This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-08-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| During preliminary investigation, this Office does not determine if the evidence on record proves the guilt of the person charged beyond reasonable doubt. It merely ascertains whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed; that the respondent charged is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial; and that based on the evidence presented, the Office believes that the respondent’s assailed act constitutes the offense charged.[201] | |||||
|
2005-04-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Besides, petitioners' argument that they could not be indicted for violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019 as they acted in good faith when they failed to appropriate funds for the unpaid salary differential and magna carta benefits due the private complainants, is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense, which could be raised in a full-blown trial on the merits.[26] As aptly held in Deloso v. Desierto:[27] | |||||
|
2004-10-21 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Respondent Ombudsman maintains, however, that before he declared that "[t]here is no compelling reason to reverse the conclusion of the preliminary investigation officer who evaluated the evidence," he had taken into consideration the new evidence submitted by the petitioner during the reinvestigation, as well as the other evidence on record. Citing Deloso v. Hon. Desierto,[13] respondent stresses he did not commit a grave abuse of discretion simply because he opined that, under the facts obtaining in the case, there is probable cause that the petitioner was guilty of the offense charged. | |||||