People v. Sandiganbayan [First Division]

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 233425-36. October 8, 2018.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN [FIRST DIVISION], RENATO BARTOLOME VALDECANTOS, ROLANDO LEDESMA MACASAET, 1 ERWIN T. TANUNLIONG, 2 HERMOGENES DIAZ CONCEPCION, JR., ARTHUR N. AGUILAR, OTTOMAMA M. BENITO, ENRIQUE C. CUEJILO, JR., 3 ROY EDUARDO T. LUCERO, FERMIN S. LUSUNG, SR., JEREMY Z. PARULAN, MA. THERESA T. DEFENSOR, ANTONIO TOLENTINO VILAR, AND RAYMUNDO TIRONA FRANCISCO, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated08 October 2018which reads as follows:

"G.R. Nos. 233425-36 (People of the Philippines v. Honorable Sandiganbayan [First Division], Renato Bartolome Valdecantos, Rolando Ledesma Macasaet,Erwin T. Tanunliong,Hermogenes Diaz Concepcion, Jr., Arthur N. Aguilar, Ottomama M. Benito, Enrique C. Cuejilo, Jr.,Roy Eduardo T. Lucero, Fermin S. Lusung, Sr., Jeremy Z. Parulan, Ma. Theresa T. Defensor, Antonio Tolentino Vilar, and Raymundo Tirona Francisco)

After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 4 and AFFIRM the April 7, 2017 and June 29, 2017 Resolutions 5 of the Sandiganbayan (SB) in Crim. Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-1209 to SB-16-CRM-1226 for failure of the petitioner People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Ombudsman, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, to sufficiently show that public respondent SB gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the cases against private respondents Renato Bartolome Valdecantos, Rolando Ledesma Macasaet, Erwin T. Tanunliong, Hermogenes Diaz Concepcion, Jr., Arthur N. Aguilar, Ottomama M. Benito, Enrique C. Cuejilo, Jr., Roy Eduardo T. Lucero, Fermin S. Lusung, Sr., Jeremy Z. Parulan, Ma. Theresa T. Defensor, Antonio Tolentino Vilar, and Raymundo Tirona Francisco (respondents) on the ground of violation of their right to speedy disposition of cases.

The Court emphasizes that a dismissal of a criminal case on the ground of violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases operates as an acquittal for respondents, 6 and thus, a reopening of the case will subject them to double jeopardy. Notably, while the rule against double jeopardy is not without exceptions, namely: (a) where there has been a deprivation of due process and a finding of mistrial; or (b) where there has been a grave abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances, 7 none of the foregoing circumstances are present in this case. As such, respondents' acquittal can no longer be overturned. AIDSTE

SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018; on official leave.)

 

Very truly yours,

MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. "Roland Ledesma Macasaet" in the April 7, 2017 and June 29, 2017 Resolutions of the SB; rollo (Vol. I), pp. 54 and 98, respectively.

2. "Erwub T. Tanunliong" in the June 29, 2017 Resolution of the SB; id. at 99.

3. "Cuejillo" in the petition; id. at 14.

4.Id. at 9-47.

5.Id. at 54-95 and 98-120, respectively. Penned by Associate Justice Efren N. De La Cruz with Associate Justices Geraldine Faith A. Econg and Bernelito R. Fernandez, concurring.

6. See Villareal v. People, 680 Phil. 527, 552-553; citations omitted.

7.Villareal v. Aliga, 724 Phil. 47, 64 (2014).