Case Digest (G.R. No. 250504)
Facts:
Vicente J. Campa, Jr. and Perfecto M. Pascua v. Hon. Eugene C. Paras, Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 58, Makati City and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 250504, July 12, 2021, Supreme Court Second Division, Lazaro‑Javier, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners are former officers of BankWise, Inc., Vicente J. Campa, Jr. and Perfecto M. Pascua; the respondents are Hon. Eugene C. Paras, Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 58, Makati City, and the People of the Philippines. On September 12, 2007 the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) filed a complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) against bank officers, including petitioners, for alleged violations of Monetary Board Resolution No. 1460 in relation to Section 3, R.A. No. 7653 (The New Central Bank Act), accusing them of issuing unfunded manager’s checks and failing to present supporting documents for certain disbursements.
The matter reached the DOJ and was submitted for resolution on August 29, 2008. After more than ten years, the DOJ issued a Resolution dated February 8, 2019 finding probable cause; it thereafter filed multiple Informations in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City—eleven (11) against Campa and five (5) against Pascua—these cases being raffled to RTC‑Branch 58 presided by Judge Paras.
Petitioners filed a Manifestation with Motion to Adopt (May 28, 2019) and an Entry of Appearance with Motion to Dismiss (June 18, 2019) before the trial court, asserting that the DOJ’s protracted preliminary investigation (about ten years and five months) violated their constitutional right to a speedy disposition under Article III, Section 16, 1987 Constitution and thus warranted dismissal. By Order dated August 13, 2019 the trial court denied the motions, reasoning that the delay was attributable to the complexity and voluminous records and changes in DOJ leadership; orders dated October 1 and October 7, 2019 denied reconsideration and set arraignment.
Petitioners elevated the matter directly to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (filed December 9, 2019), seeking reversal of the RTC orders and injunctive relief to enjoin further proceedi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the delay in the DOJ’s preliminary investigation violate petitioners’ constitutional right to a speedy disposition of their cases?
- Did the trial court act with grave abuse of discretion when it denied petitioners’ motions to dismi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)