Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 107 views

    Yu v. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Diane Julian
    The Ombudsman received a complaint charging municipal officials with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. After an investigation, the Ombudsman investigator recommended dismissing the case but the Ombudsman disagreed and filed an information with the court. The petitioners claimed the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. The court held that it will not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of its powers absent clear abuse of discretion, as the Ombudsman acts as a champion of the people. The court also found no grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan in finding probable cause and allowing the case to proceed to trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Yu v. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Diane Julian
    107 views2 pages
    The Ombudsman received a complaint charging municipal officials with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. After an investigation, the Ombudsman investigator recommended dismissing the case but the Ombudsman disagreed and filed an information with the court. The petitioners claimed the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. The court held that it will not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of its powers absent clear abuse of discretion, as the Ombudsman acts as a champion of the people. The court also found no grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan in finding probable cause and allowing the case to proceed to trial.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Ombudsman received a complaint charging municipal officials with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. After an investigation, the Ombudsman investigator recommended dismissing the case but the Ombudsman disagreed and filed an information with the court. The petitioners claimed the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. The court held that it will not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of its powers absent clear abuse of discretion, as the Ombudsman acts as a champion of the people. The court also found no grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan in finding probable cause and allowing the case to proceed to trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    107 views2 pages

    Yu v. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Diane Julian
    The Ombudsman received a complaint charging municipal officials with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. After an investigation, the Ombudsman investigator recommended dismissing the case but the Ombudsman disagreed and filed an information with the court. The petitioners claimed the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. The court held that it will not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of its powers absent clear abuse of discretion, as the Ombudsman acts as a champion of the people. The court also found no grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan in finding probable cause and allowing the case to proceed to trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    128466
    Yu v. Sandiganbayan
    May 31, 2001
    Rule 112 — Preliminary Investigation

    FACTS:
    On March 23, 1994, the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon received a Joint Affidavit and
    Criminal Complaint from the members of the Sangguniang Bayan charging Municipal Mayor
    Remegio P. Yu, Municipal Vice-Mayor Michael S. Cosue and Municipal Treasurer Julieta M.
    Fernandez and Rodolfo Macabunga, the proprietor of Rosales Lumber and Hardware with
    violation of R. A. No.3019, Section 3 (e). Later on, the OMB investigator, after evaluation of
    the evidence for both parties recommended the dismissal of the case. However, the
    Ombudsman disapproved the recommendation for dismissal. Hence, the Ombudsman filed
    with the Sandiganbayan an Information 11 for violation of Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3 (e)
    against petitioners. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, they alleged that,
    Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
    finding that there was probable cause to indict them for violation of the Anti Graft and Corrupt
    Practices Act particularly Section 3 (e) thereof. And that the Sandiganbayan also committed
    grave abuse of discretion in sustaining such finding and persisting to try the case against them.
    The Ombudsman denied the motion for reconsideration. In the same manner, the
    Sandiganbayan denied the motion for reconsideration petitioners filed. Hence, this petition.

    ISSUE:
    Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
    excess of jurisdiction in ruling that there was probable cause against petitioners.

    HELD:
    NO. The petition is without merit.
    The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers is vested in the Office of the
    Ombudsman. The Court has consistently refrained from interfering with the Ombudsman in the
    exercise of its powers, and respects the initiative and independence inherent in the
    Ombudsman who, "beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the preserver
    of the integrity of public service.”
    The rule is based not only upon constitutional considerations but upon practical ones as
    well. If it were otherwise, the courts would be gravely hampered by innumerable petitions
    questioning the dismissal of investigatory proceedings before the Ombudsman, in much the
    same way that the courts would be swamped if they would be compelled to review the exercise
    of discretion on the part of our prosecutors each time they decide to file an information in court
    or throw out a complaint.
    The main function of the government prosecutor during preliminary investigation is
    merely to determine the existence of probable cause, and to file the corresponding information if
    he finds it to be so. "And, probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and
    circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the
    knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of crime for which he was
    prosecuted."
    To repeat, it is well settled that in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion, courts will
    not interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman, who, depending on his finding and
    considered evaluation of the case, either dismisses a complaint or proceeds with it.
    In the same manner, we can not say that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of
    discretion in finding the existence of probable cause and continuing with the trial of the case.

    You might also like