SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 204739. November 13, 2019.]

SALVACION ZALDIVAR-PEREZ , petitioner, vs. HON. FIRST

DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, represented by ASSISTANT SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR III MA. HAZELINA TUJAN-MILITANTE, OFFICE
OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, respondents.

DECISION

HERNANDO, J : p

Before this Court is a Petition for Certiorari 1 (under Rule 65 of the

Rules of Court) with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order assailing the
August 28, 2012 2 and October 10, 2012 3 Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan
in Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0149, entitled People v. Salvation Z. Perez ,
for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion. The August 28,
2012 Resolution denied petitioner Salvacion Zaldivar-Perez's (Perez) Urgent
Motion to Dismiss with Notice of Entry of Appearance and Prayer for
Deferment of Arraignment, while the October 10, 2012 Resolution denied her
Motion for Reconsideration.
The case stemmed from the following facts:
A Complaint-Affidavit 4 dated April 28, 2006 for Unlawful Appointment,
defined and penalized under Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC),
was filed on May 17, 2006 with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of San
Jose, Antique (OPP-Antique), Department of Justice, by Numeriano Tamboong
(Tamboong) against petitioner Perez, who was then the Provincial Governor
of Antique. Tamboong alleged that petitioner Perez appointed Atty. Eduardo
S. Fortaleza (Fortaleza) on January 30, 2006 as the Provincial Legal Officer of
the province despite knowing that he did not meet the minimum
requirement of five (5) years in the practice of law under Section 481, Article
XI, Title V of the Local Government Code of 1991. 5
In her Counter-Affidavit 6 dated September 20, 2006, petitioner Perez
argued that the appointment of Fortaleza is well-deserved because during
his tenure as Provincial Legal Officer, he has been performing his duties and
responsibilities with competence, honesty and integrity. She added that the
position is confidential and co-terminus, thus experience can be dispensed
with as provided under Rule X, Section 1 (e) of the Omnibus Rules on
Appointments and Other Personnel Actions under the Civil Service
Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 40, Series of 1998. 7 She
also averred that as Provincial Governor, she is authorized to appoint
employees embraced in the Non-Career Service in the Government.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 In its Resolution 8 dated August 6, 2009, the OPP-Antique ruled that
there was sufficient evidence to support the existence of probable cause for
Violation of Article 244 (Unlawful Appointments) of the RPC committed by
petitioner Perez. It was noted that at the time of his appointment as
Provincial Legal Officer, Fortaleza was a member of the Philippine Bar for
only three (3) years, eight (8) months and twenty-eight (28) days, which is
short of the 5-year minimum experience requirement as provided in Section
481 of the Local Government Code of 1991. In finding untenable petitioner
Perez's justification that experience can be dispensed with as Fortaleza's
position is confidential, the OPP-Antique opined that CSC MC No. 1, series of
1977, is a rule of general application with respect to appointment and other
personnel action, thus it cannot amend a specific provision of a law. It is only
the legislature that has the plenary power to repeal, abrogate or revoke
existing laws. Thus, the OPP-Antique, in its August 6, 2009 Resolution,
recommended that a criminal complaint for Violation of Article 244 of the
RPC (Unlawful Appointments) be filed against petitioner Perez.
The original records of the case, together with the August 6, 2009
Resolution, were forwarded and received by the Deputy Ombudsman for
Visayas on October 8, 2009 for approval. 9
On October 12, 2009, the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas endorsed 10
the August 6, 2009 Resolution, together with the records of the case, to the
Preliminary Investigation, Administrative Adjudication and Review Bureau,
an office under the supervision of Overall Deputy Ombudsman Orlando C.
Casimiro (Deputy Ombudsman Casimiro) who has the investigative
jurisdiction over the case, pursuant to the July 10, 2008 Memorandum of
Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Gutierrez (Ombudsman Gutierrez).
The initial indorsement of the Review Resolution of the said August 6,
2009 Resolution, recommending the approval of the filing of the Information
against petitioner Perez for the offense complained of, was made on March
3, 2011 to Ombudsman Gutierrez. 11 As there was a change of leadership in
the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB), a Review dated September 8, 2011 of
the August 6, 2009 Resolution was again indorsed on September 26, 2011
by Deputy Ombudsman Casimiro to the newly appointed Ombudsman
Conchita Carpio-Morales 12 who approved the said Resolution on April 24,
2012. 13 Petitioner Perez was furnished a copy of the September 8, 2011
Review on May 10, 2012.
On May 24, 2012, an Information 14 indicting petitioner Perez for
Violation of Article 244 of the RPC (Unlawful Appointments) was filed before
the Sandiganbayan. On May 28, 2012, the Sandiganbayan issued a
Resolution directing the Bureau of Immigration to bar petitioner Perez from
leaving the country without its prior approval. Petitioner Perez received a
