Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. ANIANO DESIERTO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 133347 2008-10-15	ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN NACHURA, J.
In Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) v. Desierto,[24] we dwelt on the powers, functions and duties of the Ombudsman, to wit:The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers is vested primarily in the Office of the Ombudsman. It bears emphasis that the Office has been given a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory powers under the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989). This discretion is all but free from legislative, executive or judicial intervention to ensure that the Office is insulated from any outside pressure and improper influence.
	GR Nos. 168578-79 2008-09-30	NIETO A. RACHO v. PRIMO C. MIRO QUISUMBING, J.
The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers is vested primarily in the OMB. For this purpose, the OMB has been given a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory powers under the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770[20] (The Ombudsman Act of 1989). Its discretion is freed from legislative, executive or judicial intervention to ensure that the OMB is insulated from any outside pressure and improper influence.[21] Hence, unless there are good and compelling reasons to do so, the Court will refrain from interfering with the exercise of the Ombudsman's powers, and will respect the initiative and independence inherent in the latter who, beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the guardian of the integrity of the public service.[22]
	GR NO. 135123 2007-01-22	REPUBLIC v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO AZCUNA, J.
Unless there are good and compelling reasons to do so, the Court will refrain from interfering with the exercise of the Ombudsman's powers, and respect the initiative and independence inherent in the latter who, beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of public service.[11] Public respondent, however, in this case has ignored vital evidence submitted by petitioner consisting not only of the stock certificates of VMC and TEC found in Malacañang when the late President Marcos fled the country but also the affidavit executed by private respondent Manahan stating that there was a divestment plan to turn over those certificates to the late President. Notwithstanding these pieces of evidence, public respondent found no probable cause to charge private respondents with violation of Sections 3 and 4 of Republic Act No. 3019 in the resolution, to wit:x x x However, the said letter which was allegedly written by respondent Disini to President Marcos has no evidentiary value whatsoever, considering that the same has not been identified nor authenticated by a qualified person, not to mention that its contents are pure hearsay, since it has not been affirmed by respondent Disini.