This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-07-08 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| The Court thus agrees with the CA's conclusion that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the sale on execution of the property in dispute under Article 160. The trial court had already determined with finality that the property was a family home, and there was no proof that its value had increased beyond the statutory limit due to voluntary improvements by respondents. Yet, it ordered the execution sale of the property. There is grave abuse of discretion when one acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of one's judgment, as in this case in which the assailed order is bereft of any factual or legal justification.[50] | |||||
|
2015-06-29 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| A preliminary investigation is in effect a realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of the case; sufficient proof of the guilt of the criminal respondent must be adduced so that when the case is tried, the trial court may not be bound, as a matter of law, to order an acquittal.[50] While probable cause should be determined in a summary manner, there is a need to examine the evidence with care to prevent material damage to a potential accused's constitutional right to liberty and the guarantees of freedom and fair play.[51] The need for a careful examination of the evidence is also intended to protect the State from the burden of unnecessary expenses in prosecuting and trying cases arising from false, fraudulent or groundless charges. | |||||
|
2014-07-30 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Probable cause is defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the persons being charged are probably guilty thereof.[23] "[It] can only find support in facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable mind to believe that the person being charged warrants a prosecution."[24] To establish probable cause, Araullo, being the complainant, then should have proved the elements of the crimes alleged to have been committed. In addition, there should have been a clear showing of the respective participation of the respondents, to at least support a ruling that would call for their further prosecution. | |||||
|
2013-07-24 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Also, in Tan v. Matsuura,[9] we held that while the findings of prosecutors are reviewable by the DOJ, this does not preclude courts from intervening and exercising our own powers of review with respect to the DOJ's findings. In the exceptional case in which grave abuse of discretion is committed, as when a clear sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence to support a finding of probable cause is ignored, the Court of Appeals may take cognizance of the case via a petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[10] | |||||