Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JURISPRUDENCE
Caballes vs Court of Appeals; G.R. No.: 161308 Decided, 2005
Note: In this case, the dismissal prayed for in violation of speedy
disposition of a case was NOT granted; reason being is that the second
requisite (Reason for the Delay) was not met, (i.e. it was a minimal hurdle).
March 27, 2003 to May 21, 2009, or roughly over six (6) years cannot be
deemed as inordinate16 and as such, petitioners constitutional right to
speedy disposition of cases was not violated.17
Aggrieved,
petitioners
filed
their
respective
Motions
for
Reconsideration18 dated November 9, 2009 and November 6, 2009, similarly
arguing that the SB erred in making a distinction between two time periods,
namely: (a) from the filing of the complaint up to the time Caares prepared
the resolution finding probable cause against petitioners; and (b) from the
submission of the said resolution to the Acting Ombudsman for review and
approval up to the filing of the Information with the SB. In this regard,
petitioners averred that the aforementioned periods should not be
compartmentalized and thus, treated as a single period. Accordingly, the
delay of eight (8) years of the instant case should be deemed prejudicial to
their right to speedy disposition of cases.19
The SB, however, denied the foregoing motions in its Resolution20
dated February 10, 2010 for lack of merit.
Hence, the instant petitions.
The Issue Before the Court
The sole issue raised for the Courts resolution is whether the SB
gravely abused its discretion in finding that petitioners right to speedy
disposition of cases was not violated.
The Courts Ruling
The petitions are meritorious.
A persons right to the speedy disposition of his case is guaranteed
under Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution (Constitution)
which provides:
SEC. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their
cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
This constitutional right is not limited to the accused in criminal
proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases, be it civil or administrative
in nature, as well as all proceedings, either judicial or quasi-judicial. In this
accord, any party to a case may demand expeditious action to all officials
who are tasked with the administration of justice.21
It must be noted, however, that the right to speedy disposition of cases
should be understood to be a relative or flexible concept such that a mere
mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not be sufficient.22
Jurisprudence dictates that the right is deemed violated only when the
proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or
when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured; or
even without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to
elapse without the party having his case tried.23
Hence, in the determination of whether the defendant has been denied
his right to a speedy disposition of a case, the following factors may be
considered and balanced: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the
delay; (3) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and (4)
the prejudice caused by the delay.24
Examining the incidents in the present case, the Court holds that
petitioners right to a speedy disposition of their criminal case had been
violated.
First, it is observed that the preliminary investigation proceedings took
a protracted amount of time to complete.
In this relation, the Court does not lend credence to the SBs position
that the conduct of preliminary investigation was terminated as early as
March 27, 2003, or the time when Caares prepared the Resolution
recommending the filing of the Information. This is belied by Section 4,
Rule II of the Administrative Order No. 07 dated April 10, 1990,
otherwise known as the "Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
Ombudsman," which provides:
SEC. 4. Procedure The preliminary investigation of cases falling under
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and Regional Trial Courts shall be
conducted in the manner prescribed in Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of
Court, subject to the following provisions:
xxxx
No information may be filed and no complaint may be dismissed
without the written authority or approval of the Ombudsman in cases falling
within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, or of the proper Deputy
Ombudsman in all other cases. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The above-cited provision readily reveals that there is no complete
resolution of a case under preliminary investigation until the Ombudsman
approves the investigating officers recommendation to either file an
Information with the SB or to dismiss the complaint. Therefore, in the case at
bar, the preliminary investigation proceedings against the petitioners were
not terminated upon Caares preparation of the March 27, 2003 Resolution
and Information but rather, only at the time Casimiro finally approved the
same for filing with the SB. In this regard, the proceedings were terminated
only on May 21, 2009, or almost eight (8) years after the filing of the
complaint.
On the other hand, the Office of the Ombudsman failed to present any
plausible, special or even novel reason which could justify the four-year delay
in terminating its investigation. Its excuse for the delay the many layers of
review that the case had to undergo and the meticulous scrutiny it had to
entail has lost its novelty and is no longer appealing, as was the
invocation in the Tatad case. The incident before us does not involve
complicated factual and legal issues, specially (sic) in view of the fact that
the subject computerization contract had been mutually cancelled by the
parties thereto even before the Anti-Graft League filed its complaint.
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Being the respondents in the preliminary investigation proceedings, it
was not the petitioners duty to follow up on the prosecution of their case.
Conversely, it was the Office of the Ombudsmans responsibility to expedite
the same within the bounds of reasonable timeliness in view of its mandate
to promptly act on all complaints lodged before it. As pronounced in the case
of Barker v. Wingo:28
A defendant has no duty to bring himself to trial; the State has that
duty as well as the duty of insuring that the trial is consistent with due
process.
Fourth, the Court finally recognizes the prejudice caused to the
petitioners by the lengthy delay in the proceedings against them.
Lest it be misunderstood, the right to speedy disposition of cases is not
merely hinged towards the objective of spurring dispatch in the
administration of justice but also to prevent the oppression of the citizen by
holding a criminal prosecution suspended over him for an indefinite time.
Akin to the right to speedy trial, its "salutary objective" is to assure that an
innocent person may be free from the anxiety and expense of litigation or, if
otherwise, of having his guilt determined within the shortest possible time
compatible with the presentation and consideration of whatsoever legitimate
defense he may interpose.30 This looming unrest as well as the tactical
disadvantages carried by the passage of time should be weighed against the
State and in favor of the individual. In the context of the right to a speedy
trial, the Court in Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan31 (Corpuz) illumined:
A balancing test of applying societal interests and the rights of the
accused necessarily compels the court to approach speedy trial cases on an
ad hoc basis.
x x x Prejudice should be assessed in the light of the interest of the
defendant that the speedy trial was designed to protect, namely: to prevent
oppressive pre-trial incarceration; to minimize anxiety and concerns of the
accused to trial; and to limit the possibility that his defense will be impaired.
Of these, the most serious is the last, because the inability of a defendant
adequately to prepare his case skews the fairness of the entire system. There
is also prejudice if the defense witnesses are unable to recall accurately the
events of the distant past. Even if the accused is not imprisoned prior to trial,
he is still disadvantaged by restraints on his liberty and by living under a
cloud of anxiety, suspicion and often, hostility. His financial resources may be
drained, his association is curtailed, and he is subjected to public obloquy.
