Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RUPERTO V. PERALTA v. ANIANO DESIERTO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 184537 2010-04-23	QUINTIN B. SALUDAGA v. SANDIGANBAYAN MENDOZA, J.
Without good and compelling reasons, the Court cannot interfere in the exercise by the Office of the Ombudsman of its investigatory and prosecutory powers.[28] The only ground upon which it may entertain a review of the Office of the Ombudsman's action is grave abuse of discretion.[29]
	GR No. 184537 2010-04-23	QUINTIN B. SALUDAGA v. SANDIGANBAYAN MENDOZA, J.
Without good and compelling reasons, the Court cannot interfere in the exercise by the Office of the Ombudsman of its investigatory and prosecutory powers.[28] The only ground upon which it may entertain a review of the Office of the Ombudsman's action is grave abuse of discretion.[29]
	GR Nos. 168578-79 2008-09-30	NIETO A. RACHO v. PRIMO C. MIRO QUISUMBING, J.
The Ombudsman is empowered to determine whether there exists reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and, thereafter, to file the corresponding information with the appropriate courts.[23] Such finding of probable cause is a finding of fact which is generally not reviewable by this Court.[24] The only ground upon which a plea for review of the OMB's resolution may be entertained is an alleged grave abuse of discretion. By that phrase is meant the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty; or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law; or to act at all in contemplation of law, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.[25]
	GR No. 175930-31 2008-02-11	NICOLAS v. SANDIGANBAYAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
That the public officer has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.[48]
	GR NOS. 158613-14 2006-02-22	EMMANUEL T. PONTEJOS v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PANGANIBAN, CJ
Probable cause is defined as such facts and circumstances that would engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.[34] Its determination during a preliminary investigation is a function left to the government prosecutor, which in this case is the OMB.[35] As a rule, the courts do not interfere with the OMB's exercise of discretion in determining probable cause unless there are compelling reasons.[36] This policy is based on constitutional, statutory and practical considerations. The Constitution and RA 6770 (the Ombudsman Act of 1989) grants the OMB with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutorial powers that is virtually free from executive, legislative or judicial intervention, in order to insulate it from outside pressure and improper influence.[37]
	GR No. 165125 2005-11-18	CESAR T. VILLANUEVA v. MAYOR FELIX V. OPLE PANGANIBAN, J.
The determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation is a function of the government prosecutor, who in this case is the ombudsman.[43] As a rule, the Court does not interfere in the ombudsman's exercise of discretion in determining probable cause, unless there are compelling reasons.[44]
	GR No. 165125 2005-11-18	CESAR T. VILLANUEVA v. MAYOR FELIX V. OPLE PANGANIBAN, J.
"5. That the public officer has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence."[54]