GR 140529; (September, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 140529. September 6, 2001
JOSE P. LOPEZ, JR., petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO and HON. MARGARITO P. GERVACIO, JR. in their official capacities as Ombudsman and Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, respectively, and the SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jose P. Lopez, Jr., the Administrative Officer V of DECS Region XII, was implicated in a case for Falsification of Documents by Public Officers (docketed as OMB-3-93-2791) arising from a special audit by the COA on DECS-Region XII’s purchase of school equipment and laboratory apparati between 1992 and 1993. The COA Special Audit Team submitted a Joint Affidavit-Complaint on December 20, 1993, which was endorsed to the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao. On March 1, 1994, the Graft Investigation Officer (GIO) directed petitioner to submit a Counter-Affidavit. Petitioner, without the assistance of counsel, submitted his Counter-Affidavit on April 22, 1994. The COA submitted its Reply-Affidavit on February 29, 1995. Thereafter, there was an unexplained interval of close to four years. On July 17, 1998, the GIO recommended the filing of 30 Informations for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against petitioner and others. This was approved by the Ombudsman on April 30, 1999, and the Informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 25247-25276) were filed with the Sandiganbayan on May 5, 1999. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, alleging deprivation of due process and inordinate delay in the resolution of the preliminary investigation, but it was not acted upon. Petitioner thus filed this Petition for Mandamus seeking dismissal of the case and issuance of a clearance.
ISSUE
Whether the inordinate delay of approximately four years in the resolution of the preliminary investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman violated petitioner’s constitutional right to a speedy disposition of his case, warranting the dismissal of the criminal charges.
RULING
Yes. The Petition for Mandamus is GRANTED. The Supreme Court held that the unexplained delay of close to four years from the submission of the last pleading (COA’s Reply-Affidavit on February 29, 1995) until the issuance of the resolution finding probable cause (July 17, 1998) constituted a violation of petitioner’s constitutional right to a speedy disposition of his case. The Court found no justifiable reason for the prolonged interval of inactivity. Applying the rulings in Roque vs. Office of the Ombudsman and Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, the Court dismissed the criminal informations in the interest of speedy disposition of cases, noting that the long and unexplained delay was not corrected by the eventual filing of the Informations. Consequently, Ombudsman Case No. OMB-3-93-2791 (Criminal Cases Nos. 25247-25276 before the Sandiganbayan) is DISMISSED. The Office of the Ombudsman is directed to issue the corresponding clearance in favor of petitioner.