This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2009-04-29 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| While it is well-settled that the courts cannot interfere with the discretion of the public prosecutor to determine the specificity and adequacy of the offense charged, the judge may dismiss a complaint if he finds it to be insufficient in form or substance or without any ground; otherwise, he may proceed with the case if in his view it is sufficient and proper in form.[20] | |||||
|
2009-03-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, a preliminary proceeding is not a quasi-judicial function and that the DOJ is not a quasi-judicial agency exercising a quasi-judicial function when it reviews the findings of a public prosecutor regarding the presence of probable cause.[20] Moreover, it is settled that the preliminary investigation proper, i.e., the determination of whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and should be subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial, is the function of the prosecution.[21] This Court has adopted a policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations and leaves to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause for the filing of information against the supposed offender.[22] | |||||
|
2008-03-14 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Albeit the findings of the Justice Secretary are not absolute and are subject to judicial review, this Court generally adheres to the policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations, particularly when the said findings are well-supported by the facts as established by the evidence on record.[22] Absent any showing of arbitrariness on the part of the prosecutor or any other officer authorized to conduct preliminary investigation, courts as a rule must defer to said officer's finding and determination of probable cause, since the determination of the existence of probable cause is the function of the prosecutor.[23] Simply stated, findings of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review, unless made with grave abuse of discretion.[24] As held in one case:The general rule is that the courts do not interfere with the discretion of the public prosecutor in determining the specificity and adequacy of the averments in a criminal complaint. The determination of probable cause for the purpose of filing an information in court is an executive function which pertains at the first instance to the public prosecutor and then to the Secretary of Justice. The duty of the Court in appropriate cases is merely to determine whether the executive determination was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Resolutions of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review unless made with grave abuse.[25] Thus, the findings of the Justice Secretary may be reviewed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 based on the allegation that he acted with grave abuse of discretion.[26] This remedy is available to the aggrieved party. | |||||
|
2007-12-27 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Courts can not interfere with the discretion of the public prosecutor in evaluating the offense charged.[17] Thus, it cannot dismiss the information on the ground that the evidence upon which the information is based is inadequate. And unless it is shown that the finding of probable cause was made with manifest error, grave abuse of discretion, and prejudice on the part of the public prosecutor, the trial court should respect such determination.[18]Moreover, as correctly held by the CA, accused-appellant could not raise his objections in the Amended Information for the first time on appeal. It is settled that objections to the amendment of an information should be raised at the time the amendment is made;[19] otherwise, defects not seasonably raised are deemed waived.[20] In this case, accused-appellant never questioned the amendment either before or during trial. It is only when he appealed his conviction that he raised his objection. Hence, appellant's objections are already deemed waived. | |||||
|
2007-10-04 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| First off, it should be stressed that the determination of probable cause to warrant prosecution in court is, under our criminal justice system, entrusted at the first instance to public prosecutors and finally to the Secretary of Justice as reviewer of the findings and resolutions of the prosecutors in preliminary investigation cases.[10] In this regard, the authority of the Secretary of Justice to review and order the withdrawal of an information in instances where he finds the absence of a prima facie case is not time-barred, albeit subject to the approval of the court if its jurisdiction over the accused has meanwhile attached.[11] And it is not prudent or even permissible for a court to compel the Secretary of Justice or the fiscal, as the case may be, to prosecute a proceeding originally initiated by him on an information, if he finds that the evidence relied upon by him is insufficient for conviction.[12] Now, then, if the Secretary of Justice possesses sufficient latitude of discretion in his determination of what constitutes probable cause and can legally order a reinvestigation even in those extreme instances where an information has already been filed in court, is it not just logical and valid to assume that he can take cognizance of and competently act on a motion for reconsideration, belatedly filed it might have been, dealing with probable cause? And is it not a grievous error on the part of the CA if it virtually orders the filing of an information, as here, despite a categorical statement from the Secretary of Justice about the lack of evidence to proceed with the prosecution of the petitioner? The answer to both posers should be in the affirmative. As we said in Santos v. Go:[13] | |||||
|
2006-07-14 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Given the above perspective, the question of whether or not a preliminary investigation is a quasi-judicial proceeding, as petitioner posits, or whether or not the Secretary of Justice performs quasi-judicial functions when he reviews the findings of a state or city prosecutor is of little moment. The Court wishes, however, to draw attention to what it said in Santos v. Go[9] where the Court, citing Bautista v. Court of Appeals,[10] stated:[t]he prosecutor in a preliminary investigation does not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. He does not exercise adjudication nor rule-making functions. Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and is often the only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime and to enable the fiscal [prosecutor] to prepare his complaint or information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. While the fiscal [prosecutor] makes that determination, he cannot be said to be acting as a quasi-court, for it is the courts, ultimately that pass judgment on the accused, not the fiscal [prosecutor]. (Words in bracket ours) | |||||