Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AZUCENA B. GARCIA v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 149069 2004-09-20	ENRICO P. QUIAMBAO v. ANIANO DESIERTO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
(5) That the public officer has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.[17] We find that the Ombudsman did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause for and sanctioning the filing of an Information against petitioner and his co-accused on charges of violation of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019. Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.[18] The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.[19]
	GR No. 142738 2001-12-14	DR. HONORATA BAYLON v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PARDO, J.
"(5) That the public officer has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable neglect."[59]
	GR No. 142889 2001-09-21	EXECUTIVE LABOR ARBITER RICARDO N. OLAIREZ v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO PARDO, J.
"(5) That the public officer has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.[5]
	GR No. 116938 2001-09-20	LEONILA GARCIA-RUEDA v. REMEDIOS A. AMOR PARDO, J.
"(5) That the public officer has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence."[28] In dismissing petitioner's charges against Dr. Erlinda Balatbat-Reyes, respondent prosecutor Dimagiba did not cause any undue injury to petitioner. Respondent prosecutor as a quasi-judicial official exercises discretion to determine whether probable cause exists sufficient to sustain the charge against Dr. Reyes.[29] In the performance of the duties of her office as prosecutor, respondent assistant city prosecutor Dimagiba may err.[30] Such error may not necessarily cause undue injury to any party. To constitute this element of the offense, the act of respondent must cause specific quantified injury to any party by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such party with the public officer acting with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.[31]