This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-09-17 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In the present case, the trial court chose to issue warrants of arrest to the petitioners and their co-accused. To be valid, these warrants must have been issued after compliance with the requirement that probable cause be personally determined by the judge. Notably at this stage, the judge is tasked to merely determine the probability, not the certainty, of guilt of the accused. In doing so, he need not conduct a de novo hearing; he only needs to personally review the prosecutor's initial determination and see if it is supported by substantial evidence.[29] | |||||
|
2013-06-26 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Lest it be misconceived, trial judges will do well to remember that when a perceived gap in the evidence leads to a "neither this nor that" conclusion, a purposeful resolution of the ambiguity is preferable over a doubtful dismissal of the case. Verily, a judge's discretion to dismiss a case immediately after the filing of the information in court is appropriate only when the failure to establish probable cause can be clearly inferred from the evidence presented and not when its existence is simply doubtful. After all, it cannot be expected that upon the filing of the information in court the prosecutor would· have already presented all the evidence necessary to secure a conviction of the accused, the objective of a previously-conducted preliminary investigation being merely to determine whether there is sufficient ground, to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.[59] In this light, given that the lack of probable cause had not been clearly established in this case, the CA erred, and the RTC gravely abused its discretion, by ruling to dismiss Criminal Case Nos. 515-2004 and 516-2004. Indeed, these cases must stand the muster of a full-blown t ial where the parties could be given, as they should be given, the opportunity to ventilate their respective claims:and defenses, on the basis of which the court a quo can properly resolve the factual disputes therein. | |||||
|
2009-06-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The judicial determination of probable cause, on the other hand, is one made by the judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused. The judge must satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted, there is necessity for placing the accused under custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.[24] If the judge finds no probable cause, the judge cannot be forced to issue the arrest warrant.[25] | |||||
|
2007-12-27 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant is mistaken. He confused the determination of probable cause to hold a person for trial with the determination of probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest. The duty to determine the existence of probable cause in order to charge a person for committing a crime rests on the public prosecutor. It is an executive function, the correctness of the exercise of which is a matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon.[15] On the other hand, the duty to determine whether probable cause exists to issue a warrant of arrest rests on the judge a judicial function to decide whether there is a necessity for placing the accused under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.[16] | |||||
|
2007-04-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In our criminal justice system, the public prosecutor exercises wide latitude of discretion in determining whether a criminal case should be filed in court. Courts must respect the exercise of such discretion when the information filed against the person charged is valid on its face, and no manifest error or grave abuse of discretion can be imputed to the public prosecutor.[8] As a rule, courts cannot interfere with the Ombudsman's discretion in the conduct of preliminary investigations. In the determination of probable cause, the Ombudsman's discretion prevails over judicial discretion.[9] | |||||
|
2006-07-20 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In a case where a motion is filed by the Prosecution for leave to withdraw the Information on the ground that, after a reinvestigation previously authorized by the court, no probable cause exists as against the accused, the court may deny or grant the motion based on its own independent assessment of the result of the reinvestigation submitted by the Prosecution to the trial court. The court may deny or grant such motion, not out of subservience to the Special Prosecutor, but in the faithful exercise of judicial discretion and prerogative.[44] | |||||
|
2005-06-29 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In this case, Welts's Complaint-Affidavit contains an acknowledgement by Notary Public Nicole Brown of the State of New York that the same has been subscribed and sworn to before her on February 12, 1998,[26] duly authenticated by the Philippine Consulate. While the copy on record of the complaint-affidavit appears to be merely a photocopy thereof, Prosecution Attorney Gutierrez stated that complainant's representative will present the authenticated notarized original in court,[27] and Prosecutor Guray manifested that the original copy is already on hand.[28] It is apt to state at this point that the prosecutor enjoys the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of his duties and functions, which in turn gives his report the presumption of accuracy.[29] | |||||
|
2004-10-21 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Time and again, we have held that a prosecutor does not decide whether there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the person charged. He merely determines whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.[14] A finding of probable cause, therefore, does not require an inquiry as to whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. It is enough that the prosecutor believes that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. A trial is intended precisely for the reception of prosecution evidence in support of the charge.[15] It is the court that is tasked to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented by the parties at a trial on the merits. | |||||