This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-04-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Constitution vests in the Ombudsman the power to determine whether there exists reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and, thereafter, to file the corresponding information with the appropriate courts.[31] The Court respects the relative autonomy of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute, and refrains from interfering when the latter exercises such powers either directly or through the Deputy Ombudsman,[32] except when the same is shown to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[33] | |||||
|
2008-04-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Finally, on the criminal complaint for grave threats, the Solicitor General aptly pointed out that the same is based merely on petitioner's bare allegation that private respondents aimed their firearms at him.[45] Such bare allegation stands no chance against the well-entrenched rule applicable in this case, that public officers enjoy a presumption of regularity in the performance of their official function.[46] The IAS itself observed that private respondents may have been carried away by their "enthusiasm in the conduct of the arrest in line of duty."[47] Petitioner expressed the same view when, in his Affidavit of Desistance, he accepted that private respondents may have been merely following orders when they pointed their long firearms at him. | |||||