G.R. No. 237039 , June 10, 2019
LEONARDO V. REVUELTA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

On March 9, 2009, private complainants filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, charging Municipal Mayor Isaias Ubana of Lopez, Quezon, with malversation, falsification, and violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) concerning irregularities in the procurement of glassware and plasticware. The complaint was docketed for fact-finding on March 23, 2009. After a fact-finding investigation, the case was re-docketed as a criminal case on August 28, 2009, and a preliminary investigation against Ubana commenced on November 9, 2009. Ubana filed multiple motions for extension and finally submitted his Counter-Affidavit on February 18, 2010.
On September 12, 2011, or over two years after the initial complaint, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer (GIPO) Expedito Allado, Jr. sought the inclusion of petitioner Leonardo V. Revuelta and others as additional respondents. An order directing them to submit counter-affidavits was issued on September 21, 2011. Petitioner Revuelta failed to submit his counter-affidavit. The investigation was prolonged due to the submission of additional evidence by complainants (COA reports in 2011), motions for extension filed by respondents to comment on these reports, and a subsequent fact-finding investigation by the COA Fraud Audit Office in 2013. The case was also transferred to the Ombudsman’s Zero Backlog Unit on March 4, 2013. A draft resolution finding probable cause against Revuelta, Ubana, and another respondent was approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales on August 20, 2014. After a denied motion for partial reconsideration, an Information for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 was filed against Revuelta with the Sandiganbayan on July 1, 2015.
On January 30, 2017, Revuelta filed a Motion to Dismiss before the Sandiganbayan, arguing that the inordinate delay of more than six years from the filing of the complaint (March 2009) to the filing of the Information (July 2015) violated his constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion in a Resolution dated September 6, 2017, and denied his subsequent motion for reconsideration on November 28, 2017. The Sandiganbayan ruled that the delay was not vexatious, capricious, or oppressive, and that petitioner failed to assert his right during the preliminary investigation. Revuelta then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss, despite the alleged inordinate delay in the preliminary investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman, which purportedly violated his right to a speedy disposition of cases.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and upheld the Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion, as there was no inordinate delay that violated petitioner’s right to a speedy disposition of cases.
The Ratio Decidendi is as follows:
1. The Right to a Speedy Disposition of Cases is Relative and Must Be Balanced. The Court reiterated that the right is not a mere mathematical count of days but is determined through a careful balancing test, considering: (a) the length of delay, (b) the reasons for the delay, (c) the assertion or failure to assert the right by the accused, and (d) the prejudice caused by the delay.
2. The Delay Was Not Inordinate and Was Justified. The Court examined the chronology and found that a significant portion of the time (from March 2009 to September 2011) involved proceedings solely against the original respondent, Mayor Ubana. The investigatory process against petitioner Revuelta started only when he was impleaded on September 12, 2011. The subsequent delays were attributable to valid factors: the submission and evaluation of additional COA reports, motions for extension filed by the respondents themselves (including Ubana and others), the transfer of the case to ensure efficiency (Zero Backlog Unit), and the Ombudsman’s careful review of the complex case. The Court emphasized that the state is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to present its case, and the Ombudsman acted with due diligence.
3. Petitioner Failed to Timely Assert His Right and Waived It. The Court stressed the doctrinal rule that the respondent in a preliminary investigation has the duty to invoke the right to a speedy disposition at the earliest opportunity during the investigatory proceedings. Petitioner Revuelta never raised the issue of delay during the entire preliminary investigation before the Ombudsman. He only invoked it in his Motion to Dismiss filed with the Sandiganbayan on January 30, 2017—over a year after the Information was filed on July 1, 2015. This failure constituted a waiver of his right. The Court cited Magante v. Sandiganbayan to underscore that failure to bring the perceived delay to the attention of the investigating officer may be considered a waiver, preventing respondents from strategically using delay as a ground for dismissal later.

DOCTRINES

1. Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases; Balancing Test: The right to a speedy disposition of cases is not violated by every delay. To determine if a delay is “inordinate,” courts must apply a flexible balancing test considering: (1) the length of delay, (2) the reasons for the delay, (3) the assertion or failure to assert the right by the accused, and (4) the prejudice caused to the accused.
2. Waiver of the Right to Speedy Disposition: A respondent in a preliminary investigation must affirmatively assert the right to a speedy disposition of cases during the investigatory stage before the Ombudsman or the investigating prosecutor. Failure to do so at the earliest opportunity amounts to a waiver of that right and precludes its later invocation as a ground for dismissal.
3. State’s Right to Prosecute: The government, like any litigant, is entitled to its day in court and to a reasonable opportunity to present its case, especially in complex matters requiring thorough investigation. Procedural steps taken to ensure a fair and complete investigation do not necessarily constitute inordinate delay.