Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 209330 2016-01-11	SECRETARY LEILA DE LIMA v. MARIO JOEL T. REYES LEONEN, J.
Similarly, in Callo-Claridad v. Esteban,[58] we have stated that a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court cannot be brought to assail the Secretary of Justice's resolution dismissing a complaint for lack of probable cause since this is an "essentially executive function":[59]
	GR No. 179367 2014-01-29	UNILEVER PHILIPPINES v. MICHAEL TAN BRION, J.
The determination of probable cause for purposes of filing of information in court is essentially an executive function that is lodged, at the first instance, with the public prosecutor and, ultimately, to the Secretary of Justice.[9] The prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice have wide latitude of discretion in the conduct of preliminary investigation;[10] and their findings with respect to the existence or non-existence of probable cause are generally not subject to review by the Court.
	GR No. 182130 2013-06-19	IRIS KRISTINE BALOIS ALBERTO v. CA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In the case of Callo-Caridad v. Esteban,[68] citing Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v. Tobias III, [69] the Court held: In reviewing the findings of the [public prosecutor] 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.