Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES v. MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 194157 2014-07-30	ROMEO R. ARAULLO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN REYES, J.
Given the subject of the present petition, the Court's inquiry shall then be limited to the question of whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint filed by Araullo. By jurisprudence, "[g]rave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; or the exercise of power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility. The abuse must be in a manner so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law."[22]
	GR No. 146376 2014-04-23	RODOLFO M. AGDEPPA v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The Court recognized in Angeles v. Gutierrez[52] that the Ombudsman has the discretionary power to dismiss a complaint outright or proceed with the conduct of a preliminary investigation: The determination by the Ombudsman of probable cause or of whether there exists a reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed, and that the accused is probably guilty thereof, is usually done after the conduct of a preliminary investigation. However, a preliminary investigation is by no means mandatory.
	GR No. 193706 2013-03-12	EBRENCIO F. INDOYON v. CA SERENO, C.J.
At the outset, we emphasize that a writ of certiorari is an extraordinary prerogative writ that is never demandable as a matter of right.[23] To warrant the issuance thereof, the abuse of discretion must have been so gross or grave, as when there was such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; or the exercise of power was done in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility. The abuse must have been committed in a manner so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[24]
	GR No. 192334 2012-06-13	CONRADO CASING v. OMBUDSMAN BRION, J.
As a general rule, the Court does not interfere with the Office of the Ombudsman's exercise of its investigative and prosecutorial powers,[19] and respects the initiative and independence inherent in the Office of the Ombudsman which, "beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of the public service."[20] While the Ombudsman's findings as to whether probable cause exists are generally not reviewable by this Court,[21] where there is an allegation of grave abuse of discretion, the Ombudsman's act cannot escape judicial scrutiny under the Court's own constitutional power and duty "to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."[22]