Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PRESIDENTIAL AD-HOC FACT FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO DESIERTO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 158189 2010-04-23	ROBERTO B. KALALO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PERALTA, J.
This Court has consistently held that the Ombudsman has discretion to determine whether a criminal case, given its facts and circumstances, should be filed or not. It is basically his call. He may dismiss the complaint forthwith should he find it to be insufficient in form and substance, or should he find it otherwise, to continue with the inquiry; or he may proceed with the investigation if, in his view, the complaint is in due and proper form and substance.[12]
	GR NOS. 160577-94 2005-12-16	GREGORIO SINGIAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Third. Petitioner assails the prosecution's allegation that ISI suffered from a very low capital ratio of 6.75% as gratuitous and self-serving. Invoking this Court's ruling in Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loan v. Desierto,[22] he claims that such allegation is not proven considering that the prosecution failed to establish the existence of any acceptable banking standard obtaining at the time the subject loans were evaluated.
	GR No. 137237 2002-09-17	ANTONIO PROSPERO ESQUIVEL v. OMBUDSMAN QUISUMBING, J.
"fn">[21] Settled is the rule that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers without good and compelling reasons to indicate otherwise.[22] Said exercise of powers is based upon his constitutional mandate[23] and the courts will not interfere in its exercise. 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. Otherwise, innumerable petitions seeking dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Ombudsman will grievously hamper the functions of the office and the courts, in much the same way that courts will be swamped if they had to review the exercise of discretion on the part of public prosecutors each time they decided to file an information or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.[24] Thus, in Rodrigo, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan,[25] we held that: This Court, moreover, has maintained a consistent policy of non-interference in the determination of the Ombudsman regarding the existence of probable cause, provided there is no grave abuse in the exercise of such discretion.