G.R. No. 231144 , February 19, 2020
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, v. Sandiganbayan (Special Second Division) and Leonardo B. Roman, Respondents.

FACTS

Leonardo B. Roman, former Governor of Bataan, was charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) in relation to a contract for the construction of a mini-theater. A complaint was filed on September 1, 2004. The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint on May 30, 2006, but this Court, upon a Petition for Certiorari filed by the successor governor, reversed the dismissal and ordered the filing of an Information in a Decision dated November 19, 2014. The Information was filed before the Sandiganbayan on February 13, 2015. Roman filed motions for reconsideration before this Court and sought suspension of the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan. After this Court denied his Motion for Reconsideration with finality, Roman filed an Urgent Motion to Quash Information on October 14, 2016, arguing his right to speedy disposition of cases was violated due to inordinate delay from the filing of the complaint in 2004 until the filing of the Information in 2015. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion and dismissed the case. The Republic filed this Petition for Certiorari assailing the Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the Motion to Quash and dismissing the criminal case on the ground of violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the Petition, reversed the Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions, and reinstated the criminal case against Roman. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that Roman’s right to speedy disposition was violated. The Court applied the balancing test and the guidelines set forth in Cagang v. Sandiganbayan. The right to speedy disposition is relative and must be weighed against the State’s right to prosecute. The period from the filing of the complaint (September 1, 2004) to the filing of the Information (February 13, 2015) was approximately ten years and five months. However, a significant portion of this period (from July 22, 2011, when a Petition for Certiorari was filed, to November 19, 2014, when this Court decided it) involved judicial proceedings initiated not by the State but by a private complainant. This period is excluded in determining inordinate delay. The period of preliminary investigation before the Ombudsman (from September 2004 to October 2009, when the motion for reconsideration was denied) was not inordinate. The Ombudsman resolved the complaint in less than two years, and the motion for reconsideration in about a year. Roman did not assert his right seasonably; he only raised it after this Court denied his Motion for Reconsideration, indicating it was a mere afterthought. He also failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice to his defense caused by the delay. The State’s interest in prosecuting alleged graft offenses is compelling. Therefore, no inordinate delay existed to warrant the dismissal of the case.