Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BRIG. GEN. JOSE S. RAMISCAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 160933 2010-11-24	NICEAS M. BELONGILOT v. ROLANDO S. CUA BRION, J.
The Ombudsman attempted to remedy its error by stating in its Order denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration, that "[t]he alleged procedural infirmities committed by the public respondents in issuing the Restraining Order and the Resolution do not, by themselves, establish a demonstrable violation of the provision of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019."[27] Generally, we do not interfere with the Ombudsman's authority to determine the presence or absence of probable cause, except when the finding is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. But when, as in this case, the Ombudsman does not take essential facts into consideration in the determination of probable cause, our intervention is in order to correct the grave abuse of discretion.[28]
	GR No. 182677 2010-08-03	JOSE ANTONIO C. LEVISTE v. ELMO M. ALAMEDA CARPIO MORALES, J.
The rules do not require cases to be set for hearing to determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest of the accused before any warrant may be issued.[82] Petitioner thus cannot, as a matter of right, insist on a hearing for judicial determination of probable cause. Certainly, petitioner "cannot determine beforehand how cursory or exhaustive the [judge's] examination of the records should be [since t]he extent of the judge's examination depends on the exercise of his sound discretion as the circumstances of the case require."[83] In one case, the Court emphatically stated: The periods provided in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure are mandatory, and as such, the judge must determine the presence or absence of probable cause within such periods. The Sandiganbayan's determination of probable cause is made ex parte and is summary in nature, not adversarial. The Judge should not be stymied and distracted from his determination of probable cause by needless motions for determination of probable cause filed by the accused.[84] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 136225 2008-04-23	FFCBL v. OMBUDSMAN DESIERTO REYES, R.T., J.
To reiterate, probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt. Neither is it based on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt or on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. It simply implies probability of guilt and requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence which would justify a conviction.[19] A finding of probable cause need only rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspects..[20] There is clearly probable cause here for the suspects to stand trial.
	GR No. 145184 2008-03-14	PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO NACHURA, J.
Case law has it that the determination of probable cause against those in public office during a preliminary investigation is a function that belongs to the Office of the Ombudsman.[16] The Ombudsman is empowered to determine, in the exercise of his discretion, whether probable cause exists, and to charge the person believed to have committed the crime as defined by law. As a rule, courts should not interfere with the Ombudsman's investigatory power, exercised through the Ombudsman Prosecutors, and the authority to determine the presence or absence of probable cause, except when the finding is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[17]
	GR No. 171659 2007-12-13	MARIETTA K. ILUSORIO v. SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO NACHURA, J.
Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion, that the person charged is guilty of the crime for which he is sought to be prosecuted. Being based merely on opinion and reasonable belief, it does not import absolute certainty.[16] A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial; it does not impose a guilty verdict. However, it requires more than bare suspicion.[17]
	GR No. 139296 2007-11-23	PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. ANIANO DESIERTO NACHURA, J.
Case law has it that the determination of probable cause against those in public office during a preliminary investigation is a function that belongs to the Office of the Ombudsman.[18] The Ombudsman has the discretion to determine whether a criminal case, given its attendant facts and circumstances, should be filed or not. It is basically his call. He may dismiss the complaint forthwith should he find it to be insufficient in form or substance, or he may proceed with the investigation if, in his view, the complaint is in due and proper form and substance. [19] We have consistently refrained from interfering with the constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman.[20] Thus, if the Ombudsman, using professional judgment, finds the case dismissible, the Court shall respect such findings, unless the exercise of such discretionary powers is tainted by grave abuse of discretion.[21]
	GR NOS. 167006-07 2007-08-14	DANILO D. COLLANTES v. SIMEON MARCELO NACHURA, J.
The rule is that as far as crimes cognizable by the Sandiganbayan are concerned, the determination of probable cause during the preliminary investigation is a function that belongs to the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is empowered to determine, in the exercise of his discretion, whether probable cause exists, and to charge the person believed to have committed the crime as defined by law.[22] As a rule, courts should not interfere with the Ombudsman's investigatory power, exercised through the Ombudsman Prosecutors, and the authority to determine the presence or absence of probable cause, except when the finding is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In such case, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[23] Petitioner thus rightly elevated his case to this Court ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman in giving due course to the complaint.
	GR NOS. 142369-70 2007-04-13	JUANITO T. MERENCILLO v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
One may therefore be charged with violation of RA 3019 in addition to a felony under the Revised Penal Code for the same delictual act, that is, either concurrently or subsequent to being charged with a felony under the Revised Penal Code.[27] There is no double jeopardy if a person is charged simultaneously or successively for violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 and the Revised Penal Code.