This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-12-07 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it must be emphasized that the Ombudsman is a constitutional officer duty-bound to investigate on its own or on complaint by "any person, any act or omission of a public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient."[15] By constitutional fiat and under RA 6770,[16] the Ombudsman is given a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory powers on offenses committed by public officers free from legislative, executive or judicial intervention.[17] Because of the endowment of broad investigative authority, the Ombudsman is empowered to determine, based on the sufficiency of the complaint, whether there exist reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and file the corresponding information with the appropriate courts. In contrast, if the Ombudsman finds the complaint insufficient in form or substance, it may also dismiss the complaint. Such prerogative is beyond the ambit of this Court to review the Ombudsman's exercise of discretion in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint filed before it[18] except when the exercise thereof is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.[19] | |||||