Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VICENTE P. LADLAD v. SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR EMMANUEL Y. VELASCO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 176830 2014-02-11	SATURNINO C. OCAMPO v. EPHREM S. ABANDO SERENO, C.J.
However, petitioners were never arraigned in Criminal Case No. 06-944. Even before the indictment for rebellion was filed before the RTC Makati, petitioners Ocampo, Echanis and Ladlad had already filed a petition before this Court to seek the nullification of the Orders of the DOJ denying their motion for the inhibition of the members of the prosecution panel due to lack of impartiality and independence.[130] When the indictment was filed, petitioners Ocampo, Echanis and Ladlad filed supplemental petitions to enjoin the prosecution of Criminal Case No. 06-944.[131] We eventually ordered the dismissal of the rebellion case. It is clear then that a first jeopardy never had a chance to attach.
	GR No. 173844 2012-04-11	LIGAYA P. CRUZ v. RAUL M. GONZALEZ PEREZ, J.
We affirm the CA decision in line with the principle of non-interference with the prerogative of the Secretary of Justice to review the resolutions of the public prosecutor in the determination of the existence of probable cause. For reasons of practicality, this Court, as a rule, does not interfere with the prosecutor's determination of probable cause for otherwise, courts would be swamped with petitions to review the prosecutor's findings in such investigations.[21] In the absence of any showing that the Secretary of Justice committed manifest error, grave abuse of discretion or prejudice, courts will not disturb its findings. Moreover, this Court will decline to interfere when records show that the findings of probable cause is supported by evidence, law and jurisprudence.
	GR No. 179243 2011-09-17	JOSEPH ANTHONY M. ALEJANDRO v. ATTY. JOSE A. BERNAS PERALTA, J.
It is settled that the determination of whether probable cause exists to warrant the prosecution in court of an accused should be consigned and entrusted to the DOJ, as reviewer of the findings of public prosecutors.[36] To accord respect to the discretion granted to the prosecutor and for reasons of practicality, this Court, as a rule, does not interfere with the prosecutor's determination of probable cause for otherwise, courts would be swamped with petitions to review the prosecutor's findings in such investigations.[37] The court's duty in an appropriate case is confined to the determination of whether the assailed executive or judicial determination of probable cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to want of jurisdiction.[38]
	GR No. 178552 2010-10-05	SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE ENGAGEMENT NETWORK v. ANTI-TERRORISM COUNCIL CARPIO MORALES, J.
In Ladlad v. Velasco,[25] the Court ordered the dismissal of rebellion charges filed in 2006 against then Party-List Representatives Crispin Beltran and Rafael Mariano of Anakpawis, Liza Maza of GABRIELA, and Joel Virador, Teodoro Casiño and Saturnino Ocampo of Bayan Muna. Also named in the dismissed rebellion charges were petitioners Rey Claro Casambre, Carolina Pagaduan-Araullo, Renato Reyes, Rita Baua, Emerencia de Jesus and Danilo Ramos; and accused of being front organizations for the Communist movement were petitioner-organizations KMU, BAYAN, GABRIELA, PAMALAKAYA, KMP, KADAMAY, LFS and COURAGE.[26]
	GR No. 175057 2008-01-29	MA. ROSARIO SANTOS-CONCIO v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES, J.
On petitioners citation of Ladlad v. Velasco[60] where a public declaration by Gonzalez was found to evince a "determination to file the Information even in the absence of probable cause,"[61] their attention is drawn to the following ruling of this Court in Roberts, Jr. v. Court of Appeals:[62]
	GR No. 143591 2007-11-23	TEODORO C. BORLONGAN v. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA NACHURA, J.
Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.[38] It is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he is to be prosecuted.[39] A finding of probable cause 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.[40]
	GR NO. 165975 2007-09-13	PAYAKAN G. TILENDO v. OMBUDSMAN CARPIO, J.
Probable cause is the "existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted."[21]