This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-01-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The petition calls to mind Office of the Ombudsman v. Enoc,[14] wherein accused Ruben Enoc, et al. invoked the August 9, 1999 Decision of the Court in Uy[15] in a motion to dismiss the 11 counts of malversation that were filed against them by the Ombudsman before the RTC. The RTC granted the motion but upon petition filed by the Ombudsman, the Court reversed the RTC and held:In turn, petitioner filed a Manifestation invoking the very same resolution promulgated on March 20, 2001 in Uy v. Sandiganbayan reconsidering the ruling that the prosecutory power of the Ombudsman extended only to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. | |||||
|
2007-04-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Lastly, we are not prepared to indulge respondents' insistence that the DOJ cannot endorse to the Ombudsman the petition for review of the abovementioned DOJ Resolution. The Ombudsman's power to investigate and to prosecute is plenary and unqualified.[11] It pertains to any act or omission of any public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, or improper.[12] In this case, respondents are public officers charged with the commission of a crime. The DOJ Resolution, subject of the petition for review, found probable cause against respondents for the crime of direct bribery. The Ombudsman thus acted within its authority in taking over the said petition for review. | |||||