Lawyerly

AM No. RTJ-14-2367

2014-01-13

SR. REMY ANGELA JUNIO v. JUDGE MARIVIC A. CACATIAN-BELTRAN

BRION, J.

In resolving a motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw the information filed by the public prosecutor (on his own initiative or pursuant to the directive of the Secretary of Justice), either for insufficiency of evidence in the possession of the prosecutor or for lack of probable cause, the trial court should not merely rely on the findings of the public prosecutor or of the Secretary of Justice that no crime had been committed or that the evidence in the possession of the public prosecutor is insufficient to support a judgment of conviction of the accused.[8] To do so is to surrender a power constitutionally vested in the Judiciary to the Executive.

GR No. 188197

2010-08-03

LEONARDO U. FLORES v. RAUL S. GONZALEZ

NACHURA, J.

Verily, it bears stressing that the trial court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the Secretary of Justice, in spite of being affirmed by the appellate courts, since it is mandated to independently evaluate or assess the merits of the case and it may either agree or disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. Reliance on the resolution of the Secretary of Justice alone would be an abdication of the trial court's duty and jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case.[48] Thus, the trial court may make an independent assessment of the merits of the case based on the affidavits and counter-affidavits, documents, or evidence appended to the Information; the records of the public prosecutor which the court may order the latter to produce before it; or any evidence already adduced before the court by the accused at the time the motion is filed by the public prosecutor.[49] The trial court should make its assessment separately and independently of the evaluation of the prosecution or of the Secretary of Justice. This assessment should be embodied in the written order disposing of the motion to dismiss or the motion to withdraw the information.[50]

GR Nos. 174599-609

2010-02-12

PACIFICO R. CRUZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN

ABAD, J.

Apparently, the Sandiganbayan forgot that, in ordering the reinvestigation of the charges against petitioner Cruz, it effectively acknowledged that he had not been accorded his full right to a preliminary investigation. And so it ordered a reinvestigation. Of course, the Sandiganbayan had, after the informations were filed with it, the discretion to assess the evidence on its own and determine what to do with the case before it.[24] But the fact is that it opted to let the OMB conduct a reinvestigation, a power that the latter had.

GR Nos. 164669-70

2009-10-30

LIEZL CO v. HAROLD LIM Y GO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Once a case is filed with the court, any disposition of it rests on the sound discretion of the court. The trial court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the Secretary of Justice, since it is mandated to independently evaluate or assess the merits of the case. Reliance on the resolution of the Secretary of Justice alone would be an abdication of its duty and jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case. The trial court may make an independent assessment of the merits of the case based on the affidavits and counter-affidavits, documents, or evidence appended to the Information; the records of the public prosecutor, which the court may order the latter to produce before the court; or any evidence already adduced before the court by the accused at the time the motion is filed by the public prosecutor.[27]

AM No. RTJ-07-2058

2009-04-07

DOLORES S. BAGO v. JUDGE ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The trial court may make an independent assessment of the merits of the case based on the affidavits and counter-affidavits, documents, or evidence appended to the Information; the records of the public prosecutor which the court may order the latter to produce before it; or any evidence already adduced before the court by the accused at the time the motion is filed by the public prosecutor.[20]

GR Nos. 174813-15

2009-03-17

NILO HIPOS v. RTC JUDGE TEODORO A. BAY

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In the case at bar, the Petition for Mandamus is directed not against the prosecution, but against the trial court, seeking to compel the trial court to grant the Motion to Withdraw Informations by the City Prosecutor's Office. The prosecution has already filed a case against petitioners. Recently, in Santos v. Orda, Jr.,[9] we reiterated the doctrine we established in the leading case of Crespo v. Mogul,[10] that once a criminal complaint or an information is filed in court, any disposition or dismissal of the case or acquittal or conviction of the accused rests within the jurisdiction, competence, and discretion of the trial court. Thus, we held:In Crespo v. Mogul, the Court held that once a criminal complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case or dismissal or acquittal or conviction of the accused rests within the exclusive jurisdiction, competence, and discretion of the trial court. The trial court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the public prosecutor should be addressed to the court who has the option to grant or deny the same. Contrary to the contention of the petitioner, the rule applies to a motion to withdraw the Information or to dismiss the case even before or after arraignment of the accused. The only qualification is that the action of the court must not impair the substantial rights of the accused or the right of the People or the private complainant to due process of law. When the trial court grants a motion of the public prosecutor to dismiss the case, or to quash the Information, or to withdraw the Information in compliance with the directive of the Secretary of Justice, or to deny the said motion, it does so not out of subservience to or defiance of the directive of the Secretary of Justice but in sound exercise of its judicial prerogative. Petitioners also claim that since Judge Bay granted a Motion for Reinvestigation, he should have "deferred to the Resolution of Asst. City Prosecutor De Vera withdrawing the case."[11] Petitioners cite the following portion of our Decision in People v. Montesa, Jr.[12]:

GR No. 177583

2009-02-27

LOURDES BALTAZAR v. JAIME CHUA Y IBARRA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Crespo and Martinez mandated the trial courts to make an independent assessment of the merits of the recommendation of the prosecution dismissing or continuing a case. This evaluation may be based on the affidavits and counter-affidavits, documents, or evidence appended to the information; the records of the public prosecutor which the court may order the latter to produce before the court; or any evidence already adduced before the court by the accused at the time the motion is filed by the public prosecutor.[12] Reliance on the resolution of the Secretary of Justice alone is considered an abdication of the trial court's duty and jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case. While the ruling of the Justice Secretary is persuasive, it is not binding on courts.[13] The trial court is not bound by the Resolution of the Justice Secretary, but must evaluate it before proceeding with the trial.

