Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PCGG CHAIRMAN MAGDANGAL B. ELMA v. REINER JACOBI

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 168258 2015-08-17	RICARDO V. QUINTOS v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The PCGG is a unique legal creature with a unique mandate. Executive Order No. 1 dated February 28, 1986 created the PCGG and charged it with the task of assisting the President in the "recovery of all ill-gotten wealth" accumulated by former President Marcos, his relatives, and cronies.[82] The powers and authority of PCGG were defined in several succeeding issuances, namely, Executive Order No. 1 dated February 28, 1986, Executive Order No. 2 dated March 12, 1986, and Executive Order No. 14 dated May 7, 1986, as amended by Executive Order No. 14-A dated August 18, 1986. Executive Order No. 14 dated May 7, 1986, as amended, provides: SECTION 1. Any provision of the law to the contrary notwithstanding, the Presidential Commission on Good Government, with the assistance of the Office of the Solicitor General and other government agencies, is hereby empowered to file and prosecute all cases investigated by it under Executive Order No. 1, dated February 28, 1986, and Executive Order No. 2, dated March 12, 1986, as may be warranted by its findings.
	GR No. 195956 2015-03-11	ABS-CBN CORPORATION v. FELIPE GOZON LEONEN, J.
Given that a reading of the assailed Resolution and the instant records readily reveals errors -of jurisdiction on the part of respondent Secretary, direct judicial recourse is warranted under the circumstances. Aside from the fact that said Resolution is a patent nullity having been issued in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the filing of a motion for reconsideration is evidently useless on account of the fact that the issues and arguments before this Court have already been duly raised and accordingly delved into by respondent Secretary in his disposition of the petition a quo.[47] (Emphasis in the original) In Elma v. Jacobi,[48] this court ruled that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is proper when assailing adverse resolutions of the Department of Justice stemming from the determination of probable cause.[49] However, grave abuse of discretion must be alleged.[50]
	GR No. 197590 2014-11-24	BIR v. CA DEL CASTILLO, J.
Although the Court has consistently adopted the policy of non-interference in the conduct and determination of probable cause,[62] which is exclusively within the competence of the Executive Department, through the Secretary of Justice,[63] judicial intrusion, in the form of judicial review, is allowed when there is proof that the Executive Department gravely abused its discretion in making its determination and in arriving at the conclusion it reached.[64]
	GR No. 210987 2014-11-24	PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE VELASCO JR., J.
The nature and extent of the President's constitutionally granted power of control have been defined in a plethora of cases, most recently in Elma v. Jacobi,[16] wherein it was held that: x x x This power of control, which even Congress cannot limit, let alone withdraw, means the power of the Chief Executive to review, alter, modify, nullify, or set aside what a subordinate, e.g., members of the Cabinet and heads of line agencies, had done in the performance of their duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter.
	GR No. 146376 2014-04-23	RODOLFO M. AGDEPPA v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Not every error in the proceedings, or every erroneous conclusion of law or fact, constitutes grave abuse of discretion.[47] While the prosecutor, or in this case, the investigating officers of the Office of the Ombudsman, may err or even abuse the discretion lodged in them by law, such error or abuse alone does not render their act amenable to correction and annulment by the extraordinary remedy of certiorari.[48] The requirement for judicial intrusion is still for the petitioner to demonstrate clearly that the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Unless such a clear demonstration is made, the intervention is disallowed in deference to the doctrine of non-interference.[49]
	GR No. 179367 2014-01-29	UNILEVER PHILIPPINES v. MICHAEL TAN BRION, J.
Consistent with this rule, the settled policy of non-interference in the prosecutor's exercise of discretion requires the courts to leave to the prosecutor and to the DOJ the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause.[11] Courts can neither override their determination nor substitute their own judgment for that of the latter. They cannot likewise order the prosecution of the accused when the prosecutor has not found a prima facie case.[12]
	GR No. 182130 2013-06-19	IRIS KRISTINE BALOIS ALBERTO v. CA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In the context of filing criminal charges, grave abuse of discretion exists in cases where the determination of probable cause is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and personal hostility. The abuse of discretion to be qualified as "grave" must be so patent or gross as to constitute an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty or to act at all in contemplation of law.[70] In this regard, case law states that not every error in the proceedings, or every erroneous conclusion of law or fact, constitutes grave abuse of discretion.[71] As held in PCGG v. Jacobi:[72]
	GR No. 174385 2013-02-20	REPUBLIC v. RAMON S. CAGUIOA BRION, J.
Second, while the principle of hierarchy of courts does indeed require that recourses should be made to the lower courts before they are made to the higher courts,[15] this principle is not an absolute rule and admits of exceptions under well-defined circumstances. In several cases, we have allowed direct invocation of this Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari on the ground of special and important reasons clearly stated in the petition;[16] when dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy; when demanded by the broader interest of justice; when the challenged orders were patent nullities;[17] or when analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances called for and justified our immediate and direct handling of the case.[18]
	GR No. 190969 2013-01-30	BARON A. VILLANUEVA v. EDNA R. CAPARAS 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]