GR 94750; (July, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 94750 ; July 16, 1991
FELIX P. GONZALES, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN and ANTONIO B. BALTAZAR, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Felix R. Gonzales, former Director of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 . The case stemmed from a 1975 complaint by private respondent Antonio B. Baltazar concerning an agreement for the experimental use of a fishing net (“Lambaklad”) and the alleged illegal use of a government vessel. The complaint underwent a protracted preliminary investigation before the Tanodbayan (now Ombudsman), featuring multiple resolutions by different special prosecutors. Initial resolutions recommended dismissal, but upon motions for reconsideration by Baltazar, a subsequent resolution in 1989 reversed the dismissals and recommended the filing of an information, which was filed in May 1989.
Gonzales moved to quash the information before the Sandiganbayan, arguing that the inordinate delay in concluding the preliminary investigation violated his constitutional right to a speedy disposition of his case. He also contended that the Ombudsman violated its own rules by entertaining more than one motion for reconsideration from the complainant. The Sandiganbayan denied his motion, prompting this petition for certiorari and prohibition.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash, despite the alleged violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases and the procedural rule against a second motion for reconsideration.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan. On the claim of inordinate delay, the Court held that the right to a speedy disposition of cases is relative and must be weighed considering the length of delay, reasons thereof, the defendant’s assertion of the right, and prejudice caused. The complexity of the case, involving events from 1975 and requiring the evaluation of voluminous records by different investigators, justified the period taken. The Court noted the petitioner failed to timely assert his right and did not demonstrate that the delay was purposely oppressive or had prejudiced his defense.
Regarding the alleged violation of the rule against a second motion for reconsideration, the Court clarified that the two motions filed by the complainant were directed against two distinct resolutions resulting from separate preliminary investigations conducted by different prosecutors. The second motion was not a mere reiteration seeking reconsideration of a denial of the first motion; it addressed a new resolution from a subsequent, consolidated investigation. Therefore, there was no violation of the procedural rule. The Sandiganbayan correctly denied the motion to quash.