This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-03-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors of the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of the parties, or its conclusions anchored on the said findings and its conclusions of law.[62] (Emphasis supplied) This court has adopted a deferential attitude towards review of the executive's finding of probable cause.[63] This is based "not only upon the respect for the investigatory and [prosecutorial] powers granted by the Constitution to the executive department but upon practicality as well."[64] Review of the Department of Justice Secretary's decision or resolution will be allowed only when grave abuse of discretion is alleged:The full discretionary authority to determine probable cause in a preliminary investigation to ascertain sufficient ground for the filing of information rests with the executive branch. Hence, judicial review of the resolution of the Secretary of Justice is limited to a determination whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Courts cannot substitute the executive branch's judgment. | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| This court reminds Molina of the discussion in Punzalan v. Plata:[235] | |||||