Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CONSUELO S. BLANCO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 142762 2005-03-04	LILANY YULO Y BILLONES v. PEOPLE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial,[7] is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays, or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.[8] To determine whether the right has been violated, the following factors may be considered: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for such delay; (3) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and (4) the prejudice caused by the delay.[9]
	GR No. 152789 2004-10-21	ATTY. ISAGANI B. RIZON v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO QUISUMBING, J.
As a final note, we have consistently held in a number of cases that this Court will refrain from interfering with the exercise by the Ombudsman of his constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutory powers. It is not for this Court to review the Ombudsman's exercise of discretion in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint filed before his Office. Such initiative and independence are inherent in the Ombudsman who, beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people, and is the guardian of the integrity of the public service.[17] In this regard, the Ombudsman is only performing his sworn duty.
	GR No. 148030 2003-03-10	EXECUTIVE LABOR ARBITER RICARDO N. OLAIREZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN 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]
	GR No. 143885-86 2002-01-21	MERCED TY-DAZO v. SANDIGANBAYAN KAPUNAN, J.
The right to a speedy disposition of cases, like the right to a speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the proceedings is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause or unjustifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.[5] In the determination of whether or not that right has been violated, the factors that may be considered and balanced are: the length of the delay the reasons for such delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay.[6]