Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

OMBUDSMAN v. NESTOR S. VALEROSO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 201643 2014-03-12	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. JOSE T. CAPULONG REYES, J.
The requisites for the Ombudsman to issue a preventive suspension order are clearly contained in Section 24[30] of R.A. No. 6770.[31] The rule is that whether the evidence of guilt is strong is left to the determination of the Ombudsman by taking into account the evidence before him. In the very words of Section 24, the Ombudsman may preventively suspend a public official pending investigation if "in his judgment" the evidence presented before him tends to show that the official's guilt is strong and if the further requisites enumerated in Section 24 are present.[32] The Court, however, can substitute its own judgment for that of the Ombudsman on this matter, with a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman.
	GR No. 197307 2014-02-26	FLOR GUPILAN-AGUILAR v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN VELASCO JR., J.
minimizing if not altogether curtailing the opportunities for official corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service. By the SALN, the public is able to monitor movement in the fortune of a public official; it serves as a valid check and balance mechanism to verify undisclosed properties and wealth.[46] The failure to file a truthful SALN puts in doubts the integrity of the officer and would normally amount to dishonesty. It should be emphasized, however, that mere misdeclaration in the SALN does not automatically amount to such an offense. Dishonesty requires malicious
	GR No. 170146 2011-06-08	WALDO Q. FLORES v. ATTY. ANTONIO F. MONTEMAYOR VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Under this scheme, respondent would have acquired as many assets never to be declared at anytime. Such act erodes the function of requiring accuracy of entries in the SSAL which must be a true and detailed statement. It undermines the SSAL as "the means to achieve the policy of accountability of all public officers and employees in the government" through which "the public are able to monitor movement in the fortune of a public official; [as] a valid check and balance mechanism to verify undisclosed properties and wealth."[21]
	GR No. 183890 2011-04-13	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. MANUEL P. VALENCIA MENDOZA, J.
In the case of Carabeo v. Court of Appeals,[35] citing Ombudsman v. Valeroso,[36] the Court restated the rationale for the SALN and the evils that it seeks to thwart, to wit: Section 8 above, speaks of unlawful acquisition of wealth, the evil sought to be suppressed and avoided, and Section 7, which mandates full disclosure of wealth in the SALN, is a means of preventing said evil and is aimed particularly at curtailing and minimizing, the opportunities for official corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service. "Unexplained" matter normally results from "non-disclosure" or concealment of vital facts. SALN, which all public officials and employees are mandated to file, are the means to achieve the policy of accountability of all public officers and employees in the government. By the SALN, the public are able to monitor movement in the fortune of a public official; it is a valid check and balance mechanism to verify undisclosed properties and wealth. [Emphasis supplied]
	GR No. 185685 2011-01-31	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. NIETO A. RACHO MENDOZA, J.
In the case of Carabeo v. Court of Appeals,[39] citing Ombudsman v. Valeroso,[40] the Court restated the rationale for the SALN and the evils that it seeks to thwart, to wit: Section 8 above, speaks of unlawful acquisition of wealth, the evil sought to be suppressed and avoided, and Section 7, which mandates full disclosure of wealth in the SALN, is a means of preventing said evil and is aimed particularly at curtailing and minimizing, the opportunities for official corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service. "Unexplained" matter normally results from "non-disclosure" or concealment of vital facts. SALN, which all public officials and employees are mandated to file, are the means to achieve the policy of accountability of all public officers and employees in the government. By the SALN, the public are able to monitor movement in the fortune of a public official; it is a valid check and balance mechanism to verify undisclosed properties and wealth.
	GR Nos. 178000 and 178003 2009-12-04	LIBERATO M. CARABEO v. CA CARPIO, J.
Whether the evidence of guilt is strong is left to the determination of the Ombudsman by taking into account the evidence before him.[21] In Buenaseda v. Flavier,[22] the Court relevantly pronounced: The import of the Nera decision is that the disciplining authority is given the discretion to decide when the evidence of guilt is strong. This fact is bolstered by Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770, which expressly left such determination of guilt to the "judgment" of the Ombudsman on the basis of the administrative complaint x x x