GR 232029 40; (October, 2022) (Digest)
G.R. No. 232029 -40 and G.R. Nos. 234975-84, October 12, 2022
GRACE T. CHINGKOE, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION) AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS. ULDARICO P. ANDUTAN, JR., PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION) AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
The cases originated from a 2003 complaint filed by the Special Presidential Task Force 156 against officials and private individuals, including petitioners Grace T. Chingkoe and Uldarico P. Andutan, Jr., concerning irregularities in the issuance of tax credit certificates. The Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause and filed Informations for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and estafa through falsification of public documents before the Sandiganbayan on March 26, 2009. Chingkoe was arraigned in 2010. Notably, she filed a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s Joint Resolution on October 20, 2009, which remained unresolved for years.
On August 25, 2016, Chingkoe filed a Motion to Quash, arguing that the Ombudsman’s inordinate delay of six years in concluding the preliminary investigation violated her constitutional rights to due process and speedy disposition of cases. Andutan later adopted this motion. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion, ruling it was belatedly filed after Chingkoe’s arraignment, which constituted a waiver of her right to object to the validity of the Information. Their motions for reconsideration were likewise denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Quash based on the alleged violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petitions, reversed the Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions, and dismissed the criminal cases against Chingkoe and Andutan. The Court held that the right to speedy disposition of cases was violated by inordinate delay. Applying the guidelines in Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, the Court found the delay of over six years from the filing of the complaint in 2003 to the filing of the Informations in 2009 to be presumptively prejudicial. This period included the unresolved motion for reconsideration filed by Chingkoe in 2009.
The Sandiganbayan erred in ruling that the right was waived due to the filing of the Motion to Quash after arraignment. The Court clarified that the right to speedy disposition is a fundamental right that can be raised at any stage, and its waiver is not lightly presumed. The prosecution failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice by providing a compelling reason for the delay. The Court emphasized that the right attaches from the start of any investigation and is not solely a pre-arraignment remedy. Consequently, the violation of this constitutional right warranted the dismissal of the cases.