Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROBERTO P. FUENTES v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 192685 2013-07-31	OSCAR R. AMPIL v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PEREZ, J.
Probable cause is a reasonable ground for presuming that a matter is or may be well-founded on such state of facts in the prosecutor's mind as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe or entertain an honest or strong suspicion that it is so.[38]
	GR Nos. 172476-99 2010-09-15	BRIG. GEN. JOSE RAMISCAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN CARPIO, J.
In this case, petitioner failed to establish that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied petitioner's motion to set aside his arraignment. There is grave abuse of discretion when power is exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.[35]
	GR No. 171609 2007-08-17	DR. JUANITO RUBIO v. OMBUDSMAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Case law has it that this Court does not ordinarily interfere with the discretion of the Office of the Ombudsman 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 if necessary. Certainly, it has been the policy of this Court to vest upon the Office of the Ombudsman wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory prerogatives in the exercise of its power to pass upon criminal complaints.[9]
	GR NO. 166797 2007-07-10	JOSE M. GALARIO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Probable cause is a reasonable ground for presuming that a matter is or may be well-founded on such state of facts in the prosecutor's mind as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe or entertain an honest or strong suspicion that it is so. x x x.[20] In the instant petition, we do not perceive any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the OMB-Mindanao when it issued its Resolution dated 26 November 2004 and Order dated 7 January 2005 finding probable cause for the filing of an information against herein petitioner for violation of Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019.
	GR NO. 159876 2007-06-26	DINO A. CRUCILLO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN GARCIA, J.
The Court does not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's finding and call on the existence of a probable cause.[28] Practical consideration as well as respect for the Constitution and R.A. No. 6770[29] which have endowed the OOMB with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory prerogatives virtually free from legislative, executive or judicial intervention are the moving reasons for this rule.[30]
	GR NO. 156527 2007-03-05	NEMESIO M. CALIM v. JESUS F. GUERRERO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Herein, petitioner was not able to establish his entitlement to a writ of mandamus. Petitioner fails to demonstrate that he has a clear legal right to compel the public respondents to file a criminal information against the private respondents. Settled is the rule that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers without good and compelling reasons to indicate otherwise.[27] Said exercise of powers is based upon his constitutional mandate[28] and the courts will not interfere in its exercise.[29] Courts have upheld the wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutorial powers that the Ombudsman enjoys; and such powers are virtually free from executive, legislative or judicial intervention.[30] The rationale of this rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers that the Office of the Ombudsman is granted under the present Constitution,[31] but upon practicality as well; otherwise, the functions of the courts would be perilously bound by numerous petitions assailing the result of the investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office, in much the same way that the courts would be saturated if compelled to review the prosecutors' exercise of discretion each time they decide to file an information or dismiss a complaint.[32] The discretion to prosecute or dismiss a complaint filed before it is lodged in the Office of the Ombudsman itself. To compel the Ombudsman to further pursue a criminal case against the private respondents, as petitioner would have it, is outside the ambit of the courts.