Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAILA G. DE OCAMPO v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 181303 2009-09-17	CARMEN DANAO MALANA v. BENIGNO TAPPA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is important to note that Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court does not categorically require that an action to quiet title be filed before the RTC. It repeatedly uses the word "may" - that an action for quieting of title "may be brought under [the] Rule" on petitions for declaratory relief, and a person desiring to file a petition for declaratory relief "may x x x bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court." The use of the word "may" in a statute denotes that the provision is merely permissive and indicates a mere possibility, an opportunity or an option.[23]
	GR Nos. 168578-79 2008-09-30	NIETO A. RACHO v. PRIMO C. MIRO QUISUMBING, J.
Moreover, we are unable to agree with petitioner's contention that he was denied due process when no hearing was conducted on his motion for reinvestigation. In De Ocampo v. Secretary of Justice,[39] we ruled that a clarificatory hearing is not required during preliminary investigation. Rather than being mandatory, a clarificatory hearing is optional on the part of the investigating officer as evidenced by the use of the term "may" in Section 3(e) of Rule 112, thus:(e) If the investigating officer believes that there are matters to be clarified, he may set a hearing to propound clarificatory questions to the parties or their witnesses, during which the parties shall be afforded an opportunity to be present but without the right to examine or cross-examine.[40]
	GR No. 173176 2008-08-26	JUDY ANNE L. SANTOS v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Second, petitioner cannot claim denial of due process when she was given the opportunity to file her affidavits and other pleadings and submit evidence before the DOJ during the preliminary investigation of her case and before the Information was filed against her. Due process is merely an opportunity to be heard. In addition, preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ is merely inquisitorial. It is not a trial of the case on the merits. Its sole purpose is to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether the respondent therein is probably guilty of the crime. It is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence. Hence, if the investigating prosecutor is already satisfied that he can reasonably determine the existence of probable cause based on the parties' evidence thus presented, he may terminate the proceedings and resolve the case.[58]
	GR No. 159395 2008-05-07	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA CARPIO, J.
The use of the word "may" is ordinarily construed as permissive or directory, indicating that a matter of discretion is involved.[13] Thus, the word "may," when used in a statute, does not generally suggest compulsion. The use of the word "may" in Section 20(5) of RA 6770 indicates that it is within the discretion of the Ombudsman whether to conduct an investigation when a complaint is filed after one year from the occurrence of the complained act or omission.