republic of the philippines sandiganbayan quezon city...

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESSANDIGANBAYAN

QUEZON CITY

PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES,

EFRAIM C. GENUINO, et al,Accused.

Criminal Cases No. 8B-13-CRM-0605, 0608, 0610,0612, 0614, 0616, 0618,0620, 0622, 0624, 0626,0628, 0630, 0632, 0634,0636,0638,0640,0642For: Violation of Section 3(e) ofR. A. No. 3019

Criminal Cases No.CRM-0606, 0607,0611, 0613, 0615,0619, 0621, 0623,0627, 0629, 0631,0635, 0637, 0639,0643For: Malversation

8B-13-0609,0617,0625,0633,0641,

CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J.,Chairperson,FERNANDEZ, J. andTRESPESES,l J.

~ 1&r?1»fl!:J1[----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1[

, SiWng" , ,peei" membe' pee Admini"'''i'e O'de' No. 227-2016 doted J"'y 26, ~ /'

ResolutionCriminal Cases No. SB-13-CRM-0605-0643People vs. Genuino, et al

For resolution is accused Jose C. Benedicta's Motion forSeparate and/or Speedy Disposition of the Case dated October14,2016.2

In his subject motion, accused Benedicta claims thatthese cases are still in its preliminary conference stage aftermore than five (5) years since the complaints were filed withthe Department of Justice (DOJ)on June 4,2011; that it tookthe prosecution one [1] year and six [6] months to completethe marking of its e.xhibits. Considering that these involvethirty-eight (38)3 consolidated cases and six (6) other accusedwho are represented by different lawyers, he fears that he mayno longer be strong enough, or worse, even be alive to see theresolution of the cases against him because he is alreadyseventy-five (75)years old.4 Since he is charged in only two (2)cases5 of these thirty-eight (38) pending cases, he prays thatthese two (2) cases be tried separately from the rest of thecases consistent with his right to a speedy disposition of thecases. He asserts that the separation of the said two (2)caseswill not entail unnecessary delay because the transactionstherein are distinct from the rest of the other cases.6

In its Comment dated October 21, 2016, the prosecutioncontends that accused Benedicta should also seek theconformity of his co-accused in the said two (2) cases whereinhe prays for a separate trial. It argues that these cases shouldbe heard jointly for a more practical and efficient use of theCourt's time and resources. Further, the prosecution arguesthat the joint trial of these cases is proper under Section 22,Rule 119 of the Rules of Court because the charges arefounded on the same facts or forming a series of offenses ofsimilar character. Contrary to accused Benedicta's claim, itasserts that the conduct of joint trial will likely result in thespeedy disposition of all issues in these cases considering thatit has common exhibits for all the cases. According to theprosecution, the grant of accused Benedicta's motion for a

~~~:;;~;;~:;:~~~:~:: ,,~:nder the presentation of Millr4 at pp. 3-4; pp. 346-347, Record, Vol. V ;rv/ -: ~~::-~,R~~~~~5~~5~~48_349, Re<o'd, Vol.V /() U /.


unnecessarily longer and confusing because the witness for asingle documentary evidence will be presented in all the casesand will take the witness stand repeatedly to testify on a singleor common document.7

The Court finds subject motion bereft of merit.

First. While the concept of speedy disposition isrelative or flexible, such that a mere mathematical reckoningof the time involved is not sufficient, the right to the speedydisposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is deemedviolated when the proceedings are attended by vexatious,capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustifiedpostponements of the trial are asked for and secured; or whenwithout cause or justifiable motive a long period of time isallowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.8

To begin with, these cases were filed with this Court onMay 28, 2013. Accused Benedicta has not pointed to anyvexatious, capricious or oppressive delays. He merely claimsthat it took the prosecution one (1)year and six (6)months tocomplete the marking of its exhibits. It must be stressed,however, that accused Benedicta himself acknowledges thefact that these proceedings involve thirty-eight (38) cases andseven (7) accused, including him. As borne by the record, theprosecution marked voluminous documents. Thus, theadditional time granted to the prosecution to complete themarking of its exhibits was justified.

Accused Benedicta has likewise failed to show that theproceedings before the DOJ was attended by anyunreasonable and oppressive delays.

Second.provides:

7 at pp. 2-3; pp. 359-360, Record, Vol. V8 People V5. Sandiganbayan, 712 SeRA 359 (2013)


Section 22.Consolidation of trials of relatedoffenses. - Charges for offenses founded on the samefacts or forming part of a series of offenses of similarcharacter may be tried jointly at the discretion of thecourt.

Jurisprudence has laid down the requisites forconsolidation of trial. As held in Canos vs. Peralta,9 joint trialis permissible "where the [actions] arise from the same act,event or transaction, involve the same or like issues, anddepend largely or substantially on the same evidence, providedthat the court has jurisdiction over the cases to beconsolidated and that a joint trial will not give one party anundue advantage or prejudice the substantial rights of any ofthe parties." More elaborately, joint trial is proper - .

where the offenses charged are similar, related, orconnected, or are of the same or similar characteror class, or involve or arose out of the same orrelated or connected acts, occurrences,transactions, series of events, or chain ofcircumstances, or are based on acts or transactionsconstituting parts of a common scheme or plan, or areof the same pattern and committed in the samemanner, or where there is a common element ofsubstantial importance in their commission, or wherethe same, or much the same, evidence will becompetent and admissible or required in theirprosecution, and if not joined for trial the repetitionor reproduction of substantially the same testimonywill be requiredon each trial.10

Whether as a procedural tool to aid the court indispatching its officialbusiness in criminal or civil cases, therule allowing consolidation - in whatsoever sense it is taken,

, 201 Ph;l. 422 (1982); dIed ;n People vs. Sand;ganbavan, 409 SCRA419(2003) '"'?7"Ner; vs, Sandlganbavan, 703 SCRA3S0 (2013); emphasis ,"pplied ~v;


be it as a merger of several causes of actions/cases, in thesense of actual consolidation, or merely joint trial - isdesigned, among other reasons, to avoid multiplicity of suits,guard against oppression and abuse, attain justice with theleast expense and vexation to the litigants. 11

These cases stemmed from the alleged unlawfuldisbursements of the PAGCOR funds in favor of Batas IwasDroga (BIDA) Foundation, Inc. in connection with thepurchase of tickets for the movie "entitled "Baler" produced byViva Communications, Inc. and BIDA, the alleged unlawfuldonations/payments by PAGCOR in favor of BIDA and thealleged utilization of the donated rice by the PAGCOR officials.In other words, these cases involve or arose out of the same orrelated or connected acts or transactions and involveessentially the same parties. Thus, consolidation of thesecases and joint trial are proper.

Moreover, the prosecution has common exhibits for allthese cases. Thus, to conduct a separate trial for the said two(2) cases involving accused Benedicto would undoubtedlyrender the presentation of witnesses longer and confusing: 12

The prosecution has common exhibits for all the38 cases. If there will be separate trial for these cases,the witness for a single documentary evidence whichwill be presented in all the cases will take the witnessstand repeatedly to testify on a single or commondocument, Thus, it will undoubtedly render thepresentation of witnesses unnecessarily longer andconfusing;

5. Moreover, to segregate these documentaryevidences, requires not only enumerating themseparately and repeatedly in the pre-trial brief but alsodesignating them with different markings consistentwith the respective cases to which they belong. Theresult would be a single document with differentmarkings. /7 -

11 Neri VS. sandiganbaya~, 703 SCRA35 (201 ,citing ~anc: VS. Querubin, 30 SCRA738 (1969)12 at p. 2; p. 359, Record, Vol. V


Indeed, the conduct of joint trial of all these cases wouldbe in consonance with accused Benedicta's right to a speedydisposition of cases as well as in keeping with the orderly andefficient disposition of cases.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES accused Jose C.Benedicta's Motion for Separate and/or Speedy Disposition ofthe Case dated October 14,2016 for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

republic of the philippines sandiganbayan quezon city...

Documents