GR 249243; (November, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 249243. November 10, 2021
MERLE BAUTISTA PALACPAC, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH DIVISION) AND THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR (THE OMBUDSMAN), RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
The case stemmed from a Complaint filed by the Field Investigation Office of the Office of the Ombudsman against several accused, including petitioner Merle Bautista Palacpac, the former Chief of the National Plant Quarantine Services Division of the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI). The Ombudsman found probable cause against them for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). An Information was filed before the Sandiganbayan alleging that from 2010 to 2014, the accused public officers, conspiring with private individuals, acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence in the processing and issuance of Import Permits for garlic. This allegedly allowed Lilia Cruz and her affiliated entities to monopolize the supply, causing undue injury to the public and giving unwarranted benefits to the private entities, as evidenced by a sharp increase in garlic prices. Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash the Information, arguing it failed to state the approximate date of the offense and that her right to speedy disposition of the case was violated. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion and a subsequent Motion for Reconsideration, prompting the petitioner to file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s Omnibus Motion and Motion for Reconsideration seeking to quash the Information.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions. The Court ruled that:
1. The Sandiganbayan correctly held that petitioner’s motion to quash did not qualify as a “meritorious motion” under the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial, as it was based on grounds not listed therein (specifically, failure to state the approximate date under Section 3(e), Rule 117 of the Rules of Court).
2. The Information was not defective for stating the period “2010 to 2014.” An exact date is not an element of the crime of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. It is sufficient that the Information states the offense with such particularity as to enable the accused to properly prepare a defense.
3. There was no violation of the right to speedy disposition of the case. The Court applied the balancing test from Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, considering the length of delay, reasons for delay, assertion or failure to assert the right, and prejudice caused. The period from the complaint filing (May 2016) to the filing of the Information (March 2019) was not inordinate. Petitioner failed to prove the delay was politically motivated, vexatious, capricious, or oppressive.
4. The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Its actions were based on its evaluation of the pleadings and applicable rules, and its findings were supported by the law and evidence. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, which was not present.
The petition was bereft of merit.