Delay is a two-edge sword. It is the government that bears the burden
of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. The passage of time may make
it difficult or impossible for the government to carry its burden. The
Constitution and the Rules do not require impossibilities or extraordinary
efforts, diligence or exertion from courts or the prosecutor, nor contemplate
that such right shall deprive the State of a reasonable opportunity of fairly
prosecuting criminals. As held in Williams v. United States, for the
government to sustain its right to try the accused despite a delay, it must
show two things: (a) that the accused suffered no serious prejudice beyond
that which ensued from the ordinary and inevitable delay; and (b) that there
was no more delay than is reasonably attributable to the ordinary processes
of justice.
Closely related to the length of delay is the reason or justification of
the State for such delay. Different weights should be assigned to different
reasons or justifications invoked by the State. For instance, a deliberate
attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper or prejudice the defense should
be weighted heavily against the State. Also, it is improper for the prosecutor
to intentionally delay to gain some tactical advantage over the defendant or
to harass or prejudice him. On the other hand, the heavy case load of the
prosecution or a missing witness should be weighted less heavily against the
State. x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)
As the right to a speedy disposition of cases encompasses the broader
purview of the entire proceedings of which trial proper is but a stage, the
above-discussed effects in Corpuz should equally apply to the case at bar. As
held in Dansal v. Fernandez, Sr.:32
Sec. 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, reads:
"Sec. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of
their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies."
Initially embodied in Section 16, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, the
aforesaid constitutional provision is one of three provisions mandating
speedier dispensation of justice. It guarantees the right of all persons to "a
speedy disposition of their case"; includes within its contemplation the
periods before, during and after trial, and affords broader protection than
Section 14(2), which guarantees just the right to a speedy trial. It is more
embracing than the protection under Article VII, Section 15, which covers
only the period after the submission of the case. The present constitutional
provision applies to civil, criminal and administrative cases. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied; citations omitted)
Thus, in view of the unjustified length of time miring the Office of the
Ombudsmans resolution of the case as well as the concomitant prejudice
that the delay in this case has caused, it is undeniable that petitioners
constitutional right to due process and speedy disposition of cases had been
violated. As the institutional vanguard against corruption and bureaucracy,
the Office of the Ombudsman should create a system of accountability in
order to ensure that cases before it are resolved with reasonable dispatch
and to equally expose those who are responsible for its delays, as it ought to
determine in this case.
Corollarily, for the SBs patent and utter disregard of the existing laws
and jurisprudence surrounding the matter, the Court finds that it gravely
abused its discretion when it denied the quashal of the Information. Perforce,
the assailed resolutions must be set aside and the criminal case against
petitioners be dismissed.
While the foregoing pronouncement should, as matter of course, result
in the acquittal of the petitioners, it does not necessarily follow that
petitioners are entirely exculpated from any civil liability, assuming that the
same is proven in a subsequent case which the Province may opt to pursue.
Section 2, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court provides that an acquittal in a
criminal case does not bar the private offended party from pursuing a
subsequent civil case based on the delict, unless the judgment of acquittal
explicitly declares that the act or omission from which the civil liability may
arise did not exist.33 As explained in the case of Abejuela v. People,34 citing
Banal v. Tadeo, Jr.:35
The Rules provide: "The extinction of the penal action does not carry
with it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a
declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise
did not exist. In other cases, the person entitled to the civil action may
institute it in the jurisdiction and in the manner provided by law against the
person who may be liable for restitution of the thing and reparation or
indemnity for the damage suffered."
xxxx
In Banal vs. Tadeo, Jr., we declared:
"While an act or omission is felonious because it is punishable by law,
it gives rise to civil liability not so much because it is a crime but because it
caused damage to another. Viewing things pragmatically, we can readily see
that what gives rise to the civil liability is really the obligation and moral duty
of everyone to repair or make whole the damage caused to another by
reason of his own act or omission, done intentionally or negligently, whether
or not the same be punishable by law."(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 143885-86
against them. The bare allegation that it took the Ombudsman more than
three (3) years to terminate the preliminary investigation and file the
necessary information would not suffice. As earlier stated, "a mere
mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not be sufficient."10
In fine, petitioners failed to show that the assailed resolutions of
respondent Sandiganbayan are tainted by grave abuse of discretion or
jurisdictional defect to warrant the issuance of the writ of certiorari.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ.,
concur.
Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 19-22.
2 Id., at 23-26.
3 Id., at 34-35.
4 159 SCRA 70 (1988).
5 Binay vs. Sandiganbayan, 316 SCRA 65 (1999); Gonzales vs.
Sandiganbayan, 199 SCRA 298 (19991).
6 Blanco vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 136757-58, November 27, 2000.
7 Binay vs. Sandiganbayan, supra.
8 Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, supra, at 83; See also Blanco vs.
Sandiganbayan, id.
9 Resolution, Criminal Case No. 23656, September 23, 1999, p. 3;
Resolution, Criminal Case No. 22021, October 1, 1999, p. 3.
10 Tai Lim vs. Court of Appeals, 317 SCRA 521 (1999).
Re:
1
The prosecution deprived accused-movant of due process of law
and of the right to a speedy disposition of the cases filed against him,
amounting to loss of jurisdiction to file the informations;
2. Prescription of the offenses charged in Crim. Case Nos. 10499,
10500 and 10501;
3.
The facts charged in Criminal Case No. 10500 (for failure to file
Statement of Assets and Liabilities for the year 1973) do not constitute an
offense;
4. No prima facie case against the accused-movant exists in Criminal
Cases Nos. 10500, 10502 and 10503;
5. No prima facie case against the accused-movant exists in Criminal
Case No. 10199 for Violation of Sec. 3, par. (b) of R.A. 3019, as amended;
6. No prima facie case against the accused-movant exists in Criminal
Case No. 10501 (for Violation of Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. 3019, as amended.
On July 26, 1985, the Tanodbayan filed its opposition to petitioner's
consolidated motion to quash, stating therein in particular that there were
only two grounds in said motion that needed refutation, namely:
1. The offense charged in Criminal Cases Nos. 10499,10500 and
10501, have already prescribed and criminal liability is extinguished; and
2.
The facts charged in the information (Criminal Case No. 10500
For failure to file Statement of Assets and Liabilities for the year 1973) do not
constitute an offense.
On the issue of prescription, Tanodbayan citing the case of Francisco
vs. Court of Appeals, 122 SCRA 538, contended that the filing of the
complaint or denuncia in the fiscal's office interrupts the period of
prescription. Since the above-numbered cases were filed with the Office of
the Tanodbayan in 1980 and the alleged offenses were committed on July 16,
1973, January 31, 1974 and in May 1975, respectively, although the charges
were actually filed in Court only on July 9, 1985, the Tanodbayan has still the
right to prosecute the same, it appearing that the ten (10) year prescriptive
period has not yet lapsed. Moreover, Tanodbayan pointed out that a law such
as Batas Pambansa Blg. 195, extending the period of limitation with respect
to criminal prosecution, unless the right to acquittal has been acquired, is
constitutional.
