This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-09-08 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| On the substantive issue of whether the Acting Secretary of Justice gravely abused her discretion in affirming the dismissal of the BOC's complaint-affidavit for lack of probable cause, the settled policy of nonÂinterference 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. As the Court explained in Unilever Philippines, Inc. v. Tan:[51] | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In all these instances, the evidence necessary to establish probable cause is based only on the likelihood, or probability, of guilt. Justice Brion, in the recent case of Unilever Philippines, Inc. v. Tan[37] (Unilever), stated:The determination of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to believe that it was committed by the accused. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. What is merely required is "probability of guilt." Its determination, too, does not call for the application of rules or standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits. Thus, in concluding that there is probable cause, it suffices that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the very offense charged. | |||||
|
2014-07-22 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Since the petitioners failed to establish that the public respondents' alleged abuse of discretion was so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or to a unilateral refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, this petition must necessarily fail.[27] | |||||