Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 147097 2009-06-05	CARMELO F. LAZATIN v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO AS OMBUDSMAN PERALTA, J.
Likewise noteworthy is the holding of the Court in Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto,[20] imparting the value of the Ombudsman's independence, stating thus:Under Sections 12 and 13, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution and RA 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989), the Ombudsman has the power to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of a public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has been the consistent ruling of the Court not to interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers as long as his rulings are supported by substantial evidence. Envisioned as the champion of the people and preserver of the integrity of public service, he has wide latitude in exercising his powers and is free from intervention from the three branches of government. This is to ensure that his Office is insulated from any outside pressure and improper influence.[21]
	GR No. 163017 2008-06-18	HILARIO P. SORIANO v. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Likewise worthy of emphasis is the holding of the Court in Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto,[8] imparting the value of the Ombudsman's independence.
	GR No. 135080 2007-11-28	ORLANDO L. SALVADOR v. PLACIDO L. MAPA NACHURA, J.
In cases involving violations of R.A. No. 3019 committed prior to the February 1986 EDSA Revolution that ousted President Ferdinand E. Marcos, we ruled that the government as the aggrieved party could not have known of the violations at the time the questioned transactions were made. Moreover, no person would have dared to question the legality of those transactions. Thus, the counting of the prescriptive period commenced from the date of discovery of the offense in 1992 after an exhaustive investigation by the Presidential Ad Hoc Committee on Behest Loans.[16] This is now a well-settled doctrine which the Court has applied in subsequent cases involving the PCGG and the Ombudsman.[17]