Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AMADO G. PEREZ v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 184130 2015-06-29	SANDRA M. CAM v. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO SERENO, C.J.
A preliminary investigation is in effect a realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of the case; sufficient proof of the guilt of the criminal respondent must be adduced so that when the case is tried, the trial court may not be bound, as a matter of law, to order an acquittal.[50] While probable cause should be determined in a summary manner, there is a need to examine the evidence with care to prevent material damage to a potential accused's constitutional right to liberty and the guarantees of freedom and fair play.[51] The need for a careful examination of the evidence is also intended to protect the State from the burden of unnecessary expenses in prosecuting and trying cases arising from false, fraudulent or groundless charges.
	GR No. 178511 2008-12-04	MA. BELEN FLORDELIZA C. ANG-ABAYA v. EDUARDO G. ANG YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
A preliminary investigation is in effect a realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of the case; sufficient proof of the guilt of the criminal respondent must be adduced so that when the case is tried, the trial court may not be bound, as a matter of law, to order an acquittal.[35] Although a preliminary investigation is not a trial and is not intended to usurp the function of the trial court, it is not a casual affair; the officer conducting the same investigates or inquires into the facts concerning the commission of the crime with the end in view of determining whether or not an information may be prepared against the accused.[36] After all, the purpose of preliminary investigation is not only to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent therein is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial; it is just as well for the purpose of securing the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, and to protect him from an open and public accusation of a crime, from the trouble, expense and anxiety of a public trial.[37] More importantly, in the appraisal of the case presented to him for resolution, the duty of a prosecutor is more to do justice and less to prosecute.[38]
	GR NO. 169098 2006-10-12	MANUEL BAVIERA v. ROLANDO B. ZOLETA CALLEJO, SR., J.
On July 20, 2005, CA issued a Resolution denying the motion, holding that the ruling in Fabian v. Desierto[22] is not applicable, as it applies only in appeals from resolutions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases. The remedy of the aggrieved party from resolutions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases is to file a petition for certiorari in this Court, and not in the CA. The applicable rule is that enunciated in Enemecio v. Ombudsman,[23] later reiterated in Perez v. Office of the Ombudsman[24] and Estrada v. Desierto.[25]
	GR NO. 147911 2005-10-14	FEDERICO B. DIAMANTE III v. SANDIGANBAYAN CARPIO, J.
Assuming we rule on the merits of the case, we still have to dismiss the present petition because of the settled principle of non-interference in the exercise of the Ombudsman's constitutionally mandated powers.[14] As we stated in Perez v. Office of the Ombudsman[15] -
	GR NO. 153578 2005-01-28	VICENTE C. JIMENEZ v. EULOGIO TOLENTINO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moreover, and even if we were to rule on the merits of the case, the instant petition will still have to be dismissed in the light of the well-entrenched principle of non-interference in the exercise of the Ombudsman's constitutionally mandated powers.[13] As highlighted in Perez v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al.[14]