G.R. No. 101689 March 17, 1993

G.R. No.
101689 March 17, 1993
CARLITO U. ALVIZO, petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), respondent.
Facts:
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction seeks to annul and set
aside the resolutions of respondent Sandiganbayan for allegedly having been issued with grave
abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction and to restrain respondent court from
proceeding with petitioner's arraignment and trial in criminal case thereof.
The records show that in a communication dated May 4, 1989, 3 then Congressman Ernesto T.
Estrella of the Second District of Surigao del Sur called the attention of then Secretary of Justice
Sedfrey A. Ordoñez to the apparent inability of the Provincial Fiscal of Surigao del Sur to prosecute
herein petitioner Carlito Y. Alvizo, who was then a member of the Surigao del Sur Sangguniang
Panlalawigan. It appears that petitioner had been dismissed as Clerk of Court of the Court of First
Instance of Surigao del Sur when he was found to have incurred a deficiency in his accounts in the
amount of P31,612.50, pursuant to a decision of the Supreme Court in Administrative Matter No.
818-TEL, promulgated on April 18, 1979. Petitioner's dismissal was without prejudice to his criminal
prosecution.
Acting on Congressman Estrella's letter, on June 7, 1989 then Chief State Prosecutor Fernando de
Leon, on behalf of Justice Secretary Ordoñez, referred the matter to the Provincial Fiscal of Surigao
del Sur for appropriate action. Consequently, a preliminary investigation, was conducted by Second
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Vicente L. Suarez who thereafter recommended the filing of an
information for malversation against herein petitioner. This recommendation was, however, reversed
by Provincial Prosecutor Pretextato Montenegro but whose recommendation was in turn overruled
by Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez. Thus, on May 17, 1990 an information was accordingly filed
with respondent Sandiganbayan, initiating the present Criminal Case No. 14893 which charges
petitioner with malversation of public funds.
On August 29, 1990, petitioner filed a motion to quash the information 7 allegedly for failure of the
same to include a certification by the investigating fiscal that he conducted a personal examination of
the complainant and his witnesses during the preliminary investigation. Then, on October 17, 1990,
petitioner filed a supplemental motion to quash 8 this time contending that the filing of the
information in this case is violative of his constitutional rights to due process and the speedy
disposition of the case against him, as enunciated in Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, 9 in an obvious
appeal to libertarian inclinations or affectations.
In a resolution promulgated on November 22, 1990, respondent Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's

motion and supplemental motion to quash. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise
denied in a resolution dated June 20, 1991.
Petition is now before the court contending that Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of
discretion in denying his aforestated motions despite the timely objection to the lack of a
certification in the information of the personal examination conducted by the investigating
officer.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Resolutions of Sandiganbayan were tainted by grave abuse of discretion
HELD:
NO.
Perforce, the Tatad case may not properly be invoked in this case. There was no violation of
petitioner's right to speedy trial for the simple reason that a fair and rational consideration on both
counts of the aforestated evidence on records shows that the preliminary investigation in the present
case was begun not in 1979 but only in 1989, and the corresponding information was in due time
filed in 1990.
Nor are we persuaded by petitioner's pretension that in this case the prosecution arm of the
Government allowed itself to be used for political purposes as to put this case within the ambit of the
pronouncements in Tatad. The mere fact here it was a congressman who called the attention of the
then Secretary of Justice to the failure of the corresponding prosecutorial agency to comply with its
duty, although that was pointedly indicated by this Court itself in Administrative Matter No. 818-TEL,
does not mean that the prosecution spurred thereby was politically motivated. Assuming arguendo
the existence of personal differences between petitioner and Congressman Estrella, the
unassailable fact remains that the latter's communication to the Secretary of Justice primarily and
justifiedly sought a clarification and gave a reminder of the directive of this Court which had not then
been complied with.
Consequently, whatever apprehension petitioner may have over the availability of such documents
for his defense is inevitably shared in equal measure by the prosecution for building its case against
him. This case, parenthetically, is illustrative of the situation that what is beneficial speed or delay for
one side could be harmful speed or delay for the other, and vice-versa. Accordingly, we are not
convinced at this juncture that petitioner has been or shall be disadvantaged by the delay
complained of or that such delay shall prove oppressive to him. The just albeit belated prosecution of
a criminal offense by the State, which was enjoined by this very Court, should not be forestalled
either by conjectural supplications of prejudice or by dubious invocations of constitutional rights.
WHEREFORE, there being no showing that the impugned resolutions of respondent Sandiganbayan
are tainted by grave abuse of discretion or jurisdictional defect, the instant petition is DISMISSED for
lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 101689 March 17, 1993

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 101689 March 17, 1993

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 101689 March 17, 1993

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

101689 March 17, 1993

CARLITO U. ALVIZO, petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), respondent.

In a resolution promulgated on November 22, 1990, respondent Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's

You might also like