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.

FACTS

A Complaint-Affidavit for Unlawful Appointment under Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code was filed on May 17, 2006, against petitioner Salvacion Zaldivar-Perez, then Provincial Governor of Antique, for appointing Atty. Eduardo S. Fortaleza as Provincial Legal Officer despite his lack of the required five-year practice of law under the Local Government Code. The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Antique (OPP-Antique) found probable cause in a Resolution dated August 6, 2009. The records were forwarded to the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas on October 8, 2009. After reviews and a change in Ombudsman leadership, a Review Resolution was approved on April 24, 2012, and an Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan on May 24, 2012. Petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Dismiss on July 2, 2012, arguing that the delay in the preliminary investigation—over three years at the OPP-Antique and nearly two years at the OMB—violated her constitutional right to a speedy disposition of the case. The Sandiganbayan denied her motion and subsequent motion for reconsideration, ruling she had slept on her rights by not asserting them earlier. Petitioner then filed this Petition for Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss, thereby violating her constitutional right to a speedy disposition of her case.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the Petition for Certiorari, reversed and set aside the Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions, and dismissed the criminal case. The Court found that the delay of over six years from the filing of the complaint (April 2006) to the filing of the Information (May 2012) was presumptively prejudicial. Applying the balancing test from Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, the Court considered: (1) the length of delay was inordinate; (2) the delay was primarily attributable to the prosecution, including a period of inaction and a change in Ombudsman leadership; (3) petitioner asserted her right to a speedy disposition at the first reasonable opportunity after the Information was filed; and (4) the delay prejudiced petitioner, causing anxiety and affecting her political career. The Sandiganbayan’s finding that petitioner slept on her right was erroneous, as she was not required to follow up during the preliminary investigation. The protracted delay violated petitioner’s right to a speedy disposition of her case.