Tanodbayan likewise said that the requirement for the filing of the
Statement of Assets and Liabilities in P.D. 379 is separate and distinct from
that required pursuant to the provisions of the Anti-Graft Law, as amended.
For while the former requires "any natural or juridical person having gross
assets of P50,000.00 or more..." to submit a statement of assets and
liabilities "... regardless of the networth," the mandate in the latter law is for
ALL government employees and officials to submit a statement of assets and
liabilities. Hence, the prosecution under these two laws are separate and
distinct from each other. Tanodbayan also explained that delay in the
conduct of preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the
informations filed and that neither will it render said informations defective.
Finally, Tanodbayan added that P.D. 911, the law which governs preliminary
investigations is merely directory insofar as it fixes a period of ten (10) days
from its termination to resolve the preliminary investigation.
On August 9, 1985, the Sandiganbayan rendered its challenged
resolution denying petitioner's motion to quash, the dispositive portion of
which reads:
WHEREFORE, prescinding therefrom, We find, and so hold, that the
accused's "Consolidated Motion to Quash" should be as it is hereby, denied
for lack of merit. Conformably to Rule 117, Section 4 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure, the defect in the information in Criminal Case No. 10500
being one which could be cured by amendment, the Tanodbayan is hereby
directed to amend said information to change the date of the alleged
commission of the offense therein charged from January 31, 1974 to
September 30, 1974 within five (5) days from receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.
On August 10, 1985, in compliance with the Sandiganbayan's
resolution of August 8, 1985, the Tanodbayan filed an amended information
in Criminal Case No. 10500, changing the date of the commission of the
offense to September 30, 1974.
On August 30, 1985, petitioners filed a consolidated motion for
reconsideration which was denied by the Sandiganbayan September 17,
1985. Hence, petitioner filed this petition on October 16, 1985 assailing the
denial of his motion to quash. On October 22, 1985, the Court, without giving
due course the petition, resolved to require the respondents to comment
thereon and issued a temporary restraining order effective immediately and
continuing until further orders of the Court, enjoining the respondents
Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan from continuing with the trial and other
proceedings in Criminal Cases Nos. 10499, 10500, 10501, 10502 and 10503.
In compliance with said resolution, the respondents, through ,Solicitor
General Estelito P. Mendoza, filed their comment on January 6, 1986.
On April 10, 1986, the Court required the parties to move in the
premises considering the supervening events, including the change of
administration that had transpired, and the provisions of Sec. 18, Rule 3 of
the Rules of Court, insofar far as the Public respondents were concerned,
which requires the successor official to state whether or not he maintains the
action or position taken by his predecessor in office. On June 20, 1986, the
new Tanodbayan manifested that since "the charges are not political offenses
3.
Whether there is a discriminatory prosecution of the petitioner by
the Tanodbayan.
4.
Whether Sandiganbayan should have ruled on the question of
amnesty raised by the petitioner.
5.
Whether petitioner's contention of the supposed lack or nonexistence of prima facie evidence to sustain the filing of the cases at bar
justifies the quashal of the questioned informations.
Petitioner claims that the Tanodbayan culpably violated the
constitutional mandate of "due process" and "speedy disposition of cases" in
unduly prolonging the termination of the preliminary investigation and in
filing the corresponding informations only after more than a decade from the
alleged commission of the purported offenses, which amounted to loss of
jurisdiction and authority to file the informations. The respondent
Sandiganbayan dismissed petitioner's contention, saying that the
applicability of the authorities cited by him to the case at bar was
"nebulous;" that it would be premature for the court to grant the "radical
relief" prayed for by petitioner at this stage of the proceeding; that the mere
allegations of "undue delay" do not suffice to justify acceptance thereof
without any showing "as to the supposed lack or omission of any alleged
procedural right granted or allowed to the respondent accused by law or
administrative fiat" or in the absence of "indubitable proof of any irregularity
Footnotes
1
Salonga vs. Cruz Pano, et al., 134 SCRA 438; Mean vs. Argel, 115
SCRA 256; Yap vs. Lutero, 105 Phil, 3007; People vs. Zulueta, 89 Phil. 880.
only the Forensic Chemist testified on September 13, 2012, but the Forensic
Chemist does not have any personal knowledge of the source of the
evidence she examined, and also on the facts and circumstances affecting
the arrest of the accused. Thus, the defense counsel invoked the right of the
accused to speedy trial. The Public Prosecutor did not object to the dismissal,
provided the dismissal is only provisional. Hence, let these cases be ordered
PROVISIONALLY DISMISSED WITH THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED
AND HER COUNSEL.
xxxx
SO ORDERED.5
On June 5, 2013, PO2 Villas filed a Motion to Re-open the Case against
petitioner. PO2 Villas explained that his failure to appear during the hearings
of the cases was due to the untimely death of his father-in-law.6 He further
averred that PO3 Rionaldo Sabulaan, one of the arresting officers, is no
longer assigned at the Cubao Police Station and had been transferred at the
Batasan Police Station since November 2012, thus, could not have received
his subpoena which is directed at his former place of assignment.
In the disputed Order7 dated June 14, 2013, respondent Judge granted
the motion and ordered the re-opening of the cases against petitioner and
set the cases for continuation of hearing.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration. She argued that the provisional
dismissal of the criminal cases is considered an acquittal and PO2 Villas had
no personality to file the motion to re-open the case.8
In an Order9 dated February 18, 2014, respondent denied petitioner's
motion for reconsideration.
On April 29, 2014, the Court resolved to require respondents to
comment on the instant petition.10
In their Comment11 dated June 11, 2014, the Office of the Solicitor
General, through then Solicitor General Francis H. Jardeleza,12 maintained
that respondent judge committed no grave abuse of discretion in issuing the
assailed Orders dated June 14, 2013 and February 18, 2014. It argued that
petitioner did not expressly object to the motion to revive the criminal cases.
