Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DATU GUIMID P. MATALAM v. SECOND DIVISION OF SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR Nos. 212140-41 2015-01-21	SENATOR JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA v. BERSAMIN CARPIO, J.
To be sure, the simultaneous remedies the petitioners sought could result in possible conflicting rulings, or at the very least, to complicated situations, between the RTC and the Court of Appeals. An extreme possible result is for the appellate court to confirm that the RTC decision is meritorious, yet the RTC may at the same time reconsider its ruling and recall its order of dismissal. In this eventuality, the result is the affirmation of the decision that the court a quo has backtracked on. Other permutations depending on the rulings of the two courts and the timing of these rulings are possible. In every case, our justice system suffers as this kind of sharp practice opens the system to the possibility of manipulation; to uncertainties when conflict of rulings arise; and at least to vexation for complications other than conflict of rulings. Thus, it matters not that ultimately the Court of Appeals may completely agree with the RTC; what the rule on forum shopping addresses are the possibility and the actuality of its harmful effects on our judicial system.[55]
	GR No. 179962 2014-06-11	DR. JOEL C. MENDEZ v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
Still, the petitioner cites the case of Matalam v. Sandiganbayan, Second Division[31] in claiming that the deletion of San Fernando (Pampanga City) and Dagupan City deprives him of the defenses he raised in his counter-affidavit.
	GR No. 195032 2013-02-20	ISABELO A. BRAZA v. SANDIGANBAYAN MENDOZA, J.
Indeed, the delay can hardly be considered as "vexatious, capricious and oppressive." The complexity of the factual and legal issues, the number of persons charged, the various pleadings filed, and the volume of documents submitted, prevent this Court from yielding to the petitioner's claim of violation of his right to a speedy disposition of his case. Rather, it appears that Braza and the other accused were merely afforded sufficient opportunities to ventilate their respective defenses in the interest of justice, due process and fair investigation. The re-investigation may have inadvertently contributed to the further delay of the proceedings but this process cannot be dispensed with because it was done for the protection of the rights of the accused. Albeit the conduct of investigation may hold back the progress of the case, the same was essential so that the rights of the accused will not be compromised or sacrificed at the altar of expediency.[43]
	GR No. 184537 2010-04-23	QUINTIN B. SALUDAGA v. SANDIGANBAYAN MENDOZA, J.
To bolster their claim for a reinvestigation of the offense, petitioners cited the case of Matalam v. Sandiganbayan. [22] The same is inapplicable to petitioners' case. In Matalam, there was indeed a substantial amendment which entitled the accused to another preliminary investigation. The recital of facts constituting the offense charged therein was definitely altered. In the original information, the prohibited act allegedly committed by the petitioner was the illegal and unjustifiable refusal to pay the monetary claims of the private complainants, whereas in the amended information, it is the illegal dismissal from the service of the private complainants. In the case at bar, there is no substantial amendment to speak of. As discussed previously, the Information in Criminal Case No. 26319 was already dismissed by the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan in view of the petitioners' Motion to Quash. As such, there is nothing more to be amended.
	GR No. 164015 2009-02-26	RAMON A. ALBERT v. SANDIGANBAYAN CARPIO, J.
After reviewing the records of the case, we believe that the right of petitioner to a speedy trial was not infringed upon. The issue on the inordinate delay in the resolution of the complaint-affidavit filed against petitioner and his co-accused and the filing of the original Information against petitioner was raised in petitioner's Motion to Dismiss, and was duly addressed by the Sandiganbayan in its Resolution denying the said motion. It appears that the said delays were caused by the numerous motions for extension of time to file various pleadings and to reproduce documents filed by petitioner's co-accused, and that no actual preliminary investigation was conducted on petitioner. The Sandiganbayan properly held that a reinvestigation of the case as to petitioner was in order. Although the reinvestigation inadvertently resulted to further delay in the proceedings, this process could not have been dispensed with as it was done for the protection of the rights of petitioner himself. It is well-settled that although the conduct of an investigation may hold back the progress of a case, it is necessary so that the accused's right will not be compromised or sacrificed at the altar of expediency.[34] The succeeding events appear to be parts of a valid and regular course of judicial proceedings not attended by delays which can be considered vexatious, capricious, oppressive, or unjustified. Hence, petitioner's contention of violation of his right to a speedy trial must fail.
	GR NO. 150194 2007-03-06	ROBERT TAYABAN Y CALIPLIP v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
His action caused undue injury to the government or any private party, or gave any party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to such parties.[17]
	GR NO. 160451 2007-02-09	EDUARDO G. RICARZE v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Thus, before the accused enters his plea, a formal or substantial amendment of the complaint or information may be made without leave of court. After the entry of a plea, only a formal amendment may be made but with leave of court and if it does not prejudice the rights of the accused. After arraignment, a substantial amendment is proscribed except if the same is beneficial to the accused.[23]