G.R. No. 237997, June 10, 2020
Pete Gerald L. Javier and Danilo B. Tumamao, Petitioners, vs. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, Respondents.

FACTS

In 2004, the Province of Isabela procured 15,333 bottles of liquid organic fertilizer via direct contracting. The Commission on Audit found the procurement lacked open competitive bidding and was overpriced. On July 4, 2011, the Ombudsman’s Task Force Abono filed a complaint against the involved public officers, including petitioners Pete Gerald L. Javier (Provincial Accountant) and Danilo B. Tumamao (Provincial Agriculturist). They filed their counter-affidavits in November 2011. After almost five years, on September 19, 2016, the Ombudsman’s Special Panel issued a Resolution finding probable cause to indict them for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, approved on November 22, 2016. An Information was filed on October 3, 2017. Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash on the ground of inordinate delay, arguing the period from the filing of the complaint (2011) to the approval of the resolution (2016) violated their right to speedy disposition of cases. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion, adopting the Ombudsman’s justifications of voluminous records and endless cases without substantiation.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Quash filed on the ground of inordinate delay, thereby violating petitioners’ constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases.

RULING

Yes. The petition is granted. The Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion. Applying the guidelines in Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, the Court found an unexplained delay of approximately five years from the filing of the counter-affidavits (November 2011) to the Ombudsman’s approval of the resolution finding probable cause (November 2016). This delay exceeded the reasonable periods contemplated under the Rules of Court, which apply suppletorily, shifting the burden to the prosecution to justify the delay. The Ombudsman failed to discharge this burden, as its justifications of voluminous records and numerous cases were general and unsubstantiated, not explaining the specific causes for the five-year hiatus. Petitioners timely asserted their right by filing the Motion to Quash at the earliest opportunity before arraignment and did not contribute to the delay. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions were annulled and set aside, and the criminal case was ordered dismissed for violation of petitioners’ right to speedy disposition of cases.