G.R. No. 218040 . April 17, 2017
JUANITO VICTOR C. REMULLA, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION) AND ERINEO S. MALIKSI, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Juanito Victor C. Remulla filed a criminal complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman on August 12, 2005, against respondent Erineo S. Maliksi, then Governor of Cavite, for alleged violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 . The complaint alleged that Maliksi caused the purchase of medical supplies in November 2002 without public bidding. Maliksi filed his counter-affidavit in December 2005. The Ombudsman issued a resolution finding probable cause only on August 27, 2014—almost nine years later. After the Ombudsman denied his motion for reconsideration, an Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan in November 2014.
Maliksi moved to dismiss the case, asserting a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy disposition of his case due to the inordinate nine-year delay. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion in its February 2, 2015 Resolution, finding the delay unjustified, as it was caused by mere mechanical routing and avoidable procedural lapses within the Ombudsman. It denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration on March 20, 2015. Remulla, the private complainant, filed this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the criminal case against respondent Maliksi for violation of his right to a speedy disposition of the case.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The right to a speedy disposition of cases is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. In determining whether this right has been violated, the Court applies a balancing test, considering factors such as the length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.
Here, the nine-year interval between the filing of the complaint and the finding of probable cause was presumptively prejudicial and inordinate. The Ombudsman’s explanation—attributing the delay to internal routing and the fact-finding and preliminary investigation processes—was deemed insufficient and unacceptable. The Court emphasized that the duty to expedite proceedings lies with the prosecution, not the accused. Maliksi’s failure to assert his right earlier did not constitute a waiver, as it is not the respondent’s burden to follow up on the case. The delay was solely attributable to the Ombudsman’s inefficiency, causing undue anxiety and impairing Maliksi’s defense. Consequently, the dismissal of the case was proper and in accord with jurisprudence protecting the right to a speedy disposition.