Lawyerly

GR No. 213455

2015-08-11

BRION, J.

Enrile responded by filing before the Sandiganbayan (1) an urgent omnibus motion (motion to dismiss for lack of evidence on record to establish probable cause and ad cautelam motion for bail),[4] and (2) a supplemental opposition to issuance of warrant of arrest and for dismissal of Information,[5] on June 10, 2014, and June 16, 2014, respectively. The Sandiganbayan heard both motions on June 20, 2014.

GR No. 166414

2014-10-22

GODOFREDO ENRILE v. DANILO A. MANALASTAS

BERSAMIN, J.

Secondly, the motion to quash is the mode by which an accused, before entering his plea, challenges the complaint or information for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects apparent on its face.[20] Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court enumerates the grounds for the quashal of the complaint or information, as follows: (a) the facts charged do not constitute an offense; (b) the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; (c) the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused; (d) the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so; (e) the complaint or information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form; (f) more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law; (g) the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; (h) the complaint or information contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and (i) the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

GR Nos. 172476-99

2010-09-15

BRIG. GEN. JOSE RAMISCAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN

CARPIO, J.

Absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion, this Court will not interfere with the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction and control over a case properly filed before it. The Sandiganbayan is empowered to proceed with the trial of the case in the manner it determines best conducive to orderly proceedings and speedy termination of the case.[36] There being no showing of grave abuse of discretion on its part, the Sandiganbayan should continue its proceedings with all deliberate dispatch.

GR No. 173588

2009-04-22

ARIEL M. LOS BAÑOS v. JOEL R. PEDRO

BRION, J.

A motion to quash is the mode by which an accused assails, before entering his plea, the validity of the criminal complaint or the criminal information filed against him for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defect apparent on the face of the Information.[19] The motion, as a rule, hypothetically admits the truth of the facts spelled out in the complaint or information. The rules governing a motion to quash are found under Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court. Section 3 of this Rule enumerates the

GR No. 180122

2009-03-13

FELICISIMO F. LAZARTE v. SANDIGANBAYAN

TINGA, J.

The acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged and enable the court to know the proper judgment. The Information must allege clearly and accurately the elements of the crime charged. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be determined by reference to the definition and elements of the specific crimes.[35]

GR No. 180299

2008-01-31

LYNDON D. BOISER v. PEOPLE

NACHURA, J.

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy against an order denying a motion to quash. The accused should instead go to trial, without prejudice on his part to present the special defenses he had invoked in his motion and, if after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law.[10] Based on the findings of the investigating prosecutor and of the trial judge, probable cause exists to indict petitioner for the 3 offenses. Absent any showing of arbitrariness on the part of the investigating prosecutor or any other officer authorized by law to conduct preliminary investigation, courts as a rule must defer to said officer's finding and determination of probable cause, since the determination of the existence of probable cause is the function of the prosecutor.[11]

GR No. 171659

2007-12-13

MARIETTA K. ILUSORIO v. SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO

NACHURA, J.

Findings of probable cause are essentially factual in nature. Accordingly, in assailing said findings on the contention that the prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion, the petitioner clearly raises issues anchored mainly on the propriety or impropriety of the prosecutor's appreciation of the facts. This Court is not duty bound to scrutinize anew established facts in a petition for review for we are not a trier of facts.[20]

GR NO. 155647

2007-11-23

METROPOLITAN BANK v. JIMMY GO

NACHURA, J.

Indeed, there is neither error nor grave abuse of discretion which can be attributed to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila when it dismissed the criminal complaints for lack of probable cause. In the absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila, this Court must not interfere in its findings, considering that full discretionary authority has been delegated to the latter in determining whether or not a criminal charge should be instituted.[44] With greater reason should we respect this finding, as it had been uniformly affirmed not only by the reviewing prosecutor but also by the Secretary of Justice and by the Court of Appeals.

GR NO. 163656

2007-04-27

MARINA B. SCHROEDER v. ATTYS. MARIO A. SALDEVAR

QUISUMBING, J.

