Download Rule 112 - Inigo PDF

TitleRule 112 - Inigo
TagsProsecutor Complaint Affidavit Arrest Search Warrant
File Size327.6 KB
Total Pages22
Table of Contents
                            SANCHEZ vs. DEMETRIOU
TEEHANKEE JR. vs. MADAYAG
An example of “Other officers as may be authorized by law to conduct preliminary investigation” is the Ombudsman. In the case of UY VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (312 SCRA 77 [August 9, 1999]), the Ombudsman and his deputies are only authorized to conduct preliminary investigation of public officers in cases which are falling within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (SB).So even if the crime is a violation of the Anti-Graft law, or a crime committed by a public officer in relation to his office, if he is below Grade 27, the proper court is not the SB, but the MTC or RTC. Before kasi, the original SC interpretation of the Ombudsman law as laid down in the first case of DELOSO VS. DOMINGO (November 21, 1990), is that, all crimes committed by public officers should be investigated by the Ombudsman.
	TATAD vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
	SANTIAGO vs. GARCHITORENA
	SOCRATES vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
		SERVANTES vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
	MERCADO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
	HO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
                        

Similer Documents