This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-06-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The Ombudsman implores the Court to apply its policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman's determination (i) of the presence or absence of probable cause and, concomitantly, (ii) of the sufficiency of the evidence before it. Citing Lazatin v. Desierto,[14] the Ombudsman argues that the issue of the correctness of the Ombudsman's determination of these matters is outside the province of certiorari. | |||||
|
2009-10-02 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In the recent case Lazatin v. Ombudsman,[132] this Court held that the question of whether "the Ombudsman correctly ruled that there was enough evidence to support a finding of probable cause pertains to a mere error of judgment." The Court further held: It must be stressed that certiorari is a remedy meant to correct only errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. This has been emphasized in First Corporation v. Former Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals , to wit: | |||||