G.R. Nos. 225568-70. February 15, 2022.
Lilybeth R. Perez, Petitioner, vs. Office of the Ombudsman, Respondent.

FACTS

On December 5, 2005, the General Investigation Bureau-A of the Office of the Ombudsman filed criminal and administrative complaints against Lilybeth R. Perez, a Revenue Officer I, concerning her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) for the years 1994 to 2002. The allegations included failure to file a 1999 SALN, acquiring assets disproportionate to her lawful income, and making false declarations regarding properties and liabilities. In her Counter-Affidavits, Perez defended the legitimacy of her assets, citing loans, rental income from apartment units, and proper declarations. The Ombudsman, in a June 8, 2007 Decision, dismissed the charge for failure to file the 1999 SALN. On December 15, 2015, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause to indict Perez for six counts of violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 11, of Republic Act No. 6713 (the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), specifically for failing to disclose her seven apartment units and the rental income therefrom in her SALNs for 1997 to 2002, and for not disclosing the existence of her child in her 1997 and 1998 SALNs. Other charges, including perjury, were dismissed. Perez filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing her right to speedy disposition of cases was violated due to the 10-year delay and that she was denied due process as the complaint did not originally allege her failure to declare rental income. The Ombudsman denied her motion in an April 12, 2016 Joint Order, deeming it filed out of time and upholding its findings. Perez then filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman violated petitioner Lilybeth R. Perez’s constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, ANNULLED and SET ASIDE the December 15, 2015 Joint Resolution and the April 12, 2016 Joint Order of the Office of the Ombudsman, and ORDERED the dismissal of the complaints against Perez for violation of her constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases. The Court held that the right to speedy disposition of cases is violated when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays. Applying the balancing test from Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, the Court found the delay of approximately 10 years from the filing of the complaints in 2005 to the Ombudsman’s resolution in 2015 to be presumptively prejudicial. The Ombudsman failed to provide a justifiable reason for the inordinate delay, as the case involved simple issues of SALN compliance and the evidence was not voluminous. The delay was solely attributable to the Ombudsman’s inaction and was therefore oppressive, forcing Perez to endure a protracted prosecution indefinitely. Consequently, the proceedings against her were deemed a violation of her constitutional right.