Lawyerly

GR No. 175750-51

2014-04-02

PEREZ, J.

The elements of estafa by means of deceit, whether committed by false pretenses or concealment, are the following: (a) there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (b) such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and (d) as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.[28]

GR No. 160316

2013-09-02

ROSALINDA PUNZALAN v. MICHAEL GAMALIEL J. PLATA

MENDOZA, J.

The well-established rule is that the conduct of preliminary investigation for the purpose of determining the existence of probable cause is a function that belongs to the public prosecutor.[12] Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, as amended,[13] provides:Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal action. - All criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule of the public prosecutor or in the event of lack of public prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the approval of the court. Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up to end of the trial even in the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn.

GR No. 188217

2013-07-03

FERNANDO M. ESPINO v. PEOPLE

SERENO, C.J.

However, the crime the accused was convicted of was estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a). The elements of this crime are as follows: (1) that there is a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (2) that the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means is made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) that the offended party relies on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he is induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and (4) that as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.[38]

GR No. 179243

2011-09-17

JOSEPH ANTHONY M. ALEJANDRO v. ATTY. JOSE A. BERNAS

PERALTA, J.

Probable cause demands more than suspicion; it requires less than evidence that would justify conviction.[50] While probable cause should be determined in a summary manner, there is a need to examine the evidence with care to prevent material damage to a potential accused's constitutional right to liberty and the guarantees of freedom and fair play, and to protect the State from the burden of unnecessary expenses in prosecuting alleged offenses and holding trials arising from false, fraudulent or groundless charges.[51] It is, therefore, imperative upon the prosecutor to relieve the accused from the pain of going through a trial once it is ascertained that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused.[52]

GR No. 183879

2010-04-14

ROSITA SY v. PEOPLE

NACHURA, J.

The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the following, viz.: (a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.[10]

GR No. 177727

2010-01-19

HAROLD V. TAMARGO v. ROMULO AWINGAN

CORONA, J.

Considering the paucity and inadmissibility of the evidence presented against the respondents, it would be unfair to hold them for trial. Once it is ascertained that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused, they should be relieved from the pain of going through a full blown court case.[39] When, at the outset, the evidence offered during the preliminary investigation is nothing more than an uncorroborated extrajudicial confession of an alleged conspirator, the criminal complaint should not prosper so that the system would be spared from the unnecessary expense of such useless and expensive litigation.[40] The rule is all the more significant here since respondent Licerio Antiporda remains in detention for the murder charges pursuant to the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Daguna.[41]

GR No. 174567

2009-03-12

SEVERINO B. VERGARA v. OMBUDSMAN

CARPIO, J.

Probable cause is 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.[56] Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, or on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt, but it certainly demands more than bare suspicion and can never be left to presupposition, conjecture, or even convincing logic.[57]

GR No. 127327

2009-02-13

LIBERATA AMBITO v. PEOPLE

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The elements of Estafa by means of deceit, whether committed by false pretenses or concealment, are the following - (a) that there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means. (b) That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud. (c) That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means. (d) That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.[44]

GR No. 162311

2008-12-04

LEVI STRAUSS v. TONY LIM

REYES, R.T., J.

It bears stressing that the main function of a government prosecutor is to determine the existence of probable cause and to file the corresponding information should he find it to be so. [54] Thus, the decision whether or not to dismiss the criminal complaint against respondent is necessarily dependent on the sound discretion of the investigating prosecutor and ultimately, that of the Secretary of Justice.[55]

GR No. 162311

2008-12-04

LEVI STRAUSS v. TONY LIM

REYES, R.T., J.

The court's duty in an appropriate case is confined to a determination of whether the assailed executive or judicial determination of probable cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to want of jurisdiction.[59] For grave abuse of discretion to prosper as a ground for certiorari, it must be demonstrated that the lower court or tribunal has exercised its power in an arbitrary and despotic manner, by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be patent and gross as would amount to an evasion or to a unilateral refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law.[60]

GR No. 174899

2008-09-11

RAMON L. UY v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Estafa, under Article 315, par. 2, of the Revised Penal Code, is committed by any person who defrauds another by using a fictitious name; or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud.[48] Under this class of estafa, the element of deceit is indispensable.[49]

GR No. 174350

2008-08-13

SPS. BERNYL BALANGAUAN KATHERENE BALANGAUAN v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite 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.[39] A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.[40]

AM No. MTJ-07-1670

2008-07-23

ATTY. RODERICK M. SANTOS v. JUDGE LAURO BERNARDO

AZCUNA, J.