Thus, the instant petition raising the following issues:
I
WHETHER OR NOT WITNESS PO2 NELSON VILLAS CAN FILE A MOTION
TO REOPEN A PROVISIONALLY DISMISSED CASE WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION
OF A PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
II
This Court has emphasized that "speedy trial is a relative term and
necessarily a flexible concept." In determining whether the accused's right to
speedy trial was violated, the delay should be considered in view of the
entirety of the proceedings. The factors to balance are the following: (a)
duration of the delay; (b) reason therefor; (c) assertion of the right or failure
to assert it; and (d) prejudice caused by such delay. In the instant case,
petitioner failed to show any evidence that the alleged delay in the trial was
attended with malice or that the same was made without good cause or
justifiable motive on the part of the prosecution. Mere mathematical
reckoning of the time involved would not suffice as the realities of everyday
life must be regarded in judicial proceedings.17
Here, the delay in the proceedings, which ran from October 25, 2012
until the provisional dismissal of the case on May 13, 2013, is not the kind of
delay contemplated under the law as to violate the accused's right to speedy
trial. More so, when the cause of the delay is valid, as in the instant case.
Likewise, a perusal of the Order dated May 16, 2013would show that the
order was categorical in stating that the dismissal of the complaint was
provisional with the express consent of the accused and her counsel. The
court merely stated in the Order as to what transpired during the
proceedings of the case and not that the dismissal was based on the
accused's right to speedy trial.
While the Court recognizes the accused's right to speedy trial and
adheres to a policy of speedy administration of justice, we cannot, however,
deprive the State of a reasonable opportunity to fairly prosecute criminals.
We reiterate that unjustified postponements which prolong the trial for an
unreasonable length of time are what offend the right of the accused to
speedy trial.18
In a petition for certiorari under Rule 65,
petitioner should establish that the court or
tribunal acted in a capricious, whimsical,
arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise
of its jurisdiction as to be equivalent to lack
of jurisdiction.
In view of the foregoing, we, thus, find no basis for issuing the
extraordinary writs of certiorari with injunction, as there was no showing that
the alleged error in judgment was tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
Nowhere in the petition did petitioner show that the issuance of the assailed
orders was patent and gross that would warrant striking it down through a
petition for certiorari. No argument was shown that the trial court exercised
its judgment capriciously, whimsically, arbitrarily or despotically by reason of
passion and hostility.
It is well settled that a petition for certiorari against a court which has
jurisdiction over a case will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is
manifested.1wphi1 The burden is on the part of the petitioner to prove not
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
* Designated additional Member, in lieu of Associate Justice Martin S.
Villarama, Jr., per Special Order No. 1966 dated March 30, 2015.
** Designated Acting Member, in lieu of Associate Justice Francis H.
Jardeleza, per Raffle dated October 20, 2014.
1 Rollo, pp. 3-20.
2 Id. at 21-24.
3 Id. at 26-27.
4 Id. at 29-30.
5 Id. at 29.
6 Id. at 31-32.
7 Id. at 33.
8 Id. at 34-39.
9 Id. at 40-42.
10 Id. at 46.
11 Id. at 64-72.
12 Now an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
13 Macapagal v. People, G.R. No. 193217, February 26, 2014, 717 SCRA
425, 430-431.
14 Rollo at 40-41
15 Id.
16 Condrada v. People, 446 Phil. 635, 641-642 (2003).
SECOND DIVISION
- versus -
Present:
CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson,
BRION,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD, and
PEREZ, JJ.
Promulgated:
March 9, 2010
x---------------------------------------------------- - - - - - - -x
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
x x x x.
On 1 October 1998, the petitioner was placed under preventive
suspension for ninety (90) days by Chancellor Santos-Ocampo, the material
portion of said Order reads:
Considering the gravity of the offense charged and pursuant to Section
19 of Rules and Regulations on the Discipline of UP Faculty Members and
Employees and Section 26 and 27 Rule XIV of Book V of Executive Order No.
292 and Omnibus Rules, you are hereby preventively suspended for ninety
(90) days effective upon receipt hereof.
While on preventive suspension, you are hereby required to appear
before the Administrative Disciplinary Tribunal (ADT) whenever your
presence is necessary.
Thereafter, the Administrative Disciplinary Tribunal (ADT) composed of
Atty. Zaldy B. Docena, Eden Perdido and Isabella Lara, was organized to hear
the instant case. Atty. Paul A. Flor, as University Prosecutor, represented the
prosecution. He was later on replaced by Atty. Asteria Felicen. Petitioner was
represented by Atty. Leo G. Lee of the Public Attorneys Office (PAO) who was
then replaced by Public Attorney Philger Inovejas.
The Prosecution presented its only witness, private respondent Abutal.
After the completion of the cross-examination on the prosecutions only
witness, the prosecution agreed to submit its Formal Offer of Evidence on or
before 16 July 1999.
xxxx
The prosecution, however, failed to submit its formal offer of evidence
within the period agreed upon.
Thereafter, on 10 August 1999, when the case was called, only
petitioner and his counsel appeared. Atty. Flor merely called by telephone
and requested Atty. Docena to reset the case to another date. Atty. Docena
then ordered the resetting of the hearing on the following dates: 11 August
and 21 August 1999. On 11 August 1999, only petitioner and his counsel
came. No representative from the prosecution appeared before the ADT. Atty.
Flor again called and asked for the postponement of the hearing. By reason
thereof, Atty. Docena issued an Order, which reads as follows:
The continuation of the hearing of this case is hereby set to September
29, 1999 at 2:00 p.m., with the understanding that if and when the parties
fail to appear at said hearing date, this case shall be deemed submitted for
resolution based on the evidences already obtaining in the record of the
case.
SO ORDERED.
11 August 1999.
On said date, the representative from the prosecution again failed to
appear.
On 22 October 1999, petitioner filed a Motion through counsel praying
that complainant (private respondent herein) be declared to have waived her
rights to formally offer her exhibits since complainant was not able to file her
Formal Offer within the given period of fifteen (15) days from 1 July 1999 or
up to 16 July 1999.
The ADT was not able to act on the said Motion for almost five (5)
years. Due to the unreasonable delay, petitioner, on 19 May 2004 filed
another Motion asking for the dismissal of the administrative case against
him. The Motion to Dismiss was anchored on the following reasons: that the
prosecution had not formally offered its evidence; that the ADT had failed to
act on the motion filed on 22 October 1999; that the unfounded charges in
the administrative complaint were filed just to harass him; and that he is
entitled to a just and speedy disposition of the case.
On 26 May 2004, the prosecution, represented by Atty. Felicen in view
of the resignation of Atty. Flor in August 1999, filed its Comment/Opposition
to the Motion to Dismiss. The prosecution alleged that a Formal Offer of
Documentary Exhibits had been filed on 24 January 2004, of which a copy
thereof was received by Atty. Lee, petitioners counsel, on 30 January 2004,
per registry return receipt. However, petitioner has not filed his comment to
the said Formal Offer.
