G.R. No. 141710 - EVELYN V. RODRIGUEZ, AND ANDRES ABONITA, JR., VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly issued against petitioners on December 14, 1998. Before the 1 st Division of the Sandiganbayan, petitioner Mayor Rodriguez voluntarily surrendered and posted a cash bond on January 4, 1999, [11] as did Barangay Captain Abonita on January 29, 1999. [12] On January 27, 1999, petitioners filed a Motion to Defer Arraignment, [13] they having filed on even date a Motion to Quash [14] . By Order [15] of January 29, 1999, the Sandiganbayan reset the arraignment to February 26, 1999. During the scheduled arraignment on February 26, 1999, the special prosecutor moved to defer the arraignment as recommended changes in the information were not yet acted upon by the Ombudsman. Without objection from petitioners counsel, the arraignment was reset [16] to April 8, 1999. In the meantime, the special prosecutor filed on April 6, 1999 an opposition [17] to petitioners Motion to Quash. Subsequently, the Sandiganbayan, acting upon a Motion to Admit Information [18] which was filed by the special prosecutor, admitted the amended information by Order [19] of April 8, 1999. Petitioners filed on April 26, 1999 a Motion to Quash [20] the amended information, to which motion the special prosecutor filed a comment/opposition [21] on June 9, 1999, explaining that the belated filing thereof was due to the transfer of the records of the Office of the Special Prosecutor to its new office at the Sandiganbayan Centennial Building in Quezon City. Thereafter or on June 28, 1999, the special prosecutor filed another Ex-parte Motion to Admit Amended Information [22] which was set for hearing on November 25, 1999. The scheduled hearing on November 25, 1999 was, however, cancelled and reset [23] to December 3, 1999 upon urgent motion by petitioners counsel upon the ground that on said date, he needed to appear before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong. By Order [24] of December 3, 1999, the Sandiganbayan granted the motion to admit amended information, denied the motion to quash the amended information, and ordered the arraignment of petitioners on January 17, 2000. On January 14, 2000, petitioners filed a Motion to Quash/Dismiss [25] the second amended information. During the scheduled arraignment of petitioners on January 17, 2000, the Sandiganbayan issued in open court the assailed separate orders denying petitioners motion to quash the second amended information, [26] denying the motion to defer arraignment, [27] and entering a plea of not guilty for both accused [28] herein petitioners, which orders petitioners allege have been rendered with grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners argue that the pendency of the preliminary investigation of the case which dragged for almost three years is unreasonable or unjustifiable and violates their constitutional rights as accused to due process, [29] they citing Tatad v. Sandiganbayan . [30] They add that the repeated and ex-parte amendment of the information by the Ombudsman resulted to inordinate delay in bringin