Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ELISEO V. AGUILAR v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 166391 2015-10-21	MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. ROLANDO D. MANANSALA BERSAMIN, J.
Although the general rule is that the determination of the existence of probable cause by the public prosecutor is not to be judicially scrutinized because it is an executive function, an exception exists when the determination is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.[10] Bearing this in mind, we hold that the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the public prosecutor's dismissal of the charge of copyright infringement under Section 29 of Presidential Decree No. 49 on the ground of lack of evidence because the public prosecutor thereby flagrantly disregarded the existence of acts sufficient to engender the well-founded belief that the crime of copyright infringement had been committed, and that the respondent was probably guilty thereof.[11]
	GR No. 213104 2015-07-29	PEOPLE v. PO1 CYRIL A. DE GRACIA MENDOZA, J.
De Gracia is charged with the crime of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The elements of this crime are: (a) that a person was killed; (b) that the accused killed him; (c) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and (d) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.[18]
	GR No. 197590 2014-11-24	BIR v. CA DEL CASTILLO, J.
In completely disregarding the evidence presented and in affirming the ruling of the Acting Justice Secretary Devanadera that no probable cause exists, we find that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. As we have said, if there is grave abuse of discretion, the court may step in and proceed to make its own independent determination of probable cause as judicial review is allowed to ensure that the Executive Department acts within the permissible bounds of its authority or does not gravely abuse the same.[84]
	GR No. 189801 2013-10-23	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Be that as it may, the Court finds no grave abuse of disretion on the part of the CA in remanding the case to the Ombudsman for resolution of petitioner's motion for reconsideration, absent any showing that it exercised its discretion in a whimsical, capricious, and arbitrary manner.[32] In this respect, the instant petition for certiorari lacks merit[33] and the remand of the case must stand. This is in addition to the fact that the nullification of the remand would only serve to unduly delay the proceedings in this case.