This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-11-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Case law has it that the determination of probable cause against those in public office during a preliminary investigation is a function that belongs to the Office of the Ombudsman.[18] The Ombudsman has the discretion to determine whether a criminal case, given its attendant facts and circumstances, should be filed or not. It is basically his call. He may dismiss the complaint forthwith should he find it to be insufficient in form or substance, or he may proceed with the investigation if, in his view, the complaint is in due and proper form and substance. [19] We have consistently refrained from interfering with the constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman.[20] Thus, if the Ombudsman, using professional judgment, finds the case dismissible, the Court shall respect such findings, unless the exercise of such discretionary powers is tainted by grave abuse of discretion.[21] | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The factual and evidentiary issues can best be passed upon and threshed out during a full-blown court trial since it is the court's task to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented by the parties at a trial on the merits.[37] | |||||