed CA decision did, for having been issued after the Secretary had supposedly lost jurisdiction over the motion for reconsideration subject of the resolution may be reading into the aforequoted provision a sense not intended. For, the irresistible thrust of the assailed CA decision is that the DOJ Secretary is peremptorily barred from taking a second hard look at his decision and, in appropriate cases, reverse or modify the same unless and until a motion for reconsideration is timely interposed and pursued. The Court cannot accord cogency to the posture assumed by the CA under the premises which, needless to stress, would deny the DOJ the authority to motu proprio undertake a review of his own decision with the end in view of protecting, in line with his oath of office, innocent persons from groundless, false or malicious prosecution. As the Court pointed out in Torres, Jr. v. Aguinaldo,[14] the Secretary of Justice would be committing a serious dereliction of duty if he orders or sanctions the filing of an information based upon a complaint where he is not convinced that the evidence warrants the filing of the action in court.
	GR NO. 166888 2007-01-31	FIRST WOMEN’S CREDIT CORPORATION v. ROMMEL O. BAYBAY CARPIO MORALES, J.
While prosecutors are given sufficient latitude of discretion in the determination of probable cause, their findings are subject to review by the Secretary of Justice.[30]