Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 303 views

    COMMO. LAMBERTO TORRES (RET) v. SANDIGANBAYAN

    Uploaded by

    Lara Cacal
    - Petitioner was accused of illegal use of public funds related to his role in the Philippine Navy from 1991-1993. The case against him was initially dismissed for lack of probable cause. Years later, new charges were filed against him related to other transactions, but he was not properly notified as the notices were sent to his old address. - Petitioner argued his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated by the long delay. The court agreed, finding the long lapse of time since the initial case prejudiced his ability to prepare his defense as he no longer had access to records or witnesses after 15 years of retirement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    COMMO. LAMBERTO TORRES (RET) v. SANDIGANBAYAN

    Uploaded by

    Lara Cacal
    303 views1 page
    - Petitioner was accused of illegal use of public funds related to his role in the Philippine Navy from 1991-1993. The case against him was initially dismissed for lack of probable cause. Years later, new charges were filed against him related to other transactions, but he was not properly notified as the notices were sent to his old address. - Petitioner argued his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated by the long delay. The court agreed, finding the long lapse of time since the initial case prejudiced his ability to prepare his defense as he no longer had access to records or witnesses after 15 years of retirement.

    Original Description:

    G.R. No. 221562, October 5, 2016 Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Petitioner was accused of illegal use of public funds related to his role in the Philippine Navy from 1991-1993. The case against him was initially dismissed for lack of probable cause. Years later, new charges were filed against him related to other transactions, but he was not properly notified as the notices were sent to his old address. - Petitioner argued his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated by the long delay. The court agreed, finding the long lapse of time since the initial case prejudiced his ability to prepare his defense as he no longer had access to records or witnesses after 15 years of retirement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    303 views1 page

    COMMO. LAMBERTO TORRES (RET) v. SANDIGANBAYAN

    Uploaded by

    Lara Cacal
    - Petitioner was accused of illegal use of public funds related to his role in the Philippine Navy from 1991-1993. The case against him was initially dismissed for lack of probable cause. Years later, new charges were filed against him related to other transactions, but he was not properly notified as the notices were sent to his old address. - Petitioner argued his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated by the long delay. The court agreed, finding the long lapse of time since the initial case prejudiced his ability to prepare his defense as he no longer had access to records or witnesses after 15 years of retirement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    221562, October 5, 2016


    COMMO. LAMBERTO TORRES (RET) v. SANDIGANBAYAN

    FACTS:

    From 1991 to 1993, petitioner was the Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff for Logistics
    of the Philippine Navy which was audited by the Commission on Audit (COA) pertaining to
    the procurement of drugs and medicines by emergency mode purchase, among others. The
    Ombudsman commenced an action against petitioner and several others for Illegal Use of
    Public Funds and Violation of Sec. 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. These
    cases, however, were dismissed against petitioner for lack of probable cause. A few years
    after petitioner's retirement from the service, the Tanodbayan issued an Internal
    Memorandum, recommending a new fact-finding investigation and preliminary
    investigation relative to other transactions in other units and offices of the Philippine Navy.
    Pursuant to this, a new Affidavit-Complaint was filed by the Ombudsman against petitioner
    and several others, this time, for violation of Sections 3 (e) and (g) of RA 3019. Notices of
    the new preliminary investigation were, however, sent to petitioner's old address in Kawit,
    Cavite, which he had already vacated. Thus, petitioner was not informed of the proceedings
    in the new preliminary investigation. Unknown to petitioner, eight (8) Informations were
    filed by the Ombudsman against him and the other accused before the Sandiganbayan.

    Petitioner was thereafter allowed to file a Counter-Affidavit before the Office of the
    Ombudsman, where he prayed for the dismissal of the case on the ground that his
    constitutional right to speedy trial was violated by the inordinate delay of the case.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not petitioner’s right to speedy disposition of cases was violated.

    HELD:

    Yes, the lapse of time in the conduct of the proceedings is tantamount to a vexatious,
    capricious, and oppressive delay, which is in violation of a person’s constitutional right to
    speedy disposition of cases. In the present case, petitioner has undoubtedly been
    prejudiced by virtue of the delay in the resolution of the cases filed against him. Since the
    case has dragged on for too long and he has already been retired from the service for
    fifteen (15) years, he has already been deprived of the ability to adequately prepare his
    case considering that he may no longer have any access to records or contact with any
    witness in support of his defense. Even if he was never imprisoned and subjected to trial, it
    cannot be denied that he has lived under a cloud of anxiety by virtue of the delay in the
    resolution of his case.

    You might also like