Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. ANIANO DESIERTO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR NO. 131397 2006-01-31	REPUBLIC v. ANIANO DESIERTO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
As a general rule, this Court will not interfere with the investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman without any compelling reason.[8] However, this non-interference does not apply when there is grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of its discretion.[9] By grave abuse of discretion is meant "such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility."[10]
	GR No. 146731 2004-01-13	AGUSTINA M. ENEMECIO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN CARPIO, J.
Our evaluation of the records leads us to the conclusion that the Ombudsman has carefully studied the merits of the criminal complaint. Where the Ombudsman has thoroughly examined the merits of the complaint, it would not be right to subject the private respondent to an unnecessary and prolonged anguish.[28]
	GR No. 136506 2001-08-23	REPUBLIC v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO AS OMBUDSMAN DE LEON, JR., J.
Statutes regulating procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. In that context and in view of the retroactive application of procedural laws,[25] the instant petition should thus be considered timely filed.
	GR No. 130817 2001-08-22	PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO PARDO, 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.[17] 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.
	GR No. 135482 2001-08-14	PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO PARDO, J.
It has been the consistent ruling of the Supreme Court not to interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers.[17]