This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2008-02-13 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The Ombudsman has discretion to determine whether a criminal case, given its facts and circumstances, should be filed or not. It is basically his call. He may dismiss the complaint forthwith should he find it to be insufficient in form or substance or, should he find it otherwise, to continue with the inquiry, or he may proceed with the investigation if, in his view, the complaint is in due and proper form and substance.[14] While the Ombudsman's discretion in determining the existence of probable cause is not absolute, nevertheless, petitioner must prove that such discretion was gravely abused to warrant the reversal of the Ombudsman's findings by this Court. In this respect, petitioner fails. We find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman. Petitioner's complaint was duly reviewed and the Ombudsman, in his discretion, determined that it should be dismissed. There is no sufficient proof that the reviewing officers exercised their discretion whimsically, arbitrarily, or capriciously. | |||||
|
2007-06-26 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| In PCGG v. Desierto,[71] a case set against a similar backdrop, the Court left undisturbed the ensuing disposition of the OMB which ruled out evident bad faith and rejected the theory of criminal liability on the part of DBP officers where the terms and conditions of the DBP loan guarantee were calculated to insure payment and profit, thus:As regards the alleged violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, the complainant did not give specific details that would show the element of evident bad faith [or] manifest partiality .....xxx Granting that the guarantee loan was under collateralized and the company undercapitalized, this does not ipso facto make the named respondents liable for violation under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, or make their acts criminal. As earlier pointed out, the Alice Reyes Memorandum " had set terms and conditions to insure repayment of the guarantee loan, including the submission by [ borrower] PCFC of additional assets necessary to cover the collateral deficiency of P17,725,000.00 xxx It was not a one-sided contract in favor of PCFC, DBP will also earn income for the accommodation it gives in terms of interest rates with the corresponding penalties it has imposed in case of late payments of amortizations and arrears. That although the PCFC failed pay ... this is one risk that the DBP has to face in this kind of financing business x x x. The complainant did not mention anything about misuse of PCFC's loan proceeds by a particular person or group of persons for their personal benefit and not for the purpose it was intended xxx. (Words in brackets and emphasis added) | |||||
|
2006-07-21 |
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] | |||||
|
2004-01-16 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| On the issue of whether respondent Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against respondents, let it be stressed that the Ombudsman has discretion to determine whether a criminal case, given its facts and circumstances, should be filed or not. It is basically his call. He may dismiss the complaint forthwith should he find it to be insufficient in form or substance or he may proceed with the investigation if, in his view, the complaint is in due and proper form and substance.[12] | |||||
|
2003-03-10 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| The other issues raised in the petition touch on the question of whether or not there appears to be a probable cause against respondent Olairez. Almost invariably, the Court has respected the assessment of the Ombudsman on the determination of the existence or absence of probable cause.[10] It is basically within his sound judgment to evaluate whether, given the facts and circumstances before him, a criminal case should or should not be filed.[11] Thus, it has been consistently held that it is not for this Court to review the Ombudsman's paramount discretion in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint filed before his office.[12] In Ocampo, IV vs. Ombudsman,[13] the Court has ratiocinated:"The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped if they could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant."[14] | |||||
|
2001-10-02 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| In any event, there is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman in his determination of whether or not probable cause exists against the respondents. This Court has consistently held that the Ombudsman has discretion to determine whether a criminal case, given its facts and circumstances, should be filed or not. It is basically his call. He may dismiss the complaint forthwith should he find it to be insufficient in form and substance or, should he find it otherwise, to continue with the inquiry; or he may proceed with the investigation if, in his view, the complaint is in due and proper form and substance.[15] Quite relevant is our ruling in Espinosa vs. Office of the Ombudsman[16] and reiterated in the case of The Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans vs. Hon. Aniano Desierto,[17] to wit: The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers is vested in the Office of the Ombudsman. To insulate the Office from outside pressure and improper influence, the Constitution as well as R.A. 6770 has endowed it with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory powers virtually free from legislative, executive or judicial intervention. This court consistently refrains from interfering with the exercise of its powers, and respects the initiative and independence inherent in the Ombudsman who, `beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of the public service'. | |||||
|
2001-08-14 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The Ombudsman may dismiss the complaint if he finds it to be insufficient in form or substance,[15] or if he otherwise finds no ground to continue with the inquiry; or he may proceed with the investigation of the complaint if, in his view, it is in due and proper form.[16] In fact, the Ombudsman has the power to dismiss a complaint outright without going through a preliminary investigation.[17] | |||||
|
2001-01-19 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| "The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers is vested in the Office of the Ombudsman. To insulate the Office from outside pressure and improper influence, the Constitution as well as RA 6770 has endowed it with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory powers virtually free from legislative, executive or judicial intervention. This Court consistently refrains from interfering with the exercise of its powers, and respects the initiative and independence inherent in the Ombudsman who, `beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of public service.'" As regards the manifestation of the Office of the Ombudsman of its willingness to have the case remanded for preliminary investigation, in PCGG vs. Desierto,[13] the Court has also enunciated the rule that when the merits of the complaint have evidently and thoroughly been examined by the Ombudsman, it would not be right to yet subject respondents to an unnecessary and prolonged anguish. The Court finds no cogent reason to divert in the instant case from making that same pronouncement. | |||||