PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

Article 65. Rule in cases in which the penalty is not composed of three periods. — In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is not composed of three periods, the courts shall apply the rules contained in the foregoing articles, dividing into three equal portions of time included in the penalty prescribed , and forming one period of each of the three portions . (Revised Penal Code)

Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law states that an indeterminate sentence is imposed on the offender consisting of a maximum term and a minimum term , to wit: Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments , the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense ; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.

The crime of malversation of public funds is defined and penalized under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, as follows: Article 217. Malversation of public funds or property. – Presumption of malversation. – Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property shall suffer: x x x x 4. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved is more than twelve thousand pesos but is less than twenty-two thousand pesos. If the amount exceeds the latter, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. In all cases, persons guilty

The Supreme Court’s expressed caution against presidential interference with the constitutional commissions, on one hand, and those expressed by the framers of the 1987 Constitution, on the other, in protecting the independence of the Constitutional Commissions, speak for themselves as overwhelming reasons to invalidate Section 8(2) of Republic Act No. 6770 for violating the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman. The provision in question provides: Section 8. Removal; Filling of Vacancy. — (1) In accordance with the provisions of Article XI of the Constitution, the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. (2) A Deputy, or the Special Prosecutor, may be removed from office by the President for any of the grounds provided for the removal of the Ombudsman, and after due pro

Under the 1987 Constitution, several constitutional bodies have been  expressly labeled as “independent.” [1] The extent of the independence enjoyed by these constitutional bodies however varies and is to be interpreted with two significant considerations in mind: first, the functions performed or the powers involved in a given case ; and second, consistency of any allowable interference to these powers and functions , with the principle of checks and balances. Notably, the independence enjoyed by the Office of the Ombudsman and by the Constitutional Commissions shares certain characteristics – they do not owe their existence to any act of Congress , but are created by the Constitution itself; additionally, they all enjoy fiscal autonomy . In general terms, the framers of the Constitution intended that these “independent” bodies be insulated from political pressure to the extent that the absence of “independence” would result in the  impairment of their core f

Prior to the 1973 Constitution, past presidents established several Ombudsman-like agencies to serve as the people's medium for airing grievances and for direct redress against abuses and misconduct in the government. Ultimately, however, these agencies failed to fully realize their objective for lack of the political independence necessary for the effective performance of their function as government critic.[1] It was under the 1973 Constitution that the Office of the Ombudsman became a  constitutionally-mandated  office to give it political independence and adequate powers to enforce its mandate. Pursuant to the 1973 Constitution, President Ferdinand Marcos enacted Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1487, as amended by PD No. 1607 and PD No. 1630, creating the Office of the Ombudsman to be known as Tanodbayan. It was tasked principally to investigate, on complaint or motu proprio, any administrative act of any administrative agency, including any government-ow

A justiciable question is one which is inherently susceptible of being decided on grounds recognized by law,[1] as where the court finds that there are constitutionally-imposed limits on the exercise of the powers conferred on a political branch of the government.[2] The issue of whether a Deputy Ombudsman may be subjected to the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the President (concurrently with that of the Ombudsman) is a justiciable – not a political – question.[3] Justiciability refers to the types of matters that a court can adjudicate.  If a case is "nonjusticiable," then the court cannot hear it. Typically to be justiciable, the court must not be offering an advisory opinion, the plaintiff must have standing, and the issues must be ripe but neither moot nor violative of the political question doctrine. Typically, these issues are all up to the discretion of the court which is adjudicating the issue.[4] [1] Integrated Bar of the Ph

Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC provides: Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days. For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits. If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer

Department Order No. 4 of the Department of Labor and Employment and POEA Memorandum Circular No. 09, both series of 2000. Section 20(B) thereof provides: The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows: x x x x 6. In case of permanent total or partial disability of the seafarer caused by either injury or illness the seafarer shall be compensated in accordance with the schedule of benefits enumerated in Section 32 of this Contract. Computation of his benefits arising from an illness or disease shall be governed by the rates and rules of compensation applicable at the time the illness or disease was contracted. “Pursuant to the aforequoted provision, two elements must concur for an injury or illness of a seafarer to be compensable. First, the injury or illness must be work-related ; and second, x x x the work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term

Attorney’s fees are not awarded every time a party wins a suit.[1] Article 2208 of the Civil Code provides: ART. 2208 . In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:    (1) When exemplary damages are awarded; (2) When the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest; (3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff; (4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff; (5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff’s plainly valid, just and demandable claim; (6) In actions for legal support; (7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, labourers and skilled workers; (8) In actions for indemnity

Consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract.[1] The offer must be certain, and the acceptance, whether express or implied, must be absolute.[2] An acceptance is considered absolute and unqualified when it is identical in all respects with that of the offer so as to produce consent or a meeting of the minds.[3] [1] Article 1319, Civil Code. [2] Articles 1319 and 1320, Civil Code. [3] Traders Royal Bank v. Cuison Lumber Co., Inc., G.R. No. 174286, June 5, 2009. A contract is void if one of the essential requisites of contracts under Article 1318 of the New Civil Code is lacking. Article 1318 provides: Art. 1318. There is no contract unless the following requisites concur: (1) Consent of the contracting parties; (2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; (3) Cause of the obligation which is established. All these elements must be present to constitute

Contracts have the force of law between the parties and must be complied with in good faith.[1] A contracting party’s failure, without legal reason, to comply with contract stipulations breaches their contract and can be the basis for the award of damages to the other contracting party.[2] [1] Panlilio v. Citibank, N.A., G.R. No. 156335, November 28, 2007, 539 SCRA 69, 82-83; citing CIVIL CODE, Art. 1159. [2] In RCPI v. Verchez, et al., G.R. No. 164349, January 31, 2006, (citing FGU Insurance Corporation v. G.P. Sarmiento Trucking Corporation, 435 Phil. 333, 341-342 (2002), the Supreme Court held: “In culpa contractual x x x the mere proof of the existence of the contract and the failure of its compliance justify, prima facie, a corresponding right of relief. The law, recognizing the obligatory force of contracts, will not permit a party to be set free from liability for any kind of misperformance of the contractual undertaking or a

A successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires that the following elements be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery to the buyer of the thing sold and receipt by the seller of the payment therefor.[1] On the other hand, there can be conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs only if the following elements are present: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.[2] Illegal sale of dangerous drugs is committed when the sale transaction is consummated,[3] that is, upon delivery of the illicit drug to the buyer and the receipt of the payment by the seller. In People v. Morate (G.R. No. 201156, January 29, 2014), the RTC and the Court of Appeals both found beyond rea

As to the failure to photograph the inventory of the seized items, such omission on the part of the police officers is not fatal to the case against the accused. The Supreme Court has ruled in various cases, such as People v. Almodiel,[1] People v. Rosialda,[2] People v. Llamado,[3] and People v. Rivera,[4] that the failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated is not fatal and does not automatically render the arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible.[5] As has been said held again and again, it is enough that the prosecution has sufficiently shown that the identity and evidentiary integrity of the seized items were properly preserved. As long as there is substantial compliance, the case is not materially affected by the prosecution’s failure to take a photograph of the seized items. [1] G.R. No. 200951, September 5, 2012, 680 SCRA 3

Dear PAO, My husband was arrested in a buy-bust operation in Makati City for allegedly selling point .20 kilograms of marijuana fruiting tops. Subsequently, the police officers brought him to the police station where my husband was immediately detained. He was then charged for selling illegal drugs, but he never saw the illegal drugs he allegedly sold. Were the actions of the police officers legal and in accordance with our law? Nessy. (Read more: https://www.Marking and inventory of seized illegal drugs in the presence of officials are mandatory under the law. Presida Acosta (2019). The Manila Times. www.manilatimes.net/2019/12/15/legal-advice/dearpao/marking-and-inventory-of-seized-illegal-drugs-in-the-presence-of-officials-are-mandatory-under-the-law/664320.) Dear Nessy, To answer your question, we shall refer to Republic Act 10640, or “An Act to Further Strengthen The Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act

The marking and inventory of the seized items are governed by the procedure laid down in Section 21(1) of Republic Act No. 9165. The said provision provides: Section 21.  Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs  x x x: (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.] On the other hand, the relevant portion of the implementing rules and regulations of the law states: SECTION 21.  Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs , x x x: (a)

The chain of custody is basically the duly recorded authorized stages of transfer of custody of seized dangerous drugs, from their seizure or confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.[1] The function of the chain of custody requirement is to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed.[2] Thus, the chain of custody requirement has a two-fold purpose: (1) the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, and (2) the removal of unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence. The law recognizes that, while the presentation of a perfect unbroken chain is ideal, the realities and variables of actual police operation usually makes an unbroken chain impossible.[3] With this implied judicial recognition of the difficulty of complet

