People v Perez

Feb 12, 2008 Reyes, J

Rule 115  To have a speedy, impartial and public trial
TBT
DOCTRINE: In determining whether or not the right to have a speedy, impartial and public trial is violated, the court has
adopted the balancing test. 4 factors are looked into – the length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s
assertion of his right and prejudice to the defendant.
CASE SUMMARY: Perez was charged with malversation of public funds. He pleaded not guilty on March 1 1990. He
was convicted by the Sandiganbayan only on September 24, 2003. Around 13 years have passed. The court ruled however
that he was not deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial considering the 4 factors mentioned above. In fact he
himself did not want a speedy disposition of his case.

FACTS:

- On Dec 28 1988, an audit team conducted a cash examination on the account of petitioner Zenon Perez, who was
an acting municipal treasurer of Tubigon, Bohol
- They discovered that there was only an amount of P21,331.79 in his safe, incurring a shortage of P72,784.57
- When asked, Zenon Perez verbally explained that part of the money was used to pay for the loan of his late
brother, another was spent for his family’s food while the rest were spent on his medicine
- He started remitting to the Office of the Provincial Treasurer the shortage amount of P72,784.57 in increments
and on different days (P35,000, P2,000, P2,784….)
o Before he finished remitting the total amount, an administrative case was filed on Feb 1989
o On April 1989, he had then fully restituted the whole amount.
- A criminal case was filed against Perez in the Sandiganbayan for Malversation of Public Funds (Art 217)
o On March 1 1990 he pleaded not guilty
o Pre-trial was set on June 1990 but Perez’ counsel moved for postponement. The Sandiganbayan however
denied and dispensed with pre-trial as a prosecution witness came all the way from Bohol.
o His defense was that the shortage was in the custody of his accountable officer and it was only remitted to
him on separate dates
o He also averred that the 1st Answer he gave in the administrative case was prepared without the assistance
of counsel.
o He completed his testimony on Sept 20 1990. He also rested his case on Oct 20 1990.
- The Sandiganbayan convicted him only on Sept 24, 2003 (13 years since)
- Perez filed an MR which was denied. He then resorted to this instant appeal contending

1. He was deprived of his right to speedy disposition of his case and due process
2. The law relied upon in his conviction violated Sec 19 of Art III of the Constitution for being cruel.

ISSUE: Whether or not his right to speedy disposition of his case was violated – no

RULING:

I. He was correctly convicted of malversation

- The acts punished as malversation are: (1) appropriating public funds or property, (2) taking or
misappropriating the same, (3) consenting, or through abandonment or negligence, permitting any other person to
take such public funds or property, and (4) being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such
funds or property
- There are four elements that must concur in order that one may be found guilty of the crime.

(a) That the offender be a public officer;

(b) That he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office;
(c) That those funds or property involved were public funds or property for which he is accountable; and
 (d) That he has appropriated, took or misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or negligence,
permitted another person to take them

- An accountable public officer may be convicted of malversation even if there is no direct evidence of
misappropriation and the only evidence is shortage in his accounts which he has not been able to explain
satisfactorily
- In the case at bar, Perez was not able to present any credible evidence to rebut this presumption. In fact, he gave
himself away with his first Answer filed at the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Bohol in the administrative
case filed against him.
o He narrated how he disposed of the missing funds under his custody and control, to wit: (1)
about P30,000.00 was used to pay the commercial loan of his late brother; (2) he spent P10,000.00 for the
treatment of his toxic goiter; and (3) about P32,000.00 was spent for food and clothing of his family, and
the education of his children.

