This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-08-19 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The authority and the duty to dismiss a worthless complaint fully accorded with the primary responsibility of an officer engaged in public prosecution of offenses not to convict the offender but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is a cause for disciplinary action.[35] Conformably with this tenet, the respondent public officials had the authority and the duty to dismiss the petitioner's complaint once they determined it to be devoid of merit; thus, no abuse of discretion, much less grave abuse, could be attributed to them.[36] | |||||
|
2009-04-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| On the merits. Ordinarily, the Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's determination as to the existence or non-existence of probable cause. The rule, however, does not apply if there is grave abuse of discretion.[33] | |||||
|
2008-12-18 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Grave abuse of discretion exists where a power is exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by, or in contemplation of law.[26] | |||||
|
2008-04-23 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Ordinarily, the Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's determination of the existence or non-existence of probable cause. The rule, however, finds no application if there is grave abuse of discretion,[14] or if the action taken is done in a manner contrary to the dictates of the Constitution, law or jurisprudence.[15] | |||||