Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. ANIANO DESIERTO

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 139930 2012-06-26	REPUBLIC v. EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO ABAD, J.
Preliminarily, the Court notes that what Republic of the Philippines (petitioner) filed in this case is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. But the remedy from an adverse resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman in a preliminary investigation is a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65.[12] Still, the Court will treat this petition as one filed under Rule 65 since a reading of its contents reveals that petitioner imputes grave abuse of discretion and reversible jurisdictional error to the Ombudsman for dismissing the complaint. The Court has previously treated differently labeled actions as special civil actions for certiorari under Rule 65 for acceptable reasons such as justice, equity, and fair play.[13]
	GR No. 192334 2012-06-13	CONRADO CASING v. OMBUDSMAN BRION, J.
The Constitution and R.A. No. 6770[15] endowed the Office of the Ombudsman with wide latitude, in the exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers, to pass upon criminal complaints involving public officials and employees.[16] Specifically, the determination of whether probable cause exists[17] is a function that belongs to the Office of the Ombudsman. Whether a criminal case, given its attendant facts and circumstances, should be filed or not is basically its call.[18]
	GR Nos. 189161 & 189173 2012-03-21	JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES v. MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ SERENO, J.
In Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Desierto,[32] we further clarified the plenary powers of the Ombudsman. We emphasized that if the latter, using professional judgment, finds a case dismissible, the Court shall respect that finding, unless the exercise of such discretionary power was tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
	GR No. 160772 2009-07-13	HILARIO P. SORIANO v. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO CARPIO, J.
In Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Desierto,[7] we discussed the value of the Ombudsman's independence, thus: 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. 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. We have consistently refrained from interfering with the constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman. 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.
	GR No. 160772 2009-07-13	HILARIO P. SORIANO v. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO CARPIO, J.
The Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed. Nonetheless, this Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's action when there is a charge of grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The Ombudsman's exercise of power must have been done in an arbitrary or despotic manner which must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[8] An examination of the records would show that the Office of the Ombudsman did not act with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction, in dismissing the complaint against Balasbas.
	GR No. 147097 2009-06-05	CARMELO F. LAZATIN v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO AS OMBUDSMAN PERALTA, J.
Indeed, for the Court to overturn the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause, it is imperative for petitioners to clearly prove that said public official acted with grave abuse of discretion. In Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Desierto,[22] the Court elaborated on what constitutes such abuse, to wit:Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The Ombudsman's exercise of power must have been done in an arbitrary or despotic manner which must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. x x x[23]
	GR No. 174567 2009-03-12	SEVERINO B. VERGARA v. OMBUDSMAN CARPIO, J.
The Ombudsman has the discretion to determine whether a criminal case, given its attendant facts and circumstances, should be filed or not. The Ombudsman may dismiss the complaint should the Ombudsman find the complaint insufficient in form or substance, or the Ombudsman may proceed with the investigation if, in the Ombudsman's view, the complaint is in due form and substance.[44] Hence, the filing or non-filing of the information is primarily lodged within the "full discretion" of the Ombudsman.[45]
	GR No. 163017 2008-06-18	HILARIO P. SORIANO v. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Under Sections 12 and 13, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution and RA 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989), the Ombudsman has the power to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of a public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has been the consistent ruling of the Court not to interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers as long as his rulings are supported by substantial evidence. Envisioned as the champion of the people and preserver of the integrity of public service, he has wide latitude in exercising his powers and is free from intervention from the three branches of government. This is to ensure that his Office is insulated from any outside pressure and improper influence.[9] (Emphasis supplied) Again, in Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Desierto,[10] the Court ruled that: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. 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. We have consistently refrained from interfering with the constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman. 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.