This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-02-20 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| What matters is compliance with due process during the preliminary investigation. That was accorded to petitioner. Due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy or an opportunity to move for a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[15] As aptly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, "Mr. Velasco was properly informed of the acts for which he was being investigated and later charged. He participated actively in the preliminary investigation and in fact, was given ample opportunity to buttress the allegations against him when he filed his counter-affidavit and submitted evidence on his behalf."[16] Upon issuance of the Memorandum indicting petitioner, petitioner even filed the corresponding motion for reconsideration. Thus, petitioner was given all avenues to present his side and refute all allegations against him. He was accorded, and he availed of, due process. | |||||
|
2009-03-12 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| (i) Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance.[48] | |||||
|
2007-12-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The Ombudsman is not precluded from ordering another review of a complaint, for he or she may revoke, repeal or abrogate the acts or previous rulings of a predecessor in office.[18] And Roxas v. Hon. Vasquez[19] teaches that new matters or evidence are not prerequisites for a reinvestigation, which is simply a chance for the prosecutor, or in this case the Office of the Ombudsman, to review and re-evaluate its findings and the evidence already submitted.[20] | |||||