Case Digest (G.R. No. 101689)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 101689)
Facts:
Carlito U. Alvizo v. The Sandiganbayan (Third Division), G.R. No. 101689, March 17, 1993, the Supreme Court En Banc, Regalado, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Carlito U. Alvizo was formerly Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Sur and, by a 1979 Supreme Court administrative ruling (Administrative Matter No. 818‑TEL), was dismissed for a P31,612.50 shortage in his accounts; that administrative disposition expressly left criminal prosecution open. In a May 4, 1989 communication, then‑Congressman Ernesto T. Estrella called Secretary of Justice Sedfrey A. Ordonez’s attention to the Provincial Fiscal’s apparent failure to prosecute Alvizo.
Acting on that communication, on June 7, 1989 the Chief State Prosecutor referred the matter to the Provincial Fiscal of Surigao del Sur. A preliminary investigation was thereafter conducted, docketed OMB‑0‑89‑01717, by Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Vicente L. Suarez, who recommended filing an information for malversation; Provincial Prosecutor Pretextato Montenegro reversed that recommendation, but Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez overruled Montenegro and directed filing. Consequently, on May 17, 1990 an information for malversation was filed in Sandiganbayan as Criminal Case No. 14893.
On August 29, 1990 Alvizo moved to quash the information for failing to include a certification that the investigating fiscal personally examined the complainant and his witnesses (a duty under Section 4, Rule 112). On October 17, 1990 he filed a supplemental motion asserting violation of his constitutional rights to due process and speedy disposition by reason of an alleged preliminary investigation commenced in 1979 and an eleven‑year delay before filing—relying on Tatad v. Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan denied the motions in a resolution promulgated November 22, 1990 and denied reconsideration on June 20, 1991.
Alvizo petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, alleging grave abuse of discretion in the Sandiganbayan’s denial of his motions to quash and asserting constitutional violations from the alleged inordinate delay. The Supreme Court resolved the petition on the merits.
Issues:
- Was the information defective and subject to quashal for lacking a certification that the investigating fiscal personally examined the complainant and his witnesses (procedural defect under Rule 112)?
- Was petitioner’s constitutional right to speedy disposition of his case violated by the alleged eleven‑year delay, warranting annulment of the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions as grave abuse of discretion?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)