Lawyerly

GR No. 201310

2016-01-11

MARK REYNALD MARASIGAN Y DE GUZMAN v. REGINALD FUENTES

LEONEN, J.

A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed by the suspects. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, not on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. 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. What is determined is whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It does not require an inquiry as to whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.[32] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

GR No. 195956

2015-03-11

ABS-CBN CORPORATION v. FELIPE GOZON

LEONEN, J.

Probable cause pertains to "such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof." [66] Preliminary investigation is the inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is probable cause.[67]

GR No. 195956

2015-03-11

ABS-CBN CORPORATION v. FELIPE GOZON

LEONEN, J.

. . . A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.[69] In Reyes v. Pearlbank Securities, Inc.,[70] finding probable cause is not equivalent to finding with moral certainty that the accused committed the crime: A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed by the suspects. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, not on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. 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.[71]

GR No. 189176

2014-03-19

BARRY LANIER v. PEOPLE

PEREZ, J.

As a requisite to the filing of a criminal complaint, probable cause 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. Only such facts sufficient to support a prima facie case against the respondent are required, not absolute certainty. 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. What is determined is whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.[15]

GR No. 197522

2013-09-11

ELISEO V. AGUILAR v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

PER CURIAM

In the foregoing context, the Court observes that grave abuse of discretion taints a public prosecutor's resolution if he arbitrarily disregards the jurisprudential parameters of probable cause. In particular, case law states that probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, exists when the facts are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. It does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. Rather, it is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief and, as such, 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.[33] As pronounced in Reyes v. Pearlbank Securities, Inc.:[34]

GR No. 182130

2013-06-19

IRIS KRISTINE BALOIS ALBERTO v. CA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

To note, probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, exists when the facts are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. It does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. Rather, it is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Accordingly, 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.[73] As pronounced in Reyes v. Pearlbank Securities, Inc.:[74]

GR No. 172829

2012-07-18

ROSA H. FENEQUITO v. BERNARDO VERGARA

PERALTA, J.

In Reyes v. Pearlbank Securities, Inc.,[22] this Court held: 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. The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. 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.

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 No. 165412

2011-05-30

GEORGE MILLER v. SECRETARY HERNANDO B. PEREZ

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The Court considers it sound judicial policy to refrain from interfering in the conduct of preliminary investigations and to leave the Department of Justice ample latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the prosecution of supposed offenders.[33] Its duty in an appropriate case is confined to the issue of whether the executive or judicial determination, as the case may be, of probable cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with abuse of discretion amounting to want of jurisdiction.[34]

GR No. 182147

2010-12-15

ARNEL U. TY v. NBI SUPERVISING AGENT MARVIN E. DE JEMIL

VELASCO JR., J.

For one, while it is the consistent principle in this jurisdiction that the determination of probable cause is a function that belongs to the public prosecutor[48] and, ultimately, to the Secretary of Justice, who may direct the filing of the corresponding information or move for the dismissal of the case;[49] such determination is subject to judicial review where it is established that grave abuse of discretion tainted the determination.

GR No. 192935

2010-12-07

LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010

MENDOZA, J.

It contends that the President is necessarily vested with the power to conduct fact-finding investigations, pursuant to his duty to ensure that all laws are enforced by public officials and employees of his department and in the exercise of his authority to assume directly the functions of the executive department, bureau and office, or interfere with the discretion of his officials.[40] The power of the President to investigate is not limited to the exercise of his power of control over his subordinates in the executive branch, but extends further in the exercise of his other powers, such as his power to discipline subordinates,[41] his power for rule making, adjudication and licensing purposes[42] and in order to be informed on matters which he is entitled to know.[43]

	GR No. 201310 2016-01-11	MARK REYNALD MARASIGAN Y DE GUZMAN v. REGINALD FUENTES LEONEN, J.
A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed by the suspects. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, not on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. 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. What is determined is whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It does not require an inquiry as to whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.[32] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
	GR No. 195956 2015-03-11	ABS-CBN CORPORATION v. FELIPE GOZON LEONEN, J.
Probable cause pertains to "such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof." [66] Preliminary investigation is the inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is probable cause.[67]
	GR No. 195956 2015-03-11	ABS-CBN CORPORATION v. FELIPE GOZON LEONEN, J.
. . . A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.[69] In Reyes v. Pearlbank Securities, Inc.,[70] finding probable cause is not equivalent to finding with moral certainty that the accused committed the crime: A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed by the suspects. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, not on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. 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.[71]
	GR No. 189176 2014-03-19	BARRY LANIER v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
As a requisite to the filing of a criminal complaint, probable cause 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. Only such facts sufficient to support a prima facie case against the respondent are required, not absolute certainty. 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. What is determined is whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.[15]
	GR No. 197522 2013-09-11	ELISEO V. AGUILAR v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PER CURIAM
In the foregoing context, the Court observes that grave abuse of discretion taints a public prosecutor's resolution if he arbitrarily disregards the jurisprudential parameters of probable cause. In particular, case law states that probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, exists when the facts are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. It does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. Rather, it is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief and, as such, 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.[33] As pronounced in Reyes v. Pearlbank Securities, Inc.:[34]
	GR No. 182130 2013-06-19	IRIS KRISTINE BALOIS ALBERTO v. CA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
To note, probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, exists when the facts are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. It does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. Rather, it is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Accordingly, 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.[73] As pronounced in Reyes v. Pearlbank Securities, Inc.:[74]
	GR No. 172829 2012-07-18	ROSA H. FENEQUITO v. BERNARDO VERGARA PERALTA, J.
In Reyes v. Pearlbank Securities, Inc.,[22] this Court held: 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. The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. 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.
	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 No. 165412 2011-05-30	GEORGE MILLER v. SECRETARY HERNANDO B. PEREZ VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The Court considers it sound judicial policy to refrain from interfering in the conduct of preliminary investigations and to leave the Department of Justice ample latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the prosecution of supposed offenders.[33] Its duty in an appropriate case is confined to the issue of whether the executive or judicial determination, as the case may be, of probable cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with abuse of discretion amounting to want of jurisdiction.[34]
	GR No. 182147 2010-12-15	ARNEL U. TY v. NBI SUPERVISING AGENT MARVIN E. DE JEMIL VELASCO JR., J.
For one, while it is the consistent principle in this jurisdiction that the determination of probable cause is a function that belongs to the public prosecutor[48] and, ultimately, to the Secretary of Justice, who may direct the filing of the corresponding information or move for the dismissal of the case;[49] such determination is subject to judicial review where it is established that grave abuse of discretion tainted the determination.
	GR No. 192935 2010-12-07	LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010 MENDOZA, J.
It contends that the President is necessarily vested with the power to conduct fact-finding investigations, pursuant to his duty to ensure that all laws are enforced by public officials and employees of his department and in the exercise of his authority to assume directly the functions of the executive department, bureau and office, or interfere with the discretion of his officials.[40] The power of the President to investigate is not limited to the exercise of his power of control over his subordinates in the executive branch, but extends further in the exercise of his other powers, such as his power to discipline subordinates,[41] his power for rule making, adjudication and licensing purposes[42] and in order to be informed on matters which he is entitled to know.[43]

ANTHONY T. REYES v. PEARLBANK SECURITIES