There is no merit in respondent's supposition that Grave Coercion is an offense not subject to preliminary investigation because the minimum penalty imposable for the said offense, which is six months and one day, falls short of the minimum penalty of four years, two months and one day required by the Rules. The OCA correctly applied San Agustin v. People. [6] Certainly, the need for a preliminary investigation under Sec. 1 in relation to Sec. 8 of Rule 112 of the Rules depends upon the imposable penalty for the crime charged in the complaint or information filed and not upon the imposable penalty for the offense which may be found to have been committed by the accused after a preliminary investigation. In the case of Grave Coercion, the Revised Penal Code provides a penalty of prision correccional or anywhere between six months and one day to six years; thus, a preliminary investigation must still be held since there is a possibility that the complainants would stand to suffer the maximum penalty imposable for the offense. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to protect the innocent from hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecutions, from an unnecessary open and public accusation of a crime, and from the trouble, expense and anxiety of a trial. It also protects the State from a useless and expensive litigation. Above all, it is a part of the guarantees of freedom and fair play.[7]

GR No. 170723

2008-03-03

GLORIA PILAR S. AGUIRRE v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite 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.[43] The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty.[44] It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief;[45] that is, the belief that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.[46]

GR No. 171659

2007-12-13

MARIETTA K. ILUSORIO v. SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO

NACHURA, J.

Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion, that the person charged is guilty of the crime for which he is sought to be prosecuted. Being based merely on opinion and reasonable belief, it does not import absolute certainty.[16] A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial; it does not impose a guilty verdict. However, it requires more than bare suspicion.[17]

GR No. 143591

2007-11-23

TEODORO C. BORLONGAN v. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA

NACHURA, J.

True, a finding of probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence, or on evidence beyond reasonable doubt. It does not require that the evidence would justify conviction. Nonetheless, although the determination of probable cause requires less than evidence which would justify conviction, it should at least be more than mere suspicion.[51] While probable cause should be determined in a summary manner, there is a need to examine the evidence with care to prevent material damage to a potential accused's constitutional right to liberty and the guarantees of freedom and fair play, and to protect the State from the burden of unnecessary expenses in prosecuting alleged offenses and holding trials arising from false, fraudulent or groundless charges.[52] It is, therefore, imperative for the prosecutor to relieve the accused from the pain and inconvenience of going through a trial once it is ascertained that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused.[53]

GR NO. 164904

2007-10-19

JOSE ANTONIO U. GONZALEZ v. HONGKONG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Herein, petitioner Gonzalez questions the finding of probable cause by the City Prosecutor to hold him liable to stand trial for the crime complained of. 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.[29] A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.[30]

GR No. 172500

2007-09-21

LILIBETH ARICHETA v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code is committed by any person who defrauds another by using a fictitious name; or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud.[12] Under this class of estafa, the element of deceit is indispensable.[13]

