Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ENRICO P. QUIAMBAO v. ANIANO DESIERTO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 199082 2012-09-18	JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PERALTA, J.
Whether or not due process was observed by the Joint DOJ-COMELEC Fact-Finding Team and Preliminary Investigation Committee, and the COMELEC in the conduct of the preliminary investigation and approval of the Joint Panel's Resolution.[42]
	GR No. 169042 2011-10-05	ERDITO QUARTO v. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON MARCELO BRION, J.
The Constitution and RA No. 6770 have endowed the Office of the Ombudsman with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory powers, freed, to the extent possible within our governmental system and structure, from legislative, executive, or judicial intervention, and insulated from outside pressure and improper influence.[86] Consistent with this purpose and subject to the command of paragraph 2, Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution,[87] the Court reiterates its policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman's exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers (among them, the power to grant immunity to witnesses[88]), and respects the initiative and independence inherent in the Ombudsman who, "beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of the public service."[89] Ocampo IV v. Ombudsman[90] best explains the reason behind this policy: The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped if they could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.
	GR No. 169042 2011-10-05	ERDITO QUARTO v. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON MARCELO BRION, J.
The Constitution and RA No. 6770 have endowed the Office of the Ombudsman with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory powers, freed, to the extent possible within our governmental system and structure, from legislative, executive, or judicial intervention, and insulated from outside pressure and improper influence.[86] Consistent with this purpose and subject to the command of paragraph 2, Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution,[87] the Court reiterates its policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman's exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers (among them, the power to grant immunity to witnesses[88]), and respects the initiative and independence inherent in the Ombudsman who, "beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of the public service."[89] Ocampo IV v. Ombudsman[90] best explains the reason behind this policy: The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped if they could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.
	GR No. 193105 2011-05-30	CLAY v. ALEXANDER T. LICHAYTOO NACHURA, J.
The counter-allegations of respondents essentially delve on evidentiary matters that are best passed upon in a full-blown trial. The issues upon which the charges are built pertain to factual matters that cannot be threshed out conclusively during the preliminary stage of the case. Precisely, there is a trial for the presentation of prosecution's evidence in support of the charge.[23] The presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits. The validity and merits of a party's defense or accusation, as well as admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level.[24]
	GR NOS. 168830-31 2007-02-06	ERNESTO M. DE CHAVEZ v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We have consistently refrained from interfering with the constitutionally-mandated investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the public respondent absent any compelling reason.[38] In the case of Quiambao v. Desierto,[39] citing The Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Ombudsman Aniano Desierto,[40] we ruled:The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers is vested in the Office of the Ombudsman. To insulate the Office from outside pressure and improper influence, the Constitution as well as R.A. 6770 has endowed it with wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory powers virtually free from legislative, executive, or judicial intervention. This Court consistently refrains from interfering with the exercise of its powers, and respect the initiative and independence inherit in the Ombudsman who, "beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of the public service." In Maturan v. People,[41] we held:
	GR NO. 157835 2006-07-27	FE M. CABRERA v. SIMEON V. MARCELO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moreover, we have consistently refrained from interfering with the constitutionally-mandated investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman absent any compelling reason.[11] In the case of Quiambao v. Desierto,[12] citing The Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Ombudsman Aniano Desierto,[13] we held:The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers is vested in the Office of the Ombudsman. To insulate the Office from outside pressure and improper influence, the Constitution as well as R.A. 6770 has endowed it with wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory powers virtually free from legislative, executive, or judicial intervention. This Court consistently refrains from interfering with the exercise of its powers, and respects the initiative and independence inherent in the Ombudsman who, "beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of the public service."
	GR NO. 129099 2006-07-20	MA. CHONA M. DIMAYUGA v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN AZCUNA, J.
This Court in Quiambao v. Desierto[8] stated that:As a rule, we have consistently adopted a policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations and provided sufficient latitude of discretion to the investigating prosecutor to determine what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause. As we held in the case of The Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Ombudsman Aniano Desierto (418 Phil. 715; 362 SCRA 730, 735-736 [2001]):