Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ELPIDIO C. CERVANTES v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 156847 2007-01-31	PEOPLE v. SPO4 EMILIANO ANONAS
In Angcangco, Jr. v. Ombudsman,[5] the Court found the delay of six years by the Ombudsman in resolving the criminal complaints to be violative of the constitutionally guaranteed right to a speedy disposition of cases. Similarly, in Roque v. Office of the Ombudsman,[6] the Court ruled that the delay of almost six years disregarded the Ombudsman's duty to act promptly on complaints before him. In Cervantes v. Sandiganbayan,[7] it was held that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in not quashing the Information filed six years after the initiatory complaint, thereby depriving petitioner of his right to a speedy disposition of the case.
	GR No. 149453 2003-04-01	PEOPLE v. PANFILO M. LACSON CALLEJO, SR., J.
To apply the new rule in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689 would be to add to or make exceptions from the new rule which are not expressly or impliedly included therein. This the Court cannot and should not do.[23]
	GR No. 149453 2003-04-01	PEOPLE v. PANFILO M. LACSON CALLEJO, SR., J.
Soon thereafter, the SC in early 1999 rendered a decision declaring the Sandiganbayan without jurisdiction over the cases. The records were remanded to the QC RTC: Upon raffle, the case was assigned to Branch 81. Petitioner and the others promptly filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause (Annex B). He asked that warrants for his arrest not be issued. He did not move for the dismissal of the Informations, contrary to respondent OSG's claim.[21] The respondent's admissions made in the course of the proceedings in the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive on him. The respondent is barred from repudiating his admissions absent evidence of palpable mistake in making such admissions.[22]
	GR No. 139571-72 2001-03-28	ROGER N. ABARDO v. SANDIGANBAYAN GONZAGA-REYES, J.
The delay in this case measures up to the unreasonableness of the delay in the disposition of cases in Angchangco, Jr. vs. Ombudsman[43], where the Court found the delay of six years by the Ombudsman in resolving the criminal complaints to be violative of the constitutionally guaranteed right to a speedy disposition of cases; similarly, in Roque vs. Office of the Ombudsman[44], where the Court held that the delay of almost six years disregarded the Ombudsman's duty to act promptly on complaints before him; and in Cervantes vs. Sandiganbayan[45], where the Court held that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in not quashing the information which was filed six years after the initiatory complaint was filed and thereby depriving petitioner of his right to a speedy disposition of the case. So it must be in the instant case, where the reinvestigation by the Ombudsman has dragged on for a decade already.