In our criminal justice system, the public prosecutor exercises wide latitude of discretion in determining whether a criminal case should be filed in court. Courts must respect the exercise of such discretion when the information filed against the person charged is valid on its face, and no manifest error or grave abuse of discretion can be imputed to the public prosecutor.[8] As a rule, courts cannot interfere with the Ombudsman's discretion in the conduct of preliminary investigations. In the determination of probable cause, the Ombudsman's discretion prevails over judicial discretion.[9]

GR NO. 170288

2006-09-22

PEDRO E. BUDIONGAN v. JACINTO M. DELA CRUZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The right to a preliminary investigation is not a constitutional right, but is merely a right conferred by statute. The absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the Information or otherwise render the same defective. It does not affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case or constitute a ground for quashing the Information.[15] If absence of a preliminary investigation does not render the Information invalid nor affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case, then the denial of a motion for reinvestigation cannot likewise invalidate the Information or oust the court of its jurisdiction over the case.

GR NO. 139912

2005-03-31

YUPANGCO COTTON MILLS v. RODRIGO SY MENDOZA

TINGA, J.

The general rule is that the determination of the existence of probable cause is the function of the prosecutor.[73] This Court has adopted a policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations and leaves to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause for the filing of information against the supposed offender.[74]

GR No. 152997

2004-11-10

SALVADOR MARZALADO v. PEOPLE

QUISUMBING, J.

Anent the Information, the contention of petitioner that the Information is defective is untenable. Admittedly, there is a discrepancy on the precise date of the alleged trespass - the Information charges petitioner Marzalado, Jr., with trespass to dwelling allegedly committed on November 2, 1993, while petitioner's defense relate to an entry made the following day. The discrepancy however, does not make the information defective. Facts and circumstances necessary for inclusion in the information are determined by reference to the definition and elements of the specific crime.[12] In trespass to dwelling, the elements are: (1) the offender is a private person; (2) that he enters the dwelling of another; and (3) such entrance is against the latter's will.

