Lawyerly

GR No. 192565

2012-02-28

BRION, J.

In Sy Tiong, the perjured statements were made in a GIS which was subscribed and sworn to in Manila. We ruled that the proper venue for the perjury charges was in Manila where the GIS was subscribed and sworn to. We held that the perjury was consummated in Manila where the false statement was made. As supporting jurisprudence, we cited the case of Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice[19] that, in turn, cited an American case entitled U.S. v. Norris.[20] We ruled in Villanueva that

GR No. 179243

2011-09-17

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

PERALTA, J.

Probable cause for purposes of filing a criminal information is defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.[39] As held in Sy v. Secretary of Justice,[40] citing Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice:[41]

GR No. 182291

2010-09-22

PHILIP S. YU v. HERNAN G. LIM

PEREZ, J.

More importantly, it must be emphasized that perjury is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath or affirmation administered by authority of law on a material matter. Thus, a mere assertion of a false objective fact or a falsehood is not enough. The assertion must be deliberate and willful.[43]

GR No. 164443

2010-06-18

ERIBERTO S. MASANGKAY v. PEOPLE

We have held before that a conviction for perjury cannot be obtained by the prosecution by merely showing the inconsistent or contradictory statements of the accused, even if both statements are sworn. The prosecution must additionally prove which of the two statements is false and must show the statement to be false by evidence other than the contradictory statement.[53] The rationale for requiring evidence other than a contradictory statement is explained thus: x x x Proof that accused has given contradictory testimony under oath at a different time will not be sufficient to establish the falsity of his testimony charged as perjury, for this would leave simply one oath of the defendant as against another, and it would not appear that the testimony charged was false rather than the testimony contradictory thereof. The two statements will simply neutralize each other; there must be some corroboration of the contradictory testimony. Such corroboration, however, may be furnished by evidence aliunde tending to show perjury independently of the declarations of testimony of the accused.[54]

GR No. 174168

2009-03-30

SY TIONG SHIOU v. SY CHIM

TINGA, J.

The Court agrees with the Court of Appeals' holding, citing the case of Fabia v. Court of Appeals, that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction no longer precludes the simultaneous filing of the criminal case with the corporate/civil case.[40] Moreover, the Court finds that the City of Manila is the proper venue for the perjury charges, the GIS having been subscribed and sworn to in the said place. Under Section 10(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.[41] In Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice,[42] the Court held that the felony is consummated when the false statement is made.[43] Thus in this case, it was alleged that the perjury was committed when Sy Tiong Shiou subscribed and sworn to the GIS in the City of Manila, thus, following Section 10(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court, the City of Manila is the proper venue for the offense.

GR No. 178511

2008-12-04

MA. BELEN FLORDELIZA C. ANG-ABAYA v. EDUARDO G. ANG

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof. It is such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe or entertain an honest or strong suspicion that a thing is so. The term does not mean "actual or positive cause;" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of prosecution's evidence in support of the charge."[26]

GR NO. 168301

2007-03-05

ANTONIO B. MONFORT III v. MA. ANTONIA M. SALVATIERRA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It should be emphasized at the outset that the function of a preliminary investigation is to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.[32] It is through the conduct of a preliminary investigation that the prosecutor determines the existence of a probable cause that would warrant the prosecution of a case.[33] Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the private respondent is probably guilty thereof. It is such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe or entertain an honest or strong suspicion that a thing is so. The term does not mean "actual or positive cause;" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief.[34]

GR NO. 132659

2007-02-12

CONRADO MAGBANUA v. VS.PILAR S. JUNSAY

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

On the question of probable cause, this Court has ruled that for purposes of malicious prosecution, "probable cause" means "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."[43] It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief.[44] Thus, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction.[45]

GR NO. 166315

2006-12-14

ALFREDO SY FOR HIMSELF v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof.[7] In Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice,[8] we held:It is such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe or entertain an honest or strong suspicion that a thing is so. The term does not mean "actual or positive cause;" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge. In the instant case, we find that the acts complained of are sufficient to sustain a finding of probable cause. The elements of grave coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: 1) that a person is prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compelled to do something against his will, be it right or wrong; 2) that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, threats or intimidation; and 3) that the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so, or in other words, that the restraint is not made under authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful right.[9]

GR NO. 154685

2006-11-27

METROPOLITAN BANK v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Probable cause implies mere reasonable belief of guilt. While it requires more than bare suspicion or speculation, probable cause needs only to rest on evidence of the likelihood that a crime has been committed and that the person suspected is probably guilty thereof.[32] It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence, [33] nor evidence sufficient to procure a conviction.[34] Thus, as a general rule, acquittal is not to be equated with lack of probable cause.[35]

