This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Thus, it would be ill-advised for the Secretary of Justice to proceed with resolving respondent's Petition for Review pending before her. It would be more prudent to refrain from entertaining the Petition considering that the trial court already issued a warrant of arrest against respondent.[96] The issuance of the warrant signifies that the trial court has made an independent determination of the existence of probable cause. In Mendoza v. People:[97] | |||||
|
2015-08-17 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Petitioner's interpretation of the rules on the determination of probable cause is inaccurate. Although courts must respect the executive determination of probable cause,[35] the trial courts may still independently determine probable cause. They are not irrevocably bound to the determination of probable cause by the prosecutor and the DOJ.[36] | |||||
|
2014-11-24 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The RTC judge's determination of probable cause should have been only limited prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest and not after the arraignment. Once the information has been filed, the judge shall then "personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence"[17] to determine whether there is probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest. At this stage, a judicial determination of probable cause exists.[18] | |||||
|
2014-09-17 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is the existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense was committed by the person sought to be arrested.[41] This must be distinguished from the prosecutor's finding of probable cause which is for the filing of the proper criminal information. Probable cause for warrant of arrest is determined to address the necessity of placing the accused under custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.[42] | |||||