Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RUTH D. BAUTISTA v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 187317 2013-04-11	CARLITO C. ENCINAS v. PO1 ALFREDO P. AGUSTIN SERENO, C.J.
The ruling of this Court in Bautista v. Court of Appeals[91] is analogously applicable to the case at bar. In that case, we ruled that the preliminary investigation conducted by a public prosecutor was merely inquisitorial and was definitely not a quasi-judicial proceeding: A closer scrutiny will show that preliminary investigation is very different from other quasi-judicial proceedings. A quasi-judicial body has been defined as "an organ of government other than a court and other than a legislature which affects the rights of private parties through either adjudication or rule-making."
	GR No. 203766 2013-04-02	ATONG PAGLAUM v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
- Lack of a Board resolution to participate in the party-list elections. Omnibus Resolution dated 24 October 2012[31] 13 204240 12-279 (PLM) Agri-Agra na Reporma Para sa Magsasaka ng Pilipinas Movement (AGRI) Cancelled registration
	GR No. 191567 2013-03-20	MARIE CALLO-CLARIDAD v. PHILIP RONALD P. ESTEBAN BERSAMIN, J.
A petition for review under Rule 43 is a mode of appeal to be taken only to review the decisions, resolutions or awards by the quasi-judicial officers, agencies or bodies, particularly those specified in Section 1 of Rule 43.[12] In the matter before us, however, the Secretary of Justice was not an officer performing a quasi-judicial function. In reviewing the findings of the OCP of Quezon City on the matter of probable cause, the Secretary of Justice performed an essentially executive function to determine whether the crime alleged against the respondents was committed, and whether there was probable cause to believe that the respondents were guilty thereof.[13]
	GR No. 188056 2013-01-08	DACUDAO v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE GONZALES BERSAMIN, J.
The fact that the DOJ is the primary prosecution arm of the Government does not make it a quasi-judicial office or agency. Its preliminary investigation of cases is not a quasi-judicial proceeding. Nor does the DOJ exercise a quasi-judicial function when it reviews the findings of a public prosecutor on the finding of probable cause in any case. Indeed, in Bautista v. Court of Appeals,[10] the Supreme Court has held that a preliminary investigation is not a quasi-judicial proceeding, stating: x x x [t]he prosecutor in a preliminary investigation does not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. He does not exercise adjudication nor rule-making functions. Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and is often the only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime and to enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint or information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. While the fiscal makes that determination, he cannot be said to be acting as a quasi-court, for it is the courts, ultimately, that pass judgment on the accused, not the fiscal.[11]
	GR No. 166859 2011-04-12	REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN BERSAMIN, J.
4) Whether or not defendant Cojuangco took advantage of his position and/or close ties with then President Marcos to obtain favorable concessions or exemptions from the usual financial requirements from the lending banks and/or coco-levy funded companies, in order to raise the funds to acquire the disputed SMC shares; and if so, what are these favorable concessions or exemptions?[101]
	GR No. 135808 2008-10-06	SECURITIES v. INTERPORT RESOURCES CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and it is often the only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the fiscal to prepare the complaint or information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed or whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof.[76]
	GR NO. 140423 2006-07-14	JOSE LUIS ANGEL B. OROSA v. ALBERTO C. ROA GARCIA, J.
Given the above perspective, the question of whether or not a preliminary investigation is a quasi-judicial proceeding, as petitioner posits, or whether or not the Secretary of Justice performs quasi-judicial functions when he reviews the findings of a state or city prosecutor is of little moment. The Court wishes, however, to draw attention to what it said in Santos v. Go[9] where the Court, citing Bautista v. Court of Appeals,[10] stated:[t]he prosecutor in a preliminary investigation does not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. He does not exercise adjudication nor rule-making functions. Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and is often the only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime and to enable the fiscal [prosecutor] to prepare his complaint or information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. While the fiscal [prosecutor] makes that determination, he cannot be said to be acting as a quasi-court, for it is the courts, ultimately that pass judgment on the accused, not the fiscal [prosecutor]. (Words in bracket ours)
	GR NO. 156081 2005-10-19	FERDINAND T. SANTOS v. WILSON GO QUISUMBING, J.
In Bautista v. Court of Appeals,[17] we held that a preliminary investigation is not a quasi-judicial proceeding, thus:[t]he prosecutor in a preliminary investigation does not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. He does not exercise adjudication nor rule-making functions. Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and is often the only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime and to enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint or information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. While the fiscal makes that determination, he cannot be said to be acting as a quasi-court, for it is the courts, ultimately, that pass judgment on the accused, not the fiscal.[18]
	GR No. 146211 2002-08-06	MANUEL NAGRAMPA v. PEOPLE DAVIDE, JR., C.J.
(2)The failure to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank.[24]