Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO AS OMBUDSMAN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR Nos. 169823-24 2013-09-11	HERMINIO T. DISINI v. SANDIGANBAYAN BERSAMIN, J.
It appears that the resolutions of the Office of the Ombudsman, following its conduct of the preliminary investigation on the criminal complaints thus transmitted by the PCGG, were reversed and set aside by the Court in Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Desierto,[20] with the Court requiring the Office of the Ombudsman to file the informations that became the subject of Disini's motion to quash in Criminal Case No. 28001 and Criminal Case No. 28002.
	GR Nos. 172476-99 2010-09-15	BRIG. GEN. JOSE RAMISCAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN CARPIO, J.
As the final word on the matter, the decision of the panel of prosecutors finding probable cause against petitioner prevails. This Court does not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause.[28] The Ombudsman is endowed with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory prerogatives in the exercise of its power to pass upon criminal complaints.[29] As this Court succinctly stated in Alba v. Hon. Nitorreda:[30]
	GR No. 156337 2007-09-28	UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. ALBERTO T. LOOYUKO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Grave abuse of discretion refers not merely to palpable errors of jurisdiction; or to violations of the Constitution, the law and jurisprudence.[20] It refers also to cases in which, for various reasons, there has been a gross misapprehension of facts.[21]
	GR No. 164865 2005-11-11	ROBERTO P. FUENTES v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
Case law has it that this Court does not ordinarily interfere with the discretion of the Office of the Ombudsman to determine whether there exists reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and, thereafter, to file the corresponding information with the appropriate courts if necessary.[35] Certainly, it has been the policy of this Court to vest upon the Office of the Ombudsman wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory prerogatives in the exercise of its power to pass upon criminal complaints.[36] As held in the leading case of Alba vs. Nitorreda:[37]
	GR NO. 156652 2005-10-13	DR. BENITA F. OSORIO v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We agree with the Court of Appeals. The claims of petitioner that she did not receive and have control of the subject funds, as well as the absence of the elements of the crime of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019, are undoubtedly evidentiary matters that are to be ventilated in a full-blown trial and not during the preliminary investigation. The presence and absence of the elements of the crime, which are by their nature evidentiary and defense matters, can be best passed upon after a trial on the merits.[16] As earlier pointed out, the established rule is that a preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence.[17] It is 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 thereof.