This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
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] | |||||
|
2008-09-12 |
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] | |||||