This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-01-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Sen. Estrada also claimed that under the circumstances, he has "no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, except through this Petition."[11] Sen. Estrada applied for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to restrain public respondents from conducting further proceedings in OMB-C-C-13-0313 and OMB-C-C-13-0397. Finally, Sen. Estrada asked for a judgment declaring that (a) he has been denied due process of law, and as a consequence thereof, (b) the Order dated 27 March 2014, as well as the proceedings in OMB-C-C-13-0313 and OMB-C-C-13-0397 subsequent to and affected by the issuance of the 27 March 2014 Order, are void.[12] | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The quantum of evidence needed in Ang Tibay, as amplified in GSIS, is greater than the evidence needed in a preliminary investigation to establish probable cause, or to establish the existence of a prima facie case that would warrant the prosecution of a case. Ang Tibay refers to "substantial evidence," while the establishment of probable cause needs "only more than 'bare suspicion,' or 'less than evidence which would justify . . . conviction'." In the United States, from where we borrowed the concept of probable cause,[35] the prevailing definition of probable cause is this:In dealing with probable cause, however, as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. The standard of proof is accordingly correlative to what must be proved. | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Eighteen of Sen. Estrada's co-respondents in the two complaints filed their counter-affidavits between 9 December 2013 and 14 March 2014.[5] | |||||
|
2014-02-11 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| A preliminary investigation is "not a casual affair."[84] It is conducted to protect the innocent from the embarrassment, expense and anxiety of a public trial.[85] While the right to have a preliminary investigation before trial is statutory rather than constitutional, it is a substantive right and a component of due process in the administration of criminal justice.[86] | |||||
|
2012-09-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Uy v. Office of the Ombudsman,[119] the Court explained the nature of preliminary investigation, to wit: A preliminary investigation is held before an accused is placed on trial to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecution; to protect him from an open and public accusation of a crime, as well as from the trouble, expenses, and anxiety of a public trial. It is also intended to protect the state from having to conduct useless and expensive trials. While the right is statutory rather than constitutional, it is a component of due process in administering criminal justice. The right to have a preliminary investigation conducted before being bound for trial and before being exposed to the risk of incarceration and penalty is not a mere formal or technical right; it is a substantive right. To deny the accused's claim to a preliminary investigation is to deprive him of the full measure of his right to due process.[120] | |||||
|
2010-12-15 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| [13] Uy v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 156399-400, 27 June 2008, 556 SCRA 73, citing Duterte v. Sandiganbayan, 352 Phil. 557 (1998). | |||||