Furthermore, the prosecution explained in its Comment/Opposition that
in view of the resignation of Atty. Flor in August 1999 but who had been on
leave by mid-July 1999, the Formal Offer could not be prepared by another
counsel until all the transcript of stenographic notes have been furnished to
the counsel that replaced Atty. Flor. Meanwhile, the stenographer, Jamie
Limbaga, had been in and out of the hospital due to a serious illness, thus
the delay in the filing of the prosecutors Formal Offer of Documentary
Exhibits.
On 8 June 2004, Atty. Docena issued the assailed Order denying
petitioners motion to dismiss, to wit:
Acting on respondents Motion to Dismiss, as well as the University
Prosecutors Comment and/or Opposition to said Motion, and finding that said
Motion to Dismiss to be bereft of merit, the same is hereby DENIED.
In view of the failure of the respondent to file his comment on the
Prosecutions Formal Offer of Evidence, the Exhibits (A to G-1) of the
Prosecution are hereby ADMITTED for the purpose for which the same have
been offered.
The respondent is hereby directed to present his evidence on June 22,
2004 at 10:30 in the morning.
SO ORDERED.
A motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner but the same was
denied in an Order dated 9 November 2004.[5]
Petitioner Captain Wilfredo Roquero then filed with the Court of Appeals
a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 87776,
alleging therein that the ADT committed grave abuse of discretion when it
denied the motion to dismiss the administrative case filed against him.
In a Decision dated 22 March 2007, the Honorable Court of Appeals
denied the petition with prayer for TRO of Roquero reasoning that the ADT
did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed orders.
The Court of Appeals ruled, thus:
The main issue to be resolved is whether the ADT gravely abused its
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it issued the
Order denying petitioners motion to dismiss the administrative case filed
against him.
We rule in the negative.
Petitioner argues that the administrative case against him should be
dismissed because of the failure of the prosecution to file its Formal Offer of
Evidence within the agreed period.
We do not agree.
The appropriate rule in this case is Section 27 of the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which provides, to wit:
When the presentation of evidence has been concluded, the parties
shall formally offer their evidence either orally or in writing and thereafter
objections thereto may also be made either orally or in writing. After which,
both parties may be given time to submit their respective memorandum
which in no case shall [be] beyond five (5) days after the termination of the
investigation. Failure to submit the same within the given period shall be
considered a waiver thereof.
The failure to file a formal offer of evidence amounts to no more than a
waiver of the right to file the same. In administrative cases, particularly,
where the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service applies,
the absence of a formal offer of evidence does not bar the adverse party
from presenting its evidence.
Section 3 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service provides:
Administrative investigations shall be conducted without necessarily
adhering strictly to the technical rules of procedure and evidence applicable
to judicial proceedings.
While under the Rules of Court, a formal offer may be indispensable
because the rules on evidence so require it, the same is not true in
administrative cases. There is no provision in the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service akin to Section 34, Rule 132 of the
Rules of Court.
Furthermore, Section 27 of the Uniform Rules states that the failure to
file a formal offer of evidence amounts to a mere waiver thereof, and not a
dismissal of the action. As such, petitioner cannot claim a vested right to a
dismissal of his case below just because a formal offer was not filed within
the agreed period.
In addition thereto, the Uniform Rules give the hearing officer a leeway
when it provided that x x x the hearing officer shall accept all evidence
deemed material and relevant to the case. In case of doubt, he shall allow
the admission of evidence subject to the objection interposed against its
admission.
In the case at bar, records show that in fact, a formal offer of evidence
was filed by the prosecution, a copy of which was received by petitioners
counsel. The action of the ADT in admitting the prosecutions exhibits was
consistent with the above-mentioned Rules. Thus, the tribunal acted within
the bounds of its authority.
Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or in other words,
where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross
as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to
perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
To reiterate, the admission of the exhibits for the prosecution is in
accordance with Section 3, 27, and 28 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service. In admitting the exhibits for the prosecution,
petitioner was not denied the opportunity to present his evidence. In fact, he
could have presented his evidence as early as 11 August 1999 but he did not
do so.
WHEREFORE, for utter lack of merit, the instant petition with prayer for
temporary restraining order is hereby DENIED.[6]
Roquero moved for reconsideration of the Decision, but the same was
likewise denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution promulgated on 1
February 2008.
Roquero is now before us seeking the reversal of the decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The core issue of this case is whether the failure of the ADT to resolve
Roqueros Motion (to declare complainant Imelda Abutal to have waived her
right to submit her Formal Offer of Exhibit) which he seasonably filed on 22
October 1999 and the assailed Order of the ADT dated 8 June 2004 admitting
the Formal Offer of Exhibit of complainant Imelda Abutal despite having filed
after almost five years violated the constitutional right of Roquero to a
speedy disposition of cases.
We find merit in the petition.
The Court of Appeals faulted petitioner for his failure to present his
own evidence which he could have done as early as 11 August 1999.[7] It
must be noted, however, that petitioners 22 October 1999 motion to declare
complainant to have waived her right to submit her Formal Offer of Exhibit
remained unresolved. This is reason enough for Roquero to defer
presentation of his own evidence.
Indeed, while Section 27 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases
in Civil Service states that the failure to submit the formal offer of evidence
within the given period shall be considered as waiver thereof, the ADT in fact
allowed the prosecution to present its formal offer almost five (5) years later
or on 24 January 2004. Starting on that date, petitioner was presented with
the choice to either present his evidence or to, as he did, file a motion to
dismiss owing to the extraordinary length of time that ADT failed to rule on
his motion.
We cannot accept the finding of the Court of Appeals that there was no
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the ADT because a formal offer of
evidence was filed by the prosecution, a copy of which was received by
petitioners counsel.[8] The admission by ADT on 8 June 2004 of the formal
offer of exhibits belatedly filed did not cure the 5-year delay in the resolution
of petitioners 1999 motion to deem as waived such formal offer of evidence.
Indeed, the delay of almost five (5) years cannot be justified.
The prosecution tried to explain in its Comment/Opposition dated 26
May 2004, that the resignation of Atty. Paul Flor in August 1999, who had by
then already been on leave since mid-July 1999, contributed to the delay of
the filing of the formal offer and that the formal offer could not be prepared
by another counsel until all the transcripts of stenographic notes had been
given to him. Also, it was pointed out that the stenographer, Jaime Limbaga,
had been in and out of the hospital due to a serious illness.[9]
The ADT admitted this explanation of the prosecutor hook, line and
sinker without asking why it took him almost five (5) years to make that
explanation. If the excuses were true, the prosecution could have easily
manifested with the ADT of its predicament right after Roquero filed his
motion to declare the waiver of the formal offer. It is evident too that the
prosecution failed to explain why it took them so long a time to find a
replacement for the original prosecutor. And, the stenographer who had been
in and out of the hospital due to serious illness should have been replaced
sooner.
