Lawyerly

GR No. 179367

2014-01-29

BRION, J.

The determination of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to believe that it was committed by the accused.[24] It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.[25] What is merely required is "probability of guilt." Its determination, too, does not call for the application of rules or standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits.[26] Thus, in concluding that there is probable cause, it suffices that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the very offense charged.

GR No. 192685

2013-07-31

OSCAR R. AMPIL v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

PEREZ, J.

A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to believe that it was committed by the accused. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.[39]

GR No. 180681

2013-03-18

ROLANDO Z. TIGAS v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

SERENO, C.J.

Firstly, we have squarely held in Galario v. Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao)[22] that there is nothing inherently irregular or illegal in filing an indictment against the respondent for an offense different from that charged in the initiatory complaint, if the indictment is warranted by the evidence developed during the preliminary investigation.

GR No. 192334

2012-06-13

CONRADO CASING v. OMBUDSMAN

BRION, J.

As a general rule, the Court does not interfere with the Office of the Ombudsman's exercise of its investigative and prosecutorial powers,[19] and respects the initiative and independence inherent in the Office of the Ombudsman which, "beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of the public service."[20] While the Ombudsman's findings as to whether probable cause exists are generally not reviewable by this Court,[21] where there is an allegation of grave abuse of discretion, the Ombudsman's act cannot escape judicial scrutiny under the Court's own constitutional power and duty "to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."[22]

GR No. 173844

2012-04-11

LIGAYA P. CRUZ v. RAUL M. GONZALEZ

PEREZ, J.

Jurisprudence has established rules on the determination of probable cause. In the case of Galario v. Office of the Ombudsman,[19] this Court held that: xxx

GR No. 177780

2012-01-25

METROPOLITAN BANK v. ANTONINO O. TOBIAS III

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.

GR Nos. 169359-61

2011-06-01

MARCELO G. GANADEN v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Jurisprudence has established rules on the determination of probable cause. In Galario v. Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao),[16] the Court held: [A] finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to believe that it was committed by the accused. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.

GR No. 158189

2010-04-23

ROBERTO B. KALALO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

PERALTA, J.

In the present case, the Office of the Ombudsman did not find probable cause that would warrant the filing of Information against respondents. 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 respondents are probably guilty thereof. The determination of its existence lies within the discretion of the prosecuting officers after conducting a preliminary investigation upon complaint of an offended party.[13] 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 man 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; it requires less than evidence which would justify conviction.[14] Unless it is shown that the questioned acts were done in a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment evidencing a clear case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, this Court will not interfere in the findings of probable cause determined by the Ombudsman.[15]

GR No. 180165

2009-04-07

METROPOLITAN BANK v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE RAUL M. GONZALES

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

All told, the evidentiary measure for the propriety of filing criminal charges has been reduced and liberalized to a mere probable cause. As implied by the words themselves, "probable cause" is concerned with probability, not absolute or moral certainty.[39]

GR Nos. 168578-79

2008-09-30

NIETO A. RACHO v. PRIMO C. MIRO

QUISUMBING, J.

The Ombudsman is empowered to determine whether there exists reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and, thereafter, to file the corresponding information with the appropriate courts.[23] Such finding of probable cause is a finding of fact which is generally not reviewable by this Court.[24] The only ground upon which a plea for review of the OMB's resolution may be entertained is an alleged grave abuse of discretion. By that phrase is meant the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty; or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law; or to act at all in contemplation of law, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.[25]

	GR No. 179367 2014-01-29	UNILEVER PHILIPPINES v. MICHAEL TAN BRION, J.
The determination of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to believe that it was committed by the accused.[24] It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.[25] What is merely required is "probability of guilt." Its determination, too, does not call for the application of rules or standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits.[26] Thus, in concluding that there is probable cause, it suffices that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the very offense charged.
	GR No. 192685 2013-07-31	OSCAR R. AMPIL v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PEREZ, J.
A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to believe that it was committed by the accused. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.[39]
	GR No. 180681 2013-03-18	ROLANDO Z. TIGAS v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN SERENO, C.J.
Firstly, we have squarely held in Galario v. Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao)[22] that there is nothing inherently irregular or illegal in filing an indictment against the respondent for an offense different from that charged in the initiatory complaint, if the indictment is warranted by the evidence developed during the preliminary investigation.
	GR No. 192334 2012-06-13	CONRADO CASING v. OMBUDSMAN BRION, J.
As a general rule, the Court does not interfere with the Office of the Ombudsman's exercise of its investigative and prosecutorial powers,[19] and respects the initiative and independence inherent in the Office of the Ombudsman which, "beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of the public service."[20] While the Ombudsman's findings as to whether probable cause exists are generally not reviewable by this Court,[21] where there is an allegation of grave abuse of discretion, the Ombudsman's act cannot escape judicial scrutiny under the Court's own constitutional power and duty "to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."[22]
	GR No. 173844 2012-04-11	LIGAYA P. CRUZ v. RAUL M. GONZALEZ PEREZ, J.
Jurisprudence has established rules on the determination of probable cause. In the case of Galario v. Office of the Ombudsman,[19] this Court held that: xxx
	GR No. 177780 2012-01-25	METROPOLITAN BANK v. ANTONINO O. TOBIAS III 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.
	GR Nos. 169359-61 2011-06-01	MARCELO G. GANADEN v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Jurisprudence has established rules on the determination of probable cause. In Galario v. Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao),[16] the Court held: [A] finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to believe that it was committed by the accused. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.
	GR No. 158189 2010-04-23	ROBERTO B. KALALO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PERALTA, J.
In the present case, the Office of the Ombudsman did not find probable cause that would warrant the filing of Information against respondents. 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 respondents are probably guilty thereof. The determination of its existence lies within the discretion of the prosecuting officers after conducting a preliminary investigation upon complaint of an offended party.[13] 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 man 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; it requires less than evidence which would justify conviction.[14] Unless it is shown that the questioned acts were done in a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment evidencing a clear case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, this Court will not interfere in the findings of probable cause determined by the Ombudsman.[15]
	GR No. 180165 2009-04-07	METROPOLITAN BANK v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE RAUL M. GONZALES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
All told, the evidentiary measure for the propriety of filing criminal charges has been reduced and liberalized to a mere probable cause. As implied by the words themselves, "probable cause" is concerned with probability, not absolute or moral certainty.[39]
	GR Nos. 168578-79 2008-09-30	NIETO A. RACHO v. PRIMO C. MIRO QUISUMBING, J.
The Ombudsman is empowered to determine whether there exists reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and, thereafter, to file the corresponding information with the appropriate courts.[23] Such finding of probable cause is a finding of fact which is generally not reviewable by this Court.[24] The only ground upon which a plea for review of the OMB's resolution may be entertained is an alleged grave abuse of discretion. By that phrase is meant the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty; or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law; or to act at all in contemplation of law, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.[25]

JOSE M. GALARIO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN