This case has been cited 20 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| A preliminary investigation is "merely inquisitorial,"[86] and is only conducted to aid the prosecutor in preparing the information.[87] It serves a two-fold purpose: first, to protect the innocent against wrongful prosecutions; and second, to spare the state from using its funds and resources in useless prosecutions. In Salonga v. Cruz-Paño:[88] | |||||
|
2015-08-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| 82: T: Mapunta naman tayo sa pagproseso ng transaction ni JANET LIM NAPOLES sa mga government projects, gaano naman katagal magpropeso ng mga ito? S: Mabilis lang po kung ikukumpara natin sa normal na transaction sa mga government agencies. 83. T: Alam mo ba kung paano naman ito nagagawang mapabilis ni JANET LIM NAPOLES? S: Opo, may mga contact persons na siya kasi sa DBM. Inuutusan po kami ni Madame JANET LIM NAPOLES na i- follow up sa kanila iyong mga dokumento para mapabilis ang pagpoproseso nito. 84. T: Kilala mo ba kung sinu-sino naman itong mga contact persons ni JANET LIM NAPOLES sa DBM? S: Sa DBM po ay sa opisina ni Usec MARIO RELAMPAGOS kami pinagpa-follow up ni Madame JANET LIM NAPOLES. Ang mga tinatawagan po namin ay sina LEA, MALOU at LALAINE na naka-assign sa office ni USEC RELAMPAGOS. 85. T: Bakit doon kayo nagfo-follow up sa office ni USEC RELAMPAGOS? S: Sa pagkaka-alam ko po, doon ginagawa ang SARO. (emphasis, italics and understanding supplied) In other words, complainants’ witness Luy underscores that Relampagos, Bare, Nuñez and Paule’s participation in the misuse or diversion of the PDAF pertains to their expedited preparation and release of the SAROs covering PDAF projects, albeit due to ministrations of Napoles and her staff. It was for this reason that this Office ordered said public respondents to submit their counter-affidavits so that they may shed light on their supposed involvement in the so-called PDAF scam. After all, preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and it is often the only means of discovering whether a person may be reasonably charged with a crime, and to enable the prosecutor to prepare his complaint or information.[126] | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| As such, Senator Estrada was not properly apprised of the evidence offered against him, which were eventually made the bases of the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause.[50] | |||||
|
2013-11-19 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| (c) The PCA Governing Board Resolutions 009-84 and 128-85;[16] | |||||
|
2013-07-31 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. x x x Probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction.[41] (Emphasis and italics supplied). | |||||
|
2013-02-20 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The Court had the occasion to rule on this issue in Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan.[13] Petitioner therein was accused of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code before the Ombudsman for failing to deliver the ambulance that he had received on behalf of the municipality. The complaint for malversation was initially dismissed for lack of probable cause, but petitioner was later on charged for violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Petitioner decried lack of due process because there was no preliminary investigation conducted on the offense of which he was being charged in the Information. The Court held otherwise, thus: Petitioner loses sight of the fact that preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and it is often the only means of discovering whether a person may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the prosecutor to prepare his complaint or information. The preliminary designation of the offense in the directive to file a counter-affidavit and affidavits of one's witnesses is not conclusive. Such designation is only a conclusion of law of Deputy Ombudsman Domingo. The Ombudsman is not bound by the said qualification of the crime. Rather, he is guided by the evidence presented in the course of a preliminary investigation and on the basis of which, he may formulate and designate the offense and direct the filing of the corresponding information. In fact, even the designation of the offense by the prosecutor in the information itself has been held inconclusive, to wit: | |||||
|
2009-04-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. Probable cause is a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is, or may be, well founded on such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so.[25] The term does not mean "actual or positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge.[26] | |||||
|
2009-03-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The term probable cause does not mean `actual and positive cause' nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge.[25] | |||||
|
2008-08-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Applying the foregoing disquisition to the present petition, the reasons of DOJ for affirming the dismissal of the criminal complaints for estafa and/or qualified estafa are determinative of whether or not it committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In requiring "hard facts and solid evidence" as the basis for a finding of probable cause to hold petitioners Bernyl and Katherene liable to stand trial for the crime complained of, the DOJ disregards the definition of probable cause - that it is a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is, or may be, well-founded, such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so.[46] The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty.[47] It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief;[48] that is, the belief that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. While probable cause demands more than "bare suspicion," it requires "less than evidence which would justify conviction." Herein, the DOJ reasoned as if no evidence was actually presented by respondent HSBC when in fact the records of the case were teeming; or it discounted the value of such substantiation when in fact the evidence presented was adequate to excite in a reasonable mind the probability that petitioners Bernyl and Katherene committed the crime/s complained of. In so doing, the DOJ whimsically and capriciously exercised its discretion, amounting to grave abuse of discretion, which rendered its resolutions amenable to correction and annulment by the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Probable cause is defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.[35] It is a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is, or may be, well-founded on such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so. The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief.[36] | |||||
