Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 74 views

    Lanier V People

    Uploaded by

    LoveAnne
    The Supreme Court ruled that while the trial court must consider the Secretary of Justice's resolution, it is not bound by it. The case involved petitioners who were charged with drug offenses after a search found drugs in their possession. The provincial prosecutor filed charges but petitioners sought reinvestigation. The Secretary of Justice then directed the charges be withdrawn, but the OSG appealed. The Supreme Court emphasized that once a case is filed in court, the trial court has exclusive jurisdiction over any disposition, including a motion to withdraw charges. The trial court decides such motions through its own authority, not because it must obey or defy the Secretary of Justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lanier V People

    Uploaded by

    LoveAnne
    74 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that while the trial court must consider the Secretary of Justice's resolution, it is not bound by it. The case involved petitioners who were charged with drug offenses after a search found drugs in their possession. The provincial prosecutor filed charges but petitioners sought reinvestigation. The Secretary of Justice then directed the charges be withdrawn, but the OSG appealed. The Supreme Court emphasized that once a case is filed in court, the trial court has exclusive jurisdiction over any disposition, including a motion to withdraw charges. The trial court decides such motions through its own authority, not because it must obey or defy the Secretary of Justice.

    Original Description:

    aasa

    Original Title

    6. Lanier v People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that while the trial court must consider the Secretary of Justice's resolution, it is not bound by it. The case involved petitioners who were charged with drug offenses after a search found drugs in their possession. The provincial prosecutor filed charges but petitioners sought reinvestigation. The Secretary of Justice then directed the charges be withdrawn, but the OSG appealed. The Supreme Court emphasized that once a case is filed in court, the trial court has exclusive jurisdiction over any disposition, including a motion to withdraw charges. The trial court decides such motions through its own authority, not because it must obey or defy the Secretary of Justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    74 views1 page

    Lanier V People

    Uploaded by

    LoveAnne
    The Supreme Court ruled that while the trial court must consider the Secretary of Justice's resolution, it is not bound by it. The case involved petitioners who were charged with drug offenses after a search found drugs in their possession. The provincial prosecutor filed charges but petitioners sought reinvestigation. The Secretary of Justice then directed the charges be withdrawn, but the OSG appealed. The Supreme Court emphasized that once a case is filed in court, the trial court has exclusive jurisdiction over any disposition, including a motion to withdraw charges. The trial court decides such motions through its own authority, not because it must obey or defy the Secretary of Justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    NATURE AND PURPOSES

    6 LANIER v PEOPLE, GR 189176, 19 Mar 2014


    PEREZ, J.

    FACTS: Pursuant to the search warrant, the police operatives recovered 10.4 grams of shabu, and 1750
    grams of marijuana. Thereafter, petitioners were placed under arrest. On 18 Dec 2003, the Assistant
    Provincial Prosecutor of Kalibo, Aklan filed an Information charging petitioner for violation of Sec 11, Art
    II of RA 9165. However, petitioners filed for a Motion for Preliminary Investigation/Re-investigation. The
    prosecutor upheld the Information and directed the return of the records to the trial court for disposition.
    On 28 March 2004, however, petitioners filed a petition for review before the DOJ assailing the 8 March
    2004 Resolution of the provincial prosecutor. On 6 May 2004, the Secretary of Justice acted on the petition
    favorably and directed the withdrawal of the Information which directive the provincial prosecutor
    heeded by filing a Motion to Withdraw Information before the trial court. The Office of the Solicitor
    General (OSG) filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari seeking to annul the DOJ Resolutions
    directing the withdrawal of the Information against petitioners and the RTCs Order granting the Motion
    to Withdraw filed by the provincial prosecutor. On 26 September 2008, the Court of Appeals nullified and
    set aside the DOJ Resolutions and the RTC Order and reinstated the Information against petitioners in
    Criminal Case No. 6972.

    ISSUE: Is the trial court, having acquired jurisdiction over the case, bound by the resolution of Secretary
    of Justices resolution?

    RULING: NO. The court emphasizes that the trial court, having acquired jurisdiction over the case, is not
    bound by such resolution but is required to evaluate it before proceeding further with the trial. The RTC
    erroneously held that it has not yet effectively acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused as no
    commitment order has yet been issued against them. 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 rule applies to a motion to withdraw the Information or to dismiss the case even before or after
    arraignment of the accused. 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.

    You might also like