This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2007-07-24 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is quite clear under Section 2(a), Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, that it may dismiss a complaint outright for want of palpable merit. At that point, the Ombudsman does not have to conduct a preliminary investigation upon receipt of a complaint.[25] Should the investigating officer find the complaint devoid of merit, then he may recommend its outright dismissal.[26] The Ombudsman has discretion to determine whether a preliminary investigation is proper.[27] It is only when the Ombudsman opts not to dismiss the complaint outright for lack of palpable merit would the Ombudsman be expected to require the respondents to file their counter-affidavit and petitioner, its reply. | |||||
|
2006-11-24 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Indeed, the Court has adopted a policy of non-interference in the exercise of the Ombudsman's constitutionally mandated powers of calibrating the evidence of the parties. This Court is not a trier of facts; the Ombudsman is.[12] Moreover, absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, the findings of fact of the CA, affirming the findings of the Ombudsman, are final and conclusive on this Court.[13] In this case, there is no showing that the Ombudsman had abused his discretion. | |||||
|
2006-07-20 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| In Kara-an v. Office of the Ombudsman,[10] this Court further expounded, thus:x x x The consistent policy of the Court is not to interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers. We held in Alba v. Nitorreda that: | |||||
|
2005-11-18 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Without having to go through a preliminary investigation, the OMB has the power to dismiss a complaint outright for being completely without merit.[59] It necessarily follows that conducting a preliminary investigation and determining if any of the modes of discovery should be used are within the ambit of its discretion. The Court cannot compel the testimonies of witnesses and the production of documents if, in the ombudsman's sound judgment, these pieces of evidence are not necessary to establish probable cause.[60] | |||||
|
2005-10-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The consistent and general policy of the Court is not to interfere with the Office of the Ombudsman's exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers.[12] The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well.[13] Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped if they would be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an Information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.[14] The Court cannot interfere with the Office of the Ombudsman's discretion in determining the adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence before it. The investigation is advisedly called preliminary, as it is yet to be followed by the trial proper. The occasion is not for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence but for the presentation of such evidence only as may engender a well-founded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty of the offense.[15] Hence, in the absence of a clear case of abuse of discretion, this Court will not interfere with the Office of the Ombudsman's discretion in the conduct of preliminary investigation. | |||||