Professional Documents
Culture Documents
REMREV2 Case Doctrines and Digests
REMREV2 Case Doctrines and Digests
Provisional
or sale is had under execution issued on the judgment, or until
the judgment is satisfied, or the attachment discharged or
vacated in some manner provided by law. Thus, a prior
R-65: Certiorari, Prohibition, and (e) Where the prosecution is under an invalid law,
ordinance or regulation;
Mandamus (f)When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
(g) Where the court has no jurisdiction over the
S-1: Certiorari offense;
(h) Where it is a case of persecution rather than
1. Ampil v Ombudsman, 703 SCRA prosecution;
(i) Where the charges are manifestly false and
1 (2013) motivated by the lust for vengeance.23 (Emphasis supplied).
Plainly, the Ombudsman has full discretion, based on
the attendant facts and circumstances, to determine the The fourth circumstance is present in G.R. No. 192685.
existence of probable cause or the lack thereof.20 On this score, While we agree with the Ombudsmans disquisition that there is
we have consistently hewed to the policy of non-interference no probable cause to indict respondents for Falsification of
with the Ombudsmans exercise of its constitutionally Public Documents under Article 171(6) of the Revised Penal
mandated powers.21 The Ombudsmans finding to proceed or Code, we are puzzled why the Ombudsman completely glossed
desist in the prosecution of a criminal case can only be assailed over Ampils charge that respondents committed prohibited acts
through certiorari proceedings before this Court on the ground listed in Sections 3(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
that such determination is tainted with grave abuse of discretion Nowhere in the Resolution or in the Order denying
which contemplates an abuse so grave and so patent equivalent reconsideration thereof did the Ombudsman tackle and resolve
to lack or excess of jurisdiction.22 the issue of whether respondents violated the particular
However, on several occasions, we have interfered with provisions of Republic Act No. 3019.
the Ombudsmans discretion in determining probable cause:
(a)To afford protection to the constitutional rights of We are aware that the calibration of evidence to assess
the accused; whether a prima facie graft case exists against respondents is a
(b) When necessary for the orderly administration of question of fact. We have consistently held that the Supreme
justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; Court is not a trier of facts, more so in the consideration of the
(c)When there is a prejudicial question which is sub extraordinary writ of certiorari where neither questions of fact
judice; nor law are entertained, but only questions of lack or excess of
(d) When the acts of the officer are without or in jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. In this case, however,
excess of authority; certiorari will lie, given that the Ombudsman made no finding
S-3: Mandamus be compelled to act in a certain way, i.e., to grant or deny such
Motion. In the case at bar, Judge Bay did not refuse to act on
the Motion to Withdraw Informations; he had already acted on
1. Hipos SR v Bay, 581 SCRA 674 it by denying the same. Accordingly, mandamus is not available
(2009) anymore. If petitioners believed that Judge Bay committed
Mandamus is an extraordinary writ commanding a grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of such Order denying
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, immediately or the Motion to Withdraw Informations, the proper remedy of
at some other specified time, to do the act required to be done, petitioners should have been to file a Petition for Certiorari
when the respondent unlawfully neglects the performance of an against the assailed Order of Judge Bay.
act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from
an office, trust, or station; or when the respondent excludes 2. Sanchez v Lastimosa, 534 SCRA
another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to
which the latter is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy 84 (2007)
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. As an We have repeatedly stressed in our prior decisions that
extraordinary writ, the remedy of mandamus lies only to the remedy of mandamus is employed only to compel the
compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty, not a performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, but not to
discretionary one; mandamus will not issue to control the require anyone to fulfill a discretionary one. The issuance of the
exercise of discretion by a public officer where the law imposes writ is simply a command to exercise a power already
upon him the duty to exercise his judgment in reference to any possessed and to perform a duty already imposed. In Manila
manner in which he is required to act, because it is his International Airport Authority v. Rivera Village Lessee
judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the court. Homeowners Association, Inc., 471 SCRA 358 (2005), we
There is indeed an exception to the rule that matters emphasized, through the erudite and eloquent ponencia of
involving judgment and discretion are beyond the reach of a Justice Dante O. Tinga, that the writ can be issued only when
writ of mandamus, for such writ may be issued to compel the applicants legal right to the performance of a particular act
action in those matters, when refused. However, mandamus is sought to be compelled is clear and complete, one which is
never available to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion indubitably granted by law or is inferable as a matter of law.
in a particular way or the retraction or reversal of an action
already taken in the exercise of either. In other words, while a
judge refusing to act on a Motion to Withdraw Informations
can be compelled by mandamus to act on the same, he cannot