While it is true that administrative investigations should not be bound
by strict adherence to the technical rules of procedure and evidence
applicable to judicial proceedings,[10] the same however should not violate
the constitutional right of respondents to a speedy disposition of cases.
Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Section 16. All person shall have the right to a speedy disposition of
their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
The constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases is not limited
to the accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases,
including civil and administrative cases, and in all proceedings, including
judicial and quasi-judicial hearings. Hence, under the Constitution, any party
to a case may demand expeditious action by all officials who are tasked with
the administration of justice.[11]
The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to a speedy
trial, is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by
vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified
postponements of the trial are asked for and secured; or even without cause
or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the
party having his case tried. Equally applicable is the balancing test used to
determine whether a defendant has been denied his right to a speedy trial,
or a speedy disposition of a case for that matter, in which the conduct of
both the prosecution and the defendant is weighed, and such factors as the
length of the delay, the reasons for such delay, the assertion or failure to
assert such right by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay. The
concept of a speedy disposition is a relative term and must necessarily be a
flexible concept.[12]
Hence, the doctrinal rule is that in the determination of whether that
right has been violated, the factors that may be considered and balanced are
as follows: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the
assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and (4) the prejudice
caused by the delay.[13]
Applying the doctrinal ruling vis-a-vis the factual milieu of this case,
the violation of the right to a speedy disposition of the case against
petitioner is clear for the following reasons: (1) the delay of almost five (5)
years on the part of ADT in resolving the motion of petitioner, which
resolution petitioner reasonably found necessary before he could present his
defense; (2) the unreasonableness of the delay; and (3) the timely assertions
by petitioner of the right to an early disposition which he did through a
motion to dismiss. Over and above this, the delay was prejudicial to
petitioners cause as he was under preventive suspension for ninety (90)
days, and during the interregnum of almost five years, the trial of the
accusation against him remained stagnant at the prosecution stage.
The Constitutional guarantee against unreasonable delay in the
disposition of cases was intended to stem the tide of disenchantment among
the people in the administration of justice by our judicial and quasi-judicial
tribunals.[14] The adjudication of cases must not only be done in an orderly
manner that is in accord with the established rules of procedure but must
also be promptly decided to better serve the ends of justice. Excessive delay
in the disposition of cases renders the rights of the people guaranteed by the
Constitution and by various legislations inutile.[15]
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision
dated 22 March 2007 and Resolution dated 1 February 2008 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 87776 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
Administrative Disciplinary Tribunal (ADT) of the University of the PhilippinesManila, Atty. Zaldy B. Docena, Eden Perdido and Isabella Lara, in their
capacities as Chairman and Members of the ADT respectively, are hereby
ORDERED to DISMISS the administrative case against Capt. Wilfredo G.
Roquero for violation of his constitutional right to a speedy disposition of
cases.
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Courts Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the
above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Monina Arevalo Zearosa, with Associate
Justices Marina L. Buzon and Edgardo F. Sundiam concurring. Rollo, pp. 1727.
[2] Id. at 29-30.
[3] CA rollo, p. 18.
[4] Id. at 21.
[5] Id. at 18-23.
[6] Id. at 23-26.
[7] Rollo, p. 26.
in Criminal Matters between the Republic of the Philippines and the Swiss
Confederation (RP-Swiss MLAT).97
To us, however, the State's dependence on the ratification of the two
treaties was not a sufficient justification for the delay. The fact-finding
investigation had extended from January 15, 2003, when Ombudsman
Marcelo approved the recommendation of the Special Panel and referred the
complaint of Cong. Jimenez for fact-finding investigation, until November 14,
2005, when the FIO completed its fact-finding investigation. That period
accounted for a total of two years and 10 months. In addition, the FIO
submitted its report only on November 14, 2005, which was after the
Department of Justice had received on September 8, 2005 the letter from
Wayne Walsh, the Deputy Government Counsel of the Hongkong Special
Administrative Region in response to the request for assistance dated June
23, 2005,98 and the reply of the Office of Justice of Switzerland dated
February 10, 2005 and a subsequent letter dated February 21, 2005 from
Liza Favre, the Ambassador of Switzerland, to Atty. Melchor Arthur
Carandang, Acting Assistant Ombudsman, FIO, together with documents
pertaining to the bank accounts relevant to the investigation.99 For the
Office of the Ombudsman to mark time until the HKSAR Agreement and the
Swiss-RP MLAT were ratified by the Senate before it would proceed with the
preliminary investigation was oppressive, capricious and vexatious, because
the respondents were thereby subjected to a long and unfair delay.
We should frown on the reason for the inordinate delay because the
State would thereby deliberately gain an advantage over the respondents
during the preliminary investigation. At no time should the progress and
success of the preliminary investigation of a criminal case be made
dependent upon the ratification of a treaty by the Senate that would provide
to the prosecutorial arm of the State, already powerful and overwhelming in
terms of its resources, an undue advantage unavailable at the time of the
investigation. To allow the delay under those terms would definitely violate
fair play and nullify due process of law - fair play, because the field of contest
between the accuser and the accused should at all times be level; and due
process of law, because no less that our Constitution guarantees the speedy
disposition of the case.
The State further argues that the fact-finding investigation should not
be considered a part of the preliminary investigation because the former was
only preparatory in relation to the latter; 100 and that the period spent in the
former should not be factored in the computation of the period devoted to
the preliminary investigation.
The argument cannot pass fair scrutiny.
The guarantee of speedy disposition under Section 16 of Article III of
the Constitution applies to all cases pending before all judicial, quasijudicial
or administrative bodies. The guarantee would be defeated or rendered
inutile if the hair-splitting distinction by the State is accepted.
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 191411, July 15, 2013
RAFAEL L. COSCOLLUELA, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN
DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
(FIRST
RESOLUTION
[G.R. NO. 191871]
RESOLUTION
EDWIN N. NACIONALES, ERNESTO P. MALVAS, AND JOSE MA. G.
