G.R. Nos. 243560-62 and G.R. Nos. 243261-63, July 28, 2020
Case Parties:

Nancy A. Catamco (formerly Nancy C. Perez), Petitioner, vs. Sandiganbayan Sixth Division; Office of the Ombudsman; and People of the Philippines, Respondents.
[G.R. Nos. 243261-63]
Pompey M. Perez, Petitioner, vs. Sandiganbayan (Sixth Division), Respondent.

FACTS

In 2004, the Department of Agriculture released P5,000,000.00 to the Municipal Government of Poro for farm inputs. The municipality, represented by Mayor Edgar R. Rama, directly purchased liquid Vitacrop fertilizers from Perzebros Company, owned by petitioners Pompey M. Perez and Nancy A. Catamco. In 2006, based on a Commission on Audit finding of overpricing and irregularities, the Office of the Ombudsman launched Task Force Abono to investigate the “fertilizer fund scam.” A complaint was filed against the petitioners and public officials on June 21, 2013, alleging collusion evidenced by, among others, delivery shortages, unmet macronutrient specifications, overpricing by at least 1,092%, unjustified direct contracting, Perzebros’ recent incorporation, and the rapid completion of the transaction. The Ombudsman directed the filing of counter-affidavits on July 19, 2013, which were filed from September 12, 2014, to May 20, 2015. On July 17, 2017, the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict the petitioners for one count of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and two counts of Malversation. Motions for reconsideration were denied on November 10, 2017. The Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan four months later, in 2018. Before arraignment, the petitioners moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the Ombudsman’s inordinate delay of over twelve years (from the 2006 investigation to the 2018 filing) violated their constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases. The Sandiganbayan denied their motions, applying a balancing test and finding the delay justified due to voluminous records and the steady stream of cases. Their motions for reconsideration were also denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the motions to dismiss respectively filed by petitioners for violation of their right to speedy disposition of cases.

RULING

Yes, the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion. Applying the guidelines from Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court found that the petitioners’ right to speedy disposition of cases was violated. The period for determining delay is reckoned from the filing of the formal complaint on June 21, 2013, not from the 2006 fact-finding investigation. The Ombudsman took four years and seven months to resolve the preliminary investigation, far exceeding the suppletory 25-day period under Rule 112 of the Rules of Court (10 days for the investigating officer’s resolution and 15 days for the Ombudsman’s review). This shifted the burden to the prosecution to justify the delay. The prosecution failed to meet this burden. Its justifications—voluminous records and a steady stream of cases—were deemed insufficient, as they were not exceptional circumstances but ordinary aspects of the Ombudsman’s work. The prosecution also failed to prove that the petitioners did not suffer prejudice. Furthermore, the complexity of the case was not extraordinary, and the Ombudsman’s own resolution indicated the evidence of guilt was not strong. Consequently, the inordinate delay warranted the dismissal of the criminal cases. The Supreme Court granted the petitions, annulled the Sandiganbayan Resolutions, and ordered the dismissal of Criminal Case Nos. SB-18-CRM-0337, SB-18-CRM-0338, and SB-18-CRM-0339.