|
2008-07-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Probable cause is defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.[51] It is a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is, or may be, well-founded, such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so. The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief.[52] | |||||
|
2007-07-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. x x x. Probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. (Italics supplied.)[21] Secondly, the allegations and evidence presented by petitioner failed to prove that the OMB-Mindanao acted in such a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment in determining the existence of probable cause against him. As defined by this Court By grave abuse of discretion is meant capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave abuse of discretion as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[22] The OMB-Mindanao based the finding of probable cause on the various affidavits and memoranda and other evidence submitted to it by the parties during preliminary investigation. Petitioner and private respondent were both accorded the opportunity to present their sides and refute each other's contentions. It bears to emphasize that the Resolution[23] dated 26 November 2004 of the OMB-Mindanao specifically referred to the following evidence which it took into consideration in its investigation:Memorandum dated 2 July 2001 | |||||
|
2007-01-22 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| x x x The alleged new evidence presented by PCGG which is the affidavit of respondent Manahan, is not enough to justify a reversal of the questioned resolution. Manahan's alleged familiarity with the aide memoires among them, the questioned letter of Disini to "Sir" who is allegedly Pres. Marcos, has not been convincingly shown. In fact, according to him, it was a certain Federico E. Navera, HGI's controller who provides financial information that were written in the aforesaid aide memoires, while Pedro Padre, another HGI employee who is in charge of Corporate Affairs, prepared the aide memoire for Disini's signature. In effect, his testimony is hearsay in nature, considering that he based his knowledge of the aide memoire on the information relayed to him by his above named subordinates and that he has no participation official or otherwise in the preparation of the same.[13] Probable cause "does not mean 'actual and positive cause'"[14] or "x x x import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief."[15] It "has been defined x x x as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted."[16] "Thus, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge."[17] | |||||
|
2005-10-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof.[10] It is a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is, or may be, well founded, such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so.[11] The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. | |||||
|
2005-06-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Unlike the higher quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt required to secure a conviction, it is the lower standard of probable cause which is applied during the preliminary investigation to determine whether the accused should be held for trial. This standard is met if the facts and circumstances incite a reasonable belief that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. As we explained in Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan:[38] | |||||
|
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. | |||||
|
2004-09-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| (5) That the public officer has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.[17] We find that the Ombudsman did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause for and sanctioning the filing of an Information against petitioner and his co-accused on charges of violation of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019. Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.[18] The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.[19] | |||||
|
2000-07-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| "The Main Function Of The Government Prosecutor During The Preliminary Investigation Is Merely To Determine The Existence Of Probable Cause, And To File The Corresponding Information If He Finds It To Be So. And, Probable Cause Has Been Defined As The Existence Of Such Facts And Circumstances As Would Excite The Belief, In A Reasonable Mind, Acting On The Facts Within The Knowledge Of The Prosecutor, That The Person Charged Was Guilty Of The Crime For Which He Was Prosecuted."[62] In Determining Probable Cause, An Inquiry Into The Sufficiency Of Evidence To Warrant Conviction Is Not Required. It Is Enough That It Is Believed That The Act Or Omission Complained Of Constitutes The Offense Charged. The Trial Of A Case Is Conducted Precisely For The Reception Of Evidence Of The Prosecution In Support Of The Charge.[63] In The Performance Of His Task To Determine Probable Cause, The Ombudsman'S Discretion Is Paramount. Thus, In Camanag V. Guerrero, This Court Said:"x x x. (S)Uffice It To State That This Court Has Adopted A Policy Of Non-Interference In The Conduct Of Preliminary Investigations, And Leaves To The Investigating Prosecutor Sufficient Latitude Of Discretion In The Exercise Of Determination Of What Constitutes Sufficient Evidence As Will Establish 'Probable Cause' For Filing Of Information Against The Supposed Offender."[64] Neither Is There Merit In Petitioner'S Contention That The Preliminary Investigation Conducted By The Ombudsman Was "Hasty, Malicious And Persecutory" And That It Was Based On Inadmissible Evidence. | |||||
|
2000-05-12 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| In Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan[20] petitioner Pilapil was only charged with having "willfully caused undue injury to the Municipality of Tigaon, Camarines Sur, when he failed to deliver the ambulance received by him on behalf of the municipality in a Deed of Donation executed by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office in its favor, to the prejudice and damage of the municipal government." | |||||