G.R. No. 144542, June 29, 2001
FRANCISCO DELA PEÑA and TRANQUILINO BENIGNO, petitioners, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, FOURTH DIVISION, THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR and COMMISSION ON AUDIT, REGION XI, respondents.

FACTS

A Special Audit Team of the Commission on Audit (COA) conducted an audit of a fishing vessel managed by the Davao del Norte School of Fisheries. The audit result was referred to the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao on July 3, 1992. On August 14, 1992, Graft Investigation Officer (GIO) Marie Dinah Tolentino ordered petitioners and three other respondents to file counter-affidavits. After seeking extensions, the last counter-affidavit was filed on December 3, 1992. Petitioners did not file any further pleadings. However, non-parties Bernardino E. Placia and Vicente C. Hermoso, school officials, sent several letters to the Ombudsman between March 1993 and April 1995 regarding the status of the case and requesting clearance for the vessel’s transfer and repair. GIO Jovito Coresis, Jr. issued a resolution on October 10, 1996, which was reviewed and finally approved by Ombudsman Aniano Desierto on April 28, 1997. An Information for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 was filed with the Sandiganbayan on May 6, 1997, docketed as Criminal Case No. 23662. In December 1999, petitioners filed a Motion to Quash/Dismiss, arguing that the 4-year and 6-month delay from the filing of the last counter-affidavit (December 3, 1992) to the resolution (April 28, 1997) constituted inordinate delay, violating their constitutional rights to due process and speedy disposition of cases. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion and subsequent motion for reconsideration, prompting this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Quash/Dismiss, despite the alleged inordinate delay in the preliminary investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman, which petitioners claim violated their constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan. The Court held that the right to a speedy disposition of cases is violated only by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays, and is a flexible concept requiring consideration of the facts of each case. The factors considered are: (1) length of delay, (2) reasons for the delay, (3) assertion of the right by the accused, and (4) prejudice caused by the delay. The Court found that the delay was not inordinate or arbitrary. The preliminary investigation involved multiple accused, voluminous records, numerous receipts, and a lengthy resolution. The Office of the Ombudsman also acted upon letter-queries from non-parties. Petitioners did not seasonably assert their right during the investigation period. The delay was not solely attributable to the prosecution and did not amount to a constitutional violation. The Sandiganbayan was directed to dispose of the criminal case with reasonable dispatch.