This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-09-08 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Without more, petitioner's bare allegation of intimacy among the respondents in OMB-0-97-0047 does not prove conspiracy inasmuch as conspiracy transcends companionship. [21] To establish conspiracy, evidence of actual cooperation, rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required.[22] As we see it, nothing on record even minutely suggests that the respondents conspired to insure the indictment of the petitioner. As correctly pointed out by the Ombudsman in the challenged Order dated January 23, 1998:The coordination and monitoring on the cases against the complainant Judge (petitioner) made by the respondent Secretary should not be interpreted as pure interference on the job of the state prosecutors. Enforcement of R.A. 7610 lies principally on the shoulders of the respondent Secretary being the head of the agency called for this purpose. The undue interest shown by the respondent Secretary should not be viewed on the negative perspective but should be given a positive outlook. This is a clear signal that she is serious in performing her job as protector of the rights of children against child abuse, exploitation and discrimination. | |||||