Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 182147 2010-12-15	ARNEL U. TY v. NBI SUPERVISING AGENT MARVIN E. DE JEMIL VELASCO JR., J.
Foregoing considered, in the backdrop of the quantum of evidence required to support a finding of probable cause, we agree with the appellate court and the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor, which conducted the preliminary investigation, that there exists probable cause for the violation of Sec. 2 (a) in relation to Sec. 3 (c) of BP 33, as amended. Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite 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.[66] After all, probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, as the investigating officer acts upon reasonable belief--probable cause implies probability of guilt and requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence which would justify a conviction.[67]
	GR NO. 166139 2006-06-20	REPUBLIC v. PEDRO T. CASIMIRO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In its Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus[18] filed before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 70723, petitioner prayed for the following: WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that: (1) A writ of preliminary mandatory injunction be issued directing the trial court to give due course to the appeal in LRC Case No. Q-11109-99 and to elevate the records of the case to this Honorable Court;