Lawyerly

GR No. 195032

2013-02-20

MENDOZA, J.

At any rate, the presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits.[50] It is not proper, therefore, to resolve the issue right at the outset without the benefit of a full-blown trial. This issue requires a fuller ventilation and examination.

GR No. 193105

2011-05-30

CLAY v. ALEXANDER T. LICHAYTOO

NACHURA, J.

The counter-allegations of respondents essentially delve on evidentiary matters that are best passed upon in a full-blown trial. The issues upon which the charges are built pertain to factual matters that cannot be threshed out conclusively during the preliminary stage of the case. Precisely, there is a trial for the presentation of prosecution's evidence in support of the charge.[23] The presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits. The validity and merits of a party's defense or accusation, as well as admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level.[24]

GR No. 161057

2008-09-12

BETTY GABIONZA v. CA

TINGA, J.

The Court of Appeals deviated from the general rule that accords respect to the discretion of the DOJ in the determination of probable cause. This Court consistently adheres to its policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations, and to leave to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the filing of an information against a supposed offender.[15]

GR No. 148606

2008-06-30

CHARLES LIMBAUAN v. FAUSTINO ACOSTA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

It is well-settled that amendment of pleadings is favored and should be liberally allowed in the furtherance of justice in order to determine every case as far as possible on its merits without regard to technicalities.This principle is generally recognized in order that the real controversies between the parties are presented, their rights determined and the case decided on the merits without unnecessary delay to prevent circuity of action and needless expense.[11]

GR No. 170723

2008-03-03

GLORIA PILAR S. AGUIRRE v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Put simply, public prosecutors under the DOJ have a wide range of discretion, the discretion of whether, what and whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of factors which are best appreciated by (public) prosecutors.[48] And this Court has consistently adhered to the policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations, and to leave 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 an information against the supposed offender.[49]

GR No. 143591

2007-11-23

TEODORO C. BORLONGAN v. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA

NACHURA, J.

As a general rule, the Court will not issue writs of prohibition or injunction, preliminary or final, to enjoin or restrain criminal prosecution. However, the following exceptions to the rule have been recognized: 1) when the injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; 2) when it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; 3) when there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice; 4) when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority; 5) where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; 6) when double jeopardy is clearly apparent; 7) where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense; 8) where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; 9) where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance; and 10) when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied.[25]

GR NO. 164904

2007-10-19

JOSE ANTONIO U. GONZALEZ v. HONGKONG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Having said the foregoing, this Court consistently adheres to the policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations, and to leave 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 an information against the supposed offender,[34] courts can only review whether or not the executive determination of probable cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction resulting from grave abuse of discretion. Thus, although it is entirely possible that the investigating prosecutor may erroneously exercise the discretion lodged in him by law, this does not render his act amenable to correction and annulment by the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.[35]

GR No. 156337

2007-09-28

UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. ALBERTO T. LOOYUKO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The Court notes that the parties, in their respective pleadings filed before this Court, are ventilating the merits of their respective causes and defenses. This is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of their evidence.[38] The presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits.[39] In fine, the validity and merits of a party's defense or accusation, as well as admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level.[40] As earlier stated, this Court's task in the present petition is only to determine if the CA erred in concluding that the Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing his assailed resolutions. Having resolved this issue, the Court finds no cogent reason to discuss the other matters raised in the present petition.

GR NO. 172602

2007-04-13

HENRY T. GO v. FIFTH DIVISION

CALLEJO, SR., J.

These asseverations, however, are unpersuasive. It is well established that the presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits.[23] In the same manner, the absence (or presence) of any conspiracy among the accused is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense, the truth of which can be best passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits.[24]

GR NO. 166315

2006-12-14

ALFREDO SY FOR HIMSELF v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Indeed, while respondents claim to have acted under authority of law in compelling petitioners to vacate the subject property and effecting the demolition, the documentary evidence show otherwise. From the records, it is clear that a prima facie case for grave coercion exists and that there is sufficient ground to sustain a finding of probable cause which needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused.[17] Nevertheless, respondents may disprove petitioners' charges but such matters may only be determined in a full-blown trial on the merits where the presence or absence of the elements of the crime may be thoroughly passed upon.[18]

