Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Cerezo v. People

    Uploaded by

    MAC
    112 views1 page
    The Supreme Court held that: 1) Trial courts must independently assess motions to dismiss cases instead of relying solely on prosecutors or the Secretary of Justice. 2) The trial court in this case abdicated its judicial power by blindly relying on the prosecutor's recommendation instead of making its own determination of probable cause. 3) There was no valid termination of the case since the dismissal order was issued with grave abuse of discretion, so double jeopardy did not apply. The case was remanded back to the trial court to properly evaluate the motion to dismiss.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court held that: 1) Trial courts must independently assess motions to dismiss cases instead of relying solely on prosecutors or the Secretary of Justice. 2) The trial court in this case abdicated its judicial power by blindly relying on the prosecutor's recommendation instead of making its own determination of probable cause. 3) There was no valid termination of the case since the dismissal order was issued with grave abuse of discretion, so double jeopardy did not apply. The case was remanded back to the trial court to properly evaluate the motion to dismiss.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    112 views1 page

    Cerezo v. People

    Uploaded by

    MAC
    The Supreme Court held that: 1) Trial courts must independently assess motions to dismiss cases instead of relying solely on prosecutors or the Secretary of Justice. 2) The trial court in this case abdicated its judicial power by blindly relying on the prosecutor's recommendation instead of making its own determination of probable cause. 3) There was no valid termination of the case since the dismissal order was issued with grave abuse of discretion, so double jeopardy did not apply. The case was remanded back to the trial court to properly evaluate the motion to dismiss.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Cerezo v.

    People
    G.R. No. 185230 (June 1, 2011)

    Topic: Rule 117: Motion to Quash

    Issue: Whether or not there was a valid termination of the case so as to usher in the impregnable wall of
    double jeopardy

    Held: No

    Ratio: The Court held that in resolving a motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw an Information, the trial
    court should not rely solely and merely on the findings of the public prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice.
    It is the courts bounden duty to assess independently the merits of the motion, and this assessment must
    be embodied in a written order disposing of the motion. While the recommendation of the prosecutor or
    the ruling of the Secretary of Justice is persuasive, it is not binding on courts.

    The Court noticed that it is obvious from the Order of the RTC, dismissing the criminal case, that the RTC
    judge failed to make his own determination of whether or not there was a prima facie case to hold
    respondents for trial. He failed to make an independent evaluation or assessment of the merits of the
    case. The RTC judge blindly relied on the manifestation and recommendation of the prosecutor when he
    should have been more circumspect and judicious in resolving the Motion to Dismiss and Withdraw
    Information especially so when the prosecution appeared to be uncertain, undecided, and irresolute on
    whether to indict respondents. The same holds true with respect to the Order, which reinstated the case.
    The RTC judge failed to make a separate evaluation and merely awaited the resolution of the DOJ
    Secretary.

    By relying solely on the manifestation of the public prosecutor and the resolution of the DOJ Secretary, the
    trial court abdicated its judicial power and refused to perform a positive duty enjoined by law. The said
    Orders were thus stained with grave abuse of discretion and violated the complainant’s right to due
    process. They were void, had no legal standing, and produced no effect whatsoever.

    The Court remanded the case to the RTC, so that the latter can rule on the merits of the case to determine
    if a prima facie case exists and consequently resolve the Motion to Dismiss and Withdraw Information
    anew.

    The Court also held that double jeopardy did not set in. Double jeopardy exists when the following
    requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been
    validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. A first jeopardy
    attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a
    valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case
    dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

    Since the Court have held Order granting the motion to dismiss was committed with grave abuse of
    discretion, then respondents were not acquitted nor was there a valid and legal dismissal or termination of
    the case. The fifth requisite which requires the conviction and acquittal of the accused, or the dismissal of
    the case without the approval of the accused, was not met. Thus, double jeopardy has not set in. The
    petition was granted and the Supreme Court remanded the case to QC-RTC for evaluation on whether
    probable cause exists to hold respondents for trial.

    You might also like