Scribd
Upload
1K views1 page

Tejano Vs Ombudsman

1) Cayetano Tejano and others were charged with violations of the Anti-Graft law and the case was filed in Sandiganbayan. Tejano requested reinvestigation which was granted. Upon reinvestigation, the Special Prosecutor recommended dismissal finding no probable cause. 2) However, the Ombudsman, who had earlier participated in the initial investigation as Special Prosecutor, disapproved the recommendation for dismissal and ordered the case to be prosecuted aggressively. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman was not justified in disapproving the dismissal recommendation. Due process prevents one who previously participated in a case from reviewing their own decision, so the O

Uploaded by

Mildred Z
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views1 page

Tejano Vs Ombudsman

1) Cayetano Tejano and others were charged with violations of the Anti-Graft law and the case was filed in Sandiganbayan. Tejano requested reinvestigation which was granted. Upon reinvestigation, the Special Prosecutor recommended dismissal finding no probable cause. 2) However, the Ombudsman, who had earlier participated in the initial investigation as Special Prosecutor, disapproved the recommendation for dismissal and ordered the case to be prosecuted aggressively. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman was not justified in disapproving the dismissal recommendation. Due process prevents one who previously participated in a case from reviewing their own decision, so the O

Uploaded by

Mildred Z
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

C009Tejano vs.

Ombudsman
,GR 159190, 30 June 2005; Second Division, Chico-Nazario [J]
FACTS:
On 08 November 1994, Aniano A. Desierto, then the Special Prosecutor, concurred inthe approval of his subordinates on the
filing of the proper information for violation of Section3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 against petitioner Cayetano A. Tejano, Jr.,
Juana dela Cruz andVicente dela Cruz of V&G. Afterwards, the case was filed with the Sandiganbayan, petitioner filed with
the Sandiganbayan an Urgent Motion for a Period of Time to File Motion for Reinvestigation. Sandiganbayan granted
the motion for reinvestigation and ordered the Officeof the Special Prosecutor to conduct the reinvestigation. Upon
reinvestigation, convinced thatno probable cause existed to indict petitioner Tejano, and spouses Juana and Vicente delaCruz,
Special Prosecutor Micael, recommended the dismissal of the case. On 10 December 1999, Ombudsman Aniano A.
Desierto, who earlier participated in the initial preliminaryinvestigation as Special Prosecutor, disapproved the
recommendation for the dismissal of the
case with the marginal note
assign the case to another prosecutor to prosecute the case aggressively.

ISSUE:
WON THE OMBUDSMAN IS JUSTIFIED IN DISAPPROVEDING THERECOMMENDATION FOR THE DISMISSAL OF
THE CASE.
HELD.
NO. Due process dictates that one called upon to resolve a dispute may not review hisdecision on appeal. Having
participated in the initial preliminary investigation of the instant caseand having recommended the filing of an
appropriate information, it behooved OmbudsmanDesierto to recuse himself from participating in the review of the
same during thereinvestigation.

You might also like