This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2013-03-20 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| A public prosecutor alone determines the sufficiency of evidence that establishes the probable cause justifying the filing of a criminal information against the respondent because the determination of existence of a probable cause is the function of the public prosecutor.[21] Generally, the public prosecutor is afforded a wide latitude of discretion in the conduct of a preliminary investigation. Consequently, it is a sound judicial policy to refrain from interfering in the conduct of preliminary investigations, and to just leave to the Department of Justice the ample latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the prosecution of supposed offenders. Consistent with this policy, courts do not reverse the Secretary of Justice's findings and conclusions on the matter of probable cause except in clear cases of grave abuse of discretion.[22] By way of exception, however, judicial review is permitted where the respondent in the preliminary investigation clearly establishes that the public prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion, that is, when the public prosecutor has exercised his discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, patent and gross enough as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.[23] Moreover, the trial court may ultimately resolve the existence or non-existence of probable cause by examining the records of the preliminary investigation when necessary for the orderly administration of justice.[24] Although policy considerations call for the widest latitude of deference to the public prosecutor's findings, the courts should never shirk from exercising their power, when the circumstances warrant, to determine whether the public prosecutor's findings are supported by the facts, and by the law.[25] | |||||