copy of the May 28, 2012 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan on May 30, 2012.
Incidentally, petitioner Perez filed a Motion for Reconsideration 15 of
the September 8, 2011 Review on June 19, 2012 16 with the Office of the
Overall Deputy Ombudsman who in turn indorsed the same to the OPP-
Antique on June 26, 2012.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 On July 3, 2012, the OPP-Antique received 17 petitioner Perez's Urgent
Motion to Dismiss with Notice of Entry of Appearance and Prayer for
Deferment of Arraignment dated July 2, 2012 which was set for hearing 18 on
July 5, 2012. In the said Motion, petitioner Perez complained of the delay in
the preliminary investigation both before the OPP-Antique and the OMB-
Visayas, 19 which violated her constitutional right to a speedy disposition of
the case, thus prayed for the dismissal of her case. 20 According to petitioner
Perez, it took the OPP-Antique more than three (3) years from the filing of
the Affidavit-Complaint to conclude the preliminary investigation and to
arrive at the Resolution dated August 6, 2009, which it indorsed to the
Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas on October 8, 2009 for approval, while it
took the OMB almost two (2) years from the date the Resolution of the OPP-
Antique was endorsed to them up to the time the Review Resolution came
out and almost three years from the date of the Resolution of the OPP-
Antique to the filing of the Information before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner
Perez argued that this protracted delay in the disposition of her case was
prejudicial to her rights.
On July 12, 2012, the prosecution filed its Comment/Opposition 21
dated July 11, 2012 to the Petitioner's Urgent Motion to Dismiss with Notice
of Entry of Appearance and Prayer for Deferment of Arraignment. It argued
that "there was no intentional delay on the part of the Office of the
Ombudsman in the conduct of the preliminary investigation[,] neither was
the proceeding attended by vexatious, capricious or oppressive delays [as]
to prejudice the [petitioner] in her right to speedy disposition of her case." 22
Ruling of the Sandiganbayan
On August 28, 2012, the Sandiganbayan issued its first assailed
Resolution denying Petitioner Perez's Motion to Dismiss with Notice of Entry
of Appearance and Prayer for Deferment of Arraignment for lack of merit.
While the Sandiganbayan agreed with petitioner Perez that the
Constitution guarantees her right to due process and speedy disposition of
her case, however, it found that based on the circumstances obtaining in this
case, both the OPP-Antique and the OMB-Visayas committed no violation of
petitioner Perez's aforesaid rights. The Sandiganbayan noted that although
there was a long delay in the preliminary investigation of the case starting
from the OPP-Antique, the record does not show that petitioner Perez had
ever asserted her right to the speedy resolutions of the said preliminary
investigation by following it up after she submitted her counter-affidavit or
by filing any motion for the early resolution of the same both before the OPP-
Antique and OMB-Visayas. It was only after the arraignment was set on July
5, 2012 that petitioner Perez filed a Motion for Reconsideration raising delay
in the conduct of the preliminary investigation. Having slept on her right to
speedy disposition of her case for an unreasonable and unexplained length
of time, the Sandiganbayan ruled that petitioner Perez cannot now invoke
violation of such right to justify the dismissal of the case as her inaction was
tantamount to the waiver of her right.
As to the contention of petitioner Perez that the proceeding in this case
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 should be deferred because of the pendency of the Motion for
Reconsideration before the OMB-Visayas, the Sandiganbayan ruled that the
filing of the Information with the Court on May 24, 2012 did not affect the
validity of the Information as it did not deprive her of her right to seek
reconsideration of the said Resolution. Moreover, the only requirement under
Section 7 (a), Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the OMB (Administrative
Order No. 07, as amended) is that the Motion for Reconsideration should be
filed within five (5) days from notice thereof with the OMB, or the Deputy
Ombudsman as the case may be, with the corresponding leave of court in
cases where the Information has already been filed in court. The prosecution
alleged that petitioner Perez failed to comply with the said requirement when
she filed her motion for reconsideration on the 21st day from receipt of the
September 11, 2011 Review of the Resolution dated August 6, 2009.
However, petitioner Perez argued that her Motion for Reconsideration was
filed within the period required by law. At any rate, Section 7 (b), Rule II of
the Rules of Procedure of the OMB also provides that the "filing of a motion
for reconsideration/reinvestigation shall not bar the filing of the
corresponding information in Court on the basis of the finding of probable
cause in the resolution subject of the motion."
In the end, the Sandiganbayan ruled:
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the accused's Urgent
Motion to Dismiss with Notice of Entry of Appearance and Prayer for
Deferment of Arraignment, dated July 2, 2012, is hereby DENIED for
lack of merit.
The arraignment of the accused is hereby set on September 27,
2012 at 8:30 in the morning.
SO ORDERED. 23

Aggrieved, petitioner Perez filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the

above Resolution of the Sandiganbayan which was opposed by the
prosecution for being a reiteration of her arguments in her previous motion.
24

In its Resolution 25 dated October 10, 2012, the Sandiganbayan denied

petitioner Perez's Motion for Reconsideration on the ground that the
arguments set forth therein were a mere rehash or reiteration of the
arguments in her Urgent Motion to Dismiss, and Reply which the Court had
already judiciously considered and passed upon, except for the issue that
the Information was filed by the Investigating Prosecutor without the prior
written authority or approval of the Provincial or City Prosecutor or Chief
State Prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his Deputy.
Hence, this Petition for Certiorari.
Petitioner Perez seeks to reverse and set aside the August 28, 2012
and October 10, 2012 Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan on the ground that
said court gravely abused its discretion when it refused: 1) to defer the
proceeding in the criminal case in light of the pending Motion for
Reconsideration filed before the OMB-Visayas; 2) to dismiss the criminal case
despite the fact that an Information was filed without proper authority; and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 3) to dismiss the criminal case despite the fact that there was undue and
unjustifiable delay in the resolution of the said case by the OMB-Visayas in
grave violation of her constitutional right to due process and speedy
disposition of the case against her.
Petitioner Perez maintains that the Sandiganbayan committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it
refused to defer the proceeding in this case due to the pending Motion for
Reconsideration before the OMB.
We hold otherwise.
The issue raised by petitioner has already been addressed by the Court
in Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, 26 where We held:
From the filing of information, any disposition of the case such
as its dismissal or its continuation rests on the sound discretion of the
court, which becomes the sole judge on what to do with the case
before it. Pursuant to said authority, the court takes full authority
over the case, including the manner of the conduct of litigation and
resort to processes that will ensure the preservation of its jurisdiction.
Thus, it may issue warrants of arrest, HDOs and other processes that
it deems warranted under the circumstances.
In this case, the Sandiganbayan acted within its jurisdiction
when it issued the HDOs against the petitioner. That the petitioner
may seek reconsideration of the finding of probable cause against her
by the OMB does not undermine nor suspend the jurisdiction already
acquired by the Sandiganbayan. There was also no denial of due
process since the petitioner was not precluded from filing a motion
for reconsideration of the resolution of the OMB. In addition, the
resolution of her motion for reconsideration before the OMB and the
conduct of the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan may proceed
concurrently.
Moreover, the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
Ombudsman expressly provides that the filing of a motion of
reconsideration does not prevent the filing of information. Section 7,
Rule II of Administrative Order No. 07 reads:
Section 7. Motion for reconsideration. —
a) Only one motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation of
an approved order or resolution shall be allowed, the same
to be filed within five (5) days from notice thereof with the
Office of the Ombudsman, or the proper Deputy
Ombudsman as the case may be, with corresponding leave
of court in cases where information has already been filed
in court;
b) The filing of a motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation
shall not bar the filing of the corresponding information in
Court on the basis of the finding of probable cause in the
resolution subject of the motion. (As amended by
Administrative Order No. 15, dated February 16, 2000) x x
x
As can be understood from the foregoing, an information may
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 be filed even before the lapse of the period to file a motion for
reconsideration of the finding of probable cause. The investigating
prosecutor need not wait until the resolution of the motion for
reconsideration before filing the information with the Sandiganbayan
especially that his findings and recommendation already carry the
stamp of approval of the Ombudsman. In any case, the continuation
of the proceedings is not dependent on the resolution of the motion
for reconsideration by the investigating prosecutor. In the event that,
after a review of the case, the investigating prosecutor was convinced
that there is no sufficient evidence to warrant a belief that the
accused committed the offense, his resolution will not result to the
automatic dismissal of the case or withdrawal of information already
filed before the Sandiganbayan. The matter will still depend on the
sound discretion of the court. Having acquired jurisdiction over the
case, the Sandiganbayan is not bound by such resolution but is
required to evaluate it before proceeding further with the trial and
should embody such assessment in the order disposing the motion.
Thus, in Fuentes v. Sandiganbayan, the Court emphasized:
The court is not limited to the mere approval or
disapproval of the stand taken by the prosecution. The
court must itself be convinced that there is indeed no
