This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-02-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Probable cause, as used in preliminary investigations, 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.[31] We reiterate this in the case of Pimentel Jr. v. COMELEC,[32] thus:[a] finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was by the suspects. Probable cause need not be based on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. As well put in Brinegar vs. United States, while probable cause demands more than "bare suspicion," it requires "less than evidence which would justify x x x conviction." A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspects to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt. (Emphasis ours.) The public respondent's finding of probable cause to indict petitioners for the crime charged is based on and supported by the complaints under oath of the private respondent, sworn statements and notarized affidavits of her witnesses, and official and public documents submitted by the private respondent.[33] A clarificatory hearing[34] attended by private respondent and almost all of the petitioners was conducted by the public respondent on 13 May 2004. During the hearing, the public respondent asked the private respondent some clarificatory questions with regard to the latter's complaints. | |||||
|
2003-08-14 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| That the City Warden appears to have acquiesced in the release order of the trial court by his compliance therewith does not preclude the Solicitor General from taking a contrary position and appealing the same. The Solicitor General's duty is to present what he considers would legally uphold the best interest of the Government[32] (underscoring added). Hence, there was no necessity for the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping to be executed by the City Warden himself. To be sure, it would have been awkward and irregular for the City Warden to do so given that his position was not the same as those reflected in the petition of the OSG. No doubt, the real party-in-interest is the OSG itself as representative of the State.[33] In Pimentel v. Commission on Elections[34] we held - | |||||