Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CESAR T. VILLANUEVA v. MAYOR FELIX V. OPLE

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 184681 2013-02-25	GERRY A. SALAPUDDIN v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
Hence, even at this stage, the investigating prosecutors are duty-bound to sift through all the documents, objects, and testimonies to determine what may serve as a relevant and competent evidentiary foundation of a possible case against the accused persons. They cannot defer and entirely leave this verification of all the various matters to the courts. Otherwise, the conduct of a preliminary investigation would be rendered worthless; the State would still be forced to prosecute frivolous suits and innocent men would still be unnecessarily dragged to defend themselves in courts against groundless charges. Indeed, while prosecutors are not required to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties, a preliminary investigation still constitutes a realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of the case[116] so that the investigating prosecutor is not excused from the duty to weigh the evidence submitted and ensure that what will be filed in court is only such criminal charge that the evidence and inferences can properly warrant.[117]
	GR No.181021 2012-12-10	BURGUNDY REALTY CORPORATION v. JOSEFA 'JING' C. REYES PERALTA, J.
It must be remembered that the finding of probable cause was made after conducting a preliminary investigation. A preliminary investigation constitutes a realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of a case.[13] Its purpose is to determine whether (a) a crime has been committed; and (b) whether there is a probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof.[14]
	GR No. 192088 2012-10-09	INITIATIVES FOR DIALOGUE v. POWER SECTOR ASSETS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The people's constitutional right to information is intertwined with the government's constitutional duty of full public disclosure of all transactions involving public interest.[28] Section 28, Article II of the Constitution declares the State policy of full transparency in all transactions involving public interest, to wit: Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest. (Italics supplied.)
	GR No. 180165 2009-04-07	METROPOLITAN BANK v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE RAUL M. GONZALES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
To determine the existence of probable cause, there is need to conduct preliminary investigation. A preliminary investigation constitutes a realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of a case.[27] Its purpose is to determine whether (a) a crime has been committed; and (b) whether there is a probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof.[28] It is a means of discovering which person or persons may be reasonably charged with a crime.
	GR No. 140656 & 154482 2007-09-13	MAYOR FELIPE K. CONSTANTINO v. SANDIGANBAYAN TINGA, J.
In order to be liable for violating the law, the following elements must concur: (1) the accused is a public officer or a private person charged in conspiracy with the former; (2) he or she causes undue injury to any party, whether the government or a private party; (3) the said public officer commits the prohibited acts during the performance of his or her official duties or in relation to his or her public positions; (4) such undue injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; and (5) the public officer has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.[32]
	GR NOS. 167335 & 167337 2007-07-10	DR. ULYSSES A. BRITO v. OFFICE OF DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The function of determining what is sufficient evidence to establish probable cause is the job of the Office of the Ombudsman.[21] Except in cases when there is grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of its discretion, which is absent in the instant case, this Court has adopted a policy of non-interference in the exercise of the Ombudsman's constitutionally mandated powers on this matter.[22]
	GR NO. 172602 2007-04-13	HENRY T. GO v. FIFTH DIVISION CALLEJO, SR., J.
The determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation is a function of the government prosecutor, which in this case is the Ombudsman. As a rule, courts do not interfere in the Ombudsman's exercise of discretion in determining probable cause, unless there are compelling reasons.[29] Mindful of this salutary rule, the Sandiganbayan nonetheless made its own determination on the basis of the records that were before it. It concluded that there was sufficient evidence in the records for the finding of the existence of probable cause against petitioner Go.
	GR NO. 156527 2007-03-05	NEMESIO M. CALIM v. JESUS F. GUERRERO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Herein, petitioner was not able to establish his entitlement to a writ of mandamus. Petitioner fails to demonstrate that he has a clear legal right to compel the public respondents to file a criminal information against the private respondents. Settled is the rule that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers without good and compelling reasons to indicate otherwise.[27] Said exercise of powers is based upon his constitutional mandate[28] and the courts will not interfere in its exercise.[29] Courts have upheld the wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutorial powers that the Ombudsman enjoys; and such powers are virtually free from executive, legislative or judicial intervention.[30] The rationale of this rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers that the Office of the Ombudsman is granted under the present Constitution,[31] but upon practicality as well; otherwise, the functions of the courts would be perilously bound by numerous petitions assailing the result of the investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office, in much the same way that the courts would be saturated if compelled to review the prosecutors' exercise of discretion each time they decide to file an information or dismiss a complaint.[32] The discretion to prosecute or dismiss a complaint filed before it is lodged in the Office of the Ombudsman itself. To compel the Ombudsman to further pursue a criminal case against the private respondents, as petitioner would have it, is outside the ambit of the courts.
	GR NO. 142961 2006-08-04	RHODA REGINA REYES-RARA v. BRENDA CHAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The exercise of power must have been done in an arbitrary or a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. It must have been so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[23]