G.R. Nos. 233061-62, July 28, 2020
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE FOURTH DIVISION, SANDIGANBAYAN AND RAUL Y. DESEMBRANA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) filed two Informations dated November 15, 2014, charging respondent Raul Y. Desembrana with violations of Republic Act No. 6713 . On November 21, 2014, Desembrana filed a Motion to Suspend Arraignment pending his Motion to Conduct Preliminary Investigation with the OSP. The Sandiganbayan, on July 8, 2015, issued a Resolution directing the OSP to conduct a “full and complete preliminary investigation” within sixty (60) days, or until September 11, 2015. The OSP filed motions for extension of time on September 9, 2015, and a subsequent one, which were not acted upon by the Sandiganbayan. The OSP issued a recommendation on September 29, 2015, finding probable cause for Direct Bribery, which was approved by the Ombudsman on October 21, 2015. Desembrana filed a Motion for Reconsideration on November 9, 2015. On November 10, 2015, the OSP filed a “Compliance with Omnibus Motion” with the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan, on January 20, 2017, deferred resolution of this motion until Desembrana’s Motion for Reconsideration with the OSP was resolved. The OSP denied Desembrana’s Motion for Reconsideration on January 27, 2017. On February 6, 2017, Desembrana filed a Motion to Dismiss, invoking his right to speedy disposition due to alleged delays of 1 year and 2 months in resolving his Motion for Reconsideration and 2 years and 2 months in the preliminary investigation. The Sandiganbayan granted the Motion to Dismiss in its Resolution dated April 12, 2017, ruling that the OSP failed to afford Desembrana a full and complete preliminary investigation, including the opportunity for a motion for reconsideration, thereby violating his right to speedy disposition. The OSP filed a Petition for Certiorari, ascribing grave abuse of discretion to the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal cases against Desembrana on the ground of inordinate delay in the disposition of his case, thereby violating his right to speedy disposition.

RULING

Justice Caguioa, in his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, concurs in the result that the Petition should be granted and the Sandiganbayan’s dismissal reversed, but dissents on specific doctrinal points. He agrees with the ponencia that the OSP was not guilty of inordinate delay in conducting the preliminary investigation, finding the Sandiganbayan’s imputation of delay arbitrary and baseless, thus constituting grave abuse of discretion. However, he reiterates his dissenting position in Cagang v. Sandiganbayan regarding two key principles: (1) the right to speedy disposition should not be deemed impliedly waived solely by a respondent’s silence or inaction; and (2) the prejudice resulting from inordinate delay is not limited to incarceration but includes unnecessary anxiety and, critically, the impairment of one’s ability to mount a defense, which can occur as early as the fact-finding stage. He maintains that People v. Sandiganbayan and Torres Jr. v. Sandiganbayan remain good law in recognizing that prejudice encompasses the impairment of defense due to delay. Justice Caguioa votes to GRANT the Petition and DIRECT the Sandiganbayan to proceed with the hearing of the criminal cases against Desembrana.