This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-07-31 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| We likewise stress that the determination of probable cause does not require certainty of guilt for a crime. As the term itself implies, probable cause is concerned merely with probability and not absolute or even moral certainty;[34] it is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief.[35] It is sufficient that based on the preliminary investigation conducted, it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. Well-settled in jurisprudence, as in Raro v. Sandiganbayan,[36] that: x x x [P]robable 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.[37] | |||||
|
2012-06-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In line with the constitutionally-guaranteed independence of the Office of the Ombudsman[23] and coupled with the inherent limitations in a certiorari proceeding in reviewing the Ombudsman's discretion,[24] we have consistently held that so long as substantial evidence supports the Ombudsman's ruling, his decision should stand.[25] In a criminal proceeding before the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman merely determines whether probable cause exists, i.e., whether there is a sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof.[26] Probable cause is a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is, or may be, well founded on 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.[27] As the term itself implies, probable cause is concerned merely with probability and not absolute or even moral certainty;[28] it is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief.[29] On this score, Galario v. Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao)[30] is instructive | |||||
|
2012-01-25 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the courts have no right to directly decide matters over which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Executive Branch of the Government,[27] or to substitute their own judgments for that of the Executive Branch,[28] represented in this case by the Department of Justice. The settled policy is that the courts will not interfere with the executive determination of probable cause for the purpose of filing an information, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion.[29] That abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law, such as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.[30] For instance, in Balanganan v. Court of Appeals, Special Nineteenth Division, Cebu City,[31] the Court ruled that the Secretary of Justice exceeded his jurisdiction when he required "hard facts and solid evidence" in order to hold the defendant liable for criminal prosecution when such requirement should have been left to the court after the conduct of a trial. | |||||
|
2010-11-24 |
VILLARAMA, JR., 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.[48] It is a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is, or may be, well-founded, 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 and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief.[49] A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial; it is not a pronouncement of guilt.[50] | |||||
|
2010-08-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The findings of the Secretary of Justice in sustaining the dismissal of the Complaint are matters of defense best left to the trial court's deliberation and contemplation after conducting the trial of the criminal case. To emphasize, a preliminary investigation for the purpose of determining the existence of probable cause is "not a part of the trial. A full and exhaustive presentation of the parties' evidence is not required, but only such as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof."[47] 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."[48] So we held in Balangauan v. Court of Appeals:[49] | |||||