Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY v. MANUEL M. SERRANO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 160316 2013-09-02	ROSALINDA PUNZALAN v. MICHAEL GAMALIEL J. PLATA MENDOZA, J.
Evidently, the conclusions arrived at by the DOJ were neither whimsical nor capricious as to be corrected by certiorari. Even on the assumption that the DOJ Secretary made erroneous conclusions, such error alone would not subject his act to correction or annulment by the extraordinary remedy of certiorari.[24] After all, not "every erroneous conclusion of law or fact is an abuse of discretion."[25]
	GR No. 165412 2011-05-30	GEORGE MILLER v. SECRETARY HERNANDO B. PEREZ VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It is well-settled that the determination of probable cause for the purpose of filing an information in court is an executive function which pertains at the first instance to the public prosecutor and then to the Secretary of Justice.[31] The Secretary of Justice may reverse or modify the resolution of the prosecutor, after which he shall direct the prosecutor concerned either to file the corresponding information without conducting another preliminary investigation, or to dismiss or move for dismissal of the complaint or information with notice to the parties.[32]
	GR No. 141888 2009-07-13	MELBAROSE R. SASOT v. AMADO YUSON CARPIO, J.
The general rule is that the courts do not interfere with the discretion of the public prosecutor in determining the specificity and adequacy of the averments in a criminal complaint. The determination of probable cause for the purpose of filing an information in court is an executive function which pertains at the first instance to the public prosecutor and then to the Secretary of Justice. The duty of the Court in appropriate cases is merely to determine whether the executive determination was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Resolutions of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review unless made with grave abuse.[22]
	GR Nos. 172785-86 2009-06-18	CRUZVALE v. JOSE ARMANDO L. EDUQUE QUISUMBING, J.
It bears stressing that the determination of probable cause for the filing of an information in court is an executive function which pertains at the first instance to the public prosecutor and then to the Secretary of Justice.[26] Courts are not empowered to substitute their own judgment for that of the executive branch.[27]