AMUGOD, Petitioners, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Respondents.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in these consolidated Petitions for Certiorari1 are the October
6, 20092 and February 10, 20103 Resolutions of public respondent First
Division of Sandiganbayan (SB), denying the Motion to Quash4 dated July 8,
2009 filed by petitioner Rafael L. Coscolluela (Coscolluela). The said motion
was adopted by petitioners Edwin N. Nacionales (Nacionales), Dr. Ernesto P.
Malvas (Malvas), and Jose Ma. G. Amugod (Amugod), praying for the
dismissal of Crim. Case No. SB-09-CRM-0154 for violation of their right to
speedy disposition of cases.
The Facts
Coscolluela served as governor of the Province of Negros Occidental
(Province) for three (3) full terms which ended on June 30, 2001. During his
tenure, Nacionales served as his Special Projects Division Head, Amugod as
Nacionales subordinate, and Malvas as Provincial Health Officer.5
On November 9, 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas
(Office of the Ombudsman) received a letter-complaint6 dated November 7,
2001 from Peoples Graftwatch, requesting for assistance to investigate the
anomalous purchase of medical and agricultural equipment for the Province
in the amount of P20,000,000.00 which allegedly happened around a month
before Coscolluela stepped down from office.
Acting on the letter-complaint, the Case Building Team of the Office of
the Ombudsman conducted its investigation, resulting in the issuance of a
Final Evaluation Report7 dated April 16, 2002 which upgraded the complaint
arguing that the SB erred in making a distinction between two time periods,
namely: (a) from the filing of the complaint up to the time Caares prepared
the resolution finding probable cause against petitioners; and (b) from the
submission of the said resolution to the Acting Ombudsman for review and
approval up to the filing of the Information with the SB. In this regard,
petitioners averred that the aforementioned periods should not be
compartmentalized and thus, treated as a single period. Accordingly, the
delay of eight (8) years of the instant case should be deemed prejudicial to
their right to speedy disposition of cases.19
The SB, however, denied the foregoing motions in its Resolution20
dated February 10, 2010 for lack of merit.
Hence, the instant petitions.
The Issue Before the Court
The sole issue raised for the Courts resolution is whether the SB
gravely abused its discretion in finding that petitioners right to speedy
disposition of cases was not violated.
The Courts Ruling
The petitions are meritorious.
A persons right to the speedy disposition of his case is guaranteed
under Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution (Constitution)
which provides:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
SEC. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their
cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
This constitutional right is not limited to the accused in criminal
proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases, be it civil or administrative
in nature, as well as all proceedings, either judicial or quasi-judicial. In this
accord, any party to a case may demand expeditious action to all officials
who are tasked with the administration of justice.21
It must be noted, however, that the right to speedy disposition of cases
should be understood to be a relative or flexible concept such that a mere
mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not be sufficient.22
Jurisprudence dictates that the right is deemed violated only when the
proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or
when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured; or
even without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to
elapse without the party having his case tried.23
Hence, in the determination of whether the defendant has been denied
his right to a speedy disposition of a case, the following factors may be
considered and balanced: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the
delay; (3) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and (4)
the prejudice caused by the delay.24
Examining the incidents in the present case, the Court holds that
petitioners right to a speedy disposition of their criminal case had been
violated.
First, it is observed that the preliminary investigation proceedings took
a protracted amount of time to complete.
In this relation, the Court does not lend credence to the SBs position
that the conduct of preliminary investigation was terminated as early as
March 27, 2003, or the time when Caares prepared the Resolution
recommending the filing of the Information. This is belied by Section 4, Rule
II of the Administrative Order No. 07 dated April 10, 1990, otherwise known
as the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, which
provides:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
SEC. 4. Procedure The preliminary investigation of cases falling under
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and Regional Trial Courts shall be
conducted in the manner prescribed in Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of
Court, subject to the following provisions:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
xxxx
No information may be filed and no complaint may be dismissed
without the written authority or approval of the Ombudsman in cases falling
within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, or of the proper Deputy
Ombudsman in all other cases. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The above-cited provision readily reveals that there is no complete
resolution of a case under preliminary investigation until the Ombudsman
approves the investigating officers recommendation to either file an
Information with the SB or to dismiss the complaint. Therefore, in the case at
bar, the preliminary investigation proceedings against the petitioners were
not terminated upon Caares preparation of the March 27, 2003 Resolution
and Information but rather, only at the time Casimiro finally approved the
same for filing with the SB. In this regard, the proceedings were terminated
only on May 21, 2009, or almost eight (8) years after the filing of the
complaint.
Second, the above-discussed delay in the Ombudsmans resolution of
the case largely remains unjustified.
To this end, the Court equally denies the SBs ratiocination that the
delay in proceedings could be excused by the fact that the case had to
undergo careful review and revision through the different levels in the Office
invocation in the Tatad case. The incident before us does not involve
complicated factual and legal issues, specially (sic) in view of the fact that
the subject computerization contract had been mutually cancelled by the
parties thereto even before the Anti-Graft League filed its complaint.
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Being the respondents in the preliminary investigation proceedings, it
was not the petitioners duty to follow up on the prosecution of their case.
Conversely, it was the Office of the Ombudsmans responsibility to expedite
the same within the bounds of reasonable timeliness in view of its mandate
to promptly act on all complaints lodged before it. As pronounced in the case
of Barker v. Wingo:28
A defendant has no duty to bring himself to trial; the State has that
duty as well as the duty of insuring that the trial is consistent with due
process.
Fourth, the Court finally recognizes the prejudice caused to the
petitioners by the lengthy delay in the proceedings against them.
Lest it be misunderstood, the right to speedy disposition of cases is not
merely hinged towards the objective of spurring dispatch in the
administration of justice but also to prevent the oppression of the citizen by
holding a criminal prosecution suspended over him for an indefinite time.29
Akin to the right to speedy trial, its salutary objective is to assure that an
innocent person may be free from the anxiety and expense of litigation or, if
otherwise, of having his guilt determined within the shortest possible time
compatible with the presentation and consideration of whatsoever legitimate
defense he may interpose.30 This looming unrest as well as the tactical
disadvantages carried by the passage of time should be weighed against the
State and in favor of the individual. In the context of the right to a speedy
trial,
the
Court
in
Corpuz
v.
Sandiganbayan31
(Corpuz)
illumined:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
A balancing test of applying societal interests and the rights of the
accused necessarily compels the court to approach speedy trial cases on an
ad hoc basis.
x x x Prejudice should be assessed in the light of the interest of the
defendant that the speedy trial was designed to protect, namely: to prevent
oppressive pre-trial incarceration; to minimize anxiety and concerns of the
accused to trial; and to limit the possibility that his defense will be impaired.
