Lawyerly

GR No. 174168

2009-03-30

TINGA, J.

Indeed, a preliminary proceeding is not a quasi-judicial function and that the DOJ is not a quasi-judicial agency exercising a quasi-judicial function when it reviews the findings of a public prosecutor regarding the presence of probable cause.[20] Moreover, it is settled that the preliminary investigation proper, i.e., the determination of whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and should be subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial, is the function of the prosecution.[21] This Court has adopted a policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations and leaves to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause for the filing of information against the supposed offender.[22]

GR Nos. 164166 & 164173-80

2007-10-17

RODOLFO S. DE JESUS v. SANDIGANBAYAN

QUISUMBING, J.

(11) Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners.[14] Thus, while the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed, this Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's action when there is an abuse of discretion, in which case Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may exceptionally be invoked pursuant to Section 1,[15] Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. Accordingly, where the finding of the Ombudsman as to the existence of probable cause is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, we have held that while there is no appeal, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.[16]

GR No. 171609

2007-08-17

DR. JUANITO RUBIO v. OMBUDSMAN

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

However, while it is the function of the Ombudsman to determine whether or not the petitioner should be subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial, he cannot do so arbitrarily. This seemingly exclusive and unilateral authority of the Ombudsman must be tempered by the Court when powers of prosecution are in danger of being used for persecution.[10]

GR NO. 159876

2007-06-26

DINO A. CRUCILLO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

GARCIA, J.

This rule of non-interference is, however, far from absolute. Case law has it that the Court will intervene upon proof of commission of grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman.[31] In other words, the Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's action when there is grave abuse of discretion, in which case the certiorari jurisdiction of the Court may exceptionally be invoked pursuant to Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution.[32] Accordingly, where grave abuse of discretion taints the Ombudsman's finding as to the existence of probable cause, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.[33] In Cabahug v. People,[34] the Court, citing Brocka v. Enrile,[35] enumerated the circumstances where the courts may interfere with the investigatory power of fiscals and the Ombudsman and thus stay or altogether restrain criminal prosecutions. Among these are:(a) To afford protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;

GR NOS. 169727-28

2006-08-18

BRIG. GEN. JOSE S. RAMISCAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN

CALLEJO, SR., J.

As a rule, courts should not interfere with the Ombudsman's investigatory power, exercised through the Ombudsman Prosecutors, and the authority to determine the presence or absence of probable cause,[32] except when the finding is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In such case, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[33] Indeed, if the Ombudsman does not take essential facts into consideration in the determination of probable cause, there is abuse of discretion.[34] As we ruled in Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas),[35] a writ of certiorari may issue in any of the following instances: When necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;

GR NO. 166924

2006-08-17

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PHILIPPINES v. KHALID MEHMOOD MALIK

GARCIA, J.

Well-settled is the rule that the courts will not interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations or reinvestigations and leave to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause for the filing of the corresponding complaint or information against an offender.[8] In fact, the prosecutor's findings on the matter are not subject to review by the courts unless shown to have been made with grave abuse of discretion.[9] And by it is meant that the power is exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, patent and gross enough as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.[10]

GR NO. 164664

2006-07-20

CARLOS C. FUENTES v. SANDIGANBAYAN

CALLEJO, SR., J.

As a rule, courts should not interfere with the Ombudsman's investigatory power, exercised through the Special Prosecutor, and the authority to determine the presence or absence of probable cause, except when the finding is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[37] In such case, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[38] Indeed, if the Ombudsman does not take essential facts into consideration in the determination of probable cause, there is abuse of discretion.[39] As we ruled in Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas),[40] a writ of certiorari may issue in any of the following instances: When necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;

GR NO. 153578

2005-01-28

VICENTE C. JIMENEZ v. EULOGIO TOLENTINO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It is past dispute of course that in every rule, there are always settled exceptions.[16] Hence, the principle of non-interference does not apply when there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman.[17] In Cabahug v. People,[18] we expressed the rationale for the exception in this wise:While it is the function of the Ombudsman to determine whether or not the petitioner should be subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial, he cannot do so arbitrarily. This seemingly exclusive and unilateral authority of the Ombudsman must be tempered by the Court when powers of prosecution are in danger of being used for persecution. Dismissing the case against the accused for palpable want of probable cause not only spares her the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial, but also prevents needless waste of the court's time and saves the precious resources of the government.

