This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-09-02 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Consequently, the Court considers it a sound judicial policy to refrain from interfering in the conduct of preliminary investigations and to leave the DOJ a wide latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the prosecution of the supposed offenders.[17] The rule is based not only upon the respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the executive department but upon practicality as well.[18] As pronounced by this Court in the separate opinion of then Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa in the case of Roberts, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[19] | |||||
|
2012-06-25 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| We recall that in the morning of December 27, 2006 when the alleged utterances were made, Genabe was about to punch in her time in her card when she was informed that she had been suspended for failing to meet her deadline in a case, and that it was Agbayani who informed the presiding judge that she had missed her deadline when she left to attend a convention in Baguio City, leaving Agbayani to finish the task herself. According to Undersecretary Pineda, the confluence of these circumstances was the immediate cause of respondent Genabe's emotional and psychological distress. We rule that his determination that the defamation was uttered while the respondent was in extreme excitement or in a state of passion and obfuscation, rendering her offense of lesser gravity than if it had been made with cold and calculating deliberation, is beyond the ambit of our review.[30] The CA concurred that the complained utterances constituted only slight oral defamation, having been said in the heat of anger and with perceived provocation from Agbayani. Respondent Genabe was of a highly volatile personality prone to throw fits (sumpongs), who thus shared a hostile working environment with her co-employees, particularly with her superiors, Agbayani and Hon. Bonifacio Sanz Maceda, the Presiding Judge of Branch 275, whom she claimed had committed against her "grievous acts that outrage moral and social conduct." That there had been a long-standing animosity between Agbayani and Genabe is not denied. | |||||
|
2009-07-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| We further clarified such principle later in Buan v. Matugas:[29] | |||||