G.R. No. 233061 -62, July 28, 2020
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE FOURTH DIVISION, SANDIGANBAYAN AND RAUL Y. DESEMBRANA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Private respondent Raul Y. Desembrana, an Assistant City Prosecutor, was charged before the Sandiganbayan with two counts of violation of Section 7(d) in relation to Section 11 of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) via Informations dated November 15, 2014. The charges alleged he solicited and accepted money in consideration for dismissing a case pending before him. After posting bail, he filed a Motion to Suspend Arraignment to accommodate a Motion for Preliminary Investigation he filed with the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP). The Sandiganbayan, in a Resolution dated July 8, 2015, granted the motion and directed the OSP to conduct a “full and complete preliminary investigation” within sixty (60) days, which it defined as including proceedings allowing the respondent to file a motion for reconsideration against an adverse resolution. The OSP conducted the investigation and, on September 29, 2015, issued a recommendation finding probable cause for Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code and requesting the withdrawal of one information and substitution with another for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 . The Ombudsman approved this on October 21, 2015. Private respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated November 9, 2015. The OSP submitted its Resolution to the Sandiganbayan on November 10, 2015. The Sandiganbayan, in a Resolution dated January 20, 2017, held in abeyance the resolution of the OSP’s omnibus motion (for withdrawal/substitution) until the final resolution of private respondent’s motion for reconsideration before the Ombudsman. The OSP denied the motion for reconsideration via Resolution dated January 27, 2017, approved by the Ombudsman on February 8, 2017. Meanwhile, on February 6, 2017, private respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing his right to speedy disposition of cases was violated due to delays: (1) one year and two months from the filing of his motion for reconsideration before the Ombudsman, and (2) two years and two months from the Sandiganbayan’s 60-day directive for the OSP. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion to dismiss in its assailed Resolution dated April 12, 2017, and denied the People’s motion for reconsideration on May 22, 2017. The People filed the present petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the criminal cases against private respondent on the ground of violation of his right to speedy disposition of cases.

RULING

Yes, the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion. The right to speedy disposition of cases is violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays, or when unjustified postponements are sought which prolong the trial for an unreasonable length of time. The Court applied the balancing test, weighing: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the assertion or failure to assert the right by the accused; and (4) the prejudice caused by the delay. The period to consider is from the filing of the complaint with the investigative body to the termination of the preliminary investigation. Here, the period was from November 20, 2014 (filing of the motion for preliminary investigation) to January 27, 2017 (denial of the motion for reconsideration), totaling about two years and two months. This length was not per se inordinate. The delays were not attributable to the prosecution but were largely due to the proceedings initiated by private respondent himself, including his motion for preliminary investigation, his filing of a rejoinder-affidavit, and his motion for reconsideration before the Ombudsman. The Sandiganbayan also contributed to the delay by its January 20, 2017 Resolution which held in abeyance the proceedings pending the Ombudsman’s resolution, despite the OSP having already submitted its findings. Private respondent failed to assert his right seasonably; he only moved to dismiss after the Ombudsman denied his motion for reconsideration. No prejudice to his defense was shown, as the delay occurred at the pre-arraignment stage and the evidence was primarily documentary. The Sandiganbayan’s dismissal, based solely on the passage of time without proper regard for the other factors, was a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment constituting grave abuse of discretion. The Resolutions dated April 12, 2017 and May 22, 2017 were annulled and set aside. Criminal Cases Nos. SB-14-CRM-0427 and SB-14-CRM-0428 were reinstated, and the Sandiganbayan was directed to proceed with the cases with reasonable dispatch.