In People v. Crisostomo (G.R. No. 196435, January 29, 2014), the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that “AAA’s” “uncertainty” on whether it was a match, rod or a cigarette stick that was inserted into her private parts, did not lessen her credibility. Such “uncertainty” is inconsequential and does not diminish the fact that an instrument or object was inserted into her private parts. This is the essence of rape by sexual assault. The gravamen of the crime of rape by sexual assault is the insertion of the penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into another person’s genital or anal orifice.[1] In any event, inconsistencies in a rape victim’s testimony do not impair her credibility, especially if the inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape.[2] It was also held in People v. Piosang[3] that – “[t]estimonies of child-victims are normally given full we

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides: ART. 266-A.  Rape, When and How Committed. - Rape is committed  – 1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: Through force, threat or intimidation; When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; By means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority;  When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above should be present; 2.  By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person . (Emphases supplied) When the offended party is under 12 years of age, the crime committed is “termed statutory rape as it departs from the usual modes of committing rape.

A prejudicial question is one that arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused , and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.[1] Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure prescribes the elements that must concur in order for a civil case to be considered a prejudicial question, to wit: Section 7. Elements of prejudicial question. – The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previousl

Under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are as follows:  (1) That the money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same;  (2) That there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender , or denial on his part of such receipt ;  (3) That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another ; and  (4) That there is demand by the offended party to the offender .[1] [1] Jandusay v. People, G.R. No. 185129, 17 June 2013, 698 SCRA 619, 625 citing Asejo v. People, 555 Phil. 106, 112-113 (2007).

It is well-settled that courts cannot grant a relief not prayed for in the pleadings or in excess of what is being sought by a party to a case .[1] The rationale for the rule was explained in Development Bank of the Philippines v. Teston,[2] viz.: Due process considerations justify this requirement. It is improper to enter an order which exceeds the scope of relief sought by the pleadings, absent notice which affords the opposing party an opportunity to be heard with respect to the proposed relief. The fundamental purpose of the requirement that allegations of a complaint must provide the measure of recovery is to prevent surprise to the defendant.[3] [1] Diona v. Balangue, G.R. No. 173559, January 17, 2013. [2] 569 Phil. 137 (2008). [3] Id. at 144.

The settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari. Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case . The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions[1], such as: (a) Where the order is a patent nullity , as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction (b) Where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court ;  (c) Where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable;  (d) Where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be usel

Grave abuse of discretion connotes a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, done in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, the character of which being so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law.[1] In labor disputes, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when, inter alia, its findings and the conclusions reached thereby are not supported by substantial evidence , or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion . In a seafarer’s claim for disability, the onus probandi falls on the seafarer to establish his claim for disability benefits by the requisite quantum of evidence to justify the relief sought.[2] [1] See Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. v. Hipe, Jr., G.R. No. 204699, November 12, 2014, citing Ayungo v. Beamko Shipmanagement Corporation, G.R. No. 203161

In Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.,[1] the Supreme Court held that the company-designated physician is given a leeway of an additional 120 days, or a total of 240 days from repatriation, to give the seafarer further treatment and, thereafter, make a declaration as to the nature of the latter’s disability. Thus, it is only upon the lapse of 240 days , or when so declared by the company-designated physician , that a seafarer may be deemed totally and permanently disabled, viz.: As these provisions operate, the seafarer, upon sign-off from his vessel, must report to the company-designated physician within three (3) days from arrival for diagnosis and treatment. For the duration of the treatment but in no case to exceed 120 days, the seaman is on temporary total disability as he is totally unable to work. He receives his basic wage during this period until he is declared fit to work or his temporary disability is acknowledged by the company to be permanent, eithe

It is settled that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period set by law is not only mandatory , but jurisdictional as well, and that failure to perfect an appeal within the period fixed by law renders the judgment appealed from final and executory .[1] The Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Team Pacific Corporation v. Daza[2] is instructive on this matter, to wit:[3] Although appeal is an essential part of our judicial process, it has been held, time and again, that the right thereto is not a natural right or a part of due process but is merely a statutory privilege . Thus, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and failure of a party to conform to the rules regarding appeal will render the judgment final and executory . Once a decision attains finality, it becomes the law of the case irrespective of whether the decision is erroneous or not and no court —

Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court reads: Sec. 2. Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court of Appeals. – An appeal under Rule 41 taken from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals raising only questions of law shall be dismissed, issues purely of law not being reviewable by said court. Similarly, an appeal by notice of appeal instead of by petition for review from the appellate judgment of a Regional Trial Court shall be dismissed. An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright .  (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case .[1] In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire, among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter .[2] It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the general class to which the proceedings in question belong; it is conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists.[3] Thus, when a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only power it has is to dismiss the action .[4] [1] Spouses Genato v. Viola, 625 Phil. 514, 527 (2010), citing Zamora v. CA, 262 Phil. 298, 304 (1990). [2] See id. at 527-528, citing Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Dakila Trading Corp., 556 Phil. 822, 836 (2007). [3] See Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. v. Republic, G.R. Nos

It is axiomatic that alibi is an inherently weak defense (People v. Arnistoso, G.R. No. 201447, January 9, 2013, 688 SCRA 376, 394, citing People v. Abulon, 557 Phil. 428, 447 [2007]), and may only be considered if the following circumstances are shown:  (a) He was somewhere else when the crime occurred ; and  (b) It would be physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis  at the time of the alleged crime. (People v. Agcanas, G.R. No. 174476, October 11, 2011)

Res gestae  refers to the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve to illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication . The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the  res gestae  is, therefore, whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself , and also whether it clearly negates any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony.

Section 42, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides: Section 42. Part of res gestae. — Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae . So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae.

For a dying declaration[1] to constitute an exception to the hearsay evidence rule ,[2] four (4) conditions must concur:  (a) The declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death ;  (b) That at the time the declaration was made, the declarant is conscious of his impending death ;  (c) The declarant was competent as a witness ; and  (d) The declaration is offered in a criminal case for Homicide, Murder, or Parricide where the declarant is the victim .[3]  On the other hand, a statement to be deemed to form part of the res gestae, and thus, constitute another exception to the rule on hearsay evidence , requires the concurrence of the following requisites:  (a) The principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence ;  (b) The statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise ; and  (c) The statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending

Murder is defined and penalized under Article 248 of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 7659,[1] as follows: Art. 248.  Murder . — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery , taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.  x x x x Treachery is a well-established concept in criminal law. "There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against a person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make ."[2] There are two (2) conditions therefore that must be m

This is based on Atty. Lumbera's lecture. It is strongly advised that only those who have heard her lecture should read these notes. Taxes in the Philippines may be national, local or tariff/customs duties. National taxes = mainly the Tax Code. Local taxes = mainly the Local Government Code. National taxes = income tax, value-added tax (VAT), donor's tax, percentage tax, excise tax, documentary stamp tax (DST), and estate tax. VAT and percentages taxes = business taxes. Estate and donor's taxes = transfer taxes. Excise tax = tax on manufacture and production; and importation. DST = execution or issuance of documents in view of transactions. Tax remedies = of the government and of the taxpayer. Ordinary local taxes = indicated in the Tax Code. Ordinary local taxes = passed by the Sanggunian. Real property tax = local tax = not included in the Tax Code but authorized to be levied. Local tax remedies = primarily governed by the Local Government Code. Tariff and customs duties

The determination of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to believe that it was committed by the accused.[1] It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.[2] What is merely required is "probability of guilt." Its determination, too, does not call for the application of rules or standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits.[3] Thus, in concluding that there is probable cause, it suffices that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the very offense charged. It is also important to stress that the determination of probable cause does not depend on the validity or merits of a party’s accusation or defense, or on the admissibility or veracity of testimonies presented. As previously discussed, these matters are better

The term "grave abuse of discretion" means such capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. To justify judicial intervention, the abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.[15] In Elma v. Jacobi,[16] the Supreme Court said that: This  error or abuse alone, however, does not render his act amenable to correction and annulment by the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. To justify judicial intrusion into what is fundamentally the domain of the Executive, the petitioner must clearly show that the prosecutor gravely abused his discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in making his determination and in arriving at the conclusion he reached

The determination of probable cause for purposes of filing of information in court is essentially an executive function that is lodged, at the first instance, with the public prosecutor and, ultimately, to the Secretary of Justice.[1] The prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice have wide latitude of discretion in the conduct of preliminary investigation;[2] and their findings with respect to the existence or non-existence of probable cause are generally not subject to review by the Supreme Court. Consistent with this rule, the settled policy of non-interference in the prosecutor’s exercise of discretion requires the courts to leave to the prosecutor and to the DOJ the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause.[3] Courts can neither override their determination nor substitute their own judgment for that of the latter. They cannot likewise order the prosecution of the accused when the prosecutor has not found a prima facie case.[4] Nevertheless, th