Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    Remulla v. Sandiganbayan, 823 SCRA 17

    Uploaded by

    Homer Simpson
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman violated Maliksi's right to a speedy disposition of his criminal case for violation of a public bidding law. The case was filed in 2002 but not resolved by the Ombudsman until 2017, a delay of over 14 years. Maliksi's right was violated despite not complaining about the delay, as the Constitution does not require accused persons to follow up on their cases for the right to apply. The Sandiganbayan properly dismissed the charges against Maliksi.

    Copyright:

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

    Remulla v. Sandiganbayan, 823 SCRA 17

    Uploaded by

    Homer Simpson
    27 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman violated Maliksi's right to a speedy disposition of his criminal case for violation of a public bidding law. The case was filed in 2002 but not resolved by the Ombudsman until 2017, a delay of over 14 years. Maliksi's right was violated despite not complaining about the delay, as the Constitution does not require accused persons to follow up on their cases for the right to apply. The Sandiganbayan properly dismissed the charges against Maliksi.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman violated Maliksi's right to a speedy disposition of his criminal case for violation of a public bidding law. The case was filed in 2002 but not resolved by the Ombudsman until 2017, a delay of over 14 years. Maliksi's right was violated despite not complaining about the delay, as the Constitution does not require accused persons to follow up on their cases for the right to apply. The Sandiganbayan properly dismissed the charges against Maliksi.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    27 views1 page

    Remulla v. Sandiganbayan, 823 SCRA 17

    Uploaded by

    Homer Simpson
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman violated Maliksi's right to a speedy disposition of his criminal case for violation of a public bidding law. The case was filed in 2002 but not resolved by the Ombudsman until 2017, a delay of over 14 years. Maliksi's right was violated despite not complaining about the delay, as the Constitution does not require accused persons to follow up on their cases for the right to apply. The Sandiganbayan properly dismissed the charges against Maliksi.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Remulla v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 218040, 823 SCRA 17, 17 Apr.

    2017

    *Rights of the Accused

    Facts:

    Remulla filed a criminal complaint against Maliksi before the Ombudsman for violation of
    sec. 3€ of RA 3019. He alleged that Maliksi, as governor of Cavite, caused the purchase of
    certain medical supplies from Allied Medical Laboratories Corporation in Nov. 2002 without
    conducting any public bidding. The Ombudsman found probable cause against Maliksi for
    violation of sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019.

    In a resolution, the Sandiganbayan found that Maliksi’s right to a speedy disposition of


    his case was violated. Thus it dismissed the case against him. The OSP filed a motion for partial
    reconsideration arguing that the delay in the preliminary investigation was neither whimsical
    nor capricious, considering that Maliksi did not complain on the delay. Sandiganbayan denied
    the motion for partial reconsideration.

    Issue:

    W/N the Ombudsman committed inordinate delay and violated Maliksi’s right to a
    speedy disposition of his case.

    Held:

    Yes. The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to a speedy trial, is
    deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive
    delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when
    without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party
    having his case tried.

    In addition, there is no constitutional or legal provision which states that it is mandatory


    for the accused to follow up his case before his right to its speedy disposition can be
    recognized. To rule otherwise would promote judicial legislation where the Court would provide
    a compulsory requisite not specified by the constitutional provision

    You might also like