Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ATTY. MIGUEL P. PADERANGA v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 213455 2015-08-11	JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
It bears reiterating that, indeed, preliminary investigation is a merely inquisitorial mode of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime.[203] It is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence, including respondents-movants’ respective defenses.[204] Precisely there is a trial on the merits for this purpose.
	GR Nos. 212140-41 2015-01-21	SENATOR JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA v. BERSAMIN CARPIO, J.
Considering the low quantum and quality of evidence needed to support a finding of probable cause, we also hold that the DOJ Panel did not gravely abuse its discretion in refusing to call the NBI witnesses for clarificatory questions. The decision to call witnesses for clarificatory questions is addressed to the sound discretion of the investigator and the investigator alone. If the evidence on hand already yields a probable cause, the investigator need not hold a clarificatory hearing. To repeat, probable cause merely implies probability of guilt and should be determined in a summary manner. Preliminary investigation is not a part of trial and it is only in a trial where an accused can demand the full exercise of his rights, such as the right to confront and cross-examine his accusers to establish his innocence. In the case at bar, the DOJ Panel correctly adjudged that enough evidence had been adduced to establish probable cause and clarificatory hearing was unnecessary.[27]
	GR No. 183551 2014-11-12	PEOPLE v. ENGR. RODOLFO YECYEC MENDOZA, J.
To determine whether probable cause exists and to charge those believed to have committed the crime as defined by law, is a function that belongs to the public prosecutor. It is an executive function.[22] The public prosecutor, who is given a broad discretion to determine whether probable cause exists and to charge those believed to have committed the crime as defined by law and, thus, should be held for trial, has the quasi-judicial authority to determine whether or not a criminal case must be filed in court.[23] Whether or not that function has been correctly discharged by the public prosecutor, that is, whether or not he has made a correct ascertainment of the existence of probable cause in a case, is a matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon.[24] Thus, in the oft-cited case of Crespo v. Mogul, it was stated that: It is a cardinal principle that all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. The institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound discretion of the fiscal. He may or may not file the complaint or information, follow or not follow that presented by the offended party, according to whether the evidence, in his opinion, is sufficient or not to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The reason for placing the criminal prosecution under the direction and control of the fiscal is to prevent malicious or unfounded prosecutions by private persons.
	GR No. 171188 2009-06-19	PEOPLE v. JESSIE B. CASTILLO QUISUMBING, J.
There are two kinds of determination of probable cause: executive and judicial. The executive determination of probable cause is one made during preliminary investigation. It is a function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor who is given a broad discretion to determine whether probable cause exists and to charge those whom he believes to have committed the crime as defined by law and thus should be held for trial. Otherwise stated, such official has the quasi-judicial authority to determine whether or not a criminal case must be filed in court.[22] Whether or not that function has been correctly discharged by the public prosecutor, i.e., whether or not he has made a correct ascertainment of the existence of probable cause in a case, is a matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon.[23]
	GR No. 175057 2008-01-29	MA. ROSARIO SANTOS-CONCIO v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES, J.
A complaint for purposes of conducting a preliminary investigation differs from a complaint for purposes of instituting a criminal prosecution. Confusion apparently springs because two complementary procedures adopt the usage of the same word, for lack of a better or alternative term, to refer essentially to a written charge. There should be no confusion about the objectives, however, since, as intimated during the hearing before the appellate court, preliminary investigation is conducted precisely to elicit further facts or evidence.[31] Being generally inquisitorial, the preliminary investigation stage is often the only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the preparation of a complaint or information.[32]
	GR NO. 161179 2007-08-07	NACE SUE P. BUAN v. FRANCISCO T. MATUGAS GARCIA, J.
We may also be well reminded that the purpose of preliminary investigation is to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief as to the fact of the commission of a crime and the respondent's probable guilt thereof.[13] A finding of probable cause need only rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect. While probable cause demands more than bare suspicion, it requires less than evidence which would justify conviction. A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.[14]
	AM No. MTJ-06-1619 2006-01-23	JESUSA ODONEL GENIL v. JUDGE ROGACIANO Y. RIVERA CARPIO MORALES, J.
It is a fundamental principle that the accused in a preliminary investigation has no right to cross-examine the witnesses which the complainant may present. Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that the respondent shall only have the right to submit a counter-affidavit, to examine all other evidence submitted by the complainant and, where the fiscal sets a hearing to propound clarificatory questions to the parties or their witnesses, to be afforded an opportunity to be present but without the right to examine or cross-examine. [29] (Underscoring supplied) Indubitably then, respondent was remiss in the performance of his duties when he not only allowed the cross-examination of the parties during the preliminary investigation but also failed to resolve the criminal complaints within the period mandated by law.