Secondarily such summary proceeding also protects the state from the burden of

Secondarily such summary proceeding also protects the

This preview shows page 17 - 18 out of 30 pages.

also protects the state from the burden of theunnecessary expense an effort in prosecutingalleged offenses and in holding trials arising fromfalse, frivolous or groundless charges. The determination of probable cause to hold aperson for trial must be distinguished from thedetermination of probable cause to issue awarrant of arrest, which is a judicial function. Thejudicial determination of probable cause in theissuance of arrest warrants has been emphasizedin numerous cases. Corollary to the principle thatthe judge cannot be compelled to issue a warrantof arrest if he or she deems that there is noprobable cause for doing so is the rule that heshould not override the public prosecutor’sdetermination of probable cause to hold anaccused for trial, on the ground that the evidencepresented to substantiate the issuance of anarrest warrant was insufficient.29. Tan v Ballena|G.r. no. 168111| July 4, 2008|Facts: Petitioners, Antonio Tan, Danilo Domingoand Robert Lim, were sued by the employees oftheir dissolved company Footjoy IndustrialCorporation for breaching the SSS law after failingto pay the membership dues. They alleged thatthey must not be held accountable since thecompany’s downfall was caused by economicconditions and a fire that caused some ruins. On13 November 2001, petitioners filed a Petition forReview with the DOJ which the latter grantedreversing the assailed resolution directing tocause the withdrawal of the informations forviolation of the Social Security Law earlier filedagainst respondents. Respondents filed a Motionfor Reconsideration of the DOJ resolution, but thesame was denied in a Resolution. On 16 October2002, respondents filed with the Court of Appealsa Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of theRevised Rules of Court, which was docketed asCA-G.R. SP No. 79101. Respondents claimed thatthe DOJ committed grave abuse of discretionamounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction infinding that no probable cause existed to chargepetitioners. The Court of Appeals rendered aResolution granting the respondents Motion forReconsideration. Petitioners moved for areconsideration of the above decision, but thesame was denied by the Court of Appeals.Issue:Who may review the findings of probablecause by the public prosecutorRuling: Findings of the prosecutor with respect tothe existence or non-existence of probable causeis subject to the power of review by theDepartment of Justice. The power of review doesnot preclude the Supreme Court and the Court ofAppeals from intervening and exercising theirown powers of review with respect to the DOJ’sfindings. Indeed, the Secretary of Justice mayreverse or modify the resolution of theprosecutor, after which he shall direct theprosecutor concerned either to file thecorresponding information without conductinganother preliminary investigation, or to dismiss ormove for dismissal of the complaint orinformation with notice to the parties. But once
Background image
Image of page 18

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture