Back

Rolando De La Cuesta vs. The Sandiganbayan et al. [CONCURRING OPINION, BRION J.]

ROLANDO P. DE LA CUESTA, PETITIONER, VS. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NOS. 166305-06] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., HERMENEGILDO ** C. ZAYCO, SALVADOR ESCUDERO III, VICENTE B. VALDEPEÑAS, JR., ROLANDO P. DE LA CUESTA AND THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NOS. 166487-88] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. THE SANDIGANBAYAN AND EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., ROLANDO P. DE LA CUESTA, HERMINIGILDO C. ZAYCO, JOSE R. ELEAZAR, JR., FELIX V. DUEÑAS, JR., SALVADOR ESCUDERO III, AND VICENTE B. VALDEPEÑAS, JR., RESPONDENTS. [SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION BRION, J.]

G.R. Nos. 164068-69 | 2013-11-19


SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION
 
BRION, J.:

The Case

I concur with the ponencia’s conclusion and submit this opinion to put into proper perspective: (1) the Court’s appreciation of the existence of probable cause against accused Rolando P. de la Cuesta and Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. (collectively, the accused) for alleged violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, theAnti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; and (2) the alleged violation of the accused’s rights to a speedy disposition of the case and to a speedy trial.

A.   The Factual Highlights

On February 9, 1995, the Office of the Ombudsman filed two separate...