Of these, the most serious is the last, because the inability of a defendant
adequately to prepare his case skews the fairness of the entire system. There
is also prejudice if the defense witnesses are unable to recall accurately the
events of the distant past. Even if the accused is not imprisoned prior to trial,
he is still disadvantaged by restraints on his liberty and by living under a
cloud of anxiety, suspicion and often, hostility. His financial resources may be
drained, his association is curtailed, and he is subjected to public obloquy.
III
of
the
1987
Constitution,
Sec. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of
their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
Initially embodied in Section 16, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, the
aforesaid constitutional provision is one of three provisions mandating
speedier dispensation of justice. It guarantees the right of all persons to a
speedy disposition of their case; includes within its contemplation the
periods before, during and after trial, and affords broader protection than
Section 14(2), which guarantees just the right to a speedy trial. It is more
embracing than the protection under Article VII, Section 15, which covers
only the period after the submission of the case. The present constitutional
provision applies to civil, criminal and administrative cases. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied; citations omitted)
Thus, in view of the unjustified length of time miring the Office of the
Ombudsmans resolution of the case as well as the concomitant prejudice
that the delay in this case has caused, it is undeniable that petitioners
constitutional right to due process and speedy disposition of cases had been
violated. As the institutional vanguard against corruption and bureaucracy,
the Office of the Ombudsman should create a system of accountability in
order to ensure that cases before it are resolved with reasonable dispatch
and to equally expose those who are responsible for its delays, as it ought to
determine in this case.
Corollarily, for the SBs patent and utter disregard of the existing laws
and jurisprudence surrounding the matter, the Court finds that it gravely
abused its discretion when it denied the quashal of the Information. Perforce,
the assailed resolutions must be set aside and the criminal case against
petitioners be dismissed.
While the foregoing pronouncement should, as matter of course, result
in the acquittal of the petitioners, it does not necessarily follow that
petitioners are entirely exculpated from any civil liability, assuming that the
same is proven in a subsequent case which the Province may opt to pursue.
Section 2, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court provides that an acquittal in a
criminal case does not bar the private offended party from pursuing a
subsequent civil case based on the delict, unless the judgment of acquittal
explicitly declares that the act or omission from which the civil liability may
arise did not exist.33 As explained in the case of Abejuela v. People,34 citing
Banal v. Tadeo, Jr.:35
The Rules provide: The extinction of the penal action does not carry
with it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a
declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise
did not exist. In other cases, the person entitled to the civil action may
institute it in the jurisdiction and in the manner provided by law against the
person who may be liable for restitution of the thing and reparation or
indemnity for the damage suffered.
xxxx
In Banal vs. Tadeo, Jr., we declared:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
While an act or omission is felonious because it is punishable by law,
it gives rise to civil liability not so much because it is a crime but because it
caused damage to another. Viewing things pragmatically, we can readily see
that what gives rise to the civil liability is really the obligation and moral duty
of everyone to repair or make whole the damage caused to another by
reason of his own act or omission, done intentionally or negligently, whether
or not the same be punishable by law.(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Based on the violation of petitioners right to speedy disposition of
cases as herein discussed, the present case stands to be dismissed even
before either the prosecution or the defense has been given the chance to
present any evidence. Thus, the Court is unable to make a definite
Resolution dated November 25, 1993 dismissed the case for lack of interest
on the part of complainants to pursue their case.
Although the administrative aspect of the complaints had already been
dismissed, the criminal complaints remained pending and unresolved,
prompting petitioner to file several omnibus motions for early resolution.
When petitioner retired in September 1994, the criminal complaints
still remained unresolved, as a consequence of which petitioner's request for
clearance in order that he may qualify to receive his retirement benefits was
denied.
With the criminal complaints remaining unresolved for more than 6
years, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, invoking Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan
(G.R. No. 72335-39, March 21, 1988). Sad to say, even this motion to
dismiss, however, has not been acted upon. Hence, the instant petition.
Acting on the petition, the Court issued a resolution dated December
20, 1995 requiring respondents to comment thereon. In compliance
therewith, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and Motion
(in lieu of Comment), which is its way of saying it agreed with the views of
petitioner. On July 22, 1996, we issued another resolution requiring the
Ombudsman to file his own comment on the petition if he so desires,
otherwise, the petition will be deemed submitted for resolution without such
comment. After several extensions, respondent Ombudsman, through the
Office of the Special Prosecutor, filed a comment dated October 7, 1996.
The Court finds the present petition to be impressed with merit.
Mandamus is a writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board, or
person to do the act required to be done when it or he unlawfully neglects
the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from
the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled,
there being no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law (Section 3 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court).
After a careful review of the facts and circumstances of the present
case, the Court finds the inordinate delay of more than six years by the
Ombudsman in resolving the criminal complaints against petitioner to be
violative of his constitutionally guaranteed right to due process and to a
speedy disposition of the cases against him, thus warranting the dismissal of
said criminal cases pursuant to the pronouncement of the Court in Tatad vs.
Sandiganbayan (159 SCRA 70 [1988]), wherein the Court, speaking through
Justice Yap, said:
We find the long delay in the termination of the preliminary
investigation by the Tanodbayan in the instant case to be violative of the
constitutional right of the accused to due process. Substantial adherence to
directed by mandamus to act, but not to act one way or the other. However,
this rule admits of exceptions such as in cases where there is gross abuse of
discretion, manifest injustice, or palpable excess of authority (Kant Kwong vs.
PCGG, 156 SCRA 222, 232 [1987]).
Here, the Office of the Ombudsman, due to its failure to resolve the
criminal charges against petitioner for more than six years, has transgressed
on the constitutional right of petitioner to due process and to a speedy
disposition of the cases against him, as well as the Ombudsman's own
constitutional duty to act promptly on complaints filed before it. For all these
past 6 years, petitioner has remained under a cloud, and since his retirement
in September 1994, he has been deprived of the fruits of his retirement after
serving the government for over 42 years all because of the inaction of
respondent Ombudsman. If we wait any longer, it may be too late for
petitioner to receive his retirement benefits, not to speak of clearing his
name. This is a case of plain injustice which calls for the issuance of the writ
prayed for.
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED to give DUE COURSE to the petition
and to GRANT the same. Ombudsman Cases No. MIN-3-90-0671, MIN-900132, MIN-90-0133, MIN-90-0138, MIN-90-0188, MIN-90-0189, MIN-90-0190,
MIN-90-0191, and MIN-90-0192 are ordered DISMISSED. The Office of the
Ombudsman is further directed to issue the corresponding clearance in favor
of petitioner.
SO ORDERED.