Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

D.M. CONSUNJI v. RAMON S. ESGUERRA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 190475 2013-04-10	JAIME ONG Y ONG v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
In his defense, Ong argued that he relied on the receipt issued to him by Go. Logically, and for all practical purposes, the issuance of a sales invoice or receipt is proof of a legitimate transaction and may be raised as a defense in the charge of fencing; however, that defense is disputable.[23] In this case, the validity of the issuance of the receipt was disputed, and the prosecution was able to prove that Gold Link and its address were fictitious.[24] Ong failed to overcome the evidence presented by the prosecution and to prove the legitimacy of the transaction. Thus, he was unable to rebut the prima facie presumption under Section 5 of P.D. 1612.
	GR No. 155996 2012-06-27	PCGG CHAIRMAN MAGDANGAL B. ELMA v. REINER JACOBI BRION, J.
The necessary component of the Executive's power to faithfully execute the laws of the land is the State's self-preserving power to prosecute violators of its penal laws. This responsibility is primarily lodged with the DOJ, as the principal law agency of the government.[126] The prosecutor has the discretionary authority to determine whether facts and circumstances exist meriting reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The question of whether or not to dismiss a criminal complaint is necessarily dependent on the sound discretion of the investigating prosecutor and, ultimately, of the Secretary (or Undersecretary acting for the Secretary) of Justice.[127] Who to charge with what crime or none at all is basically the prosecutor's call.
	GR No. 182677 2010-08-03	JOSE ANTONIO C. LEVISTE v. ELMO M. ALAMEDA CARPIO MORALES, J.
In a petition for certiorari, like that filed by petitioner before the appellate court, the jurisdiction of the court is narrow in scope. It is limited to resolving only errors of jurisdiction. It is not to stray at will and resolve questions and issues beyond its competence, such as an error of judgment.[87] The court's duty in the pertinent case is confined to determining whether the executive and judicial determination of probable cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Although it is possible that error may be committed in the discharge of lawful functions, this does not render the act amenable to correction and annulment by the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.[88]
	GR No. 171536 2009-04-07	APRIL JOY ASETRE v. JUNEL ASETRE QUISUMBING, J.
Grave abuse of discretion is defined as "such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law."[26]
	GR No. 174350 2008-08-13	SPS. BERNYL BALANGAUAN KATHERENE BALANGAUAN v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
But this is not to discount the possibility of the commission of abuses on the part of the prosecutor. It is entirely possible that the investigating prosecutor has erroneously exercised the discretion lodged in him by law. This, however, does not render his act amenable to correction and annulment by the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.[42]
	GR NO. 164268 2005-06-28	ARTEMIO T. TORRES v. SPS. DRS. EDGARDO AGUINALDO AND NELIA T. TORRES-AGUINALDO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. Esguerra,[36] grave abuse of discretion is defined:By grave abuse of discretion is meant, such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law.
	GR No. 154920 2003-08-15	RODNEY HEGERTY v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We agree. The rule is settled that our duty in an appropriate case is confined to determining whether the executive or judicial determination, as the case may be, of probable cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Thus, although it is entirely possible that the investigating fiscal may erroneously exercise the discretion lodged in him by law, this does not render his act amenable to correction and annulment by the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.[6]