This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-07-31 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Plainly, the Ombudsman has "full discretion," based on the attendant facts and circumstances, to determine the existence of probable cause or the lack thereof.[20] On this score, we have consistently hewed to the policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman's exercise of its constitutionally mandated powers.[21] The Ombudsman's finding to proceed or desist in the prosecution of a criminal case can only be assailed through certiorari proceedings before this Court on the ground that such determination is tainted with grave abuse of discretion which contemplates an abuse so grave and so patent equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[22] | |||||
|
2011-10-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Similarly, the petitioner has not shown that he filed the present petition with this Court within the sixty-day reglementary period[35] from notice of the assailed Ombudsman's resolutions. He did not do so, of course, since he initially and erroneously filed a certiorari petition with the Sandiganbayan. We remind the petitioner that the remedy from the Ombudsman's orders or resolutions in criminal cases is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65[36] with this Court.[37] | |||||
|
2008-04-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| [34] Baviera v. Zoleta, G.R. No. 169098, October 12, 2006, 504 SCRA 281, 303; Soria v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 153524-25, January 31, 2005, 450 SCRA 339, 345. | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The Ombudsman's exercise of power must have been done in an arbitrary or despotic manner which must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[22] In this instance, petitioners utterly failed to show that the Ombudsman's action fits such a description. | |||||