GR Nos. 150353-54

2004-07-27

ANTONIO BALAY MATURAN v. PEOPLE

QUISUMBING, J.

Therefore, the proper course of action for petitioner should have been a special civil action for certiorari before us. While the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether a criminal case should be filed, this Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's action when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction, in which case Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may be invoked pursuant to present practice or, exceptionally, even Section 1,[13] Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. Accordingly, where the finding of the Ombudsman as to the existence of probable cause is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, we have held that while there is no appeal, the aggrieved party may file before us a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. [14]

GR No. 144784

2002-09-03

PEDRO G. SISTOZA v. ANIANO DESIERTO IN HIS CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN

BELLOSILLO, J.

the prosecution.[14] For criminal cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, it is the Office of the Special Prosecutor, as an organic component of the Office of the Ombudsman, which exercises investigatory and prosecutory powers. Concomitantly, as a general rule, this Court does not interfere with the Ombudsman's determination of the existence or absence of probable cause. The strict application of this rule, insofar as the Ombudsman is concerned, is not a trivial matter. In the instant case, we see this principle at work when the Sandiganbayan deferred to the authority of the prosecution to exercise investigatory powers when it granted petitioner Sistoza's motion for reinvestigation. As in every rule, however, there are settled exceptions. Hence, the principle of non-interference does not apply when there is grave abuse of discretion[15] which would authorize the aggrieved person to file a petition for certiorari and prohibition

GR No. 114944

2002-05-29

MANUEL C. ROXAS v. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Ordinarily, we will not interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman to determine whether there exists reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probable guilty thereof and, thereafter, to file the corresponding information with the appropriate courts.[13] However, we find that the case at bar falls under one of the recognized exceptions to this rule, more specifically, the constitutional rights of the accused are impaired and the charges are manifestly false.[14] In cases where the Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor were unable to agree on whether or not probable cause exists, we may interfere with the findings and conclusions.[15]

