This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-02-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners make mountain on the use of the words "liable for violation x x x" employed by the Ombudsman. A review of the specific powers of the Ombudsman under the Constitution, the laws and jurisprudential pronouncements is in order. Both the 1987 Constitution and the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6770) empower the public respondent to investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official or employee, office or agency when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.[22] By virtue of this power,[23] it may conduct a preliminary investigation for the mere purpose of determining whether there is a sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.[24] | |||||
|
2006-07-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that a prosecutor does not decide whether there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. A prosecutor merely determines whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty of the crime, and should stand trial. In determining probable cause, an inquiry on whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant conviction is not required. A trial is intended precisely for the reception of prosecution evidence in support of the charge. It is the court's task to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented by the parties at a trial on the merits.[10] | |||||
|
2006-06-27 |
PANGANIBAN, C.J. |
||||
| Indeed, this doctrine was first established in Cruz v. People[26] and has consistently been followed in recent cases.[27] In the present controversy, it is worthwhile to quote a relevant portion of our ruling in Olivarez: "It may be true that, on the face thereof, the marginal notes seem to lack any factual or evidentiary basis for failure to specifically spell out the same. However, that is not all there is to it. What is actually involved here is a situation wherein, on the bases of the same | |||||