This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-07-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| x x x. 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.[25] It is not sound practice to depart from the policy of non-interference in the Ombudsman's exercise of discretion to determine whether or not to file information against an accused. As cited in a long line of cases, this Court has pronounced that it cannot pass upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence to determine the existence of probable cause. 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. If it were otherwise, this Court will be clogged with an innumerable list of cases assailing investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, to determine if there is probable cause. | |||||
|
2005-04-12 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Likewise, it cannot be said that the Ombudsman committed a grave abuse of discretion because he opined differently from the Special Prosecutor that, under the facts obtaining in the case, there is probable cause to believe that Nava is guilty of the offense charged. If the Ombudsman may dismiss a complaint outright for lack of merit, it necessarily follows that it is also within his discretion to determine whether the evidence before him is sufficient to establish probable cause.[58] In case of conflict between the conclusion of the Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor, the former's decision shall prevail since the Office of the Special Prosecutor is under the supervision and control of the Ombudsman.[59] | |||||
|
2004-06-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| a) dismissed outright for want of palpable merit; b referred to respondent for comment; c) indorsed to the proper government office or agency which has jurisdiction over the case; d) forwarded to the appropriate officer or official for fact-finding investigation; e) referred for administrative adjudication; or f) subjected to a preliminary investigation. Clearly, the Ombudsman does not have to conduct a preliminary investigation upon receipt of a complaint. The Ombudsman has discretion to determine whether a preliminary investigation is proper.[16] Should the investigating officer find the complaint devoid of merit, then he may recommend its outright dismissal.[17] | |||||