Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GOVERNOR AMOR D. DELOSO v. MANUEL C. DOMINGO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 181973 2013-04-17	AMELIA AQUINO v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY PEREZ, J.
The continued validity of the RATA grant to the maximum ceiling of 40% of basic pay finds support from the Opinions[9] rendered by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), Department of Justice.
	GR No. 167711 2008-10-10	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. RAMON C. GALICIA REYES, R.T., J.
In Deloso v. Domingo,[21] the Court declared that the clause "illegal act or omission of any public official" encompasses any crime committed by a public official or employee. Its reach is so vast that there is no requirement that the act or omission be related to or be connected with the performance of official duty. The rationale for this grant of vast authority is to insulate the Ombudsman from the corrupt influences of interested persons who are able to sway decisions in their favor, and thus thwart the efforts to prosecute offenses committed while in office and to penalize erring employees and officials.
	GR NO. 135123 2007-01-22	REPUBLIC v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO AZCUNA, J.
The reason for its creation "and for the grant to it of broad investigative authority, is to insulate said office from the long tentacles of officialdom that are able to penetrate judges' and fiscals' offices, and others involved in the prosecution of erring public officials, and through the exertion of official pressure and influence, quash, delay, or dismiss investigations into malfeasances and misfeasances committed by public officers."[8] Consequently, the Ombudsman "investigates or inquires into the facts concerning the commission of the crime with the end in view of determining"[9] whether the information may be prepared. If the Ombudsman finds a prima facie case against the person, "the corresponding information or informations can be filed with the Sandiganbayan."[10]
	GR NO. 163089 2006-12-06	REPUBLIC v. JESUS FRANCISCO CALLEJO, SR., J.
It must be stressed that the Office of the Ombudsman is endowed with a wide latitude of investigating power, virtually free from legislative, executive and judicial instruction.[39] The Ombudsman and his deputies are designated by the Constitution as protectors of the people, who are thus required to act promptly on complaints against public officers of the government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof.[40] The general investigation on the Office of the Ombudsman is precisely for the purpose of protecting those against whom a complaint is filed against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution as much as securing the State from useless and expensive trials.[41] Moreover, the reason for the creation of the Ombudsman in the 1987 Constitution and for the grant to it of broad investigative authority is to insulate said office from the long tentacles of officialdom that are able to penetrate the judges' and other fiscals' offices, and others involved in the prosecution of erring public officials, and through the exertion of official pressure and influence, quash, delay or dismiss investigations into malfeasances and misfeasances committed by public officers.[42]
	GR NO. 152398 2005-04-14	EDGAR CRISOSTOMO v. SANDIGANBAYAN CARPIO, J.
Assuming that the Information failed to allege that Crisostomo committed the crime in relation to his office, the Sandiganbayan still had jurisdiction to try the case. The Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan on 19 October 1993. Deloso v. Domingo,[8] promulgated on 21 November 1990, did not require that the information should allege that the accused public officer committed the offense in relation to his office before the Sandiganbayan could assume jurisdiction over the case. The ruling in Deloso v. Domingo relied solely on PD 1606.
	GR No. 159747 2004-04-13	SAN II v. PANEL OF INVESTIGATING PROSECUTORS OF DOJ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
A little over a month later, the Court, in Deloso vs. Domingo,[5] pronounced that the Ombudsman, under the authority of Section 13 (1) of the 1987 Constitution, has jurisdiction to investigate any crime committed by a public official, elucidating thus: As protector of the people, the office of the Ombudsman has the power, function and duty to "act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials" (Sec. 12) and to "investigate x x x any act or omission of any public official x x x when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient." (Sec. 13[1].) The Ombudsman is also empowered to "direct the officer concerned," in this case the Special Prosecutor, "to take appropriate action against a public official x x x and to recommend his prosecution" (Sec. 13[3]).
	GR No. 115103 2002-04-11	BIR v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN DE LEON, JR., J.
This contention of the BIR is baseless. The power to investigate and to prosecute which was granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified.[22] The Ombudsman Act makes it perfectly clear that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses "all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance that have been committed by any officer or employee xxx during his tenure of office.[23]