FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 236752-54. February 14, 2018.]
ANGELITO A. RODRIGUEZ AND NOEL G. JIMENEZ, petitioners,vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, 7TH DIVISION, AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 14, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. Nos. 236752-54 — Angelito A. Rodriguez and Noel G. Jimenez, petitioners, vs. Sandiganbayan, 7th Division, and People of the Philippines, respondents.
This Court has carefully reviewed the allegations and arguments raised in the present Petition for Certiorari and accordingly DISMISSES the same for: (a) failure to pay the docket and other legal fees on time; (b) non-compliance with the required verification and certification against forum shopping under Section 1 of Rule 65, in relation to Sections 4 and 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court; (c) failure to state material date showing when a motion for reconsideration was filed, in violation of Section 4 of Rule 65, in relation to Section 3 of Rule 46; and (d) failure to show that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its August 18, 2017 1 and October 20, 2017 2 Resolutions in Criminal Case Nos. SB-11-CRM-0302 to 0303 and 0441.
Petitioners argue that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied their Motion to Dismiss for violation of their constitutional right to the speedy disposition of cases, considering the inordinate delay of more than six (6) years in the conduct of the preliminary investigation in the cases filed against them.
"The right to speedy disposition of cases, like the right to speedy trial, is violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays." 3 In order to determine whether said right has been violated, the conduct of the prosecution and the defendant, the length of the delay, the reasons for such delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay are factors that should be considered and balanced. 4 In other words, "[a] mere mathematical reckoning of time involved would not be sufficient." 5
The records clearly show that petitioners had failed to seasonably assert their right to the speedy disposition of the cases filed against them. As pointed out by the Sandiganbayan, petitioners only filed their Motion to Dismiss, raising the ground of violation of their right to the speedy disposition of cases, more than six (6) years from the filing of the Informations (or more than eleven (11) years counted from the filing of the Complaints on December 1, 2004 and January 18, 2005), and after they had already been arraigned in both cases.
Unfortunately, there is nothing on record to show that petitioners had not intended to waive their right to the speedy disposition of cases. The matter could have taken a different dimension if during those six (6) years after the Informations were filed, petitioners had shown signs of asserting their right to a speedy disposition of their cases, or at least made some overt acts, like filing a motion for early resolution, to show that they were not waiving that right. 6
In fine, petitioners failed to show that the assailed Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan were tainted by grave abuse of discretion or jurisdictional defect as to warrant the issuance of the writ of certiorari.
ACCORDINGLY, the instant Petition for Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED.
The Manifestation and Motion and Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion both dated February 5, 2018 filed by petitioners are NOTED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 29-36; concurred in by Associate Justices Ma. Theresa Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta, Chairperson, Zaldy V. Trespeses, and Bayani H. Jacinto.
2.Id. at 39-41.
3.Mendoza-Ong v. Sandiganbayan, 483 Phil. 451, 454 (2004).
4.Id.
5.Id. Italics supplied.
6. See Perez v. People, 568 Phil. 491, 516 (2008).