Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AGUSTINA M. ENEMECIO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 174168 2009-03-30	SY TIONG SHIOU v. SY CHIM TINGA, J.
The Spouses Sy charge Sy Tiong Shiou with the offense of falsification of public documents under Article 171, paragraph 4; and/or perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The elements of falsification of public documents through an untruthful narration of facts are: (a) the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (b) the offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated;[34] (c) the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and (d) the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent to injure a third person.[35] On the other hand, the elements of perjury are: (a) that the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter; (b) that the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath; (c) that in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and, (d) that the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose.
	GR No. 127327 2009-02-13	LIBERATA AMBITO v. PEOPLE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the RPC,[54] the elements of falsification of public documents through an untruthful narration of facts are: (1) the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (2) the offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated; (3) the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and (4) the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent to injure a third person.[55]
	GR No. 163178 2009-01-30	HILARIO P. SORIANO v. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
However, where the findings of the respondent on the existence of probable cause in criminal cases are tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari with this Court under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,[20] upon a showing that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion, or more specifically, that it exercised its power arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion or personal hostility; and such exercise was so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty, or to a virtual refusal to perform it or to act in contemplation of law.[21]
	GR Nos. 163972-77 2008-03-28	JOSELITO RANIERO J. DAAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
[23] Enemecio v. Office of the Ombudsman, 464 Phil. 102, 114 (2004); Lumancas v. Intas, 400 Phil. 785, 798 (2000); Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan, 364 Phil. 890, 909 (1999).
	GR NO. 169098 2006-10-12	MANUEL BAVIERA v. ROLANDO B. ZOLETA CALLEJO, SR., J.
THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN CLEARLY ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISMISSED THE INSTANT CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (RA 3019) ALLEGEDLY ON THE GROUND OF INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.[18] However, on January 7, 2005, the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the petition on the ground that the proper remedy was to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, conformably with the ruling of this Court in Enemecio v. Office of the Ombudsman.[19] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, insisting that his petition for certiorari in the CA under Rule 65 was in accordance with the ruling in Fabian v. Desierto.[20] He insisted that the Office of the Ombudsman is a quasi-judicial agency of the government, and under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, the CA has concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court over a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. He asserted that the filing of his petition for certiorari with the CA conformed to the established judicial policy of hierarchy of courts as explained by this Court in People v. Cuaresma.[21]
	GR NO. 164317 2006-02-06	ALFREDO CHING v. VS.SECRETARY OF JUSTICE CALLEJO, SR., J.
Indeed, under Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure,[33] the Information shall be prepared by the Investigating Prosecutor against the respondent only if he or she finds probable cause to hold such respondent for trial. The Investigating Prosecutor acts without or in excess of his authority under the Rule if the Information is filed against the respondent despite absence of evidence showing probable cause therefor.[34] If the Secretary of Justice reverses the Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor who found no probable cause to hold the respondent for trial, and orders such prosecutor to file the Information despite the absence of probable cause, the Secretary of Justice acts contrary to law, without authority and/or in excess of authority. Such resolution may likewise be nullified in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.[35]
	GR NO. 163593 2005-12-16	PREFERRED HOME SPECIALTIES v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
In Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas),[48] this Court held that the acts of a quasi-judicial officer may be assailed by the aggrieved party via a petition for certiorari and enjoined (a) when necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; (b) when necessary for the orderly administration of justice; (c) when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority; (d) where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance; and (e) when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused. The Court declared that, if the officer conducting a preliminary investigation acts without or in excess of his authority and resolves to file the Information despite the absence of probable cause, such act may be nullified by a writ of certiorari. Indeed, under Rule 112, Section 4 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Information shall be prepared by the Investigating Prosecutor against the respondent only if there is a finding of probable cause to hold the latter for trial. The Investigating Prosecutor acts without or in excess of authority under the Rule if he files an Information against the respondent despite absence of evidence showing probable cause therefor.[49] If the Secretary of Justice finds no probable cause and reverses the Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor based on the evidence on record, and orders the latter to file an Information against the respondent therein despite the absence of probable cause, the Secretary of Justice acts contrary to law, without or in excess of authority. Such ruling may be nullified in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[50]