G.R. No. 239878. February 28, 2022.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH DIVISION), ALFONSO SERVANA CASURRA, LEONARDO LUIB EDERA, JR., JOCELYN ELEAZAR MONTEROS, MARIA SEPARA GEOTINA, ARMANDO MAPA ELUMBA, CARLO REYNALDO FAROLAN LOZADA, JR., AND ROSEMARIE V. PALACIO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This petition assails the Sandiganbayan Resolutions which dismissed Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-1669 for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. The case arose from a complaint filed by the Ombudsman’s Task Force Abono against local government officials of Surigao City (Mayor Alfonso Servana Casurra, City Treasurer Leonardo Luib Edera, Jr., City Accountant Jocelyn Eleazar Monteros, City Engineer Maria Separa Geotina, City General Services Officer Armando Mapa Elumba, and City Legal Officer Carlo Reynaldo Farolan Lozada, Jr.) and private respondent Rosemarie V. Palacio, proprietress of Rosa “Mia” Trading. The complaint alleged that in 2004, the city government, through the respondents, entered into a contract with Palacio for the purchase of fertilizers worth P4,998,000.00 without public bidding. The Commission on Audit (COA) post-audit found overpricing and issued a Notice of Disallowance on June 14, 2006. The Task Force filed its complaint with the Ombudsman on July 4, 2011. The Ombudsman found probable cause and an Information was filed before the Sandiganbayan on September 11, 2017. The accused respondents filed motions to quash, arguing that the 11-year and three-month period from the COA’s 2006 notice to the 2017 filing of the Information violated their constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases. The Sandiganbayan granted the motions, ruling the delay was inordinate, unreasonable, and prejudicial, and dismissed the case. The prosecution filed this petition for certiorari, arguing the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal case on the ground of inordinate delay, thereby violating the respondents’ right to speedy disposition of cases.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s dismissal of the criminal case. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Applying the four-factor test (length of delay, reason for the delay, assertion or failure to assert the right by the accused, and prejudice to the accused), the Court found a violation of the right to speedy disposition. The delay of over 11 years from the COA’s 2006 action to the 2017 filing was prima facie inordinate. The prosecution’s justifications—the complexity of the “Fertilizer Fund Scam” and the Ombudsman’s heavy workload—were insufficient to explain the entire delay, particularly a five-year gap between the COA notice and the filing of the Ombudsman complaint. The respondents timely participated in the proceedings and asserted their right via motions to quash upon the filing of the Information. The delay caused prejudice, including anxiety, humiliation, and the impairment of their defense due to the passage of time. The Court also ruled that the period for fact-finding investigation is included in computing the delay for right to speedy disposition purposes. Since the dismissal by the Sandiganbayan was based on a violation of a constitutional right, it amounted to an acquittal, and a petition for certiorari could not be used to review it without placing the accused in double jeopardy.