Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EMERENCIANO ESPINOSA v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

This case has been cited 19 times or more.

	GR Nos. 192435-36 2011-09-14	CITY GOVERNMENT OF TUGUEGARAO v. RANDOLPH S. TING VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It is settled that the Office of the Ombudsman has the sole power to investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. The power to withdraw the Information already filed is a mere adjunct or consequence of the Ombudsman's overall power to prosecute.[20]
	GR Nos. 168578-79 2008-09-30	NIETO A. RACHO v. PRIMO C. MIRO QUISUMBING, J.
Besides, under the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman (Administrative Order No. 07), particularly Rule II, Section 7(a),[42]in relation to Section 4(f),[43] a complainant's active participation is no longer a matter of right during reinvestigation. Admittedly, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied in administrative proceedings. Thus, it is settled that administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense.[44]
	GR No. 162938 2007-12-27	ALFREDO C. BUYAGAO v. HADJI FAIZAL G. KARON QUISUMBING, J.
For their part, respondents allege that the Sandiganbayan did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the charges against them. Respondents cited the case of Espinosa v. Office of the Ombudsman[13] that the duty of a government prosecutor to prosecute crimes does not preclude him from refusing to file an information when he believes there is no prima facie evidence to do so.[14] Thus, the power to withdraw an information already filed is a mere adjunct or consequence of the Ombudsman's overall power to prosecute. Respondents contend that Buyagao's charge of graft has no basis since the CSC upheld their act of dropping him from the rolls. This Order, the respondents stressed, was buttressed by the findings of lack of probable cause by the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan.
	GR NO. 159876 2007-06-26	DINO A. CRUCILLO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN GARCIA, J.
This rule of non-interference is, however, far from absolute. Case law has it that the Court will intervene upon proof of commission of grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman.[31] In other words, the Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's action when there is grave abuse of discretion, in which case the certiorari jurisdiction of the Court may exceptionally be invoked pursuant to Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution.[32] Accordingly, where grave abuse of discretion taints the Ombudsman's finding as to the existence of probable cause, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.[33] In Cabahug v. People,[34] the Court, citing Brocka v. Enrile,[35] enumerated the circumstances where the courts may interfere with the investigatory power of fiscals and the Ombudsman and thus stay or altogether restrain criminal prosecutions. Among these are:(a) To afford protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
	GR NO. 168718 2006-11-24	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. FARIDA T. LUCERO CALLEJO, SR., J.
Indeed, the Court has adopted a policy of non-interference in the exercise of the Ombudsman's constitutionally mandated powers of calibrating the evidence of the parties. This Court is not a trier of facts; the Ombudsman is.[12] Moreover, absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, the findings of fact of the CA, affirming the findings of the Ombudsman, are final and conclusive on this Court.[13] In this case, there is no showing that the Ombudsman had abused his discretion.
	GR NO. 133077 2006-09-08	ADORACION G. ANGELES v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO GARCIA, J.
Time and again, the Court has ruled that the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether a criminal complaint should be dismissed or the necessary Information be filed in the appropriate court. His determination and evaluation of the adequacy of evidence in this regard are unfettered. His is an exercise of powers based upon a constitutional mandate and the courts should not interfere in such exercise.[15] So it is that in Espinosa v. Office of the Ombudsman,[16] the Court states: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. The same ruling was reiterated in Salvador v. Desierto, et al.,[17] where the Court further declared:
	GR NO. 139675 2006-07-21	PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. ANIANO DESIERTO AZCUNA, J.
