"x x x.
The case of First Women's Credit Corporation v. Perez,[24] succinctly summarizes the general rules relative to criminal prosecution: that criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final, albeit in extreme cases, exceptional circumstances have been recognized; that courts follow the policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations by the DOJ, and of leaving to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause for the filing of an information against a supposed offender; and, that the court's duty in an appropriate case is confined to a determination of whether the assailed executive or judicial determination of probable cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to want of jurisdiction.
But while prosecutors are given sufficient latitude of discretion in the determination of probable cause, their findings are still subject to review by the Secretary of Justice. Surely, this power of the Secretary of Justice to review includes the discretion to accept additional evidence from the investigating prosecutor or from herein respondent Genabe, evidence which nonetheless appears to have already been submitted to the investigating prosecutor but inadvertently omitted by her when she filed her petition.
x x x."
Read:
LETICIA B. AGBAYANI,
Petitioner,
- versus -
COURT OF APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and LOIDA MARCELINA J. GENABE,
Respondents.
|
G.R. No. 183623
Present:
CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson,
BRION,
PEREZ,
SERENO, and
REYES, JJ.
Promulgated:
June 25, 2012
|
