Scribd
Upload
128 views2 pages

Neri Vs Sandiganbayan Case Digest

The document discusses a Supreme Court case about the consolidation of criminal trials. It describes how two criminal cases against different individuals related to the same project were ordered consolidated by the Sandiganbayan. However, the Supreme Court ruled the consolidation order was made with grave abuse of discretion as one individual was an accused in one case but a main witness in the other.

Uploaded by

rocky Cadiz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
128 views2 pages

Neri Vs Sandiganbayan Case Digest

The document discusses a Supreme Court case about the consolidation of criminal trials. It describes how two criminal cases against different individuals related to the same project were ordered consolidated by the Sandiganbayan. However, the Supreme Court ruled the consolidation order was made with grave abuse of discretion as one individual was an accused in one case but a main witness in the other.

Uploaded by

rocky Cadiz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Neri vs.

Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 202243, August 7, 2013

Digested by: Jade M. Estorninos

Subject Matter: Consolidation of Trial of Criminal Cases

Facts of the Case: Neri served as Director General of the National Economic and
Development Authority (NEDA) during the administration of former President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo. In connection with what had been played up as the botched
Philippine-ZTE3 National Broadband Network (NBN) Project, the Ombudsman filed with
the Sandiganbayan two (2) criminal Information: a) against Benjamin Abalos, for
violation of Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, as amended, otherwise known
as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, docketed as SB-10-CRM-0098 (People v.
Abalos), and eventually raffled to the Fourth Division of that court; and b) against Neri,
also for violation of Sec. 3(h), RA 3019, in relation to Sec. 13, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution, was docketed as SB-10-CRM-0099 (People v. Neri) and raffled to the Fifth
Division of the Sandiganbayan. Vis-à-vis the same project, the Ombudsman would also
later file an information against Macapagal-Arroyo and another information against her
and several others docketed as SB-11-CRM-0467 and SB-11-CRM-0468 to 0469,
respectively, all of which ended up, like SB-10-CRM-0098, in the anti-graft court’s 4th
Division.

On January 3, 2012, in SB-10-CRM-0099, the Ombudsman, citing Sec. 22, Rule 119 of
the Rules of Court in relation to Sec. 2 of the Sandiganbayan Revised Internal Rules,
moved for its consolidation with SB-10-CRM-0098 (People v. Abalos), SB-11-CRM-0467
(People v. Arroyo, et al.) and SB-11-0468 to 469 (People v. Arroyo). The stated reason
proffered: to promote a more expeditious and less expensive resolution of the
controversy of cases involving the same business transaction. And in this regard, the
prosecution would later manifest that it would be presenting Yu Yong and Fan Yang,
then president and finance officer, respectively, of ZTE, as witnesses all in said cases
which would entail a substantive expense on the part of government if their testimonies
are given separately.

Neri opposed and argued against consolidation, and, as he would later reiterate,
contended, among other things that: (a) SB-10-CRM-0099, on one hand, and the other
cases, on the other, involve different issues and facts; (b) the desired consolidation is
oppressive and violates his rights as an accused; (c) consolidation would unduly put him
at risk as he does not actually belong to the Abalos group which had been negotiating
with the ZTE officials about the NBN Project; (d) he is the principal witness and, in fact,
already finished testifying, in the Abalos case; (e) the trial in the Neri and Abalos cases
are both in the advanced stages already; and (f) the motion is but a ploy to further
delay the prosecution of SB-10-CRM-0099, considering the prosecution’s failure to
present any more witnesses during the last two (2) scheduled hearings.

The Ombudsman interposed a reply basically advancing the practical and


economic reasons why a consolidation order should issue.

Sandiganbayan Ruling: The Sandiganbayan granted the consolidation, stating that


consolidation is proper inasmuch as the subject matter of the charges in both the
Abalos and Neri cases revolved around the same ZTE-NBN Project, and consolidation
would allow the government to save unnecessary expenses, avoid multiplicity of suits,
prevent delay, clear congested dockets, and simplify the work of the trial court without
violating the parties’ rights.

Issue: Whether or not the assailed consolidation order is void for having been issued
with grave abuse of discretion.
Supreme Court (SC) Ruling: In a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
under Rule 65 before the SC, with application for preliminary injunction and a
temporary restraining order, the SC stated that in consolidation, assuming it to be
proper owing to the existence of the element of commonality of the lineage of the
offenses charged contemplated in Sec. 22 of Rule 119, should be ordered to achieve all
the objects and purposes underlying the rule on consolidation, foremost of which, to
stress, is the swift dispensation of justice with the least expense and vexation to the
parties. It should, however, be denied if it subverts any of the aims of consolidation.
Citing Dacanay and People v. Sandiganbayan, the SC further stated that ordering
consolidation-likely to delay the resolution of one of the cases, expose a party to the
rigors of a lengthy litigation and in the process undermine the accused's right to speedy
disposition of cases-constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The SC likewise ruled that
consolidation of trial of cases would result to absurdity as Neri is an accused in one case
and the prosecution's main witness in the other case.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy