REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES~nnoiBanhn~nn

QUEZON CITY

FOURTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

SB-17-CRM-0624

- versus -FOR: Violation of Section 3(e),Republic Act No. 3019, as amended

JESUS O. TYPOCO, JR.,MARIBETH R. MALALUAN,JOSE T. ATIENZA,LORNA A. CORESES, PRESENT:CESAR C. PAITA, Quiroz, J, ChairpersonRODOLFO B. SALAMERO, Cruz, JJOSE RENE G. RUIDERA, Jacinto, J

Accused. r('t> NI JI ate..d -JaV\JClry l<6t wr'b ~x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

RESOLUTION

QUIROZ, J.:

It appearing that during the hearing on April 20, 2017 of accused Typoco'sOMNIBUS MOTION TO QUASH AND/OR DISMISS WITH MOTION TO DEFERARRAIGNMENT,1 accused Rodolfo B. Salamero manifested that he is adoptingaccused Typoco's Motion, and it appearing further that the Court eventuallyresolved to grant accused Typoco's Motion and directed the dismissal of thecase against him on the ground of violation of his constitutional right to speedydisposition of cases, viz-

After going over the issues raised by the parties and considering thefactors set forth in Mendoza-Ong v. Sandiganbayan, the Court finds thatthere has been a violation of the right of the accused to the speedydisposition of their cases. It took the prosecution five (5) years before it fileda complaint against herein accused, (sic) People v. Sandiganbayanwherein the fact-finding investigation and preliminary investigation lastedfor nearly five years, the Supreme Court held that the "Office of theOmbudsman had taken an unusually long period of time to investigate thecriminal complaint and to determine whether to criminally charge therespondents in the Sandiganbayan. Such long delay was inordinate andoppressive, and constituted under the peculiar circumstances of the casean outright violation of the respondents' right under the Constitution to thespeedy disposition of their cases. To reiterate, it is the mandate of theOffice of the Ombudsman to "act promptly on complaints filed in any formor mannder against officers and employees of the Government, or of anysubdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, in order to promote efficientservice."

1 Records, p. 376.

RESOLUTIONPeople v. Typoco, Jr, et.al.S8-17-CRM-0624Page 2 of 2 I·

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Omnibus Motion to Quashand/or Dismiss with Motion to Defer Arraignment" filed by Jesus O. Typoco,Jr., and the "Motion to Dismiss" filed by Jose Rene G. Ruidera areGRANTED and the cases against them are DISMISSED?

(Citations omitted) (Emphasis and italics in the original)

the dismissal of the case as against accused Rodolfo B. Salamero who IS

similarly situated is in order.

In regard to LORNA A. CORESES who failed to file the proper motionnotwithstanding her counsel's manifestation during the hearing on April 20,2017,3 as well as with respect to accused MARIBETH R. MALALUAN and JOSET. ATIENZA, this Court finds that the evidence, consisting of the Resolution ofthe Office of the Ombudsman dated May 7, 2015, its Joint Order datedNovember 16, 2015, the Field Investigation Office (FIO) Complaint dated April 6,2011, together with all its attachments, clearly establishes the existence ofprobable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against them. Considering,however, that accused Lorna A. Coreses had posted bail on March 30, 2017,4the issuance of an arrest warrant having been rendered nugatory, the case asagainst her must necessarily move forward.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the case as against Rodolfo B.Salamero is hereby DISMISSED.

LET the corresponding warrants of arrest be ISSUED against accusedMaribeth R. Malaluan and Jose T. Atienza.

The arraignment of accused Lorna A. Coreses on February 9, 2018 at1:30 in the afternoon STAYS.

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, Philippines, January 15, 2018.

2 Records, pp. 467 - 468.3 TSN dated April 20, 2017, pp. 4 - 5.

Records, p. 319.