G.R. Nos. 240378-84, November 03, 2020
Labualas B. Mamansual and Francis B. Nadar, Petitioners, vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan (5th Division) and People of the Philippines, Respondents.

FACTS

On December 9, 2011, a Complaint-Affidavit was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) charging petitioners Labualas B. Mamansual (former Mayor) and Francis B. Nadar (former Treasurer) of Palimbang, Sultan Kudarat, along with two others, with Malversation of Public Funds and Removal, Concealment, or Destruction of Documents. The complaint alleged that from April to June 2010, seven checks totaling ₱13,003,776.71, drawn by Mamansual and payable to Nadar, were encashed without corresponding projects, appropriations, or liquidations. After a fact-finding investigation, the OMB’s Field Investigation Office filed a formal Complaint on May 14, 2012. The OMB issued a Joint Order for counter-affidavits on November 8, 2013, which petitioners filed in December 2013 and January 2014. On October 12, 2015, the OMB found probable cause, a resolution approved on November 23, 2015. Petitioners filed Motions for Reconsideration, which were denied by a Resolution dated January 15, 2016, approved on March 30, 2016.
On August 3, 2016, two Informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan (First Division). Petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion but later moved to withdraw it and requested arraignment. However, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) filed a Motion to Withdraw Informations on October 12, 2016, recommending the withdrawal of the two Informations and the filing of seven new Informations for Malversation only. The Sandiganbayan granted this on December 5, 2016. On January 13, 2017, seven new Informations were filed and raffled to the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division. Petitioners filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion requesting preliminary investigation or reinvestigation. The Sandiganbayan granted this on May 9, 2017, directing the OSP to conduct a preliminary investigation. Petitioners refused to file counter-affidavits, filing instead a Manifestation with Motion for Inhibition against the OSP. The OSP denied the motion and issued a Resolution on December 1, 2017, finding probable cause. The Sandiganbayan found probable cause for arrest warrants on December 19, 2017. On April 16, 2018, petitioners filed a Motion to Quash, alleging inordinate delay of six years and one month (or five years and eight months excluding fact-finding) in the OMB’s preliminary investigation, violating their right to speedy disposition of cases. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion, applying the Barker v. Wingo balancing test and finding petitioners failed to establish the delay, point out its occurrence, or identify the prejudice suffered.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in finding that there was no inordinate delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation by the OMB, thereby violating petitioners’ right to speedy disposition of cases.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the Petition. The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
The Court held that the right to speedy disposition of cases is relative and must be determined based on the circumstances of each case. The period for determining delay commences from the start of the preliminary investigation, not from the fact-finding stage. In this case, the preliminary investigation began when the OMB issued the Joint Order directing the filing of counter-affidavits on November 8, 2013. The period from the filing of the Complaint-Affidavit (December 9, 2011) to the issuance of the Joint Order is considered part of the fact-finding or pre-preliminary investigation stage, which does not count against the right to speedy disposition.
The Court examined the timeline from November 8, 2013, to the filing of the seven new Informations on January 13, 2017. It found that the delays were either attributable to petitioners themselves or were reasonable periods for the OMB and the OSP to perform their duties. Notably, petitioners contributed to the delay by filing Motions for Reconsideration before the OMB and by requesting a new preliminary investigation before the Sandiganbayan, which was granted. Their subsequent refusal to participate in that investigation by not filing counter-affidavits further stalled the process. The Court also found that petitioners failed to timely assert their right to speedy disposition, only raising it in their Motion to Quash in April 2018, after the new Informations had been filed and probable cause for arrest had been found. Furthermore, they failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice caused by the delay. Applying the balancing test, the Court concluded that under the peculiar circumstances, petitioners could not successfully invoke a violation of their right to speedy disposition of cases. The Sandiganbayan was directed to resolve the criminal cases with dispatch.