REMULLA v SB

JUANITO VICTOR C. REMULLA, Petitioners, - versus - SANDIGANBAYAN and ERENEO MALIKSI, Respondents.

G.R. 218040

April 17, 2017

FACTS:

This a case for Petition for Certiorari filed by Juanito Victor C. Remulla seeking the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan dated February 2, 2015 and March 20, 2015 be null and set aside against the respondent EReneo Maliksi for Violation of Section (e) of RA 3019 or Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices .

Maliksi was the governor of Cavite when Remulla alleged Maliksi caused the purchase of Medical supplies from Allied Medical Laboratories Corporation in the year 2002 without conducting a public budding. Maliksi his counter affidavit on December 2005.

After nine (9) years , the Ombudsman ruled, on August 27, 2014 found a probable cause against Maliksi for Violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. Thereafter Maliksi filed his Motion for Reconsideration stating that there was no probable cause for filing a case against him and his right for a speedy trial or disposition of his case was violated.

The said Motion was Denied by the Ombudsman.

An information against Maliksi was filed by the Ombudsman to the Sandiganbayan. Maliksi filed his Motion to Dismiss before the Sandiganbayan alleging that his right to a speedy trial and disposition was violated under the constitution and the probable cause is null and void.

The Sandiganbayan ruled the Dismissal of the said case against Maliksi. That it was the Ombudsman's responsibility to expedite the resolution of the said case within the reasonable time.

The Ombudsman through the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed its Partial Motion for Reconsideration and the same was denied. Reiterating that the fact finding investigation was three (3) years and the conduct of the preliminary investigation was six (6)which the Sandiganbayan considered as unnecessary and unacceptable. It I was not the duty of the respondent to follow up his case.

ISSUES:

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed the grave abuse of discretion or an excess of jurisdiction in Dismissing the said case against the respondent .

RULING:

The Court ruled, the Petition for Certiorari filed by Remulla and to annul and set aside the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan were Denied. The Resolutions dated February 2, 2015 and March 20, 2015 are AFFIRMED in toto.

The Petition was lack of Merit. The Petition was filed by a private party. A criminal case filed before the appellate court must be represented by Office of the Solicitor General as the appellate counsel under Section 35 (l) , Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code. The Office of the Special Prosecutor represents three People when criminal cases filed before the Sandiganbayan.

In this case, it was initiated by Remulla in his capacity as a private complainant, being a taxpayer, without the intervention of the Office of the Solicitor General or the Office of the Special Prosecutor.

The cases against Maliksi were filed and were consolidated and was one reason for the cause of the delay. Where the respondent did not assert to expedite his cases.

The Court ruled, the respondent on the basis under the principle of the constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases pursuant to Section 16 of the Bill of Right in the 1973 Constitution and 1987 Constitution as well , must be availed by him. (Tatad versus Sandiganbayan)