Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TERESITA TANGHAL OKABE v. PEDRO DE LEON GUTIERREZ

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 180109 2010-07-26	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH 'JOJO' V. GREY NACHURA, J.
What the law requires as personal determination on the part of a judge is that he should not rely solely on the report of the investigating prosecutor.[51] This means that the judge should consider not only the report of the investigating prosecutor but also the affidavit and the documentary evidence of the parties, the counter-affidavit of the accused and his witnesses, as well as the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary investigation, if any, submitted to the court by the investigating prosecutor upon the filing of the Information.[52]
	GR No. 174016 2008-07-28	SEVERINO C. BALTAZAR v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The purpose of the mandate of the judge to first determine probable cause for the arrest of the accused, such as in the case at bar, is to insulate from the very start those falsely charged with crimes from the tribulations, expenses and anxiety of a public trial.[48]
	GR No. 171465 2007-06-08	AAA v. ANTONIO A. CARBONELL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Indeed, what the law requires as personal determination on the part of the judge is that he should not rely solely on the report of the investigating prosecutor. In Okabe v. Gutierrez,[28] we stressed that the judge should consider not only the report of the investigating prosecutor but also the affidavit and the documentary evidence of the parties, the counter-affidavit of the accused and his witnesses, as well as the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary investigation, if any, submitted to the court by the investigating prosecutor upon the filing of the Information.[29] If the report, taken together with the supporting evidence, is sufficient to sustain a finding of probable cause, it is not compulsory that a personal examination of the complainant and his witnesses be conducted.
	GR NO. 166315 2006-12-14	ALFREDO SY FOR HIMSELF v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Indeed, while respondents claim to have acted under authority of law in compelling petitioners to vacate the subject property and effecting the demolition, the documentary evidence show otherwise. From the records, it is clear that a prima facie case for grave coercion exists and that there is sufficient ground to sustain a finding of probable cause which 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.[17] Nevertheless, respondents may disprove petitioners' charges but such matters may only be determined in a full-blown trial on the merits where the presence or absence of the elements of the crime may be thoroughly passed upon.[18]
	GR NO. 163878 2006-12-12	FAR EAST BANK v. VS.SHEMBERG MARKETING CORPORATION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Indeed, the records are bereft of any indication that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the challenged Orders. Verily, the Court of Appeals correctly held that certiorari will not lie, the sole office of the writ being to correct grave abuse of discretion. Where a court has jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter of the action, as in the instant case, its decisions on all questions arising from the case are but exercises of such jurisdiction.[16] If its findings are not correct, these would at best be questions of law, not abuse of discretion correctible by the extraordinary remedy of certiorari.[17]
	GR NO. 156822 2004-10-18	EDGARDO J. ANGARA v. FEDMAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of jurisdiction means that an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer is not authorized, and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting.[25] Without jurisdiction means lack or want of legal power, right or authority to hear and determine a cause or causes, considered either in general or with reference to a particular matter. It means lack of power to exercise authority.[26] Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility,[27] and it must be so patent or gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[28] Not every error in proceeding, or every erroneous conclusion of law or fact, is abuse of discretion.[29]