J.V. REMULLA vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. No. 218040

April 17, 2017

(Counsel for the state)

Facts:

1.) This is petition for certiorari seeking to annul and set aside Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan Second
Division, which dismissed the case filed by Juanito Victor C. Remulla against respondent Erineo S. Maliksi
for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

2.) He alleged that Maliksi, as governor of Cavite, caused the purchase of certain medical supplies from
Allied Medical Laboratories Corporation in November 2002 without conducting any public bidding,
thereby giving unwarranted benefit or preference to it. On December 15, 2005, Maliksi filed his counter-
affidavit.

3.) After almost nine (9) years, in a resolution, dated August 27, 2014, the Ombudsman found probable
cause against Maliksi for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019.

4.) Maliksi filed his motion for reconsideration, arguing that there was no probable cause and that there
was a violation of his right to a speedy disposition of his case. Ombudsman denied the said motion for
reconsideration.

5.) However, the Sandiganbayan found that Maliksi’s right to a speedy disposition of his case was violated.
Thus, it dismissed the case against him. It stated that the explanation provided by the Ombudsman,
through the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), was insufficient to justify its 9-year delay in the
resolution of Maliksi's case. The Sandiganbayan noted that the interval was caused by the delay in the
routing or transmission of the records of the case, which was unacceptable.

6.) The OSP filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration9 arguing that the delay in the preliminary
investigation was neither whimsical nor capricious, considering that Maliksi did not complain on the delay.
The Sandiganbayan denied the motion for partial reconsideration. It reiterated that the fact-finding of the
case, which lasted for three (3) years, and the preliminary investigation, which lasted for six (6) years,
were due to mechanical routing and avoidable delay. The Sandiganbayan found that such delays were
unnecessary and unacceptable. It also echoed Coscolluela that it was not the duty of the respondent in a
preliminary investigation to follow up on the prosecution of his case. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether the private party can file an appeal

Ruling:

The petition is bereft of merit.

The petition was filed by a private party.

Procedural law mandates that all criminal actions, commenced by a complaint or an information, shall be
prosecuted under the direction and control, of a public prosecutor. In appeals of criminal cases before the
Court of Appeals (CA) and before this Court, the OSG is the appellate counsel of the People, pursuant to
Section 35 (l), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code. In certain instances, the OSP
represented the People, when it involved criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

Although he claims that he has legal standing as a taxpayer, the present case is criminal in nature and the
People is the real party in interest. Remulla captioned his petition as "People of the Philippines v.
Sandiganbayan (Second Division) and Erineo S. Maliksi but it is clear that he does not represent the People.

Only on rare occasions when the offended party may be allowed to pursue the criminal action on his own
behalf such as when there is a denial of due process, or where the dismissal of the case is capricious shall
certiorari lie. Accordingly, he has no legal personality to assail the criminal dismissal against Maliksi on the
ground of violation to his right of speedy disposition case.