Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROBERTO B. KALALO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 184130 2015-06-29	SANDRA M. CAM v. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO 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]
	GR No. 170046 2014-12-10	PEOPLE v. MAXIMO A. BORJE PERALTA, J.
The Office of the Ombudsman, in this case, found probable cause which would warrant the filing of an information against respondents. For purposes 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 respondents are probably guilty thereof. It is such set of facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the offense charged in the Information, or any offense included therein, has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.[17] A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.[18] Thus, unless it is shown that the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause was 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, this Court will not interfere with the same.[19]
	GR No. 170046 2014-12-10	PEOPLE v. MAXIMO A. BORJE PERALTA, J.
The Office of the Ombudsman, in this case, found probable cause which would warrant the filing of an information against respondents. For purposes 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 respondents are probably guilty thereof. It is such set of facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the offense charged in the Information, or any offense included therein, has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.[17] A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.[18] Thus, unless it is shown that the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause was 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, this Court will not interfere with the same.[19]
	GR No. 155996 2012-06-27	PCGG CHAIRMAN MAGDANGAL B. ELMA v. REINER JACOBI BRION, J.
For purposes of filing an information in court, probable cause refers to facts and circumstances sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondents probably committed it. To guide the prosecutor's determination, a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused; the quantum of proof to establish its existence is less than the evidence that would justify conviction, but it demands more than bare suspicion.[132]
	GR Nos. 189161 & 189173 2012-03-21	JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES v. MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ SERENO, J.
At the outset, we emphasize that certiorari is an extraordinary prerogative writ that is never demandable as a matter of right. Also, it is meant to correct only errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment committed in the exercise of the discretion of a tribunal or an officer. This is especially true in the case of the exercise by the Ombudsman of its constitutionally mandated powers. That is why this Court has consistently maintained its well-entrenched policy of non-interference in the Ombudsman's exercise of its investigatory and prosecutorial powers.[30]