This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-11-14 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The Court adheres to the view that a preliminary investigation serves not only the purposes of the State, but more importantly, it is a significant part of freedom and fair play which every individual is entitled to. It is thus the duty of the prosecutor or the judge, as the case may be, to relieve the accused of going through a trial once it is determined that there is no sufficient evidence to sustain a finding of probable cause to form a sufficient belief that the accused has committed a crime. In this case, absent sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the prosecution of respondents for the crime of robbery, the filing of information against respondents constitute grave abuse of discretion.[59] | |||||
|
2009-03-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, a preliminary proceeding is not a quasi-judicial function and that the DOJ is not a quasi-judicial agency exercising a quasi-judicial function when it reviews the findings of a public prosecutor regarding the presence of probable cause.[20] Moreover, it is settled that the preliminary investigation proper, i.e., the determination of whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and should be subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial, is the function of the prosecution.[21] This Court has adopted a policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations and leaves to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause for the filing of information against the supposed offender.[22] | |||||