	GR No. 175750-51 2014-04-02	SILVERINA E. CONSIGNA v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
The elements of estafa by means of deceit, whether committed by false pretenses or concealment, are the following: (a) there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (b) such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and (d) as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.[28]
	GR No. 160316 2013-09-02	ROSALINDA PUNZALAN v. MICHAEL GAMALIEL J. PLATA MENDOZA, J.
The well-established rule is that the conduct of preliminary investigation for the purpose of determining the existence of probable cause is a function that belongs to the public prosecutor.[12] Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, as amended,[13] provides:Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal action. - All criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule of the public prosecutor or in the event of lack of public prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the approval of the court. Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up to end of the trial even in the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn.
	GR No. 188217 2013-07-03	FERNANDO M. ESPINO v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
However, the crime the accused was convicted of was estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a). The elements of this crime are as follows: (1) that there is a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (2) that the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means is made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) that the offended party relies on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he is induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and (4) that as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.[38]
	GR No. 179243 2011-09-17	JOSEPH ANTHONY M. ALEJANDRO v. ATTY. JOSE A. BERNAS PERALTA, J.
Probable cause demands more than suspicion; it requires less than evidence that would justify conviction.[50] While probable cause should be determined in a summary manner, there is a need to examine the evidence with care to prevent material damage to a potential accused's constitutional right to liberty and the guarantees of freedom and fair play, and to protect the State from the burden of unnecessary expenses in prosecuting alleged offenses and holding trials arising from false, fraudulent or groundless charges.[51] It is, therefore, imperative upon the prosecutor to relieve the accused from the pain of going through a trial once it is ascertained that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused.[52]
	GR No. 183879 2010-04-14	ROSITA SY v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the following, viz.: (a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.[10]
	GR No. 177727 2010-01-19	HAROLD V. TAMARGO v. ROMULO AWINGAN CORONA, J.
Considering the paucity and inadmissibility of the evidence presented against the respondents, it would be unfair to hold them for trial. Once it is ascertained that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused, they should be relieved from the pain of going through a full blown court case.[39] When, at the outset, the evidence offered during the preliminary investigation is nothing more than an uncorroborated extrajudicial confession of an alleged conspirator, the criminal complaint should not prosper so that the system would be spared from the unnecessary expense of such useless and expensive litigation.[40] The rule is all the more significant here since respondent Licerio Antiporda remains in detention for the murder charges pursuant to the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Daguna.[41]
	GR No. 174567 2009-03-12	SEVERINO B. VERGARA v. OMBUDSMAN CARPIO, J.
Probable cause is 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.[56] Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, or on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt, but it certainly demands more than bare suspicion and can never be left to presupposition, conjecture, or even convincing logic.[57]
	GR No. 127327 2009-02-13	LIBERATA AMBITO v. PEOPLE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The elements of Estafa by means of deceit, whether committed by false pretenses or concealment, are the following - (a) that there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means. (b) That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud. (c) That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means. (d) That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.[44]
	GR No. 162311 2008-12-04	LEVI STRAUSS v. TONY LIM REYES, R.T., J.
It bears stressing that the main function of a government prosecutor is to determine the existence of probable cause and to file the corresponding information should he find it to be so. [54] Thus, the decision whether or not to dismiss the criminal complaint against respondent is necessarily dependent on the sound discretion of the investigating prosecutor and ultimately, that of the Secretary of Justice.[55]
	GR No. 162311 2008-12-04	LEVI STRAUSS v. TONY LIM REYES, R.T., J.
The court's duty in an appropriate case is confined to a determination of whether the assailed executive or judicial determination of probable cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to want of jurisdiction.[59] For grave abuse of discretion to prosper as a ground for certiorari, it must be demonstrated that the lower court or tribunal has exercised its power in an arbitrary and despotic manner, by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be patent and gross as would amount to an evasion or to a unilateral refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law.[60]
	GR No. 174899 2008-09-11	RAMON L. UY v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Estafa, under Article 315, par. 2, of the Revised Penal Code, is committed by any person who defrauds another by using a fictitious name; or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud.[48] Under this class of estafa, the element of deceit is indispensable.[49]
	GR No. 174350 2008-08-13	SPS. BERNYL BALANGAUAN KATHERENE BALANGAUAN v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite 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.[39] A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.[40]
	AM No. MTJ-07-1670 2008-07-23	ATTY. RODERICK M. SANTOS v. JUDGE LAURO BERNARDO AZCUNA, J.
There is no merit in respondent's supposition that Grave Coercion is an offense not subject to preliminary investigation because the minimum penalty imposable for the said offense, which is six months and one day, falls short of the minimum penalty of four years, two months and one day required by the Rules. The OCA correctly applied San Agustin v. People. [6] Certainly, the need for a preliminary investigation under Sec. 1 in relation to Sec. 8 of Rule 112 of the Rules depends upon the imposable penalty for the crime charged in the complaint or information filed and not upon the imposable penalty for the offense which may be found to have been committed by the accused after a preliminary investigation. In the case of Grave Coercion, the Revised Penal Code provides a penalty of prision correccional or anywhere between six months and one day to six years; thus, a preliminary investigation must still be held since there is a possibility that the complainants would stand to suffer the maximum penalty imposable for the offense. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to protect the innocent from hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecutions, from an unnecessary open and public accusation of a crime, and from the trouble, expense and anxiety of a trial. It also protects the State from a useless and expensive litigation. Above all, it is a part of the guarantees of freedom and fair play.[7]
	GR No. 170723 2008-03-03	GLORIA PILAR S. AGUIRRE v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite 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.[43] The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty.[44] It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief;[45] that is, the belief that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.[46]
	GR No. 171659 2007-12-13	MARIETTA K. ILUSORIO v. SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO NACHURA, J.
Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion, that the person charged is guilty of the crime for which he is sought to be prosecuted. Being based merely on opinion and reasonable belief, it does not import absolute certainty.[16] A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial; it does not impose a guilty verdict. However, it requires more than bare suspicion.[17]
	GR No. 143591 2007-11-23	TEODORO C. BORLONGAN v. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA NACHURA, J.
True, a finding of probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence, or on evidence beyond reasonable doubt. It does not require that the evidence would justify conviction. Nonetheless, although the determination of probable cause requires less than evidence which would justify conviction, it should at least be more than mere suspicion.[51] While probable cause should be determined in a summary manner, there is a need to examine the evidence with care to prevent material damage to a potential accused's constitutional right to liberty and the guarantees of freedom and fair play, and to protect the State from the burden of unnecessary expenses in prosecuting alleged offenses and holding trials arising from false, fraudulent or groundless charges.[52] It is, therefore, imperative for the prosecutor to relieve the accused from the pain and inconvenience of going through a trial once it is ascertained that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused.[53]
	GR NO. 164904 2007-10-19	JOSE ANTONIO U. GONZALEZ v. HONGKONG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Herein, petitioner Gonzalez questions the finding of probable cause by the City Prosecutor to hold him liable to stand trial for the crime complained of. 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.[29] A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.[30]
	GR No. 172500 2007-09-21	LILIBETH ARICHETA v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code is committed by any person who defrauds another by using a fictitious name; or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud.[12] Under this class of estafa, the element of deceit is indispensable.[13]

R.R. PAREDES v. TARCISIO S. CALILUNG