Case Digest (G.R. No. 108813) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
This case involves Raul Y. Desembrana, an Assistant City Prosecutor of the Department of Justice in Quezon City, who was charged with two counts of violation of Section 7(d) in relation to Section 11 of Republic Act No. 6713 for allegedly soliciting and accepting money in exchange for the dismissal of a preliminary investigation case. The charges were filed through two Informations dated November 15, 2014, docketed with the Sandiganbayan as Criminal Cases Nos. SB-14-CRM-0427 and SB-14-CRM-0428.
Desembrana posted bail and filed a Motion to Suspend Arraignment in November 2014 to allow time for a preliminary investigation by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP). In July 2015, the Sandiganbayan directed the OSP to conduct a "full and complete preliminary investigation" within 60 days. The OSP complied, filing recommendations and motions for extension and then filed a "Compliance with Omnibus Motion" in November 2015, submitting its recommendation to withd
Case Digest (G.R. No. 108813) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Subject Matter
- Petitioner: The People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP).
- Respondent: Raul Y. Desembrana, Assistant City Prosecutor at the Department of Justice (DOJ).
- Case: Criminal Cases Nos. SB-14-CRM-0427 and SB-14-CRM-0428 before the Sandiganbayan – charges of violation of Section 7(d) in relation to Section 11 of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees).
- Charged Acts
- Desembrana was charged with soliciting and accepting money from Dr. Alexis Montes in relation to dismissal of cases pending before him involving unjust vexation, grave coercion, and threat.
- Alleged acceptance of Php4,000 out of a demand of Php80,000 in “boodle money” from Montes’ counsel.
- Procedural History
- November 2014: Informations were filed; Desembrana posted bail and moved to suspend arraignment pending preliminary investigation by the OSP.
- The Sandiganbayan directed the OSP to conduct a “full and complete preliminary investigation” within 60 days from notice (July 8, 2015 resolution).
- September 29, 2015: OSP recommended probable cause for Direct Bribery (Art. 210, RPC) and withdrawal/substitution of the original information; the Ombudsman approved this on October 21, 2015.
- November 9, 2015: Desembrana filed motion for reconsideration before OSP.
- November 10, 2015: OSP filed a Compliance with Omnibus Motion for withdrawal of original information and lifting of the 60-day directive.
- December 2015 to January 2016: Exchange of pleadings; Sandiganbayan admitted such pleadings in December 2016 but did not act on the motion for over a year.
- January 20, 2017: Sandiganbayan held in abeyance the Compliance Motion pending resolution of OSP on motion for reconsideration.
- January 27, 2017: OSP denied motion for reconsideration; approved by Ombudsman on February 8, 2017.
- February 6, 2017: Desembrana filed a Motion to Dismiss citing violation of his right to speedy disposition due to delay (over 1 year on motion for reconsideration and over 2 years on preliminary investigation).
- March 2017: OSP opposed, claiming delays were not attributable to OSP and that leave of court was required before acting on motion for reconsideration after filing of information.
- April 12, 2017: Sandiganbayan granted Desembrana’s Motion to Dismiss on grounds of violation of right to speedy disposition.
- May 22, 2017: Sandiganbayan denied motion for reconsideration of dismissal.
- August 11, 2017: OSP filed Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court assailing Sandiganbayan’s resolutions.
Issues:
- Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the criminal cases against Desembrana on the ground of violation of his constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases.
- Whether the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) was responsible for the delay in the preliminary investigation and in resolving Desembrana’s motion for reconsideration before the Office of the Ombudsman.
- Whether the right to file a motion for reconsideration before the Ombudsman after information has been filed with the Sandiganbayan is absolute or subject to leave of court.
- Whether Desembrana waived his right to speedy disposition because he did not assert it timely during the delay before the Sandiganbayan.
- The extent and nature of prejudice deemed suffered by an accused due to inordinate delay in disposition of cases.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)