Unless there are good and compelling reasons to do so, the Court will refrain from interfering with the exercise of the Ombudsman's powers, and respect the initiative and independence inherent in the latter who, beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of public service.[26]
	GR NO. 136062 2005-04-07	TRIFILO MONTEBON v. ATTY. CORAZON TANGLAO-DACANAY SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The rule is based not only upon constitutional considerations but also upon practical ones. If it were otherwise, the courts would be gravely hampered by innumerable petitions questioning the dismissal of investigatory proceedings before the Ombudsman, in much the same way that the courts would be swamped if they would be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of our prosecutors each time they decide to file an information with the court or throw out a complaint.[20]
	GR No. 149069 2004-09-20	ENRICO P. QUIAMBAO v. ANIANO DESIERTO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As a rule, we have consistently adopted a policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations and provided sufficient latitude of discretion to the investigating prosecutor to determine what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause.[21] As we held in the case of The Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Ombudsman Aniano Desierto:[22] 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". The functions of the courts will be hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, or compelling it to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the prosecutor each time an Information is filed in court or a private complainant's complaint is dismissed.[23] Ultimately, the discretion to determine whether a case should be filed or not lies with the Ombudsman. It is basically his call. Absent any good and compelling reason which indicates otherwise, his findings of probable cause deserve great respect.
	GR No. 135249 2004-01-16	ATTY. ORLANDO SALVADOR FOR v. ANIANO DESIERTO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Espinosa vs. Office of the Ombudsman,[13] we held:"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 public service."
	GR No. 139794 2002-02-27	MARTIN S. EMIN v. CHAIRMAN CORAZON ALMA G. DE LEON QUISUMBING, J.
Equally unmeritorious is petitioner's contention that he was denied due process. He avers that he was not allowed cross-examination. It is well to remember that in administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied and administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense.[28]
	GR No. 137777 2001-10-02	PRESIDENTIAL AD-HOC FACT FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO DESIERTO 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'.
	GR No. 136192 2001-08-14	PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO DESIERTO PARDO, J.
We said[18] that the prosecution of offenses committed by public officers is vested in the Ombudsman. To insulate the Office from outside pressure and improper influence, the Constitution as well as R. A. No. 6770[19] has endowed it with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory powers,[20] virtually free from legislative, executive or judicial intervention. We consistently refrained from interfering with the exercise of the Ombudsman's powers, and respected 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.[21]
	GR No. 135482 2001-08-14	PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO PARDO, J.
In Alba v. Nitorreda,[18] we held that "it is beyond the ambit of this Court to review the exercise of discretion of the Ombudsman in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint filed before it. Such initiative and independence are inherent in the Ombudsman who, beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and preserver of the integrity of the public service".[19]
	GR No. 114944 2001-06-19	MANUEL C. ROXAS v. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Neither do the lack of notice to, or participation of, petitioners at the reinvestigation render the questioned issuances of respondent Office of the Ombudsman null and void. This was firmly settled in the recent case of Espinosa v. Office of the Ombudsman,[18] where we held as follows
	GR Nos. 146710-15 2001-03-02	JOSEPH E. ESTRADA v. ANIANO DESIERTO PUNO, J.
The heat was on. On November 1, four (4) senior economic advisers, members of the Council of Senior Economic Advisers, resigned. They were Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala, former Prime Minister Cesar Virata, former Senator Vicente Paterno and Washington Sycip.[8] On November 2, Secretary Mar Roxas II also resigned from the Department of Trade and Industry.[9] On November 3, Senate President Franklin Drilon, and House Speaker Manuel Villar, together with some 47 representatives defected from the ruling coalition, Lapian ng Masang Pilipino.[10]
	GR No. 140232 2001-01-19	PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. ANIANO DESIERTO VITUG, J.
"Lastly, the presence of the endorsement of President Marcos would not qualify the loan as behest absence of any of the other criteria set by Administrative Order No. 13 and Memorandum Order No. 61."[10] The Court has more than once declared its reluctance to interfere in the investigatory and prosecutory powers of the Ombudsman absent any compelling reason.[11] In the recent case of Espinosa vs. Office of the Ombudsman,[12] the Court has reiterated:"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.
	GR No. 140358 2000-12-08	PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. ANIANO DESIERTO VITUG, J.
Just recently, in Espinosa vs. Office of the Ombudsman,[7] the Court has said: "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."