	GR No. 213455 2015-08-11	JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
Enrile responded by filing before the Sandiganbayan (1) an urgent omnibus motion (motion to dismiss for lack of evidence on record to establish probable cause and ad cautelam motion for bail),[4] and (2) a supplemental opposition to issuance of warrant of arrest and for dismissal of Information,[5] on June 10, 2014, and June 16, 2014, respectively. The Sandiganbayan heard both motions on June 20, 2014.
	GR No. 166414 2014-10-22	GODOFREDO ENRILE v. DANILO A. MANALASTAS BERSAMIN, J.
Secondly, the motion to quash is the mode by which an accused, before entering his plea, challenges the complaint or information for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects apparent on its face.[20] Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court enumerates the grounds for the quashal of the complaint or information, as follows: (a) the facts charged do not constitute an offense; (b) the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; (c) the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused; (d) the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so; (e) the complaint or information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form; (f) more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law; (g) the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; (h) the complaint or information contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and (i) the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
	GR Nos. 172476-99 2010-09-15	BRIG. GEN. JOSE RAMISCAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN CARPIO, J.
Absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion, this Court will not interfere with the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction and control over a case properly filed before it. The Sandiganbayan is empowered to proceed with the trial of the case in the manner it determines best conducive to orderly proceedings and speedy termination of the case.[36] There being no showing of grave abuse of discretion on its part, the Sandiganbayan should continue its proceedings with all deliberate dispatch.
	GR No. 173588 2009-04-22	ARIEL M. LOS BAÑOS v. JOEL R. PEDRO BRION, J.
A motion to quash is the mode by which an accused assails, before entering his plea, the validity of the criminal complaint or the criminal information filed against him for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defect apparent on the face of the Information.[19] The motion, as a rule, hypothetically admits the truth of the facts spelled out in the complaint or information. The rules governing a motion to quash are found under Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court. Section 3 of this Rule enumerates the
	GR No. 180122 2009-03-13	FELICISIMO F. LAZARTE v. SANDIGANBAYAN TINGA, J.
The acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged and enable the court to know the proper judgment. The Information must allege clearly and accurately the elements of the crime charged. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be determined by reference to the definition and elements of the specific crimes.[35]
	GR No. 180299 2008-01-31	LYNDON D. BOISER v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy against an order denying a motion to quash. The accused should instead go to trial, without prejudice on his part to present the special defenses he had invoked in his motion and, if after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law.[10] Based on the findings of the investigating prosecutor and of the trial judge, probable cause exists to indict petitioner for the 3 offenses. Absent any showing of arbitrariness on the part of the investigating prosecutor or any other officer authorized by law to conduct preliminary investigation, courts as a rule must defer to said officer's finding and determination of probable cause, since the determination of the existence of probable cause is the function of the prosecutor.[11]
	GR No. 171659 2007-12-13	MARIETTA K. ILUSORIO v. SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO NACHURA, J.
Findings of probable cause are essentially factual in nature. Accordingly, in assailing said findings on the contention that the prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion, the petitioner clearly raises issues anchored mainly on the propriety or impropriety of the prosecutor's appreciation of the facts. This Court is not duty bound to scrutinize anew established facts in a petition for review for we are not a trier of facts.[20]
	GR NO. 155647 2007-11-23	METROPOLITAN BANK v. JIMMY GO NACHURA, J.
Indeed, there is neither error nor grave abuse of discretion which can be attributed to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila when it dismissed the criminal complaints for lack of probable cause. In the absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila, this Court must not interfere in its findings, considering that full discretionary authority has been delegated to the latter in determining whether or not a criminal charge should be instituted.[44] With greater reason should we respect this finding, as it had been uniformly affirmed not only by the reviewing prosecutor but also by the Secretary of Justice and by the Court of Appeals.
	GR NO. 163656 2007-04-27	MARINA B. SCHROEDER v. ATTYS. MARIO A. SALDEVAR QUISUMBING, J.
In our criminal justice system, the public prosecutor exercises wide latitude of discretion in determining whether a criminal case should be filed in court. Courts must respect the exercise of such discretion when the information filed against the person charged is valid on its face, and no manifest error or grave abuse of discretion can be imputed to the public prosecutor.[8] As a rule, courts cannot interfere with the Ombudsman's discretion in the conduct of preliminary investigations. In the determination of probable cause, the Ombudsman's discretion prevails over judicial discretion.[9]
	GR NO. 170288 2006-09-22	PEDRO E. BUDIONGAN v. JACINTO M. DELA CRUZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The right to a preliminary investigation is not a constitutional right, but is merely a right conferred by statute. The absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the Information or otherwise render the same defective. It does not affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case or constitute a ground for quashing the Information.[15] If absence of a preliminary investigation does not render the Information invalid nor affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case, then the denial of a motion for reinvestigation cannot likewise invalidate the Information or oust the court of its jurisdiction over the case.
	GR NO. 139912 2005-03-31	YUPANGCO COTTON MILLS v. RODRIGO SY MENDOZA TINGA, J.
The general rule is that the determination of the existence of probable cause is the function of the prosecutor.[73] This Court has adopted a policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations and leaves to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause for the filing of information against the supposed offender.[74]
	GR No. 152997 2004-11-10	SALVADOR MARZALADO v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
Anent the Information, the contention of petitioner that the Information is defective is untenable. Admittedly, there is a discrepancy on the precise date of the alleged trespass - the Information charges petitioner Marzalado, Jr., with trespass to dwelling allegedly committed on November 2, 1993, while petitioner's defense relate to an entry made the following day. The discrepancy however, does not make the information defective. Facts and circumstances necessary for inclusion in the information are determined by reference to the definition and elements of the specific crime.[12] In trespass to dwelling, the elements are: (1) the offender is a private person; (2) that he enters the dwelling of another; and (3) such entrance is against the latter's will.

ATTY. EDWARD SERAPIO v. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION)