G.R. Nos. 204978-83, July 06, 2020
IGNACIO C. BAYA, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (2ND DIVISION), THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Ignacio C. Baya was a Board Member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Zamboanga Sibugay. In 2001, the provincial government implemented an “Aid to the Poor” program using realigned funds from its regular budget. In 2003, complaints were filed with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao alleging anomalies in the program’s implementation. The Ombudsman requested a Commission on Audit (COA) investigation. A COA report dated February 19, 2004, found anomalies, including a scheme where officials, including Baya, would allegedly advance money from their own pockets for reimbursement from the program’s funds using documents for fictitious beneficiaries. Specifically, Baya was found to have requested reimbursement of P60,000.00 for 18 beneficiaries, 14 of whom were deemed fictitious. The Ombudsman required Baya to file counter-affidavits. In his submissions, Baya claimed his staff conducted interviews and prepared reports, that he advanced the money to expedite assistance, and that the beneficiaries existed, attributing COA’s failed confirmations to poor mail delivery. The Office of the Ombudsman, in a Resolution dated July 10, 2006, found probable cause to indict Baya and others for Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Public Documents and violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The cases were filed with the Sandiganbayan in 2011. Baya filed a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and to quash the warrants, arguing lack of probable cause and violation of his right to speedy disposition of cases due to the delay from the 2004 COA report to the 2011 filing. The Sandiganbayan denied his motions and issued warrants for his arrest.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest against petitioner.
2. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the cases on the ground of inordinate delay, violating petitioner’s right to speedy disposition of cases.

RULING

1. On Probable Cause: The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The determination of probable cause for issuing a warrant of arrest is a judicial function. The Sandiganbayan personally evaluated the prosecution’s evidence, including the Ombudsman’s Resolution and the supporting documents, and found sufficient basis to believe that a crime was committed and that petitioner was probably guilty. Petitioner’s arguments involved matters of defense best ventilated in a full-blown trial, not in a determination of probable cause. The alleged inconsistencies in his counter-affidavits did not negate the finding of probable cause.
2. On Inordinate Delay: The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the cases. The right to speedy disposition of cases is relative and flexible, and petitioner failed to prove that the delay was vexatious, capricious, and oppressive. The period for consideration commenced from the filing of the complaints in 2003 or the submission of the COA report in 2004. The Ombudsman concluded its investigation and found probable cause in 2006. The delay from 2006 to 2011 in filing the Informations was partly attributable to necessary reviews and the complexity of the cases involving multiple respondents. Petitioner only asserted his right to speedy disposition in 2012, after his arrest, which constituted a waiver. Furthermore, he did not demonstrate any prejudice suffered from the delay. Citing Tatad v. Sandiganbayan does not automatically result in dismissal, as the Court must examine the context of each case. Under the circumstances, the delay was not inordinate.
The Petition for Certiorari was DISMISSED. The Sandiganbayan’s Orders were upheld.