Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JUANITO CHAN y LIM v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 190969 2013-01-30	BARON A. VILLANUEVA v. EDNA R. CAPARAS BRION, J.
Probable cause, for purposes of filing criminal information, pertains to facts and circumstances sufficient to incite a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof.[15] Only such facts sufficient to support a prima facie case against the respondent are required, not absolute certainty.[16] Probable cause implies mere probability of guilt, i.e., a finding based on more than bare suspicion but less than evidence that would justify a conviction.[17] The strict validity and merits of a party's accusation or defense, as well as admissibility of testimonies and pieces of evidence, are better ventilated during the trial proper of the case.[18]
	GR No. 182147 2010-12-15	ARNEL U. TY v. NBI SUPERVISING AGENT MARVIN E. DE JEMIL VELASCO JR., J.
Chan v. Secretary of Justice[50] delineated the proper remedy from the determination of the Secretary of Justice. Therein, the Court, after expounding on the policy of non-interference in the determination of the existence of probable cause absent any showing of arbitrariness on the part of the public prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice, however, concluded, citing Alcaraz v. Gonzalez[51] and Preferred Home Specialties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[52] that an aggrieved party from the resolution of the Secretary of Justice may directly resort to judicial review on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, thus: x x x [T]he findings of the Justice Secretary may be reviewed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 based on the allegation that he acted with grave abuse of discretion. This remedy is available to the aggrieved party.[53] (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 189533 2010-11-15	MA. IMELDA PINEDA-NG v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person charged is guilty of the crime subject of the investigation. Being based merely on opinion and reasonable belief, it does not import absolute certainty. 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.[19]
	GR No. 171980 2010-10-06	PEOPLE v. OLIVE RUBIO MAMARIL PEREZ, J.
We will not reverse this holding. The repeated contentions of frame-up of the accused-appellant[23] and that the dangerous drug of methamphetamine hydrochloride was planted by the police officers do not deserve further considerations by this Court. While We are aware that in some cases, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence in order that to, inter alia, harass, nevertheless the defense of frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the police officers performed their duties regularly and that they acted within the bounds of their authority.[24]
	GR No. 188197 2010-08-03	LEONARDO U. FLORES v. RAUL S. GONZALEZ NACHURA, J.
We wish to point out that, notwithstanding the pendency of the Information before the MTCC, especially considering the reversal by the Secretary of Justice of his May 31, 2006 Resolution, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, anchored on the alleged grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of Secretary of Justice, was an available remedy to Flores as an aggrieved party.[45]
	GR No. 169554 2009-10-28	NIEVA M. MANEBO v. SPO1 ROEL D. ACOSTA PERALTA, J.
Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person charged is guilty of the crime subject of the investigation.[23] Being based merely on opinion and reasonable belief, it does not import absolute certainty.[24] 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 to justify a conviction.[25]
	GR No. 179475 2009-09-25	PEOPLE v. DANIEL SIBUNGA Y AGTOCA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Finally, the defense of "frame-up" in drug cases is generally frowned upon, for like alibi, it is inherently weak as it is easy to concoct but difficult to prove.[24] For it to prosper, it must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. This appellant failed to do. The presumption that the police officers performed their duties regularly thus remains.[25]
	GR No. 177583 2009-02-27	LOURDES BALTAZAR v. JAIME CHUA Y IBARRA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Crespo and Martinez mandated the trial courts to make an independent assessment of the merits of the recommendation of the prosecution dismissing or continuing a case. This evaluation may be based on the affidavits and counter-affidavits, documents, or evidence appended to the information; the records of the public prosecutor which the court may order the latter to produce before the court; or any evidence already adduced before the court by the accused at the time the motion is filed by the public prosecutor.[12] Reliance on the resolution of the Secretary of Justice alone is considered an abdication of the trial court's duty and jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case. While the ruling of the Justice Secretary is persuasive, it is not binding on courts.[13] The trial court is not bound by the Resolution of the Justice Secretary, but must evaluate it before proceeding with the trial.