This case has been cited 16 times or more.
|
2014-04-23 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, and whether or not certain documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as to their spurious character by the other side, are issues of fact.[60] Agdeppa wants the Court to look into the propriety of or error in the appreciation of facts by the Office of the Ombudsman. Petitioner cannot be unaware that the Court is not a trier of facts, more so in the consideration of the extraordinary writ of certiorari where neither questions of fact nor even of law are entertained, but only questions of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.[61] | |||||
|
2012-09-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is settled that the conduct of preliminary investigation is, like court proceedings, subject to the requirements of both substantive and procedural due process.[83] Preliminary investigation is considered as a judicial proceeding wherein the prosecutor or investigating officer, by the nature of his functions, acts as a quasi-judicial officer.[84] The authority of a prosecutor or investigating officer duly empowered to preside over or to conduct a preliminary investigation is no less than that of a municipal judge or even an RTC Judge.[85] Thus, as emphasized by the Court in Ladlad v. Velasco:[86] | |||||
|
2011-05-30 |
VILLARAMA, JR., 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.[28] To determine the existence of probable cause, there is need to conduct preliminary investigation. A preliminary investigation constitutes a realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of a case.[29] Its purpose is to determine whether (a) a crime has been committed; and (b) whether there is a probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. It is a means of discovering which person or persons may be reasonably charged with a crime.[30] | |||||
|
2010-03-26 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect. Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.[13] In disapproving the recommendation of Prosecutor Bayag, Jr. and adopting instead that of Agbada, respondent Gonzalez as Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon was merely exercising his power and discharging his duty as mandated by the Constitution and by laws. It is discretionary upon him whether or not he would rely mainly on the findings of fact of Prosecutor Bayag, Jr. in making a review of the latter's report and recommendation. He can very well make his own findings of fact.[14] Thus, given this vast power and authority, he can conduct a preliminary investigation with or without the report from COA. The findings in the COA report or the finality or lack of finality of such report is irrelevant to the investigation of the Office of the Ombudsman in its determination of probable cause, as we declared in Dimayuga v. Office of the Ombudsman.[15] Thus, the filing of the Information against petitioner notwithstanding the lack of certification on her cashbook examination could not in any manner be said to be premature much less whimsical or arbitrary. Public respondents cannot be said to have gravely abused their discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. | |||||
|
2009-10-02 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, petitioners' claims of denial of due process, fabrication, hearsay evidence and revenge, as motive for the complaint against them, are matters of defense best ventilated in the trial proper rather than at the preliminary investigation. The established rule is that a preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence. It is for the presentation of only such evidence as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed, and the accused is probably guilty thereof.[25] There is sufficient evidence to establish that the acts committed by petitioners constituted an election offense, and that there is probable cause to hold them for trial. | |||||
|
2009-03-12 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| A perusal of the records shows that the findings of fact by the Ombudsman are supported by substantial evidence. As long as substantial evidence supports it, the Ombudsman's ruling will not be overturned.[53] Petitioner, in arguing that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion, raises questions of fact. This Court is not a trier of facts, more so in the extraordinary writ of certiorari where neither questions of fact nor even of law are entertained, but only questions of lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion can be raised.[54] The rationale behind this rule is explained in this wise:The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped if they could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.[55] | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2007-06-01 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Probable cause is 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."[20] To accord respect to the discretion granted to the prosecutor and for reasons of practicality, this Court, as a rule, does not interfere with the prosecutor's determination of probable cause for otherwise, courts would be swamped with petitions to review the prosecutor's findings in such investigations.[21] However, in the few exceptional cases where the prosecutor abused his discretion by ignoring a clear insufficiency of evidence to support a finding of probable cause, thus denying the accused his right to substantive and procedural due process, we have not hesitated to intervene and exercise our review power under Rule 65 to overturn the prosecutor's findings.[22] This exception holds true here. | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and it is often the only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the prosecutor to prepare his complaint or information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no objective except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the respondent is guilty thereof.[25] In the conduct of preliminary investigation, the prosecutor does not decide whether there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of respondent. A prosecutor merely determines the existence of probable cause, and to file the corresponding information if he finds it to be so.[26] | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The marginal notes of Ombudsmen to the recommendations of investigating prosecutors are hardly internal matters. In Cruz, Jr. v. People,[28] Olivarez v. Sandiganbayan,[29] and Gallardo v. People,[30] the marginal notes, even one-liners as in the case of Gallardo, were judicially considered sufficient dispositions by the Ombudsmen and Special Prosecutors concerned. We held in Olivarez that:The mere fact that the order to file the information against petitioner was contained in a marginal note is not sufficient to impute arbitrariness or caprice on the part of respondent special prosecutors, absent a clear showing that they gravely abused their discretion in disapproving the recommendation of the investigating prosecutors to dismiss or withdraw the case against petitioner. x x x.[31] Was there, as petitioners assert, a violation of the orders of the Ombudsman as stated in his marginal note? | |||||
|
2005-04-12 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Deliberating upon the Petition and the arguments in support thereof side by side with the comments of the respondent thereon, we find that the Petition fails to show a grave abuse of discretion or any act without or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Ombudsman. Nava's asseveration that the Ombudsman gravely abused his discretion when he disapproved the recommendation of the Special Prosecutor urging the dismissal of the case against the petitioner and without giving any reasons therefor is specious. The Ombudsman is not duty bound to render anew a statement of facts or elaborate on the applicable law.[55] As we held in Cruz, Jr. v. People:[56] | |||||
|
2005-01-31 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner contends that public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing her complaint for perjury for lack of probable cause. The contention is untenable. Probable cause, as used in preliminary investigations, 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."[21] The elements of perjury under Article 183[22] of the Revised Penal Code are:(a) that the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter; (b) that the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath; (c) that in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and, (d) that the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose.[23](Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2004-09-29 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| (1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government, the investigation of such cases. Furthermore, the calibration of evidence to asses whether a prima facie graft case exists against private respondents is a question of fact. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, more so in the consideration of the extraordinary writ of certiorari where neither questions of fact nor law are entertained, but only questions of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.[11] | |||||
|
2004-07-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The Ombudsman Act of 1989 (Rep. Act No. 6770) confers on the Office of the Special Prosecutor the power to conduct preliminary investigations and prosecute criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.[15] Considering, however, that the Office of the Special Prosecutor is under the supervision and control of the Ombudsman,[16] it is discretionary upon the Ombudsman if he would rely mainly on the findings of fact of the investigating prosecutor in making a review of the latter's report and recommendation. The Ombudsman can very well make his own findings of fact.[17] On this score, judicial review is not called for, unless grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction is shown. | |||||
|
2002-09-11 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| owing the offended party is misplaced. As correctly discerned by the Department of Justice, the present case involves a determination of probable cause, while the Perez, Camara and Berbari cases delved into an inquiry on guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Therein, the accused had all undergone trial and were found guilty of the offense charged but were acquitted on appeal for lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the only issue is whether or not there is probable cause to warrant the filing of the Information for estafa, which issue is resolved in the affirmative. Concededly, the proper case in point is Cruz v. People[8] where the president of the corporation was likewise charged with estafa through falsification of public documents for fraud he committed against the corporation. During preliminary investigation, | |||||