FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 236233-34. February 20, 2019.]
DIOCAESAR S. SUERO, petitioner,vs. SANDIGANBAYAN [THIRD DIVISION], respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 20, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. Nos. 236233-34 (Diocaesar S. Suero v. Sandiganbayan [Third Division]). — After review, the Court resolves to DISMISS the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Sandiganbayan committed any reversible error in the assailed Resolutions. No grave abuse of discretion or jurisdictional infirmity may be attributed to respondent in the present instance as it acted within the province of its jurisdiction and discretion. Grave abuse of discretion involves capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, so despotic and arbitrary in manner that it warrants judicial intervention. 1 No such grave abuse can be ascribed to respondent in this case. Finally, with respect to the ground of denial of petitioner's right to the speedy disposition of cases, since various factors have to be taken into account in calibrating the alleged delay, including the length of time that has lapsed, the reason for the same, the accused's assertion of his rights and the prejudice thereto, 2 this ground is far from indubitable at this point and is therefore best determined and appreciated during trial.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to the defenses raised therein. The prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order or Writ of Preliminary Injunction is likewise DENIED. The assailed interlocutory Orders of the Sandiganbayan Third Division, namely its Resolution dated July 27, 2017, its Resolution dated August 2, 2017, and its Resolution dated November 17 2017 in Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-1287 to 1288 are hereby AFFIRMED.
The petitioner's opposition to the second motion for extension of time to file a comment on the petition for certiorari, praying that said motion be denied for lack of merit and the case ordered submitted for resolution sans the Office of the Special Prosecutor's comment is NOTED; the Office of the Special Prosecutor's comment on the petition for certiorari, in compliance with the Resolution dated June 25, 2018, with opposition to the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction, in compliance with the Resolution dated November 7, 2018, is NOTED; the petitioner's motion to admit reply to the comment on the petition for certiorari is GRANTED; the petitioner's reply to the comment on the petition for certiorari, reiterating his prayer in the petition for certiorari, is NOTED; the manifestation and motion of public respondent Sandiganbayan (Third Division), praying that it be excused from filing the required comment on the petitioner's motion for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and from further participating in these proceedings, is NOTED and GRANTED; and the Office of the Special Prosecutor's manifestation, stating that it has filed its comment on the petition for certiorari with opposition to the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction on November 16, 2018 and that it adopts and repleads its opposition to the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction, in compliance with the Resolution dated November 7, 2018, is NOTED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Casing v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 192334, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 500.
2. See Jacob v. Sandiganbayan Fourth Division, G.R. No. 162206, November 17, 2010, 635 SCRA 94.