	GR No. 195032 2013-02-20	ISABELO A. BRAZA v. SANDIGANBAYAN MENDOZA, J.
At any rate, the presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits.[50] It is not proper, therefore, to resolve the issue right at the outset without the benefit of a full-blown trial. This issue requires a fuller ventilation and examination.
	GR No. 193105 2011-05-30	CLAY v. ALEXANDER T. LICHAYTOO NACHURA, J.
The counter-allegations of respondents essentially delve on evidentiary matters that are best passed upon in a full-blown trial. The issues upon which the charges are built pertain to factual matters that cannot be threshed out conclusively during the preliminary stage of the case. Precisely, there is a trial for the presentation of prosecution's evidence in support of the charge.[23] The presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits. The validity and merits of a party's defense or accusation, as well as admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level.[24]
	GR No. 161057 2008-09-12	BETTY GABIONZA v. CA TINGA, J.
The Court of Appeals deviated from the general rule that accords respect to the discretion of the DOJ in the determination of probable cause. This Court consistently adheres to its policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations, and to leave to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the filing of an information against a supposed offender.[15]
	GR No. 148606 2008-06-30	CHARLES LIMBAUAN v. FAUSTINO ACOSTA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is well-settled that amendment of pleadings is favored and should be liberally allowed in the furtherance of justice in order to determine every case as far as possible on its merits without regard to technicalities.This principle is generally recognized in order that the real controversies between the parties are presented, their rights determined and the case decided on the merits without unnecessary delay to prevent circuity of action and needless expense.[11]
	GR No. 170723 2008-03-03	GLORIA PILAR S. AGUIRRE v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Put simply, public prosecutors under the DOJ have a wide range of discretion, the discretion of whether, what and whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of factors which are best appreciated by (public) prosecutors.[48] And this Court has consistently adhered to the policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations, and to leave 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 an information against the supposed offender.[49]
	GR No. 143591 2007-11-23	TEODORO C. BORLONGAN v. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA NACHURA, J.
As a general rule, the Court will not issue writs of prohibition or injunction, preliminary or final, to enjoin or restrain criminal prosecution. However, the following exceptions to the rule have been recognized: 1) when the injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; 2) when it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; 3) when there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice; 4) when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority; 5) where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; 6) when double jeopardy is clearly apparent; 7) where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense; 8) where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; 9) where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance; and 10) when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied.[25]
	GR NO. 164904 2007-10-19	JOSE ANTONIO U. GONZALEZ v. HONGKONG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Having said the foregoing, this Court consistently adheres to the policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations, and to leave 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 an information against the supposed offender,[34] courts can only review whether or not the executive determination of probable cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction resulting from grave abuse of discretion. Thus, although it is entirely possible that the investigating prosecutor may erroneously exercise the discretion lodged in him by law, this does not render his act amenable to correction and annulment by the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.[35]
	GR No. 156337 2007-09-28	UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. ALBERTO T. LOOYUKO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court notes that the parties, in their respective pleadings filed before this Court, are ventilating the merits of their respective causes and defenses. This is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of their evidence.[38] The presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits.[39] In fine, the validity and merits of a party's defense or accusation, as well as admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level.[40] As earlier stated, this Court's task in the present petition is only to determine if the CA erred in concluding that the Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing his assailed resolutions. Having resolved this issue, the Court finds no cogent reason to discuss the other matters raised in the present petition.
	GR NO. 172602 2007-04-13	HENRY T. GO v. FIFTH DIVISION CALLEJO, SR., J.
These asseverations, however, are unpersuasive. It is well established that the presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits.[23] In the same manner, the absence (or presence) of any conspiracy among the accused is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense, the truth of which can be best passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits.[24]
	GR NO. 166315 2006-12-14	ALFREDO SY FOR HIMSELF v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Indeed, while respondents claim to have acted under authority of law in compelling petitioners to vacate the subject property and effecting the demolition, the documentary evidence show otherwise. From the records, it is clear that a prima facie case for grave coercion exists and that there is sufficient ground to sustain a finding of probable cause which needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused.[17] Nevertheless, respondents may disprove petitioners' charges but such matters may only be determined in a full-blown trial on the merits where the presence or absence of the elements of the crime may be thoroughly passed upon.[18]

LEONARDO M. ANDRES v. JUSTICE SECRETARY SERAFIN R. CUEVAS