	GR No. 174168 2009-03-30	SY TIONG SHIOU v. SY CHIM TINGA, J.
Indeed, a preliminary proceeding is not a quasi-judicial function and that the DOJ is not a quasi-judicial agency exercising a quasi-judicial function when it reviews the findings of a public prosecutor regarding the presence of probable cause.[20] Moreover, it is settled that the preliminary investigation proper, i.e., the determination of whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and should be subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial, is the function of the prosecution.[21] This Court has adopted a policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations and leaves to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause for the filing of information against the supposed offender.[22]
	GR Nos. 164166 & 164173-80 2007-10-17	RODOLFO S. DE JESUS v. SANDIGANBAYAN QUISUMBING, J.
(11) Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners.[14] Thus, while the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed, this Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's action when there is an abuse of discretion, in which case Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may exceptionally be invoked pursuant to Section 1,[15] Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. Accordingly, where the finding of the Ombudsman as to the existence of probable cause is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, we have held that while there is no appeal, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.[16]
	GR No. 171609 2007-08-17	DR. JUANITO RUBIO v. OMBUDSMAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
However, while it is the function of the Ombudsman to determine whether or not the petitioner should be subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial, he cannot do so arbitrarily. This seemingly exclusive and unilateral authority of the Ombudsman must be tempered by the Court when powers of prosecution are in danger of being used for persecution.[10]
	GR NO. 159876 2007-06-26	DINO A. CRUCILLO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN GARCIA, J.
This rule of non-interference is, however, far from absolute. Case law has it that the Court will intervene upon proof of commission of grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman.[31] In other words, the Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's action when there is grave abuse of discretion, in which case the certiorari jurisdiction of the Court may exceptionally be invoked pursuant to Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution.[32] Accordingly, where grave abuse of discretion taints the Ombudsman's finding as to the existence of probable cause, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.[33] In Cabahug v. People,[34] the Court, citing Brocka v. Enrile,[35] enumerated the circumstances where the courts may interfere with the investigatory power of fiscals and the Ombudsman and thus stay or altogether restrain criminal prosecutions. Among these are:(a) To afford protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
	GR NOS. 169727-28 2006-08-18	BRIG. GEN. JOSE S. RAMISCAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
As a rule, courts should not interfere with the Ombudsman's investigatory power, exercised through the Ombudsman Prosecutors, and the authority to determine the presence or absence of probable cause,[32] except when the finding is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In such case, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[33] Indeed, if the Ombudsman does not take essential facts into consideration in the determination of probable cause, there is abuse of discretion.[34] As we ruled in Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas),[35] a writ of certiorari may issue in any of the following instances: When necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
	GR NO. 166924 2006-08-17	GLAXOSMITHKLINE PHILIPPINES v. KHALID MEHMOOD MALIK GARCIA, J.
Well-settled is the rule that the courts will not interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations or reinvestigations and leave to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause for the filing of the corresponding complaint or information against an offender.[8] In fact, the prosecutor's findings on the matter are not subject to review by the courts unless shown to have been made with grave abuse of discretion.[9] And by it is meant that the power is exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, patent and gross enough as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.[10]
	GR NO. 164664 2006-07-20	CARLOS C. FUENTES v. SANDIGANBAYAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
As a rule, courts should not interfere with the Ombudsman's investigatory power, exercised through the Special Prosecutor, and the authority to determine the presence or absence of probable cause, except when the finding is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[37] In such case, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[38] Indeed, if the Ombudsman does not take essential facts into consideration in the determination of probable cause, there is abuse of discretion.[39] As we ruled in Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas),[40] a writ of certiorari may issue in any of the following instances: When necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
	GR NO. 153578 2005-01-28	VICENTE C. JIMENEZ v. EULOGIO TOLENTINO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is past dispute of course that in every rule, there are always settled exceptions.[16] Hence, the principle of non-interference does not apply when there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman.[17] In Cabahug v. People,[18] we expressed the rationale for the exception in this wise:While it is the function of the Ombudsman to determine whether or not the petitioner should be subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial, he cannot do so arbitrarily. This seemingly exclusive and unilateral authority of the Ombudsman must be tempered by the Court when powers of prosecution are in danger of being used for persecution. Dismissing the case against the accused for palpable want of probable cause not only spares her the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial, but also prevents needless waste of the court's time and saves the precious resources of the government.
	GR Nos. 150353-54 2004-07-27	ANTONIO BALAY MATURAN v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
Therefore, the proper course of action for petitioner should have been a special civil action for certiorari before us. While the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether a criminal case should be filed, this Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's action when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction, in which case Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may be invoked pursuant to present practice or, exceptionally, even Section 1,[13] Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. Accordingly, where the finding of the Ombudsman as to the existence of probable cause is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, we have held that while there is no appeal, the aggrieved party may file before us a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. [14]
	GR No. 144784 2002-09-03	PEDRO G. SISTOZA v. ANIANO DESIERTO IN HIS CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN BELLOSILLO, J.
the prosecution.[14] For criminal cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, it is the Office of the Special Prosecutor, as an organic component of the Office of the Ombudsman, which exercises investigatory and prosecutory powers. Concomitantly, as a general rule, this Court does not interfere with the Ombudsman's determination of the existence or absence of probable cause. The strict application of this rule, insofar as the Ombudsman is concerned, is not a trivial matter. In the instant case, we see this principle at work when the Sandiganbayan deferred to the authority of the prosecution to exercise investigatory powers when it granted petitioner Sistoza's motion for reinvestigation. As in every rule, however, there are settled exceptions. Hence, the principle of non-interference does not apply when there is grave abuse of discretion[15] which would authorize the aggrieved person to file a petition for certiorari and prohibition
	GR No. 114944 2002-05-29	MANUEL C. ROXAS v. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Ordinarily, we will not interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman to determine whether there exists reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probable guilty thereof and, thereafter, to file the corresponding information with the appropriate courts.[13] However, we find that the case at bar falls under one of the recognized exceptions to this rule, more specifically, the constitutional rights of the accused are impaired and the charges are manifestly false.[14] In cases where the Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor were unable to agree on whether or not probable cause exists, we may interfere with the findings and conclusions.[15]

SUSANA B. CABAHUG v. PEOPLE