REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

~anoiganha~anQuezon City

FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

- versus - CRIM. CASE NO. S8-15-CRM-0283

RENE L. RELAMPAGOS, ET AL.Accused.

Present:

DE LA CRUZ, J., ChairpersonECONG, J.CALDONA, JJ.

Promulgated on:

!'PR J. 7 2G18 ~-I

/x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

RESOLUTION

DE LA CRUZ, J.

This resolves accused Arnold R. Lungay's Manifestation withMotion Adopting the Motion to Dismiss Filed By The Other Co-accused, dated March 5, 2018.

In a Resolution promulgated on January 21, 2016, the Court,upon separate motions of Lungay's eo-accused Relampagos,Chatto, Tongco, Lim, Abapo, Jr. and Uy, and Vil/areal, dismissed theinstant case for violation of their right to speedy disposition of theircases. Subsequently, in a Resolution, dated June 23, 2016, theCourt likewise dismissed this case upon motion of accused Lopez,Madririan and Mascaririas, for the same reasons embodied in theCourt's January 21, 2016 Resolution. The prosecution moved forthe reconsideration of the said January 21, 2016 Resolution, whichthe Court denied in its Resolution, dated June 23, 2016.

RESOLUTIONpp vs. Rene L. Relampagos, et al.Crim. Case No. S8-15-CRM-0283

Page 2 of3

x--------------------------------------------------··-------------x

Accused Lungay then moved to adopt the motion to dismissfiled by his eo-accused which the Court, in the absence objectionfrom the prosecution, granted. Thus, accused Lungay prays that asin the case of the other accused, his constitutional right to a speedydisposition of his case was also violated when the Office of theOmbudsman incurred inordinate delay in conducting the preliminaryinvestigation against all the accused, with him included. Thus,accused Lungay contends that the dismissal of the present casemust likewise be applied to him because his situation is the same asthat of his co-accused. According to Lungay, he and his eo-accused were investigated under the same complaint and werecharged under the same Information for the same facts andcircumstances.

At the March 9, 2018 hearing, the prosecution manifested thatit was adopting the comment/opposition to the similar motions filedby Lungay's co-accused as its comment/opposition to the latter'ssubject motion.

The motion is impressed with merit.

Indeed, accused Lungay and his eo-accused, whose case wasalready dismissed pursuant to the Court's January 21, 2016Resolution, are similarly situated in this case. They were indictedfor the same transaction and set of facts, and were subjected to thesame preliminary investigation. The Court sees no cogent reason totreat accused Lungay's case differently from that of his co-accused.Hence, the Court holds that the preliminary investigation of this caseas to accused Lungay was also attended with inordinate delay inviolation of his constitutional right to speedy disposition of his casethereby warranting its dismissal.

WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the Court resolvesto also dismiss, as it does hereby DISMISS, this case as to accusedLungay on the ground of violation of his right to the speedydisposition of his case

The hold departure order issued by the Court against the saidaccused by reason of this case is hereby LIFTED and SET ASIDE,and the bond he posted for his provisional remedy is ordered

RESOLUTIONpp vs. Rene L. Relampagos, et al.Crim. Case No. SB-1S-CRM-0283

Page 3 of3

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --x

RELEASED, subject to the usual accounting and auditingprocedures.

The arraignment and pre-trial tentatively set on April 27, 2018,at 8:30 in the morning are ordered cancelled.

SO ORDERED.

EFREN tI~E LA CRUZAss;~ia~ Justice

We Concur:

JtW.LcLW ~ A1f;YAfJGERALDINE FAITH A. EtONG

Associate Justice

.1':~~()~ l/U\· (JCCt {fu~-G1~0 M. CALDONA

,,~~ Associate Justice