sufficient evidence against the accused and this
conclusion can only be reached after an assessment of
the evidence in the possession of the prosecution. What is
required is the court's own assessment of such evidence.
(Citations omitted, emphasis supplied)
Petitioner Perez likewise alleges that the Information filed against her
should be declared null and void because it was filed without the authority of
the Ombudsman or her Deputy. She argues that the Information was
prepared by the Investigating Prosecutor on September 8, 2011 and sworn
to on the same date or months ahead of its approval by Ombudsman Carpio-
Morales on April 24, 2012.
Petitioner Perez's contention is not well-taken.
As correctly found by the Sandiganbayan, the prosecution did not
commit any violation considering that the Ombudsman approved the
September 8, 2011 Review of the August 6, 2009 Resolution on April 24,
2012 and when it was filed on May 24, 2012, the Information bore the
approval of Ombudsman Carpio-Morales.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, We hold that the Sandiganbayan
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction when it ruled that there was no violation of petitioner Perez's
right to the speedy disposition of her case.
"The right to speedy disposition of cases x x x enshrined in Section 16,
Article III of the Constitution x x x declares in no uncertain terms that '[a]ll
persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all
judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.' [This constitutional mandate
demands] the swift resolution or termination of a pending case or
proceeding. The right to a speedy disposition of cases is deemed violated
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and
oppressive delays. What the Constitution prohibits are unreasonable,
arbitrary and oppressive delays which render rights nugatory." 27
I n Dela Peña v. Sandiganbayan , 28 the Court laid down certain
guidelines to determine whether the right to speedy disposition of cases has
been violated, to wit:
The concept of speedy disposition is relative or flexible. A mere
mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient.
Particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances
peculiar to each case. Hence, the doctrinal rule is that in the
determination of whether that right has been violated, the factors
that may be considered and balanced are as follows: (1) the length of
delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the assertion or failure to
assert such right by the accused; and (4) the prejudice caused by the
delay. (Citations omitted)
After a careful review of the facts and circumstances of this case and
following the above principle, We find that petitioner Perez's right to speedy
disposition of the case against her has been transgressed.
First, as to the length of delay.
The records show that Tamboong's Complaint-Affidavit was filed before
the OPP-Antique on May 17, 2006. On September 21, 2006, petitioner Perez
filed her counter-affidavit dated September 20, 2006. On September 28,
2006, Tamboong filed his Reply-Affidavit. After finding probable cause, the
OMB-Visayas issued a Resolution dated August 6, 2009 recommending that
a criminal complaint for Unlawful Appointment be filed against petitioner
Perez. On October 12, 2009, the August 6, 2009 Resolution was forwarded
and received by the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas for review. The initial
indorsement of the Review Resolution of the August 6, 2009 Resolution was
made on March 3, 2011 to Ombudsman Gutierrez. As there was a change of
leadership in the OMB, a Review dated September 8, 2011 of the August 6,
2009 Resolution was again indorsed on September 26, 2011 to the newly
appointed Ombudsman Carpio-Morales who approved the said Review
Resolution on April 24, 2012. On May 24, 2012 an Information indicting
petitioner Perez for Violation of Article 244 of the RPC (Unlawful
Appointments) was filed with the Sandiganbayan.
From the foregoing facts, approximately six years had elapsed from
May 17, 2006, the time when the complaint-affidavit was filed before the
OPP-Antique, until May 24, 2012, when the case was filed before the
Sandiganbayan. The OPP-Antique took almost three years from the filing of
the Complaint-Affidavit within which to conclude the preliminary
investigation and to arrive at its August 6, 2009 Resolution, while it took the
OMB for Visayas more than three years from the date the August 6, 2009
Resolution was endorsed to it up to the time the Review Resolution was
finalized on September 8, 2011 and approved by Ombudsman Carpio-
Morales on September 26, 2011. Still, it took the Ombudsman another eight
months from the approval of the September 8, 2011 Review of the August 6,
2009 Resolution up to the filing of the complaint before the Sandiganbayan
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 on May 24, 2012. This period to conduct and complete the preliminary
investigation is already excessive. Such a long delay was unreasonable and
inordinate so as to constitute an outright violation of the speedy disposition
of petitioner Perez's case.
Second , as to the reason for the delay.
Valid reasons for the delay identified and accepted by the Court
include, but are not limited to: (1) extraordinary complications such as the
degree of difficulty of the questions involved, the number of persons
charged, the various pleadings filed, and the voluminous documentary and
testimonial evidence on record; and (2) acts attributable to the respondents.
29

