This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-09-02 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Thus, the rule is that this Court will not interfere in the findings of the DOJ Secretary on the insufficiency of the evidence presented to establish probable cause unless it is shown that the questioned acts were done in a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment evidencing a clear case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[20] Grave abuse of discretion, thus "means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction."[21] The party seeking the writ of certiorari must establish that the DOJ Secretary exercised his executive power in an arbitrary and despotic manner, by reason of passion or personal hostility, and the abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as would amount to an evasion or to a unilateral refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law.[22] | |||||
|
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] | |||||