This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-01-17 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Now, superior courts are not triers of facts. When the findings of fact of the Ombudsman are supported by substantial evidence, it should be considered as conclusive. [40] This Court recognizes the expertise and independence of the Ombudsman and will avoid interfering with its findings absent a finding of grave abuse of discretion. [41] Hence, being supported by substantial evidence, we find no reason to disturb the factual findings of the Ombudsman which are affirmed by the CA. | |||||
|
2008-10-10 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Superior courts are not triers of facts. When the findings of fact of the Ombudsman are supported by substantial evidence, it should be considered as conclusive.[36] This court recognizes the expertise and independence of the Ombudsman and will avoid interfering with its findings absent a finding of grave abuse of discretion.[37] However, the findings of fact of the Ombudsman will not escape judicial review, more so in cases where the CA reached a different conclusion on appeal.[38] | |||||
|
2005-04-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The truth of the matter is that petitioners were not denied due process of law. The order of the Ombudsman for the filing of the necessary information is not a case of a total absence of factual and legal bases nor a failure to appreciate the evidence presented. It may appear that the Ombudsman's one-line note lacks any factual or evidentiary grounds as it did not set forth the same. The state of affairs, however, is that the Ombudsman's note stems from his review of the findings of fact reached by the investigating prosecutor.[15] The Ombudsman, contrary to the investigating prosecutor's conclusion, was of the conviction that petitioners are probably guilty of the offense charged, and for this, he is not required to conduct an investigation anew.[16] He is merely determining the propriety and correctness of the recommendation by the investigating prosecutor, i.e., whether probable cause actually exists or not, on the basis of the findings of fact of the latter. He may agree, fully or partly, or disagree completely with the investigating prosecutor. Whatever course of action that the Ombudsman may take, whether to approve or to disapprove the recommendation of the investigating prosecutor, is but an exercise of his discretionary powers based upon constitutional mandate.[17] Generally, courts should not interfere in such exercise. It is beyond the ambit of this Court to review the exercise of discretion of the Ombudsman in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint filed before it, save in cases where there is clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Ombudsman which is absent in the case at hand.[18] Such initiative and independence are inherent in the Ombudsman who, beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and preserver of the integrity of the public service.[19] | |||||
|
2001-01-24 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| "In our criminal justice system, the public prosecutor has the quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in court. Courts must respect the exercise of such discretion when the information filed against the accused is valid on its face, and no manifest error, grave abuse of discretion or prejudice can be imputed to the public prosecutor." Finally, we note that the parties[46] are ventilating before us the merits of their respective causes or defenses. This is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence. The presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits.[47] | |||||