G.R. No. 250504 , July 12, 2021
VICENTE J. CAMPA, JR. AND PERFECTO M. PASCUA, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. EUGENE C. PARAS, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BR. 58, MAKATI CITY AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

On September 12, 2007, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) filed a complaint before the Department of Justice (DOJ) against officers of BankWise, Inc., including petitioners Vicente J. Campa, Jr. and Perfecto M. Pascua, for violation of Monetary Board Resolution No. 1460 in relation to Section 3, Republic Act No. 7653 . The complaint charged them with issuing unfunded manager’s checks and failing to present documents supporting the bank’s asset acquisitions. The case was deemed submitted for resolution on August 29, 2008. More than ten years later, under a Resolution dated February 8, 2019, the DOJ found probable cause and filed Informations against the petitioners before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. The cases were raffled to Branch 58, presided by Judge Eugene C. Paras. Petitioners filed motions to dismiss before the trial court on the ground of inordinate delay, arguing that the over ten-year preliminary investigation violated their constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases. The RTC denied the motions, ruling the delay was not vexatious but attributable to the case’s complexity, voluminous documents, and the appointment of nine Secretaries of Justice during the period. The trial court denied reconsideration and set the arraignment.

ISSUE

Did the delay in the preliminary investigation before the DOJ violate petitioners’ constitutional right to a speedy disposition of their cases, and did the trial court act with grave abuse of discretion in denying their motion to dismiss?

RULING

Yes, the petition is granted. The Supreme Court ruled that there was inordinate delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation, violating petitioners’ right to a speedy disposition of cases under Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution . Applying the balancing test refined in Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, the Court found the delay of over ten years from the submission of the case for resolution in 2008 until the filing of the Informations in 2019 to be presumptively prejudicial. The DOJ failed to justify the delay; the complexity of the case and the change in leadership were insufficient reasons, as the government must ensure the speedy disposition of cases. Petitioners timely asserted their right by filing motions to dismiss immediately upon the filing of the Informations and were not deemed to have waived the right. The State’s interest in prosecuting banking offenses did not outweigh the violation of petitioners’ constitutional right. The trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the motions. The criminal cases against petitioners were ordered dismissed. The Court also held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy to challenge the interlocutory order, and direct recourse to the Supreme Court was justified under exceptions to the hierarchy of courts doctrine due to the exigency of resolving the speedy disposition claim and the lack of another plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.