This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-01-28 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| That an administrative case is independent from the criminal action, although both arose from the same act or omission, is elementary. Given the differences in the quantum of evidence required, the procedure observed, the sanctions imposed, as well as in the objective of the two proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding on the other. Thus, as a rule, exoneration in the administrative case is not a bar to a criminal prosecution for the same or similar acts which were the subject of the administrative complaint or vice versa.[80] | |||||
|
2011-09-14 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Accordingly, the dismissal of the criminal case by the Ombudsman does not foreclose administrative action against Cataquiz.[41] His absolution from criminal liability is not conclusive upon the OP, which subsequently found him to be administratively liable. The pronouncement made by the Ombudsman cannot serve to protect the respondent from further administrative prosecution. A contrary ruling would be unsettling as it would undermine the very purpose of administrative proceedings, that is, to protect the public service and uphold the time-honored principle that a public office is a public trust.[42] | |||||