Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JIMMY ANG v. ELEANOR R. LUCERO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No.181021 2012-12-10	BURGUNDY REALTY CORPORATION v. JOSEFA 'JING' C. REYES PERALTA, J.
A preliminary investigation does not require a full and exhaustive presentation of the parties' evidence.[17] Precisely, there is a trial to allow the reception of evidence for both parties to substantiate their respective claims.[18]
	GR No. 143591 2010-05-05	TEODORO C. BORLONGAN v. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA PEREZ, J.
The Court may not be compelled to pass upon the correctness of the exercise of the public prosecutor's function without any showing of grave abuse of discretion or manifest error in his findings.[58] Considering, however, that the prosecution and the court a quo committed manifest errors in their findings of probable cause, this Court therefore annuls their findings.
	GR No. 180165 2009-04-07	METROPOLITAN BANK v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE RAUL M. GONZALES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The conduct of preliminary investigation is executive in nature. The Court may not be compelled to pass upon the correctness of the exercise of the public prosecutor's function unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or manifest error in his findings.[29] Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[30] 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.[31]
	GR No. 154438 2007-09-05	ALICIA F. RICAFORTE v. LEON L. JURADO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In a preliminary investigation, the public prosecutor merely determines whether there is probable cause or sufficient ground to 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.[11] Probable cause implies probability of guilt and requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence which would justify a conviction.[12] A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed by the suspect.[13] It does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits.[14] The complainant need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. A preliminary investigation does not require a full and exhaustive presentation of the parties' evidence.[15] It is enough that in the absence of a clear showing of arbitrariness, credence is given to the finding and determination of probable cause by the Secretary of Justice in a preliminary investigation.[16]
	GR NO. 150325 2006-08-31	EDGARDO V. QUESADA v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The issue of whether the element of fraud or deceit is present is both a question of fact and a matter of defense, the determination of which is better left to the trial court after the parties shall have adduced their respective evidence. It bears stressing that a preliminary investigation is merely an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to 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.[12] It does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits.[13] As implied by the words "probably guilty," the inquiry is concerned merely with probability, not absolute or moral certainty.[14] At this stage, the complainant need not present proof beyond reasonable doubt. A preliminary investigation does not require a full and exhaustive presentation of the parties' evidence.[15] A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed and was committed by petitioner and his co-accused. As ruled by the Investigating Prosecutor and affirmed by the Secretary of Justice, petitioner's representation and assurance to respondent Teruel that the telecommunication equipment would be delivered to him upon payment of its purchase price was the compelling reason why he parted with his money. Such assurance, the Investigating Prosecutor added, is actually a misrepresentation or deceit.
	GR NO. 147932 2006-01-25	LAILA G. DE OCAMPO v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE CARPIO, J.
To repeat, what is determined during preliminary investigation is only probable cause, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.[25] As implied by the words themselves, "probable cause" is concerned with probability, not absolute or moral certainty.[26]