We note that the prosecution offered no explanation regarding the

delay in conducting the preliminary investigation and in its findings indicting
petitioner Perez of the offense charged. The charge of Unlawful Appointment
based on the ground that the appointee does not possess the minimum
requirement for the said position is a simple case and does not involve a
complicated and complex issue that would require the painstaking scrutiny
and perusal of the Ombudsman that would warrant the protracted delay. It
bears stressing that this case involved only petitioner Perez and the only
pleading that she filed was her Counter-Affidavit and nothing else. Clearly,
the delay in this case is a disregard of the Ombudsman's Constitutional
mandate to be the "protector of the people" and as such, required to act
promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against officers and
employees of the Government, or of any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, in order to promote efficient service. 30
Third, with regard to the assertion or failure to assert such right by the
accused.
The Court disagrees with the ratiocination of the Sandiganbayan that
laches had already set in because petitioner Perez failed or neglected for an
unreasonable length of time to assert her right to a speedy termination of
the preliminary investigation or to file a motion for early resolution of the
said investigation before the OPP-Antique. It is not for the petitioner to
ensure that the wheels of justice continue to turn. Rather, it is for the State
to guarantee that the case is disposed within a reasonable period. Thus, it is
of no moment that petitioner Perez did not file any motion before the
Ombudsman to expedite the proceeding. It is sufficient that she raised the
constitutional infraction prior to her arraignment before the Sandiganbayan.
31 In Cervantes v. Sandiganbayan, 32 we emphatically held:

