This case has been cited 18 times or more.
|
2014-04-23 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The pivotal issue for the Office of the Ombudsman to determine in OMB-MIL-CRIM-00-0470 was whether there was probable cause to criminally charge Jarlos-Martin, Laurezo, and Junia with the foregoing corrupt acts. 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.[57] The Court had set the standard to support a finding of probable cause in Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan[58]: It bears stressing that probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. It implies probability of guilt and requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence which would justify conviction. x x x. (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted.) | |||||
|
2014-02-11 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| The determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest against petitioners is addressed to the sound discretion of Judge Abando as the trial judge.[116] Further elucidating on the wide latitude given to trial judges in the issuance of warrants of arrest, this Court stated in Sarigumba v. Sandiganbayan[117] as follows:x x x. The trial court's exercise of its judicial discretion should not, as a general rule, be interfered with in the absence of grave abuse of discretion. Indeed, certiorari will not lie to cure errors in the trial court's appreciation of the evidence of the parties, the conclusion of facts it reached based on the said findings, as well as the conclusions of law. x x x. | |||||
|
2013-11-19 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| 2. There is probable cause when the evidence at hand will persuade a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the accused committed the offense of which he is charged. Only common sense, not the technical rules for weighing evidence, is required. But, although less than the evidence that would justify conviction is needed, probable cause demands more than bare suspicion.[40] | |||||
|
2011-05-30 |
NACHURA, 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, and should be held for trial. Probable cause is meant such set of facts and circumstances, which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the offense charged in the Information, or any offense included therein, has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. In determining probable cause, the average person weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he has no technical knowledge. He relies on common sense. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than bare suspicion, but it requires less than evidence that would justify a conviction.[17] | |||||
|
2010-12-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, 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."[18] A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect. It "need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt."[19] A prosecutor alone determines the sufficiency of evidence that will establish probable cause justifying the filing of criminal information against the respondent since the determination of existence of a probable cause is the function of the prosecutor. Judicial review is allowed only where respondent has clearly established that the prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion.[20] | |||||
|
2010-04-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In alleging the existence of grave abuse of discretion, it is well to remember Sarigumba v. Sandiganbayan,[10] where this Court ruled that: For grave abuse of discretion to prosper as a ground for certiorari, it must first 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. Grave abuse of discretion is not enough. Excess of jurisdiction signifies that the court, board or office, has jurisdiction over the case but has transcended the same or acted without authority. | |||||
|
2009-03-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Through the appellant's explicit admissions, the witnesses' testimonies, and the documentary evidence submitted, the prosecution duly established the fourth element of the crime of malversation. It is settled that a public officer is liable for malversation even if he does not use public property or funds under his custody for his personal benefit, if he allows another to take the funds, or through abandonment or negligence, allow such taking.[63] The felony may be committed, not only through the misappropriation or the conversion of public funds or property to one's personal use, but also by knowingly allowing others to make use of or misappropriate the funds. The felony may thus be committed by dolo or by culpa. The crime is consummated and the appropriate penalty is imposed regardless of whether the mode of commission is with intent or due to negligence.[64] | |||||
|
2009-01-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In ascertaining whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in his determination of the existence of probable cause, the party seeking the writ of certiorari must be able to establish that the Secretary of Justice exercised his executive power in an arbitrary and despotic manner, by reason of passion or personal hostility, and the abuse of discretion must be so 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. Grave abuse of discretion is not enough;[23] it must amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Excess of jurisdiction signifies that he had jurisdiction over the case, but (he) transcended the same or acted without authority.[24] | |||||
|
2008-03-03 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Prescinding from the above, the court's duty in an appropriate case, therefore, is confined to a determination of whether the assailed executive determination of probable cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction resulting from a grave abuse of discretion. For courts of law to grant the extraordinary writ of certiorari, so as to justify the reversal of the finding of whether or not there exists probable cause to file an information, the one seeking the writ must be able to establish that the investigating prosecutor exercised his 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. Grave abuse of discretion is not enough.[51] Excess of jurisdiction signifies that he had jurisdiction over the case but has transcended the same or acted without authority. [52] | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Probable cause for a search warrant is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discrete and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.[23] A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than bare suspicion; it requires less than evidence which would justify conviction.[24] The existence depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the examination. However, the findings of the judge should not disregard the facts before him nor run counter to the clear dictates of reason.[25] | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
NACHURA, 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 the accused is probably guilty thereof.[38] It is 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 is to be prosecuted.[39] A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused.[40] | |||||
|
2007-10-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| And for courts of law to grant the extraordinary writ of certiorari, so as to justify the reversal of the finding on the existence of probable cause to file an information, the one seeking the writ must be able to establish that the investigating prosecutor exercised his 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. Grave abuse of discretion is not enough.[36] Excess of jurisdiction signifies that he had jurisdiction over the case but has transcended the same or acted without authority.[37] | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| After a careful examination of the records, we find that there is sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. The gravamen of rape is the carnal knowledge by the accused of the private complainant under any of the circumstances provided in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.[33] Petitioner has categorically stated that Arzadon raped her, recounting her ordeal in detail during the preliminary investigations. Taken with the other evidence presented before the investigating prosecutors, such is sufficient for purposes of establishing probable cause. It is well-settled that a finding of probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Probable cause is that which engenders a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It does not require that the evidence would justify conviction. [34] | |||||
|
2007-04-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Probable cause is simply the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite a belief that a crime has been committed and that the person charged is probably guilty of the said crime.[10] In this case, sufficient evidence on record clearly shows the existence of probable cause against Saldevar. Contrary to the appellate court's theory, Saldevar need not actually demand and receive the bribe money in order for him to be indicted for direct bribery. Mere belief, after weighing the relevant facts and circumstances, that Saldevar probably committed direct bribery suffices for the establishment of probable cause. Whether he is indeed guilty of direct bribery is a different matter, which can properly be determined at a full blown trial on the merits of the case. | |||||
|
2006-12-14 |
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] | |||||
|
2006-04-24 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is sufficient proof that the accountable officer had received public funds, that he did not have them in his possession when demand therefor was made, and that he could not satisfactorily explain his failure to do so. Direct evidence of personal misappropriation by the accused is hardly necessary[16] as long as the accused cannot explain satisfactorily the shortage in his accounts. | |||||
|
2005-10-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Probable cause, for the purpose 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.[10] 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.[11] The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. | |||||
|
2005-04-26 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| (d) He has appropriated, taken or misappropriated, or has consented to, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted the taking by another person of, such funds or property.[19] For the accused to be guilty of illegal use of public funds or property, the prosecution is burdened to prove the following elements: (1) The offenders are accountable officers in both crimes. | |||||