Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    PEOPLE Vs FOURTH DIVISION

    Uploaded by

    Rina Gonzales
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in dismissing corruption complaints against Raul Desembrana due to alleged inordinate delay. While the Office of the Special Prosecutor took over a year to resolve Desembrana's motion for reconsideration of a finding of probable cause, defendants are entitled to file such motions as part of preliminary investigations. Further, the Sandiganbayan itself was responsible for much of the delay by not promptly resolving the OSP's compliance motion. To avoid delays, judges should not quash arrest warrants due to pending reconsideration motions unless probable cause is found lacking.

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE Vs FOURTH DIVISION

    Uploaded by

    Rina Gonzales
    48 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in dismissing corruption complaints against Raul Desembrana due to alleged inordinate delay. While the Office of the Special Prosecutor took over a year to resolve Desembrana's motion for reconsideration of a finding of probable cause, defendants are entitled to file such motions as part of preliminary investigations. Further, the Sandiganbayan itself was responsible for much of the delay by not promptly resolving the OSP's compliance motion. To avoid delays, judges should not quash arrest warrants due to pending reconsideration motions unless probable cause is found lacking.

    Original Title

    PEOPLE vs FOURTH DIVISION

    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 Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in dismissing corruption complaints against Raul Desembrana due to alleged inordinate delay. While the Office of the Special Prosecutor took over a year to resolve Desembrana's motion for reconsideration of a finding of probable cause, defendants are entitled to file such motions as part of preliminary investigations. Further, the Sandiganbayan itself was responsible for much of the delay by not promptly resolving the OSP's compliance motion. To avoid delays, judges should not quash arrest warrants due to pending reconsideration motions unless probable cause is found lacking.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    48 views3 pages

    PEOPLE Vs FOURTH DIVISION

    Uploaded by

    Rina Gonzales
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in dismissing corruption complaints against Raul Desembrana due to alleged inordinate delay. While the Office of the Special Prosecutor took over a year to resolve Desembrana's motion for reconsideration of a finding of probable cause, defendants are entitled to file such motions as part of preliminary investigations. Further, the Sandiganbayan itself was responsible for much of the delay by not promptly resolving the OSP's compliance motion. To avoid delays, judges should not quash arrest warrants due to pending reconsideration motions unless probable cause is found lacking.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    SUBJECT: Civil Law / Remedial Law

    DOCTRINE: Inordinate Delay

    CASE TITLE: People of the Philippines vs Fourth Division

    CASE CITATION/DATE: G.R. Nos. 233061-62, July 28, 2020

    FACTS:

    Two informations were filed against Raul Desembrana for violation of Section 7(d) in
    relation to Section 11 of Republic Act No. 6713 3 (RA 6713)

    After posting bail, he filed a Motion to Suspend Arraignment with the Sandiganbayan
    to accommodate the Motion to Conduct Preliminary Investigation he had filed with
    the Office of the Special Prosecutor. The Sandiganbayan heard the Motion and
    directed the OSP to file its Comment/Opposition

    After hearing private respondent's Motion to Admit Reply, the Sandiganbayan


    granted the Motion and noted the OSP's Manifestation that it would no longer file any
    rejoinder.

    In its Resolution, the Sandiganbayan granted private respondent's Motion and


    directed the OSP to conduct a "full and complete preliminary investigation" within
    sixty (60) days from notice.

    In compliance therewith, the OSP directed private respondent to submit his counter-
    affidavit and other countervailing evidence. Private respondent filed his Rejoinder-
    Affidavit which is the last pleading received by the OSP

    On two separate (2) occasions, the OSP filed a Motion for Extension of Time to
    Terminate a Complete and Full Preliminary Investigation of these Cases. Private
    respondent, then manifested that he filed his Rejoinder-Affidavit

    Thereafter, OSP issued a recommendation finding probable cause against private


    respondent for violation of Article 210 of The Revised Penal Code and requesting for
    the withdrawal of the information in Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0427 and the
    substitution of the relevant Information in place thereof. The Ombudsman approved
    the recommendation

    To this, private respondent filed his Motion for Reconsideration which was denied.

    ISSUE:

    Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the


    complaints below by reason of an alleged inordinate delay.

    HELD:
    YES. The Sandiganbayan thus gravely abused its discretion in faulting the OSP for
    seeking leave of court before it could have acted on private respondent's motion for
    reconsideration.

    The OSP had already conducted full and complete preliminary investigation when it
    filed with the Sandiganbayan its "Compliance with Omnibus Motion Private
    respondent's motion for reconsideration did not reduce the fullness or completeness
    of the preliminary investigation conducted by the OSP. For the OSP was within its
    right to file the Informations with or without private respondent's motion.

    A person under preliminary investigation by the Ombudsman is entitled to file


    a motion for reconsideration of the adverse resolution.

    The filing of a motion for reconsideration is an integral part of the preliminary


    investigation proper. There is no dispute that the Information was filed without first
    affording petitioner-accused his right to file a motion for reconsideration. The denial
    thereof is tantamount to a denial of the right itself to a preliminary investigation. This
    fact alone already renders preliminary investigation conducted in this case
    incomplete. The inevitable conclusion is that the petitioner was not only effectively
    denied the opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman's final
    resolution but also deprived of his right to a full preliminary investigation preparatory
    to the filing of the information against him.

    To determine whether a respondent's right to a speedy disposition of cases, the


    1983 case of Martin v. Ver adopted the balancing test laid down in the U.S. case
    of Barker v. Wingo. The balancing test compels the courts to approach cases on an
    ad hoc basis, with the conduct of both the prosecution and defendant weighed using
    the four-fold factors: (1) the length of the delay; (2) reason for the delay; (3)
    defendant's assertion or non-assertion of his right; and (4) prejudice to
    defendant resulting from the delay. These factors are to be considered
    together.

    A definitive ruling on the concept of inordinate delay was laid down by the Court en
    banc in Cagang v. Sandiganbayan as follows:

    (1) The right to speedy disposition of cases is different from the right to
    speedy trial

    (2) For purposes of determining inordinate delay, a case is deemed to


    have commenced from the filing of the formal complaint and the
    subsequent conduct of the preliminary investigation.

    (3) Courts must determine which party carries the burden of proof.

    (4) Determination of the length of delay is never mechanical.

    (5) The right to speedy disposition of cases (or the right to speedy trial)
    must be timely raised.
    The Sandiganbayan left the matter hanging for almost a year. Neither the OSP nor
    private respondent called the Sandiganbayan's attention to this freeze.
    Sandiganbayan is responsible for the delay. There was nothing complex about the
    issues presented in the "Compliance with Omnibus Motion" to justify a timeline of
    more than a year to resolve it. By exercising ordinary diligence, the Sandiganbayan
    could have decided the motion within just a week, as in fact it was able to issue its
    Resolution just two weeks from the end of our famous long and festive holiday break
    in December. In any event, as explained above, the Sandiganbayan gravely abused
    its discretion in blindly relying upon Sales to justify its ruling or stance that "we did
    not have to tell you so," as regards the leave of court for the OSP to resolve private
    respondent's motion for reconsideration.

    In order to avoid delay in the proceedings, judges are reminded that the
    pendency of a motion for reconsideration, motion for reinvestigation, or
    petition for review is not a cause for the quashal of a warrant of arrest
    previously issued because the quashal of a warrant of arrest may only take
    place upon the finding that no probable cause exists.

    Single-spaced
    1. Font size is 12
    2. Font face is Arial
    3. One space every after paragraph
    4. Justify (alignment)
    5. Do not indent
    6. May “bold” text for emphasis

    You might also like