Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NOS. 165510-33 2006-07-28	BENJAMIN T.ROMUALDEZ v. SIMEON V. MARCELO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Thus, in the case of Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto,[40] this Court was categorical in ruling that -
	GR NOS. 160577-94 2005-12-16	GREGORIO SINGIAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
. . . [W]illfully, unlawfully and criminally enter, on behalf of the government, into a transaction with ISI which is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government, by accommodating and granting a loan of (amount of loan) in favor of ISI as (purpose of the loan) despite its failure to put up additional collaterals and raise its working capital, to secure the interest of the Government in case ISI failed to pay the said loan, as in fact ISI failed to pay, and thereafter released and disbursed the said sum of (amount) to ISI to the damage and prejudice of the government in the aforestated amount and detriment to public service. Second. Petitioner argues that the loan amounting to U.S. US$2,500,000.00 is not under collateralized because, in addition to the piece of land valued at P1,646,700.00, ISI likewise offered as securities the joint and several signatures of petitioner and his co-accused, machinery and equipment to be imported under the subject letter of credit, and the assignment of US$0.50 per pair of shoes to be exported by ISI. Citing the ruling in Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto,[19] petitioner concluded that because of the failure of complaining witness, Atty. Salvador, to provide the proper valuation for the additional properties as collateral, the prosecution committed a fatal error in asserting that ISI did not have sufficient capital.
	GR No. 135249 2004-01-16	ATTY. ORLANDO SALVADOR FOR v. ANIANO DESIERTO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In sum, we cannot conclude that respondent Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. His Resolution being assailed by petitioner is based on substantial evidence. We have consistently held that as long as substantial evidence support the Ombudsman's ruling, his decision will not be overturned.[18]
	GR No. 131399 2003-10-17	ANGELITA AMPARO GO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It has been the Court's policy to refrain from interfering with the Ombudsman's exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers, unless there are good and compelling reasons to rule otherwise.[33] We find no cogent reason that justifies the reversal of the dismissal of the charges against respondents.