This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-01-25 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the courts have no right to directly decide matters over which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Executive Branch of the Government,[27] or to substitute their own judgments for that of the Executive Branch,[28] represented in this case by the Department of Justice. The settled policy is that the courts will not interfere with the executive determination of probable cause for the purpose of filing an information, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion.[29] That abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law, such as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.[30] For instance, in Balanganan v. Court of Appeals, Special Nineteenth Division, Cebu City,[31] the Court ruled that the Secretary of Justice exceeded his jurisdiction when he required "hard facts and solid evidence" in order to hold the defendant liable for criminal prosecution when such requirement should have been left to the court after the conduct of a trial. | |||||
|
2008-12-04 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| While the resolution of the Justice Secretary may be reviewed by the Court, it is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the executive branch when there is no grave abuse of discretion.[51] | |||||