Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FRANCISCO D. YAP v. IAC

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 138297 2006-01-27	DESIDERIO DE LOS REYES v. PEOPLE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
[3] Yap v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 68464, March 22, 1993, 220 SCRA 245, 253, citing Acharon v. Purisima, 13 SCRA 309 (1965).
	GR NO. 153578 2005-01-28	VICENTE C. JIMENEZ v. EULOGIO TOLENTINO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
From the adverse resolution of their motion for reinvestigation, petitioners, on 20 March 2000, went up to the Court of Appeals on petition for certiorari essentially questioning the findings of probable cause against them. The Court of Appeals initially denied the petition for being filed out of time but it reinstated the same upon motion of petitioners.[5] Subsequently, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition holding that (a) the special action of certiorari is not the proper remedy to annul the findings of probable cause following the ruling in Yap v. Intermediate Appellate Court;[6] and (b) the petition was filed out of time. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration suffered the same fate, the Court of Appeals having held that there were no weighty reasons advanced by the petitioners that would merit the reversal of its decision.
	GR No. 143375 2001-07-06	RUTH D. BAUTISTA v. CA BELLOSILLO, J.
It is worth reiterating that courts will not normally interfere with the prosecutor's discretion to file a criminal case when there is probable cause to do so. Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.[26] The prosecutor has ruled that there is probable cause in this case, and we see no reason to disturb the finding.