Computing the prescriptive period
34. Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans
vs. Desierto, 363 SCRA 489 (2001)
Student: G-one T. Paisones
Professor: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang
Facts:
Atty.
Orlando L. Salvador, Consultant of the Fact Finding Committee, and representing
the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed a sworn complaint,
for violation of Section 3, paragraphs (e) and (g), of Republic Act No. 3019,
as amended, with the Office of the Ombudsman against the directors and
officials of BUSCO, namely: respondents Manuel H. Nieto, Jr., Jose Ma. Ozamis,
Carlos O. Fortich, Rodolfo M. Cuenca, Jose L. Africa, Julio H. Ozamis, and
Miguel V. Gonzales; and the concerned members of the Board of Directors of the PNB.
After considering the evidence adduced, the Ombudsman
dismissed the complaint of the PCGG on August 28, 1998 on the ground that
"there is no sufficient evidence against respondents, both public and
private, so as to make them liable for criminal prosecution in court for
violation of the Anti-Graft Law xxx." In other words, there was no probable
cause.
Issue:
WONthe
Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in the determination of
whether or not probable cause exists against the respondents.
Held:
No.
Ratio:
In
any event, there is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman
in his determination of whether or not probable cause exists against the
respondents. 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.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento