GR 164763; (February, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 164763 ; February 12, 2008
ZENON R. PEREZ, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Zenon R. Perez, the acting municipal treasurer of Tubigon, Bohol, was subjected to a cash audit on December 28-29, 1988. The audit revealed a cash shortage of P72,784.57. When demanded to produce the missing funds, petitioner verbally admitted to the audit team that he used the money for his brother’s loan, family food, and his medicine. An Information for malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code was filed before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner pleaded not guilty. Trial commenced in 1990, and petitioner completed his testimony and rested his case by October 1990. However, the Sandiganbayan rendered its judgment of conviction only on September 24, 2003, or nearly thirteen years after the case was submitted for decision. Petitioner fully restituted the missing amount through several remittances completed by April 17, 1989.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan violated petitioner’s constitutional right to a speedy disposition of his case, warranting the dismissal of the criminal charge against him.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the Sandiganbayan’s decision, dismissing the criminal case on the ground of violation of the right to speedy disposition. The Court applied the constitutional guarantee under Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution , which is broader than the right to a speedy trial, as it covers all phases of a judicial or administrative proceeding. The Court employed the balancing test, weighing the conduct of both the prosecution and the petitioner. The delay of nearly thirteen years from the submission of the case for decision until the promulgation of judgment was inordinate and oppressive. The Sandiganbayan offered no satisfactory explanation for the delay, which was attributable to the court itself. While the offense was serious, the petitioner’s right was paramount. The Court also considered that petitioner had made full restitution, which, while not extinguishing criminal liability, was a mitigating circumstance that underscored the absence of damage to the government. The unjustified delay violated fundamental due process and constituted a denial of justice, compelling the dismissal of the case.