G.R. No. 240776 , November 20, 2019
People of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Honorable Sandiganbayan (First Division), Julius Caesar Falar Herrera, Cesar Tomas Mozo Lopez, Amalia Reyes Tirol, Ester Corazon Jamisola Galbreath, Alfonso Rafols Damalerio II, Ma. Fe Camacho-Lejos, Josil Estur Trabajo, Aster Apalisok-Piollo, Brigido Zapanta Imboy, and Jane Censoria Del Rosario Cajes-Yap, Respondents.

FACTS

The case stemmed from a complaint filed on November 6, 2014 by the Field Investigation Office of the Office of the Ombudsman against twenty-five public officials of the Province of Bohol, including the respondents, for alleged irregularities in the procurement of heavy equipment in 2006 and 2009. The complaint alleged violations of Section 3(e) and (g) of R.A. No. 3019 and administrative offenses. The Ombudsman directed the respondents to submit their counter-affidavits in December 2014, which they filed in February 2015. In a Resolution approved on December 6, 2016, the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict the respondents for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 . Their motions for reconsideration were denied on March 7, 2017. An Information was filed before the Sandiganbayan on December 1, 2017. The respondents filed various Motions to Dismiss, arguing that the investigation took almost six years, violating their right to speedy disposition of cases. The Sandiganbayan granted the motions, dismissing the case in Resolutions dated March 16, 2018, April 17, 2018, and June 4, 2018, finding inordinate delay as the fact-finding investigation began in 2012. The prosecution argued only about three years elapsed from the filing of the complaint in 2014 to the filing of the Information in 2017.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in quashing the Information and dismissing the case against respondents on the ground of inordinate delay.

RULING

Yes, the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the respondents’ right to speedy disposition of cases was not violated. Applying the doctrine in Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, the Court held that for the purpose of determining inordinate delay, a case is deemed to have commenced from the filing of the formal complaint and the subsequent conduct of the preliminary investigation. Fact-finding investigations prior to the filing of a formal complaint are not adversarial and are not included in the period for determining delay. The reckoning point in this case was November 6, 2014, the date the formal complaint was filed. From that date to the filing of the Information on December 1, 2017, only about three years elapsed, which did not constitute inordinate delay. The Court found the delay reasonable given the complexity of the case involving multiple respondents and voluminous records. The Sandiganbayan’s inclusion of the pre-complaint fact-finding period starting from 2012 was erroneous. Its dismissal of the case was therefore contrary to law and constituted grave abuse of discretion.