Case Digest (G.R. No. 208183)
Facts:
Merle Bautista Palacpac v. Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division) and the Office of the Special Prosecutor (the Ombudsman), G.R. No. 249243, November 10, 2021, Supreme Court Second Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Merle Bautista Palacpac, former Chief of the National Plant Quarantine Services Division of the Bureau of Plant and Industry (BPI), was among 47 persons named in a complaint filed by the Field Investigation Office II of the Office of the Ombudsman alleging violations of Section 3(e) and (j) of Republic Act No. 3019 and certain civil service offenses. The Ombudsman issued a Resolution dated January 29, 2018 finding probable cause against several accused, including petitioner.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on May 9, 2018, which the Ombudsman denied by Order dated August 30, 2018. Thereafter, on March 15, 2019, the Ombudsman filed an Information with the Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division) charging petitioner and others with violations of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 based on alleged manipulation of import permits for garlic and related conduct during the 2010–2014 period.
Before the Sandiganbayan, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion (to quash the Information and to defer/reset arraignment) on May 21, 2019, arguing among other things that the Information failed to state the approximate date of the alleged offenses in violation of Section 3(e) of Rule 117, Rules of Court, and that her right to speedy disposition was violated. The Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution dated July 24, 2019 denying the Omnibus Motion on the ground that it did not qualify as a “meritorious motion” under the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (with additional ground to quash) which the Sandiganbayan denied by Resolution dated September 4, 2019.
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the Sandiganbayan’s July ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan gravely abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s Omnibus Motion to quash the Information?
- Did the Sandiganbayan gravely abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration?
- Was the Information defective for failure to state the approximate date of the alleged offenses as required by Rule 117, Sec. 3(e)?
- Was petitioner’s right to speedy disposition of her case violated?
- Was the five-day reglementary period under Section 3(2)(c) of the Revised Guidelines superseded or relaxed by Section 1, Rule X of the 2018 Revised Int...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)