This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-07-13 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| As regards petitioner's claim that Balasbas "blindly followed the illegal orders of his superiors," it is worthy to note that petitioner filed a similar case for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, as amended, this time against Dimagiba involving the same Resolution dated 27 August 2001 submitted by Balasbas. This Court, in Soriano v. Marcelo,[14] dismissed that petition for lack of merit and held that petitioner was not able to show that Dimagiba was motivated by self-interest or ill-will in reopening the preliminary investigation stage of Palad's case. The Court further ruled that Dimagiba acted in good faith, as he believed that a denial of the motion to reopen the preliminary investigation due to the accused's failure to submit her counter-affidavit would only lead to more delays. | |||||
|
2008-08-06 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Verily, the Court has almost always adopted, and quite aptly, a policy of non-interference in the exercise of the Ombudsman's constitutionally mandated powers. The Ombudsman has the power to dismiss a complaint outright without going through a preliminary investigation. To insulate the Office of the Ombudsman from outside pressure and improper influence, the Constitution, as well as R.A. No. 6770,[23] saw fit to endow that office with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory powers, virtually free from legislative, executive, or judicial intervention. If the Ombudsman, using professional judgment, finds the case dismissible, the Court shall respect such findings unless tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The Ombudsman has discretion to determine whether a criminal case, given its attendant facts and circumstances, should be filed or not. It is basically his judgment call.[24] | |||||