This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-01-18 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| The test should be whether sufficient facts exist which show that, in bringing the criminal action, complainant acted without probable cause,[15] defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind that the person charged and prosecuted in a criminal case is probably guilty of the crime or wrongdoing.[16] Here, the fact that the filing of the complaint was prompted by the result of an investigation shows that the City had a reasonable ground to believe that a crime had probably been committed. Additionally, the fact that the Department of Justice at first found basis for filing the charge of theft of electricity indicates that the existence of probable cause is not clearly settled, only that its final determination had to succumb to the sound discretion of the Secretary of Justice under his power to review, revise, or overturn the findings of his subordinates. | |||||
|
2007-02-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| This Court has drawn the four elements that must be shown to concur to recover damages for malicious prosecution. Therefore, for a malicious prosecution suit to prosper, the plaintiff must prove the following: (1) the prosecution did occur, and the defendant was himself the prosecutor or that he instigated its commencement; (2) the criminal action finally ended with an acquittal; (3) in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause; and (4) the prosecution was impelled by legal malice -- an improper or a sinister motive.[41] The gravamen of malicious prosecution is not the filing of a complaint based on the wrong provision of law, but the deliberate initiation of an action with the knowledge that the charges were false and groundless.[42] | |||||
|
2005-02-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| While it is settled that the mere fact that the fiscal took full control of litigation does not grant immunity to persons who misuse their rights to instigate criminal actions,[33] we cannot, however, discount the fact that from his layman's point of view, the prosecutor's act of filing an Information for Unjust Vexation against petitioner must have indeed bolstered Ricardo Cokieng's honest belief that he had a strong case against the former. Moreover, it is a doctrine well-entrenched in jurisprudence that the mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution does not make one liable for malicious prosecution, for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate.[34] | |||||
|
2000-06-08 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| We are not persuaded. The filing of an information for estafa does not by itself prove that the respondents forged his signature. It only means that the public prosecutor found probable cause against the respondents, but such finding does not constitute binding evidence of forgery or fraud.[14] We agree with the well-reasoned CA ruling on this point:[15] | |||||