This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-03-18 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Secondly, as regards the finding of probable cause, it appears extant that the exercise of the wide prerogative by the Office of the Ombudsman was not whimsical, capricious or arbitrary,[23] given the supporting documentary evidence it had appreciated together with the NBI and the Sandiganbayan. In the determination of probable cause, absolute certainty of evidence is not required, for opinion and reasonable belief are sufficient.[24] Besides, any other defense contesting the finding of probable cause that is highly factual in nature[25] must be threshed out in a full-blown trial, and not in a special civil action for certiorari before this Court.[26] | |||||
|
2012-06-27 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In fact, the prosecutor may err or may even abuse the discretion lodged in him by law. This error or abuse alone, however, does not render his act amenable to correction and annulment by the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. To justify judicial intrusion into what is fundamentally the domain of the Executive,[130] the petitioner must clearly show that the prosecutor gravely abused his discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in making his determination and in arriving at the conclusion he reached. This requires the petitioner to establish that the prosecutor exercised his power in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility; and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or to a unilateral refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law,[131] before judicial relief from a discretionary prosecutorial action may be obtained. All these, the petitioner failed to establish. | |||||