This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-06-18 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| In the light of the foregoing, we find no evidence that would constitute a prima facie case for estafa against respondents. It is true that 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 the accused. In the present case, however, no such evidence exists that would engender a well-founded belief that estafa was in fact committed by respondents.[26] | |||||
|
2007-08-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Consequently, the Court of Appeals correctly held that the DOJ did not err in ordering the City Prosecutor to move for the withdrawal of the information before the trial court. The complaint-affidavits as well as the supporting documents do not show that respondents attributed to petitioner statements other than those in fact made by him in the Waiver dated August 6, 1976, as to constitute a prima facie case for estafa through falsification of public document under Article 171, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code. Although it is true that 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 the accused, no such evidence exists in the present case that would engender a well-founded belief that estafa through falsification of a public document was in fact committed by respondents.[23] | |||||