G.R. No. 126814 - JUDY CAROL L. DANSAL, RAFAEL T. FLORES, HERMINIO C. ELIZON, ARNULFO S. SOLORIA, VS. THE HON. GIL. P. FERNANDEZ, SR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE RTC, QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 217 AND BENIGNO S. MONTERA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that respondents Judy Carol Dansal, Rafael Flores, Herminio Elizon, Arnulfo Soloria, Ronaldo Vallada be prosecuted for one count of estafa through falsification of public document. In addition thereto, a separate information for violation of Section 3(e) of R. A. No 3019 be filed against respondent Judy Carol Dansal alone while the additional charge for violation of Section 3(e) of R. A. No 3019 against the other respondents be dismissed for lack of merit." [4] On May 13, 1996, after the denial of petitionersÕ motion for reconsideration, the aforesaid cases were referred to the deputized prosecutor of Quezon City, together with two Informations, dated October 20, 1995 and January 15, 1996, respectively, accusing Judy Carol L. Dansal of estafa through falsification of public document, and violation of Section 3(e) of R. A. No. 3019; [5] and the other petitioners of estafa through falsification of public document. On July 18, 1996, petitioners interposed a Motion to Quash, contending that the delay in terminating the preliminary investigation violated their constitutional rights to due process and to a speedy disposition of their cases. [6] On August 27, 1996, the respondent court denied the said motion, ruling thus: "After careful evaluation of the grounds raised by the accused in their Motion to Quash viz--viz the Opposition filed by the prosecution, finding no basis in fact and in law to warrant the quashal of the two informations against the accused, as there appears no unreasonable delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation amounting to violation of the accusedÕs constitutional right to due process and to a speedy disposition of the cases, the instant Motion is hereby DENIED. Reset the arraignment and pre-trial anew on November 25, 1996 at 8:30 oÕclock in the morning." [7] Undaunted, petitioners found their way to this Court via the present petition under Rule 65 with a prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order, theorizing that: RESPONDENT JUDGE COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING PETITIONERSÕ MOTION TO QUASH, FINDING NO BASIS IN FACT AND IN LAW TO WARRANT THE QUASHAL OF THE TWO (2) INFORMATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS. RESPONDENT JUDGE COMMITTED GRAVE ERRORS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WHEN HE ERRONEOUSLY HELD THAT THERE APPEARS NO UNREASONABLE DELAY IN THE CONDUCT OF THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AMOUNTING TO VIOLATION OF THE PETITIONERSÕ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND TO A SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF THE CASES." [8] On December 18, 1996, without giving due course to the Petition, the Court required the respondents to comment and denied the prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order. [9] In his Manifestation and Motion in lieu of Comment, the Solicitor General recommended the granting of the petition. [10] The accusation against the petitioners is based on the "Affidavit of Complai