Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VENANCIO R. NAVA v. NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR Nos. 192435-36 2011-09-14	CITY GOVERNMENT OF TUGUEGARAO v. RANDOLPH S. TING VILLARAMA, JR., J.
However, while it is the Ombudsman who has the full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in the Sandiganbayan, once the case has been filed with said court, it is the Sandiganbayan, and no longer the Ombudsman, which has full control of the case so much so that the Information may not be dismissed without the approval of said court.[21] Further, it does not matter whether such filing of a motion to dismiss by the prosecution is done before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation.[22]
	GR Nos. 172476-99 2010-09-15	BRIG. GEN. JOSE RAMISCAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN CARPIO, J.
Significantly, while it is the Ombudsman who has the full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in the Sandiganbayan, once the case has been filed with said court, it is the Sandiganbayan, and no longer the Ombudsman, which has full control of the case.[34]
	GR NO. 157175 2007-06-21	HILARIO P. SORIANO v. ZENAIDA A. CABAIS SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Nevertheless, granting for the sake of argument that the statements of respondent in her Affidavits are false, still, there exists no reasonable ground to indict her under Articles 183 and 184 of the Revised Penal Code. It bears stressing that one element of perjury is a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood. Such element is absent in the instant case. Respondent's contention that said Manager's Checks were issued and paid by RBSM to Forcecollect and Surecollect, are duly supported by RBSM records which she has perused and examined in her capacity as duly designated BSP Comptroller for RBSM. Thus, respondent believes in good faith that what she mentioned in her Affidavits are true. It must be noted that good faith is a defense in perjury (People of the Philippines v. Abaya, 74 Phil. 59). For the same reasons, respondent cannot likewise be prosecuted under Article 184 of the Revised Penal Code. The above ratiocination does not appear to be arbitrary or whimsical. It bears emphasis that we have consistently refrained from interfering with the investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman absent any compelling reason.[9] In Nava v. National Bureau of Investigation,[10] we held that it is beyond the ambit of this Court to review the exercise of discretion of the Office of the Ombudsman in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint filed before it. Such initiative and independence are inherent in the Ombudsman, who beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and preserver of the integrity of the public service.
	GR NOS. 168830-31 2007-02-06	ERNESTO M. DE CHAVEZ v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We have consistently refrained from interfering with the constitutionally-mandated investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the public respondent absent any compelling reason.[38] In the case of Quiambao v. Desierto,[39] citing The Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Ombudsman Aniano Desierto,[40] we ruled:The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers is vested in the Office of the Ombudsman. To insulate the Office from outside pressure and improper influence, the Constitution as well as R.A. 6770 has endowed it with wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory powers virtually free from legislative, executive, or judicial intervention. This Court consistently refrains from interfering with the exercise of its powers, and respect the initiative and independence inherit in the Ombudsman who, "beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of the public service." In Maturan v. People,[41] we held:
	GR NO. 157835 2006-07-27	FE M. CABRERA v. SIMEON V. MARCELO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moreover, we have consistently refrained from interfering with the constitutionally-mandated investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman absent any compelling reason.[11] In the case of Quiambao v. Desierto,[12] citing The Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Ombudsman Aniano Desierto,[13] we held:The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers is vested in the Office of the Ombudsman. To insulate the Office from outside pressure and improper influence, the Constitution as well as R.A. 6770 has endowed it with wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory powers virtually free from legislative, executive, or judicial intervention. This Court consistently refrains from interfering with the exercise of its powers, and respects the initiative and independence inherent in the Ombudsman who, "beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of the public service."
	GR NO. 167514 2005-10-25	METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. TRACKWORKS RAIL TRANSIT ADVERTISING YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law.[22]
	GR NO. 147911 2005-10-14	FEDERICO B. DIAMANTE III v. SANDIGANBAYAN CARPIO, J.
Moreover, in case of conflict between the conclusion of the Ombudsman and the Prosecutor, the former's decision shall prevail since the Office of the Prosecutor is under the supervision and control of the Ombudsman.[27] It is discretionary upon the Ombudsman if he would rely mainly on the factual findings of the investigating prosecutor contained in the latter's report and recommendation.[28] The Ombudsman can very well make his own findings of fact.[29] There is no basis to exercise judicial review, absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[30]