This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-06-26 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| His above authority enables the Ombudsman to carry out his constitutional mandate to ensure accountability in the public service.[6] It gives the Ombudsman wide latitude in using an accused discharged from the information to increase the chances of conviction of the other accused and attain a higher prosecutorial goal.[7] Immunity statutes seek to provide a balance between the state's interests and the individual's right against self-incrimination. To secure his testimony without exposing him to the risk of prosecution, the law recognizes that the witness can be given immunity from prosecution.[8] In such a case, both interests and rights are satisfied. | |||||
|
2012-06-19 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| The power vested by Article IX-C, Section 2(5) of the Constitution and Section 61 of BP 881 in the COMELEC to register political parties and ascertain the eligibility of groups to participate in the elections is purely administrative in character.[45] In exercising this authority, the COMELEC only has to assess whether the party or organization seeking registration or accreditation pursues its goals by employing acts considered as violent or unlawful, and not necessarily criminal in nature. Although this process does not entail any determination of administrative liability, as it is only limited to the evaluation of qualifications for registration, the ruling of this Court in Quarto v. Marcelo[46] is nonetheless analogously applicable: An administrative case is altogether different from a criminal case, such that the disposition in the former does not necessarily result in the same disposition for the latter, although both may arise from the same set of facts. The most that we can read from the finding of liability is that the respondents have been found to be administratively guilty by substantial evidence the quantum of proof required in an administrative proceeding. The requirement of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure…that the proposed witness should not appear to be the "most guilty" is obviously in line with the character and purpose of a criminal proceeding, and the much stricter standards observed in these cases. They are standards entirely different from those applicable in administrative proceedings.[47] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||