Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 77 views

    RULE 112 Executive Determination of Probable Cause

    Uploaded by

    Mi Lagro
    The Supreme Court ruled that once a case is filed in court, the court has discretion to grant or deny motions to dismiss or withdraw a case, not the prosecutor. In this case, the trial court properly denied the motion to withdraw the libel charges. Additionally, the Court found that a 5-year delay in completing a reinvestigation did not violate the respondent's right to due process where the delay was not attributable to bad faith and where the respondent did not assert his right to speedy disposition.

    Copyright:

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

    RULE 112 Executive Determination of Probable Cause

    Uploaded by

    Mi Lagro
    77 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that once a case is filed in court, the court has discretion to grant or deny motions to dismiss or withdraw a case, not the prosecutor. In this case, the trial court properly denied the motion to withdraw the libel charges. Additionally, the Court found that a 5-year delay in completing a reinvestigation did not violate the respondent's right to due process where the delay was not attributable to bad faith and where the respondent did not assert his right to speedy disposition.

    Original Description:

    Jjj

    Original Title

    3-Rule-112-Del-Mundo

    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 once a case is filed in court, the court has discretion to grant or deny motions to dismiss or withdraw a case, not the prosecutor. In this case, the trial court properly denied the motion to withdraw the libel charges. Additionally, the Court found that a 5-year delay in completing a reinvestigation did not violate the respondent's right to due process where the delay was not attributable to bad faith and where the respondent did not assert his right to speedy disposition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    77 views2 pages

    RULE 112 Executive Determination of Probable Cause

    Uploaded by

    Mi Lagro
    The Supreme Court ruled that once a case is filed in court, the court has discretion to grant or deny motions to dismiss or withdraw a case, not the prosecutor. In this case, the trial court properly denied the motion to withdraw the libel charges. Additionally, the Court found that a 5-year delay in completing a reinvestigation did not violate the respondent's right to due process where the delay was not attributable to bad faith and where the respondent did not assert his right to speedy disposition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    RULE 112

    EXECUTIVE DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE

    Yambot vs Armovit
    GR No. 172677
    September 12, 1996

    FACTS:

    Armovit filed a complaint for libel against Yambot and others for the publication of a news
    report which allegedly imputes to him the concealment of his client Rolito Go, a convicted
    murderer. Upon finding of probable cause, the provincial prosecutor filed before the RTC two
    criminal actions for libel. Yambot however seek the review of the OPPs (Office of the Provincial
    Prosecutor) resolution by the Regional State Prosecutor, wherein, RSP Caridad reversed the
    finding of the OPPs and ordered the withdrawal of the informations.

    The trial court denied the motion for withdrawal, and was also denied by the CA upon appeal,
    hence the present case.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the denial of the motion to withdraw by the trial court deprived petitioners of
    their right to preliminary investigation.

    RULING:

    No. The Court held 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 courts. While the prosecutorial arm is persuasive, it is not binding in court. It
    may therefore grant or deny at its option a motion to dismiss or to withdraw the information
    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.

    In the case at bar, the Court finds no error on the part of the appellate court in sustaining the
    orders of the trial court. The RTC of Ilocos Sur, indeed has the prerogative to grant or deny the
    motion to withdraw the informations.

    Petition denied.
    RULE 112
    RESOLUTION OF THE INVESTIGATION

    G.R. No. 156847             January 31, 2007


    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, 
    vs.
    SPO4 EMILIANO ANONAS, Respondent.

    FACTS:

    SPO4 Emiliano Anonas and four other persons were apprehended for sniffing shabu and
    possessing of the former of an unlicensed .38 caliber revolver. Two separate information were
    filed against respondent, one for illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride and
    one for illegal possession of firearm. On 1997, Anonas filed with the trial court a motion for
    reinvestigation on ground that he was arrested without warrant and that no preliminary
    investigation was conducted.

    On 2001, Anonas filed a motion to dismiss contending that the delay in the reinvestigation
    violated his right to due process. The delay was incurred because the assigned prosecutor in the
    reinvestigation was appointed as judge and that the prosecutor who took over the case was not
    aware of the reinvestigation. The trial court denied the motion, while appellate court reversed
    the decision.

    ISSUE:
    WON the delay in the resolution of investigation violated respondent’s right to due process.

    RULING:

    You might also like