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. 163741

2007-08-07

SUMMERVILLE GENERAL MERCHANDISING v. ANTONIO M. EUGENIO

VELASCO, JR., J.

We have ruled time and again that once a case is filed with the court, any disposition of it rests on the sound discretion of the court. This rule, however, is not without restrictions. We held in Santos v. Orda, Jr. that: [T]he trial court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the Secretary of Justice since it is mandated to independently evaluate or assess the merits of the case and it may either agree or disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. Reliance alone on the resolution of the Secretary of Justice would be an abdication of the trial court's duty and jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case.[22] Thus, the courts should not blindly follow the resolutions issued by the DOJ. On the contrary, it should determine on its own whether there is probable cause to hold the accused for trial.

GR NO. 166888

2007-01-31

FIRST WOMEN’S CREDIT CORPORATION v. ROMMEL O. BAYBAY

CARPIO MORALES, J.

In thus resolving a motion to dismiss the case or to withdraw the Information filed by the public prosecutor on his own initiative or pursuant to the directive of the Secretary of Justice, either for insufficiency of evidence or for lack of probable cause, the trial court should not rely solely and merely on the findings of the public prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice that no crime was committed or that the evidence in the possession of the public prosecutor is insufficient to support a judgment of conviction of the accused.[32] It is its bounden duty to independently assess the merits of the motion. For while the ruling of the Secretary of Justice is persuasive, it is not binding on courts.[33]

GR No. 162187

2005-11-18

CRISTE B. VILLANUEVA v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The determination of its existence lies within the discretion of the prosecuting officers after conducting a preliminary investigation upon complaint of an offended party.[24] The Resolution of the Secretary of Justice declaring the absence or existence of a probable cause affirmed by the CA is accorded high respect. However, such finding may be nullified where grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction is established.[25]

