Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Untitled

    Uploaded by

    ashyy
    59 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying the petitioners' right to a speedy trial. While the case was pending for over a year, the delays were due to the prosecution repeatedly requesting deferments to await the results of the Office of the Ombudsman's reinvestigation. Considering the entirety of the proceedings and realities of everyday life, the Supreme Court did not find the delay unreasonable. The Sandiganbayan also did not err in setting aside the verbal order of dismissal by the trial court.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying the petitioners' right to a speedy trial. While the case was pending for over a year, the delays were due to the prosecution repeatedly requesting deferments to await the results of the Office of the Ombudsman's reinvestigation. Considering the entirety of the proceedings and realities of everyday life, the Supreme Court did not find the delay unreasonable. The Sandiganbayan also did not err in setting aside the verbal order of dismissal by the trial court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    59 views2 pages

    Untitled

    Uploaded by

    ashyy
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying the petitioners' right to a speedy trial. While the case was pending for over a year, the delays were due to the prosecution repeatedly requesting deferments to await the results of the Office of the Ombudsman's reinvestigation. Considering the entirety of the proceedings and realities of everyday life, the Supreme Court did not find the delay unreasonable. The Sandiganbayan also did not err in setting aside the verbal order of dismissal by the trial court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Jacob vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162206.

     November 17, 2010 Petitioners assert that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in
    reversing Justice Nario’s order of dismissal of Criminal Case Nos. 25922-
    Topic: Right to Speedy Trial 25939 because such reversal violated petitioners’ constitutional right
    Summary: against double jeopardy.

    Facts: Issue:

    Petron Corporation received Tax Credit Certificates (TCCs) by assignment WON, THE RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
    from 18 private firms registered with the Board of Investments. Petron used AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DENYING
    the assigned TCCs to pay its excise tax liabilities. DOF approved the request PETITIONERS’ RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL.
    of Petron through the issuance of Tax Debit Memoranda (TDM) addressed Held:
    to the Collection Program Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).
    BIR accepted the TCCs as payment for the excise tax liabilities of Petron. While justice is administered with dispatch, the essential ingredient is
    However, the Office of the Ombudsman found that transactions involving orderly, expeditious and not mere speed. It cannot be definitely said how
    the TCCs were irregular and violative of the Memorandum of Agreement. long is too long in a system where justice is supposed to be swift, but
    Ombudsman found probable cause against Jacob and 4 other accused for deliberate. We agree with the Sandiganbayan Special Fourth Division that
    perpetrating the so-called “tax credit scam.” Sandiganbayan issued an Order Justice Nario’s dismissal of the criminal cases was unwarranted under the
    giving the prosecution a period of sixty (60) days. Sixty (60) days passed but circumstances, since the State should not be prejudiced and deprived of its
    the Office of the Ombudsman did not even bother to submit a report. right to prosecute the criminal cases simply because of the ineptitude or
    Months passed, and then, AN ENTIRE YEAR PASSED. There was still nothing nonchalance of the Office of the Ombudsman.
    from the respondent Office of the Ombudsman.
    In the Petition at bar, Criminal Case were filed on April 10, 2000. Petitioner
    In all the hearings conducted in the cases the defense verbally and Jacob was arraigned on June 1, 2000, while petitioner Legarda was
    consistently invoked their right to speedy trial and moved for the dismissal arraigned on May 18, 2001; with both petitioners pleading not guilty. Since
    of the cases. In the course of more than one year, however, the then, there had been no other significant development in the cases since
    [Sandiganbayan 4th Division] kept affording the prosecution one chance the prosecution repeatedly requested for deferment or postponement of
    after another. The sixty days granted to the prosecution became more than the scheduled hearings as it awaits the result of the reinvestigation of the
    four hundred days—still, there was no resolution in sight. Office of the Ombudsman. Judge Nario verbally ordered the dismissal of said
    cases during the hearing on August 20, 2001. Thus, the criminal cases had
    Justice Nario, after 6 months, issued the verbal order of dismissal, the been pending for about a year and four months by the time they were
    [Sandiganbayan Special Fourth Division] issued an Order setting aside said dismissed by Justice Nario.
    verbal order.
    An accused’s right to “have a speedy, impartial, and public trial” is
    The Sandiganbayan Fourth Division ruled in the prosecution’s favor and guaranteed in criminal cases by Section 14(2), Article III of the Constitution.
    denied all the motions filed by the accused. This right to a speedy trial may be defined as one free from vexatious,
    capricious and oppressive delays, its “salutary objective” being to assure
    that an innocent person may be free from the anxiety and expense of a
    court litigation or, if otherwise, of having his guilt determined within the
    shortest possible time compatible with the presentation and consideration
    of whatsoever legitimate defense he may interpose. In determining whether
    the right of the accused to a speedy trial was violated, the delay should be
    considered, in view of the entirety of the proceedings. Indeed, mere
    mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not suffice as the
    realities of everyday life must be regarded in judicial proceedings which,
    after all, do not exist in a vacuum. In determining whether the accused has
    been deprived of his right to a speedy disposition of the case and to a
    speedy trial, four factors must be considered: (a) length of delay; (b) the
    reason for the delay; (c) the defendant’s assertion of his right; and (d)
    prejudice to the defendant.

    You might also like