Salcedo v. People

 

Salcedo v. People

G.R. No. 223869-960

February 13, 2019

FACTS:

Cong. Tupas requested an audit of the Municipality of Sara, Iloilo. He filed complaints against petitioner Salcedo and other officials in the Municpality for violation of Ra 3019 Sec 3(g) arising from the alleged illegal releases of government funds amounting to Php1,834,400. The COA saw the irregularities in the documents and thus make the accused criminally liable for Malversation of Public Funds and RA 3019 Sec 3(e). The accused-appellants filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground of lack of legal and factual basis and being imperfect or premature and grave abuse of discretion when Sandiganbayan rules that the 4 years and three 3 months that it took to file informations is reasonable delay consistent with the right to speedy disposition of cases.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion.

HELD:

                No. The records show that the issue of the denial of Sacedo’s right to bail has been rendered moot, which granted bail to him and his co-accused in accordance with the pronouncements of this Court in People v. Valdez. It held that an accused charged with the complex crime of Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification of Official/Public Documents that involves an amount in excess of Php22,000 is entitled to bail as a matter of right. Courts will not determine a moot question in a case in which no practical relief can be granted. Forum shopping exists when a party repetitively avails himself of several jusicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded no the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already resolved by, some other court. It is considered an act of malpractice as it trifles with the courts and abuses their processes. Accordingly, the instant petition must be dismissed outright as Salcedo and his counsel clearly committed the abhorrent practice of forum shopping. He is deemed to have slept on his right to speedy disposition of cases. He never decried the time spent for the preliminary investigation proceedings against him before the Office of the Ombudsman. In Perez v. People, the strength of his efforts will be affected by the length of the delay, to some extent by the reason for the delay, and most particularly by the personal prejudice, which is not always readily identifiable, that he experiences. Every accused in a criminal caes has the intense desire to seek an acquittal, or at least, to see the swift end of the accusation against him. To this end, it is natural for him to exert every and all efforts available and within his capacity in order to resist prosecution. Here, Salcedo’s inaction gives the impression that the supervening delay seems to have been without his objection, and hence, it was implied with his acquiescence. Indeed, Salcedo’s silence may be considered as a waiver of his right. Wherefore, the petition for certiorari is denied.