G.R. Nos. 235965-66. February 15, 2022.
RENE C. FIGUEROA, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR AND PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

On June 21, 2011, the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) filed a complaint against Rene C. Figueroa and other officers for corruption. The complaint was endorsed for preliminary investigation on July 19, 2011. Figueroa filed his counter-affidavit on September 5, 2011. On September 22, 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman recommended the filing of two counts of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 . After a denied motion for reconsideration, the Ombudsman filed the corresponding Informations before the Sandiganbayan on June 3, 2016. On March 6, 2017, the Ombudsman moved to amend the Informations, which the Sandiganbayan admitted on July 4, 2017. On July 20, 2017, Figueroa moved to quash the Informations due to inordinate delay, arguing that more than six years had lapsed from the filing of the complaint. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion, ruling the delay was reasonable and part of the ordinary process of justice, and noting Figueroa’s failure to raise the issue before the Ombudsman. Figueroa’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Figueroa’s motion to quash, thereby violating his constitutional right to the speedy disposition of cases.

RULING

Yes. The petition is granted. The Supreme Court set aside the Sandiganbayan’s Resolution and dismissed the criminal cases against Figueroa for violation of his right to speedy disposition of cases. Applying the guidelines in Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, the Court found inordinate delay. The case was deemed initiated upon the filing of the formal complaint on June 21, 2011. The period from the filing of the Informations on June 3, 2016, until the motion to quash on July 20, 2017, exceeded the 12-month reglementary period for the Ombudsman to resolve cases under Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2020. This shifted the burden to the prosecution to justify the delay, which it failed to do. The prosecution did not prove it followed prescribed procedures, that the complexity of issues made the delay inevitable, or that Figueroa suffered no prejudice. The delay of over six years was presumptively prejudicial. Figueroa’s failure to raise the issue earlier did not constitute a waiver, as the right to speedy disposition is deemed invoked once a motion to quash on that ground is filed. The Sandiganbayan’s finding of “no unreasonable delay” constituted grave abuse of discretion.