Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANTONIO PROSPERO ESQUIVEL v. OMBUDSMAN

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 175433 2015-03-11	ATTY. JACINTO C. GONZALES v. MAILA CLEMEN F. SERRANO PERALTA, J.
Given that the Ombudsman is vested with plenary and unqualified power[41] to investigate any malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance by a public officer or employee of the government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,[42] the settled rule is that courts will not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers without good and compelling reason to indicate otherwise.[43] As discussed above, the Court finds such good and compelling reasons based on law and jurisprudence as would warrant the modification of the CA decision, as well as the Memorandum-Order of Overall Deputy Office of the Ombudsman.
	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 No. 155307 2011-06-06	M.A. JIMENEZ ENTERPRISES v. OMBUDSMAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It is well-settled that the determination of probable cause against those in public office during a preliminary investigation is a function that belongs to the Ombudsman.[13] The Ombudsman is vested with the sole power to investigate and prosecute, motu proprio or upon the complaint of any person, any act or omission which appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.[14] It has the discretion to determine whether a criminal case, given its attendant facts and circumstances, should be filed or not.[15] As explained in Esquivel v. Ombudsman:[16]
	GR Nos. 158694-96 2009-03-13	PEOPLE v. TEOFILO G. PANTALEON BRION, J.
Our ruling in Esquivel v. Ombudsman[70] on this point is particularly instructive:In Rodrigo, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, Binay vs. Sandiganbayan, and Layus vs. Sandiganbayan, we already held that municipal mayors fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Nor can Barangay Captain Mark Anthony Esquivel claim that since he is not a municipal mayor, he is outside the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction. R.A. 7975, as amended by R.A. No. 8249 provides that it is only in cases where "none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade `27' or higher" that "exclusive original jurisdiction shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended." Note that under the 1991 Local Government Code, Mayor Esquivel has a salary grade of 27. Since Barangay Captain Esquivel is the co-accused in Criminal Case No. 24777 of Mayor Esquivel, whose position falls under salary grade 27, the Sandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over said criminal case, as well as over Criminal Case No. 24778, involving both of them.[71] [Underscoring and italics in the original]
	GR No. 162808 2008-04-22	FELICIANO GALVANTE v. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Constitution vests in the Ombudsman the power to determine whether there exists reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and, thereafter, to file the corresponding information with the appropriate courts.[31] The Court respects the relative autonomy of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute, and refrains from interfering when the latter exercises such powers either directly or through the Deputy Ombudsman,[32] except when the same is shown to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[33]
	GR No. 146031 2008-02-19	DELTA DEVELOPMENT v. HOUSING TINGA, J,
Being an extraordinary remedy, prohibition cannot be resorted to when the ordinary and usual remedies provided by law are adequate and available. Prohibition is granted only where no other remedy is available or sufficient to afford redress. That the petitioner has another and complete remedy at law, through an appeal or otherwise, is generally held sufficient reason for denying the issuance of the writ.[11]
	GR NO. 156527 2007-03-05	NEMESIO M. CALIM v. JESUS F. GUERRERO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Herein, petitioner was not able to establish his entitlement to a writ of mandamus. Petitioner fails to demonstrate that he has a clear legal right to compel the public respondents to file a criminal information against the private respondents. Settled is the rule that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers without good and compelling reasons to indicate otherwise.[27] Said exercise of powers is based upon his constitutional mandate[28] and the courts will not interfere in its exercise.[29] Courts have upheld the wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutorial powers that the Ombudsman enjoys; and such powers are virtually free from executive, legislative or judicial intervention.[30] The rationale of this rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers that the Office of the Ombudsman is granted under the present Constitution,[31] but upon practicality as well; otherwise, the functions of the courts would be perilously bound by numerous petitions assailing the result of the investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office, in much the same way that the courts would be saturated if compelled to review the prosecutors' exercise of discretion each time they decide to file an information or dismiss a complaint.[32] The discretion to prosecute or dismiss a complaint filed before it is lodged in the Office of the Ombudsman itself. To compel the Ombudsman to further pursue a criminal case against the private respondents, as petitioner would have it, is outside the ambit of the courts.
	GR NO. 168362 2007-01-25	LADISLAO SALMA v. PRIMO C. MIRO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Ombudsman is empowered to determine whether there exists a reasonable ground to believe that the crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and thereafter file the corresponding informations before the appropriate courts.[29] The authority granted to government prosecutors, like the Ombudsman or the Deputy Ombudsman in the instant case, to file criminal charges does not preclude them from refusing to file the information when they believe that there is no prima facie evidence to do so.
	GR NO. 139675 2006-07-21	PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. ANIANO DESIERTO AZCUNA, J.
Indeed, the Ombudsman is empowered to determine whether there exist reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and, thereafter, to file the corresponding information with the appropriate courts.[24] The Ombudsman may thus conduct an investigation if the complaint filed is found to be in the proper form and substance. Conversely, the Ombudsman may also dismiss the complaint should it be found insufficient in form or substance.[25]