	AM No. RTJ-14-2367 2014-01-13	SR. REMY ANGELA JUNIO v. JUDGE MARIVIC A. CACATIAN-BELTRAN BRION, J.
In resolving a motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw the information filed by the public prosecutor (on his own initiative or pursuant to the directive of the Secretary of Justice), either for insufficiency of evidence in the possession of the prosecutor or for lack of probable cause, the trial court should not merely rely on the findings of the public prosecutor or of the Secretary of Justice that no crime had been committed or that the evidence in the possession of the public prosecutor is insufficient to support a judgment of conviction of the accused.[8] To do so is to surrender a power constitutionally vested in the Judiciary to the Executive.
	GR No. 188197 2010-08-03	LEONARDO U. FLORES v. RAUL S. GONZALEZ NACHURA, J.
Verily, it bears stressing that the trial court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the Secretary of Justice, in spite of being affirmed by the appellate courts, since it is mandated to independently evaluate or assess the merits of the case and it may either agree or disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. Reliance on the resolution of the Secretary of Justice alone would be an abdication of the trial court's duty and jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case.[48] Thus, the trial court may make an independent assessment of the merits of the case based on the affidavits and counter-affidavits, documents, or evidence appended to the Information; the records of the public prosecutor which the court may order the latter to produce before it; or any evidence already adduced before the court by the accused at the time the motion is filed by the public prosecutor.[49] The trial court should make its assessment separately and independently of the evaluation of the prosecution or of the Secretary of Justice. This assessment should be embodied in the written order disposing of the motion to dismiss or the motion to withdraw the information.[50]
	GR Nos. 174599-609 2010-02-12	PACIFICO R. CRUZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN ABAD, J.
Apparently, the Sandiganbayan forgot that, in ordering the reinvestigation of the charges against petitioner Cruz, it effectively acknowledged that he had not been accorded his full right to a preliminary investigation. And so it ordered a reinvestigation. Of course, the Sandiganbayan had, after the informations were filed with it, the discretion to assess the evidence on its own and determine what to do with the case before it.[24] But the fact is that it opted to let the OMB conduct a reinvestigation, a power that the latter had.
	GR Nos. 164669-70 2009-10-30	LIEZL CO v. HAROLD LIM Y GO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Once a case is filed with the court, any disposition of it rests on the sound discretion of the court. The trial court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the Secretary of Justice, since it is mandated to independently evaluate or assess the merits of the case. Reliance on the resolution of the Secretary of Justice alone would be an abdication of its duty and jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case. The trial court may make an independent assessment of the merits of the case based on the affidavits and counter-affidavits, documents, or evidence appended to the Information; the records of the public prosecutor, which the court may order the latter to produce before the court; or any evidence already adduced before the court by the accused at the time the motion is filed by the public prosecutor.[27]
	AM No. RTJ-07-2058 2009-04-07	DOLORES S. BAGO v. JUDGE ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The trial court may make an independent assessment of the merits of the case based on the affidavits and counter-affidavits, documents, or evidence appended to the Information; the records of the public prosecutor which the court may order the latter to produce before it; or any evidence already adduced before the court by the accused at the time the motion is filed by the public prosecutor.[20]
	GR Nos. 174813-15 2009-03-17	NILO HIPOS v. RTC JUDGE TEODORO A. BAY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the case at bar, the Petition for Mandamus is directed not against the prosecution, but against the trial court, seeking to compel the trial court to grant the Motion to Withdraw Informations by the City Prosecutor's Office. The prosecution has already filed a case against petitioners. Recently, in Santos v. Orda, Jr.,[9] we reiterated the doctrine we established in the leading case of Crespo v. Mogul,[10] that once a criminal complaint or an information is filed in court, any disposition or dismissal of the case or acquittal or conviction of the accused rests within the jurisdiction, competence, and discretion of the trial court. Thus, we held:In Crespo v. Mogul, the Court held that once a criminal complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case or dismissal or acquittal or conviction of the accused rests within the exclusive jurisdiction, competence, and discretion of the trial court. The trial court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the public prosecutor should be addressed to the court who has the option to grant or deny the same. Contrary to the contention of the petitioner, the rule applies to a motion to withdraw the Information or to dismiss the case even before or after arraignment of the accused. The only qualification is that the action of the court must not impair the substantial rights of the accused or the right of the People or the private complainant to due process of law. When the trial court grants a motion of the public prosecutor to dismiss the case, or to quash the Information, or to withdraw the Information in compliance with the directive of the Secretary of Justice, or to deny the said motion, it does so not out of subservience to or defiance of the directive of the Secretary of Justice but in sound exercise of its judicial prerogative. Petitioners also claim that since Judge Bay granted a Motion for Reinvestigation, he should have "deferred to the Resolution of Asst. City Prosecutor De Vera withdrawing the case."[11] Petitioners cite the following portion of our Decision in People v. Montesa, Jr.[12]:
	GR No. 177583 2009-02-27	LOURDES BALTAZAR v. JAIME CHUA Y IBARRA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Crespo and Martinez mandated the trial courts to make an independent assessment of the merits of the recommendation of the prosecution dismissing or continuing a case. This evaluation may be based on the affidavits and counter-affidavits, documents, or evidence appended to the information; the records of the public prosecutor which the court may order the latter to produce before the court; or any evidence already adduced before the court by the accused at the time the motion is filed by the public prosecutor.[12] Reliance on the resolution of the Secretary of Justice alone is considered an abdication of the trial court's duty and jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case. While the ruling of the Justice Secretary is persuasive, it is not binding on courts.[13] The trial court is not bound by the Resolution of the Justice Secretary, but must evaluate it before proceeding with the trial.
	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. 163741 2007-08-07	SUMMERVILLE GENERAL MERCHANDISING v. ANTONIO M. EUGENIO VELASCO, JR., J.
We have ruled time and again that once a case is filed with the court, any disposition of it rests on the sound discretion of the court. This rule, however, is not without restrictions. We held in Santos v. Orda, Jr. that: [T]he trial court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the Secretary of Justice since it is mandated to independently evaluate or assess the merits of the case and it may either agree or disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. Reliance alone on the resolution of the Secretary of Justice would be an abdication of the trial court's duty and jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case.[22] Thus, the courts should not blindly follow the resolutions issued by the DOJ. On the contrary, it should determine on its own whether there is probable cause to hold the accused for trial.
	GR NO. 166888 2007-01-31	FIRST WOMEN’S CREDIT CORPORATION v. ROMMEL O. BAYBAY CARPIO MORALES, J.
In thus resolving a motion to dismiss the case or to withdraw the Information filed by the public prosecutor on his own initiative or pursuant to the directive of the Secretary of Justice, either for insufficiency of evidence or for lack of probable cause, the trial court should not rely solely and merely on the findings of the public prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice that no crime was committed or that the evidence in the possession of the public prosecutor is insufficient to support a judgment of conviction of the accused.[32] It is its bounden duty to independently assess the merits of the motion. For while the ruling of the Secretary of Justice is persuasive, it is not binding on courts.[33]
	GR No. 162187 2005-11-18	CRISTE B. VILLANUEVA v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE CALLEJO, SR., J.
The determination of its existence lies within the discretion of the prosecuting officers after conducting a preliminary investigation upon complaint of an offended party.[24] The Resolution of the Secretary of Justice declaring the absence or existence of a probable cause affirmed by the CA is accorded high respect. However, such finding may be nullified where grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction is established.[25]

LIGAYA V. SANTOS v. DOMINGO I. ORDA