This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2015-06-29 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| For the purpose of filing a criminal information, probable cause has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that respondent is probably guilty thereof.[48] The determination of the existence of probable cause lies within the discretion of the prosecuting officers after they have conducted a preliminary investigation upon complaint of an offended party.[49] | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2013-09-11 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Apropos thereto, for the public prosecutor to determine if there exists a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the suspect is probably guilty of the same, the elements of the crime charged should, in all reasonable likelihood, be present. This is based on the principle that every crime is defined by its elements, without which there should be, at the most, no criminal offense.[36] | |||||
|
2013-06-19 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In order to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and to determine if the suspect is probably guilty of the same, the elements of the crime charged should, in all reasonable likelihood, be present. This is based on the principle that every crime is defined by its elements, without which there should be, at the most, no criminal offense.[75] | |||||
|
2013-01-30 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Probable cause, for purposes of filing criminal information, pertains to facts and circumstances sufficient to incite a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof.[15] Only such facts sufficient to support a prima facie case against the respondent are required, not absolute certainty.[16] Probable cause implies mere probability of guilt, i.e., a finding based on more than bare suspicion but less than evidence that would justify a conviction.[17] The strict validity and merits of a party's accusation or defense, as well as admissibility of testimonies and pieces of evidence, are better ventilated during the trial proper of the case.[18] | |||||
|
2013-01-30 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The determination of probable cause is essentially an executive function,[19] lodged in the first place on the prosecutor who conducted the preliminary investigation[20] on the offended party's complaint.[21] The prosecutor's ruling is reviewable by the Secretary[22] who, as the final determinative authority on the matter, has the power to reverse, modify or affirm the prosecutor's determination.[23] As a rule, the Secretary's findings are not subject to interference by the courts,[24] save only when he acts with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;[25] or when he grossly misapprehends facts;[26] or acts in a manner so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by law; or when he acts outside the contemplation of law.[27] | |||||
|
2010-11-15 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, we respect the findings of the CA when it held that Judge Reyes did not solely rely on the findings of the City Prosecutor in reversing her earlier Order. We observed, among others, that when Judge Reyes quoted our ruling in People v. CA,[21] she underscored a portion thereof, clearly indicative of her reliance on said jurisprudence. Thus, it cannot be validly argued that Judge Reyes simply and blindly adhered to the recommendation of the City Prosecutor in rendering the assailed Order, bereft of any factual and legal basis. Furthermore, we also accord respect to the factual findings of the City Prosecutor and the CA that petitioner indeed encashed these allegedly anomalous checks. Suffice it to state that a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction - it is enough that there is a reasonable belief that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.[22] | |||||
|
2010-08-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The findings of the Secretary of Justice in sustaining the dismissal of the Complaint are matters of defense best left to the trial court's deliberation and contemplation after conducting the trial of the criminal case. To emphasize, a preliminary investigation for the purpose of determining the existence of probable cause is "not a part of the trial. A full and exhaustive presentation of the parties' evidence is not required, but only such as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof."[47] A "finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged."[48] So we held in Balangauan v. Court of Appeals:[49] | |||||
|
2009-03-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In order that probable cause to file a criminal case may be arrived at, or in order to engender the well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, the elements of the crime charged should be present. This is based on the principle that every crime is defined by its elements, without which there should be-at the most-no criminal offense.[26] | |||||