G.R. Nos. 236408 and 236531-36, July 07, 2021
SALACNIB F. BATERINA, PETITIONER, VS. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, SECOND DIVISION, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The case stemmed from Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) cases involving the misuse of pork barrel funds. Petitioner Salacnib F. Baterina, then Representative of the 1st District of Ilocos Sur, was implicated for the alleged misuse of his PDAF allotment for 2007 amounting to P35,000,000.00. On November 29, 2013, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed a complaint (NBI-Baligod Complaint) against petitioner. Petitioner filed his Counter-Affidavit on July 25, 2014. Subsequently, the Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) initiated a new investigation and filed a complaint (FIO-Complaint) on May 29, 2015, covering the same SARO subject of the NBI complaint and including additional PDAF allocations. Petitioner alleged he filed a Counter-Affidavit to the FIO-Complaint on July 21, 2015, but the OMB considered him to have waived the filing. On May 4, 2016, the OMB issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause to indict petitioner for three counts of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, three counts of Malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, and one count of Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the RPC. Seven Informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan on March 17, 2017. Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion to quash the Informations, alleging violations of his right to due process, flawed preliminary investigations, and inordinate delay. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion and the subsequent motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed the present Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the OMB has the power to order a fact-finding investigation after it had already initiated a preliminary investigation on the NBI-Baligod Complaint.
2. Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that petitioner was not denied due process of law.
3. Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the right of petitioner to a speedy disposition of a case had not been violated.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and AFFIRMED the Sandiganbayan Resolutions.
1. On the OMB’s Power to Order Fact-Finding Investigation: The Court held that the Sandiganbayan correctly affirmed that the OMB may refer a case for further fact-finding investigation pursuant to Section 2, Rule II of OMB Administrative Order No. 07. The Court found petitioner’s personal interpretation of the OMB’s procedure unmeritorious. The records showed that the NBI-Baligod Complaint was still undergoing preliminary investigation when the FIO-Complaint was filed. The OMB has the discretion to determine whether there is a need for further fact-finding to uncover additional evidence, and such power is not limited by the pendency of a preliminary investigation. The FIO investigation was not redundant, as it aimed to gather more evidence on the PDAF scam’s entire machinery.
2. On the Alleged Denial of Due Process: The Court ruled that petitioner was not denied due process. The essence of due process in preliminary investigations is simply the opportunity to be heard. Petitioner was given this opportunity when he filed his Counter-Affidavit to the NBI-Baligod Complaint and his Motion for Reconsideration of the OMB’s Joint Resolution. The OMB’s consideration of his Motion for Reconsideration cured any defect from the alleged non-filing of his Counter-Affidavit to the FIO-Complaint. The Court also found no merit in the claim of bias by the head of Task Force PDAF, as mere suspicion is insufficient to prove bias, and the OMB is presumed to have performed its duties regularly.
3. On the Alleged Violation of the Right to Speedy Disposition: The Court held that there was no inordinate delay. The right to a speedy disposition of cases is relative and must be weighed against the state’s right to prosecute. The period from the filing of the NBI complaint (November 29, 2013) to the filing of the Informations (March 17, 2017) spanned three years, three months, and eighteen days. The Court found the delay justified and not vexatious, capricious, or oppressive. The complexity of the PDAF cases, involving numerous respondents and voluminous documents, necessitated a thorough investigation. Petitioner also failed to assert his right promptly and participated in the proceedings without raising the delay issue earlier. The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in its ruling.