It is the duty of the prosecutor to speedily resolve the complaint, as

mandated by the Constitution, regardless of whether the petitioner
did not object to the delay or that the delay was with his
acquiescence provided that it was not due to causes directly
attributable to him.
Similarly, we pointed out in Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan, 33 that:
Being the respondents in the preliminary investigation
proceedings, it was not the petitioners' duty to follow up on the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 prosecution of their case. Conversely, it was the Office of the
Ombudsman's responsibility to expedite the same within the bounds
of reasonable timeliness in view of its mandate to promptly act on all
complaints lodged before it. As pronounced in the case of Baker v.
Wingo:
A defendant has no duty to bring himself to trial;
the State has that duty as well as the duty of insuring that
the trial is consistent with due process. (Citation omitted)
Fourth, prejudice caused by the delay.
There is no doubt that petitioner Perez was prejudiced by the
inordinate delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation. The lapse of
six years before the filing of the Information with the Sandiganbayan placed
her in a situation of uncertainty. This protracted period of uncertainty over
her case caused her anxiety, suspicion and even hostility. The inordinate
delay defeats the salutary objective of the right to speedy disposition of
cases, which is "to assure that an innocent person may be free from the
anxiety and expense of litigation or, if otherwise, of having his guilt
determined within the shortest possible time compatible with the
presentation and consideration of whatsoever legitimate defense he may
interpose." 34 To perpetuate a violation of this right by the lengthy and
unreasonable delay would result to petitioner Perez's inability to adequately
prepare for her case and would create a situation where the defense
witnesses were unable to recall accurately the events of the distant past,
leading to the impairment of petitioner Perez's possible defenses. 35 This, we
cannot countenance without running afoul to the Constitution.
Thus, in view of the foregoing, it is indubitable that petitioner Perez's
constitutional right to speedy disposition of her case had been infringed.
Perforce, the assailed resolutions must be set aside and the criminal case
filed against petitioner Perez be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED. The August 28,
2012 and October 10, 2012 Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal
Case No. SB-12-CRM-0149 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Criminal Case
No. SB-12-CRM-0149 against petitioner Salvacion Zaldivar-Perez is hereby
DISMISSED on the ground of violation of her right to a speedy trial. The
Temporary Restraining Order issued by this Court on January 16, 2013
enjoining the First Division of the Sandiganbayan, the respondents, their
representatives, agents or other persons acting on their behalf from
proceeding with Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0149 and from executing the
Resolutions dated August 28, 2012 and October 10, 2012 of the
Sandiganbayan, First Division, is made PERMANENT.
SO ORDERED.
Perlas-Bernabe, A.B. Reyes, Jr. and Zalameda, ** JJ., concur.
Inting, * J., is on official leave.

Footnotes
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 * On official leave.
** Designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2727 dated October 25,
2019.
1. Rollo , pp. 3-29.
2. Id. at 30-38; penned by Associate Justice Efren N. De la Cruz and concurred in by
Associate Justices Rodolfo A. Ponferrada and Rafael L. Lagos.
3. Id. at 39-41.
4. Id. at 174-177.
5. SECTION 481. Qualifications, Term, Powers and Duties. — (a) No person shall be
appointed legal officer unless he is a citizen of the Philippines, a resident of
the local government unit concerned, of good moral character, and a
member of the Philippine Bar. He must have practiced his profession for at
least five (5) years in the case of the provincial and city legal officer, and
three (3) years in the case of the municipal legal officer.
6. Rollo , pp. 51-59.

7. e. Appointees to confidential/personal staff must meet only the educational

requirements prescribed under CSC MC 1, s. 1997. The civil service eligibility,
experience, training and other requirements are dispensed with.
8. Rollo , pp. 181-184.
9. Id. at 179.

10. Id. at 180.

11. Id. at 185.
12. Id. at 186.
13. Id. at 189.
14. Id. at 191-192.

15. Id. at 195-210.

16. Id. at 195.
17. Id. at 98.
18. Id. at 97.

19. Id. at 92.

20. Id. at 92-93.
21. Id. at 218-225.
22. Id. at 221-222.
23. Id. at 37-38.

24. Id. at 39.

25. Id. at 39-41.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 26. G.R. Nos. 205904-06, October 17, 2018.
27. Salcedo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 223869-960, February 13, 2019.
28. 412 Phil. 921, 929 (2001).
29. Magante v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 230950-51, July 23, 2018.
30. Escobar v. People , G.R. Nos. 228349 and 228353, September 19, 2018.

31. Id.
32. 366 Phil. 602, 609 (1999).
33. 714 Phil. 55, 64 (2013), citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972).
34. Id. at 65.
35. Id.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com