Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PHILIPPINES v. KHALID MEHMOOD MALIK

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 176830 2014-02-11	SATURNINO C. OCAMPO v. EPHREM S. ABANDO SERENO, C.J.
However, this is not to say that public prosecutors are obliged to consistently charge respondents with simple rebellion instead of common crimes. No one disputes the well-entrenched principle in criminal procedure that the institution of criminal charges, including whom and what to charge, is addressed to the sound discretion of the public prosecutor.[123]
	GR No. 197291 2013-04-03	DATU ANDAL AMPATUAN JR. v. SEC. LEILA DE LIMA BERSAMIN, J.
Consistent with the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution, the Court deems it a sound judicial policy not to interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations, and to allow the Executive Department, through the Department of Justice, exclusively to determine what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the prosecution of supposed offenders. By way of exception, however, judicial review may be allowed where it is clearly established that the public prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion, that is, when he has exercised his discretion "in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, patent and gross enough as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law."[38]
	GR No. 164538 2010-08-09	METROPOLITAN BANK v. ROGELIO REYNADO DEL CASTILLO, J.
"Probable cause is defined as such facts and circumstances that will engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial."[43] Generally, a public prosecutor is afforded a wide latitude of discretion in the conduct of a preliminary investigation. By way of exception, however, judicial review is allowed where respondent has clearly established that the prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion that is, when he has exercised his discretion "in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, patent and gross enough as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law."[44] Tested against these guidelines, we find that this case falls under the exception rather than the general rule.
	GR No. 168662 2008-02-19	SANRIO COMPANY LIMITED v. EDGAR C. LIM CORONA, J.
As a general rule, a public prosecutor is afforded a wide latitude of discretion in the conduct of a preliminary investigation. For this reason, courts generally do not interfere with the results of such proceedings. A prosecutor alone determines the sufficiency of evidence that will establish probable cause justifying the filing of a criminal information against the respondent.[37] By way of exception, however, judicial review is allowed where respondent has clearly established that the prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion.[38] Otherwise stated, such review is appropriate only when the prosecutor has exercised his discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, patent and gross enough to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.[39]