Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ERIBERTO L. VENUS v. ANIANO DESIERTO

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	GR Nos. 172476-99 2010-09-15	BRIG. GEN. JOSE RAMISCAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN CARPIO, J.
As the final word on the matter, the decision of the panel of prosecutors finding probable cause against petitioner prevails. This Court does not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause.[28] The Ombudsman is endowed with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory prerogatives in the exercise of its power to pass upon criminal complaints.[29] As this Court succinctly stated in Alba v. Hon. Nitorreda:[30]
	GR No. 145184 2008-03-14	PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO NACHURA, J.
The Chapter on Human Relations of the Civil Code directs every person, inter alia, to observe good faith, which springs from the fountain of good conscience.[20] Well-settled is the rule that good faith is presumed. Specifically, a public officer is presumed to have acted in good faith in the performance of his duties.
	GR Nos. 164166 & 164173-80 2007-10-17	RODOLFO S. DE JESUS v. SANDIGANBAYAN QUISUMBING, J.
We note that the Sandiganbayan granted petitioner's motion for reinvestigation.[35] By allowing the reinvestigation, the Sandiganbayan thus deferred to the authority of the Ombudsman to further re-assess or re-examine the facts. In short, the Sandiganbayan was willing to accept and adopt the final resolution of the Office of the Special Prosecutor and the Ombudsman on the issue of whether or not the offense charged was in fact committed by petitioner. But, the Sandiganbayan was not bound by such quasi-judicial findings. In fact, under the principles governing criminal procedure, the Sandiganbayan, or any trial court for that matter, is mandated to independently evaluate or assess the merits of the case, and may either agree or disagree with the recommendation of the prosecutor. Hence, the logical thing for us to do would be to remand this case to the Sandiganbayan. Nevertheless, where the innocence of an accused is manifest from the evidence, as here, we find neither reason nor logic to merely remand the case.[36]
	GR NOS. 167006-07 2007-08-14	DANILO D. COLLANTES v. SIMEON MARCELO NACHURA, J.
Well-settled is the rule that good faith is always presumed and the Chapter on Human Relations of the Civil Code directs every person, inter alia, to observe good faith which springs from the fountain of good conscience.[31] Specifically, a public officer is presumed to have acted in good faith in the performance of his duties. Mistakes committed by a public officer are not actionable absent any clear showing that they were motivated by malice or gross negligence amounting to bad faith.[32] "Bad faith" does not simply connote bad moral judgment or negligence. There must be some dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of a sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will. It partakes of the nature of fraud. It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or some motive of self-interest or ill will for ulterior purposes.[33]
	GR No. 164865 2005-11-11	ROBERTO P. FUENTES v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
Case law has it that this Court does not ordinarily interfere with the discretion of the Office of the Ombudsman 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 if necessary.[35] Certainly, it has been the policy of this Court to vest upon the Office of the Ombudsman wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory prerogatives in the exercise of its power to pass upon criminal complaints.[36] As held in the leading case of Alba vs. Nitorreda:[37]
	GR NO. 134509 2005-04-12	VENANCIO R. NAVA v. NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION TINGA, J.
Congruently with the rule that criminal prosecutions may not be restrained, either through a preliminary or final injunction or a writ of prohibition, the Court ordinarily does not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of discretion in determining whether there exists a reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof, and thereafter in filing the corresponding information with the appropriate courts,[60] save for the following instances:(1) To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
	GR No. 142738 2001-12-14	DR. HONORATA BAYLON v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PARDO, J.
In order to be held guilty of violating Section 3(e), R. A. No. 3019, the act of the accused that caused undue injury must have been done with evident bad faith or with gross inexcusable negligence.[57] Bad faith per se is not enough for one to be held liable under the law, the "bad faith" must be "evident."[58]
	GR No. 142889 2001-09-21	EXECUTIVE LABOR ARBITER RICARDO N. OLAIREZ v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO PARDO, J.
In the absence of allegation of bad faith, and more importantly, of "injury" there can be no prosecution for violation of R. A. No. 3019, Sec. 3 (e).[6]
	GR No. 116938 2001-09-20	LEONILA GARCIA-RUEDA v. REMEDIOS A. AMOR PARDO, J.
In the absence of evidence showing that the act of respondent assistant city prosecutor in dismissing the charge against Dr. Reyes was done in evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, causing undue injury to petitioner, the charge of violation of R. A. No. 3019, Sec. 3[e], would not prosper.[32]