Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 61 views

    People V Borje

    Uploaded by

    Migurl Frias
    The Supreme Court ruled that the executive function of determining probable cause for filing charges belongs solely to the prosecution. In this case, the Office of the Ombudsman conducted a preliminary investigation and found probable cause to charge respondents with plunder. However, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the case, finding no probable cause. The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan should have deferred to the prosecution's finding of probable cause, as it is not the role of the courts to interfere with the prosecution's exercise of its constitutionally-granted powers to determine probable cause. By dismissing the case prematurely, the Sandiganbayan overstepped its authority and undermined the role of the prosecution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People V Borje

    Uploaded by

    Migurl Frias
    61 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the executive function of determining probable cause for filing charges belongs solely to the prosecution. In this case, the Office of the Ombudsman conducted a preliminary investigation and found probable cause to charge respondents with plunder. However, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the case, finding no probable cause. The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan should have deferred to the prosecution's finding of probable cause, as it is not the role of the courts to interfere with the prosecution's exercise of its constitutionally-granted powers to determine probable cause. By dismissing the case prematurely, the Sandiganbayan overstepped its authority and undermined the role of the prosecution.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    People v Borje

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the executive function of determining probable cause for filing charges belongs solely to the prosecution. In this case, the Office of the Ombudsman conducted a preliminary investigation and found probable cause to charge respondents with plunder. However, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the case, finding no probable cause. The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan should have deferred to the prosecution's finding of probable cause, as it is not the role of the courts to interfere with the prosecution's exercise of its constitutionally-granted powers to determine probable cause. By dismissing the case prematurely, the Sandiganbayan overstepped its authority and undermined the role of the prosecution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    61 views2 pages

    People V Borje

    Uploaded by

    Migurl Frias
    The Supreme Court ruled that the executive function of determining probable cause for filing charges belongs solely to the prosecution. In this case, the Office of the Ombudsman conducted a preliminary investigation and found probable cause to charge respondents with plunder. However, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the case, finding no probable cause. The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan should have deferred to the prosecution's finding of probable cause, as it is not the role of the courts to interfere with the prosecution's exercise of its constitutionally-granted powers to determine probable cause. By dismissing the case prematurely, the Sandiganbayan overstepped its authority and undermined the role of the prosecution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    People v Borje

    G.R. No. 170046

    December 10, 2014

    “The right to a preliminary investigation is not a mere right; it is a substantive right. To deny the
    accused of such right would be to deprive him of due process”

    Facts:

    The Secretary of DPWH issued Department Order No. 15, series of 2022, creating a committee for the
    purpose of investigating alleged anomalies and illegal disbursements in connection with the repair of
    DPWH-owned motor vehicles and equipment. As a result of the investigation, it was discovered that
    during the period of March 2001 to December 2001, the emergency repairs conducted on hundreds of
    DPWH vehicles, approved and paid for by the government, did not actually take place, resulting in the
    loss of about Php 139,000,000.

    Atty. Irene D. Ofilada of the internal audit service of the DPWH and member of the committee, filed with
    the Office of the Ombudsman a criminal complaint for violation of General Appropriations Act against
    the several officials/employees of the DPWH including the respondents.

    Sandiganbayan issued an Order giving respondents a period within which to submit their memoranda of
    authority.

    Petitioner questioned the authority of the Sandiganbayan to act on respondents’ motions, arguing that
    the same had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents and, hence, it had no
    authority to hear and decide their motions. Petitioner also alleged that it successfully established
    probable cause justifying the issuance by the respondent court of a warrant of arrest.

    Sandiganbayan upheld its authority to act on respondents’ motions for their filing of the same may be
    considered as voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court and dismissing the case for lack of
    probable cause for the crime of plunder without prejudice to the filing of appropriate charges against
    the accused-respondents.

    Issues:

    Whether or not the executive function of determining the existence of probable cause for the filing of an
    information is vested solely in the prosecution

    Held:

    YES. Petitioner maintains that the preliminary investigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman
    is an executive, not a judicial function. As such, it asserts that respondent Sandiganbayan should have
    given deference to the finding and determination of probable cause in their preliminary investigation.
    Moreover, petitioner faulted the respondent court for taking into consideration the findings of Atty.
    Irene Ofilada of the Investigating Committee that it was not respondent Borje who encashed the checks
    but the respondent-suppliers, by virtue of a blanket authority given by the former to the latter. It posits
    that said findings cannot bind the Office of the Ombudsman in its determination of the existence of
    probable cause.

    It is well to recall that there are two kinds of determination of probable cause: executive and judicial. On
    the one hand, executive determination of probable cause ascertains whether a criminal case must be
    filed in court. It is a function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor who is given a broad
    discretion to determine whether probable cause exists and to charge those whom he believes to have
    committed the crime as defined by law and should be held for trial. On the other hand, judicial
    determination of probable cause ascertains whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the
    accused. It is one made by a judge who must satisfy himself that based on the evidence presented, there
    is necessity in placing the accused under custody so that the ends of justice will not be frustrated.

    It is well settled that courts do not interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman to determine the
    presence or absence of probable cause believing that a crime has been committed and that the accused
    is probably guilty thereof necessitating the filing of the corresponding information with the appropriate
    courts.

    This rule is based not only on respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the
    Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. If it were otherwise, the
    functions of the Court will be seriously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of
    investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed
    before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped with cases if they could
    be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each
    time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.

    Moreover, it was clearly premature on the part of the Sandiganbayan to make a determinative finding
    prior tothe parties’ presentation of their respective evidence that there was no bad faith and manifest
    partiality on the respondents’ part and undue injury on the part of the complainant. In Go v. Fifth
    Division, Sandiganbayan, we held that "it is well established that the presence or absence of the
    elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be best passed upon
    after a full-blown trial on the merits." Also, it would be unfair to expect the prosecution to present all
    the evidence needed to secure the conviction of the accused upon the filing of the information against
    the latter. The reason is found in the nature and objective of a preliminary investigation. Here, the public
    prosecutors do not decide whether there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the person
    charged; they merely determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief
    that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for
    trial.

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions dated
    January 20, 2005 and October 12, 2005 of the Sandiganbayan inCriminal Case No. 27969 are SET ASIDE.
    The Resolution dated January 7, 2004 of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-C-02-0507-H, finding probable
    cause to indict respondents for the crime of plunder is AFFIRMED.

    You might also like