This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2005-07-29 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| In John Hay Peoples Alternative Coalition, et al. v. Victor Lim, et al.,[20] this Court resolved an issue, very much like the one herein, concerning the legality of the tax exemption benefits given to the John Hay Economic Zone under Presidential Proclamation No. 420, Series of 1994, "CREATING AND DESIGNATING A PORTION OF THE AREA COVERED BY THE FORMER CAMP JOHN AS THE JOHN HAY SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE PURSUANT TO REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7227." | |||||
|
2000-07-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In Accordance With The Foregoing Constitutional And Statutory Provisions, This Court, In Diaz V. Sandiganbayan,[55] Held Valid Charges That Were Not Made In Writing Or Under Oath. This Court Found As Sufficient Basis The Solicitor General'S Sworn Testimony At The Joint Fact-Finding Investigation Conducted By The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee And The Ombudsman For The Latter To Conduct An Investigation. On The Other Hand, In Olivas V. Office Of The Ombudsman,[56] Where The Complaint Against Petitioner Was Initiated By Anonymous Letters, This Court Held That The Pcgg, To Whom The Letters Were Addressed And Who Became The Complainant In The Proceedings, Should Have Reduced The Evidence It Had Gathered Into Affidavits. The Submission Of Affidavits, Provided For In Rule Ii, Section 4 (A) Of Administrative Order No. 07, Is Also Required By Due Process In Adversary Proceedings.[57] However, The Submission Of Affidavits Is Not Mandatory And Jurisdictional. Rule 1, Section 3 Of The Same Administrative Order Merely States That It Is "Preferable" That The Complaint "Be In Writing And Under Oath" For Its Speedier Disposition. Clearly In Consonance With The Provision That The Complaint May Be In Any Form, The Ombudsman Rules Of Procedure Does Not Require That The Complaint Be Subscribed Only Before The Ombudsman Or His Duly Authorized Representative. In Any Event, The Issue Of The Sufficiency In Form Of The Complaint Was Rendered Moot And Academic By Petitioner'S Filing Of A Counter-Affidavit Wherein He Controverted The Allegations In The Complaint.[58] | |||||
|
2000-05-12 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner cites Olivas v. Office of the Ombudsman[14] where the Court declared that in preliminary investigation of cases it is incumbent upon the complainants to submit their evidence in affidavit form and it is only after such submission that respondent may be required to explain and submit his counter-affidavit, also under oath. | |||||