Scribd
Upload
81 views2 pages

A - Crim - SB-09-CRM-0081-0082 - People Vs Belicena, Et Al - 01 - 24 - 2018

The Sandiganbayan court minutes document the dismissal of criminal cases against accused Jane U. Aranas. The court granted Aranas' motion to dismiss on the grounds of inordinate delay, as it took the Office of the Ombudsman eight years from its initial fact-finding investigation to the filing of charges. Prior Supreme Court rulings established that delays of this length violate a defendant's right to a speedy disposition of their case. As the Ombudsman is mandated to act promptly in complaints against government officials, the long delay in this case was unjustified. Therefore, the cases against Aranas were dismissed.

Uploaded by

Micaela Jade (Micaela Jade)
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
81 views2 pages

A - Crim - SB-09-CRM-0081-0082 - People Vs Belicena, Et Al - 01 - 24 - 2018

The Sandiganbayan court minutes document the dismissal of criminal cases against accused Jane U. Aranas. The court granted Aranas' motion to dismiss on the grounds of inordinate delay, as it took the Office of the Ombudsman eight years from its initial fact-finding investigation to the filing of charges. Prior Supreme Court rulings established that delays of this length violate a defendant's right to a speedy disposition of their case. As the Ombudsman is mandated to act promptly in complaints against government officials, the long delay in this case was unjustified. Therefore, the cases against Aranas were dismissed.

Uploaded by

Micaela Jade (Micaela Jade)
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Sandigan6ayan
Quezon City

FOURTH DIVISION

Minutes of the proceedings held on January 24,2018.

Present:

Hon. ALEX L. QUIROZ Associate Justice


Hon. REYNALDO P. CRUZ : Associate Justice
Hon. BAYANIH. JACINTO Associate Justice

The following resolution was adopted:

People vs. Antonio de la Peiia Belicena, et at.


SB-09-CRM-0081; SB-09-CRM-0082

Upon inventory, the Court found that the "Motion to Dismiss" filed on March
14, 2017 by accused Jane U. Aranas has not yet been resolved. In its Order dated
March 23, 2017, the Court directed the prosecution to file its comment/ opposition
thereto; however, upon the latter's failure to file the same, the incident is now
submitted for resolution.

In her Motion, Aranas seeks the dismissal of the cases filed against her on
the ground of inordinate delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation.
Aranas avers that it took eight (8) years from the time the Office of the
Ombudsman conducted its fact-finding investigation in 2001 up to the filing of the
Informations with this Court in 2009.

In Torres v. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court held that "the speedy


disposition of cases covers not only the period within which the preliminary
investigation was conducted, but also all stages to which the accused is subjected,
even including fact-finding investigations conducted prior to the preliminary
investigation proper."! The Court finds that there has been a violation of the right
of the accused to the speedy disposition of the case. Indeed, it took the Office of
the Ombudsman eight (8) years from its fact-finding investigation up to the time
when the Informations were filed with this Court on March 26, 2009. Similarly, in
People v. Sandiganbayan wherein the fact-finding investigation and preliminary
investigation lasted for nearly five years, the Supreme Court held that "the Office of
the Ombudsman had taken an unusually long period of time to investigate the
criminal complaint and to determine whether to criminally charge the respondents
in the Sandiganbayan. Such long delay was inordinate and oppressive, and
constituted under the peculiar circumstances of the case an outright violation of
the respondents' right under the Constitution to the speedy disposition of their

G.R. Nos. 221562-69, October 5, 2016.


pr. y
/
cases."2 To reiterate, it is the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman to "act
promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against officers and employees
of the Government, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, in
order to promote efficient service."> Hence, the Court GRANTS the Motion to
Dismiss and, thus, the cases filed against Aranas are DISMISSED.

Approved:

QUIROZ, J., Chairperson

CRUZ, J.

JACINTO, .1.

G.R. Nos. 188165 and 189063, December 11,2013,712 SCRA 359-413.


Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan and People, G.R. No. 191411, July 15,2013,701 SCRA 188, 197.

You might also like