	GR No. 192565 2012-02-28	UNION BANK OF THE v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
In Sy Tiong, the perjured statements were made in a GIS which was subscribed and sworn to in Manila. We ruled that the proper venue for the perjury charges was in Manila where the GIS was subscribed and sworn to. We held that the perjury was consummated in Manila where the false statement was made. As supporting jurisprudence, we cited the case of Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice[19] that, in turn, cited an American case entitled U.S. v. Norris.[20] We ruled in Villanueva that
	GR No. 179243 2011-09-17	JOSEPH ANTHONY M. ALEJANDRO v. ATTY. JOSE A. BERNAS PERALTA, J.
Probable cause for purposes of filing a criminal information is defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.[39] As held in Sy v. Secretary of Justice,[40] citing Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice:[41]
	GR No. 182291 2010-09-22	PHILIP S. YU v. HERNAN G. LIM PEREZ, J.
More importantly, it must be emphasized that perjury is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath or affirmation administered by authority of law on a material matter. Thus, a mere assertion of a false objective fact or a falsehood is not enough. The assertion must be deliberate and willful.[43]
	GR No. 164443 2010-06-18	ERIBERTO S. MASANGKAY v. PEOPLE
We have held before that a conviction for perjury cannot be obtained by the prosecution by merely showing the inconsistent or contradictory statements of the accused, even if both statements are sworn. The prosecution must additionally prove which of the two statements is false and must show the statement to be false by evidence other than the contradictory statement.[53] The rationale for requiring evidence other than a contradictory statement is explained thus: x x x Proof that accused has given contradictory testimony under oath at a different time will not be sufficient to establish the falsity of his testimony charged as perjury, for this would leave simply one oath of the defendant as against another, and it would not appear that the testimony charged was false rather than the testimony contradictory thereof. The two statements will simply neutralize each other; there must be some corroboration of the contradictory testimony. Such corroboration, however, may be furnished by evidence aliunde tending to show perjury independently of the declarations of testimony of the accused.[54]
	GR No. 174168 2009-03-30	SY TIONG SHIOU v. SY CHIM TINGA, J.
The Court agrees with the Court of Appeals' holding, citing the case of Fabia v. Court of Appeals, that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction no longer precludes the simultaneous filing of the criminal case with the corporate/civil case.[40] Moreover, the Court finds that the City of Manila is the proper venue for the perjury charges, the GIS having been subscribed and sworn to in the said place. Under Section 10(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.[41] In Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice,[42] the Court held that the felony is consummated when the false statement is made.[43] Thus in this case, it was alleged that the perjury was committed when Sy Tiong Shiou subscribed and sworn to the GIS in the City of Manila, thus, following Section 10(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court, the City of Manila is the proper venue for the offense.
	GR No. 178511 2008-12-04	MA. BELEN FLORDELIZA C. ANG-ABAYA v. EDUARDO G. ANG YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof. It is such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe or entertain an honest or strong suspicion that a thing is so. The term does not mean "actual or positive cause;" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of prosecution's evidence in support of the charge."[26]
	GR NO. 168301 2007-03-05	ANTONIO B. MONFORT III v. MA. ANTONIA M. SALVATIERRA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It should be emphasized at the outset that the function of a preliminary investigation is to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.[32] It is through the conduct of a preliminary investigation that the prosecutor determines the existence of a probable cause that would warrant the prosecution of a case.[33] Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the private respondent is probably guilty thereof. It is such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe or entertain an honest or strong suspicion that a thing is so. The term does not mean "actual or positive cause;" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief.[34]
	GR NO. 132659 2007-02-12	CONRADO MAGBANUA v. VS.PILAR S. JUNSAY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On the question of probable cause, this Court has ruled that for purposes of malicious prosecution, "probable cause" means "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."[43] It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief.[44] Thus, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction.[45]
	GR NO. 166315 2006-12-14	ALFREDO SY FOR HIMSELF v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof.[7] In Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice,[8] we held:It is such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe or entertain an honest or strong suspicion that a thing is so. The term does not mean "actual or positive cause;" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge. In the instant case, we find that the acts complained of are sufficient to sustain a finding of probable cause. The elements of grave coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: 1) that a person is prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compelled to do something against his will, be it right or wrong; 2) that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, threats or intimidation; and 3) that the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so, or in other words, that the restraint is not made under authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful right.[9]
	GR NO. 154685 2006-11-27	METROPOLITAN BANK v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Probable cause implies mere reasonable belief of guilt. While it requires more than bare suspicion or speculation, probable cause needs only to rest on evidence of the likelihood that a crime has been committed and that the person suspected is probably guilty thereof.[32] It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence, [33] nor evidence sufficient to procure a conviction.[34] Thus, as a general rule, acquittal is not to be equated with lack of probable cause.[35]

CRISTE B. VILLANUEVA v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE