G.R. No. 101689 . March 17, 1993.
CARLITO U. ALVIZO, petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Carlito U. Alvizo, a former Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Sur, was dismissed from service by the Supreme Court in an administrative case (Administrative Matter No. 818-TEL) on April 18, 1979, after being found guilty of dishonesty and neglect of duty for a shortage in his accounts amounting to P31,612.50. The Court’s dismissal was without prejudice to criminal prosecution. In a letter dated May 4, 1989, Congressman Ernesto T. Estrella brought to the attention of the Secretary of Justice the apparent inability of the Provincial Fiscal of Surigao del Sur to prosecute Alvizo. This led to a preliminary investigation conducted by Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Vicente L. Suarez, who recommended filing an information for malversation. Provincial Prosecutor Pretextato Montenegro reversed this recommendation, but Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez overruled Montenegro. Consequently, an information for malversation was filed with the Sandiganbayan on May 17, 1990, docketed as Criminal Case No. 14893. Alvizo filed a motion to quash the information, arguing it lacked a certification by the investigating fiscal that he personally examined the complainant and his witnesses. He later filed a supplemental motion to quash, contending the filing violated his constitutional rights to due process and speedy disposition of his case, claiming a preliminary investigation had been commenced as early as 1979 (docketed as TBP Case No. 8003-05-05) and the 1990 filing caused an 11-year delay. The Sandiganbayan denied both motions.

ISSUE

1. Whether the information is defective for lacking a certification that the investigating prosecutor personally examined the complainant and his witnesses.
2. Whether the filing of the information violated petitioner’s constitutional right to a speedy disposition of his case.

RULING

1. NO. The certification by the investigating prosecutor that he personally examined the complainant and his witnesses is not an essential part of the information, and its absence is merely a formal defect. The Sandiganbayan found that Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Vicente L. Suarez, who conducted the preliminary investigation, personally examined the prosecution witness, COA Auditor Nereo A. Sales, and certified to this effect in the witness’s sworn statement. The certification in the information itself stated that a preliminary investigation had been conducted. The Supreme Court held that such a certification is not an essential part of the information under Section 3, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, and its absence cannot vitiate the information. The rule from People vs. Marquez applies: the injunction is against filing an information without a preliminary investigation, not against the absence of a certification detailing the steps of that investigation.
2. NO. Petitioner’s right to a speedy disposition of his case was not violated. The concept of speedy disposition is relative and flexible. Petitioner erroneously premised his claim on an alleged preliminary investigation in 1979, but the documents he presented only showed a directive to transmit records and an authority to investigate, not that an investigation was actually commenced and conducted. In determining a violation, the factors considered are the length of delay, the reasons for the delay, the assertion of the right by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay. The Court found no convincing proof of an oppressive delay. The evidence in the criminal case is principally documentary and identical to that in the earlier administrative case, so the risk of lost evidence is shared equally by both prosecution and defense. The belated prosecution, which the Supreme Court itself had earlier enjoined, should not be forestalled by conjectural claims of prejudice.