FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 235801-02. January 19, 2018.]
NESTOR A. IBARRA, petitioner, vs.HON. AMPARO M. CABOTAJE-TANG, HON. SARAH JANE T. FERNANDEZ AND HON. BERNELITO R. FERNANDEZ, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS PRESIDING JUSTICE AND MEMBERS OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 19, 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. Nos. 235801-02 (Nestor A. Ibarra v. Hon. Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang, Hon. Sarah Jane T. Fernandez and Hon. Bernelito R. Fernandez, in their official capacities as Presiding Justice and Members of the Sandiganbayan, Special Third Division, and the People of the Philippines). — The Court resolves to DISMISS the petition and AFFIRM the assailed Resolutions dated July 27, 2017 and November 17, 2017 issued by the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-1287-1288 for petitioner's failure to show that they were issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Like any other right conferred by the Constitution or statute, except when otherwise expressly so provided, the speedy trial right may be waived. Petitioner failed to seasonably raise the right to speedy trial, which precludes him from relying thereon as a ground to dismiss the case. He did not raise the issue of inordinate delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation before the Office of the Ombudsman, but raised it for the first time after the Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan. He is thus deemed to have impliedly accepted such delay by not asserting the right to a speedy disposition of his case at the earliest possible opportunity, and waived the right to question the same.
Furthermore, the right to a speedy trial and a speedy disposition of a case is violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays, which is not present in this case. Trial against petitioner should thus continue. Significantly, the State, like any other litigant, is entitled to its day in court, and to a reasonable opportunity to present its case. aScITE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court