PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION) AND THADEO Z. OUANO.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the instant Motion to Withdraw Information be GRANTED and that the case be dismissed without prejudice and that the scheduled arraignment of accused Ouano on 17 October 2008 be cancelled. [35] On October 17, 2008, during the hearing on the Motion to Withdraw and the arraignment of respondent Ouano, the Sandiganbayan gave all the accused 10 days within which to file their respective comments. However, as regards respondent Ouano, the Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's Motion to Withdraw verbally and in open court. Petitioner's verbal Motion for Reconsideration was likewise verbally denied, and respondent Ouano was arraigned. [36] Thus, petitioner filed a Petition [37] before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 185503. Petitioner prayed mainly that this Court nullify respondent Sandiganbayan's order in open court, denying petitioner's Motion to Withdraw Information in so far as respondent Ouano is concerned, and his consequent arraignment. [38] In response to the Motion to Withdraw Information, respondent Braza filed a November 14, 2008 Manifestation with Motion (to Vacate Information and Dismiss the Case with Prejudice) [39] (Motion to Vacate). He moved that the Information against him be vacated for lack of probable cause, and the case against him be dismissed with prejudice on the ground that petitioner is "guilty of abusing its investigatory and prosecutorial powers," and violated his right to the speedy disposition of his case. [40] In a March 10, 2009 Resolution, [41] the Sandiganbayan granted respondent Braza's Motion to Vacate, finding that the prosecution, in seeking dismissal of the case, violated the right of the accused to a speedy disposition of his case: From the foregoing, the moot point of the instant controversy which this Court is called upon to resolve revolves around the right of the accused as enshrined in Article III, Section 16 of the Constitution. Accused's Motion is impressed with merit. It is not the proceedings as had which is being challenged by the accused; rather, it is the dismissal as sought by the Prosecution. This was the point made by the accused Braza in his Manifestation and Motion : 6. Accused Braza hereby moves that the Information be vacated for lack of probable cause and the case be dismissed with prejudice on the following GROUND: By admitting the absence of probable cause and seeking the remand of the case for further investigation proceedings for purposes of obtaining additional evidence in the hope of sustaining, this time, a finding of probable cause, the prosecution is guilty of abusing its investigatory and prosecutorial powers and violating the basic right of the accused to speedy disposition of his case, thereby warranting its dismissal with prejudice. [42] (Emphasis in the original) The Sandiganbayan expounded on why it could not grant the Motion to Withdraw the Information: The key in understanding the invocation by the accused of his constitutional right is t