II. He was also not entitled to counsel in the administrative proceeding. Hence, the Answer he gave is
admissible in evidence
- There is no law, jurisprudence or rule which mandates that an employee should be assisted by counsel in an
administrative case. On the contrary, jurisprudence is in unison in saying that assistance of counsel is not
indispensable in administrative proceedings
- There is nothing in the Constitution that says that a party in a non-litigation proceeding is entitled to be
represented by counsel and that, without such representation, he shall not be bound by such proceedings. The
assistance of lawyers, while desirable, is not indispensable
- Extrajudicial statements are as a rule, admissible as against their respective declarants, pursuant to the rule that the
act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given against him.
- This is based upon the presumption that no man would declare anything against himself, unless such declarations
were true

III. His right due process was not violated

- Due process of law as applied to judicial proceedings has been interpreted to mean "a law which hears before it
condemns, which proceeds on inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial."
- Here Perez was given all the chances in the world to present his case, and the Sandiganbayan rendered its decision
only after considering all the pieces of evidence presented before it.
-
IV. His right to speedy trial was also not violated (relevant part)
- 3 Approaches in determining whether or not the right was violated as mentioned in Barker v Wingo (US
Case):
1. Fixed-time Period
o The Constitution requires a criminal defendant to be offered a trial within a specified time period."
2. Demand-waiver rule
o This rule states that "A defendant waives any consideration of his right to speedy trial for any period prior
to which he has not demanded trial. Under this rigid approach, a prior demand is a necessary condition to
the consideration of the speedy trial right."
- The fixed-time period was rejected because there is "no constitutional basis for holding that the speedy trial can
be quantified into a specific number of days or months.”
- The demand-waiver rule was likewise rejected because aside from the fact that it is "inconsistent with this Court’s
pronouncements on waiver of constitutional rights," and it is insensitive to a right which we have deemed
fundamental.
3. The "balancing test”
o A middle ground in which "the conduct of both the prosecution and defendant are weighed
- A balancing test necessarily compels courts to approach speedy trial cases on an ad hoc basis.
- Though some might express them in different ways, we identify four such factors: Length of delay, the
reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.
1. The length of the delay is to some extent a triggering mechanism. Until there is some delay which is
presumptively prejudicial, there is no necessity for inquiry into the other factors that go into the
 balance. Nevertheless, because of the imprecision of the right to speedy trial, the length of delay that will
provoke such an inquiry is necessarily dependent upon the peculiar circumstances of the case.
 To take but one example, the delay that can be tolerated for an ordinary street crime is
considerably less than for a serious, complex conspiracy charge.
2. Closely related to length of delay is the reason the government assigns to justify the delay.
o A deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense should be weighted heavily against
the government. A more neutral reason such as negligence or overcrowded courts should be weighted less
heavily but nevertheless will still weigh against the government.
o Finally, a valid reason, such as a missing witness, should serve to justify appropriate delay.
3. The third element is the defendant’s responsibility to assert his right. Whether and how a defendant
asserts his right is closely related to the other factors we have mentioned.
o The more serious the deprivation, the more likely a defendant is to complain. The defendant’s assertion of
his speedy trial right, then, is entitled to strong evidentiary weight in determining whether the defendant is
being deprived of the right.
o The failure to assert the right will make it difficult for a defendant to prove that he was denied a speedy
trial.
4. A fourth factor is prejudice to the defendant.
o Prejudice, of course, should be assessed in the light of the interests of defendants which the speedy
trial right was designed to protect.
o This Court has identified three such interests: (i) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to
minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility that the defense will be
impaired.
o 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. If witnesses die or disappear during a delay, the prejudice is
obvious. There is also prejudice if defense witnesses are unable to recall accurately events of the distant
past. Loss of memory, however, is not always reflected in the record because what has been forgotten can
rarely be shown
- Philippine jurisprudence has adopted this test in different cases
- Measured by the foregoing yardstick, the court ruled that Perez was not deprived of his right to a speedy
disposition of his case.
o More important than the absence of serious prejudice, Perez himself did not want a speedy disposition of
his case. Perez was duly represented by counsel de parte in all stages of the proceedings before the
Sandiganbayan. From the moment his case was deemed submitted for decision up to the time he was
found guilty by the Sandiganbayan, however, Perez has not filed a single motion or manifestation which
could be construed even remotely as an indication that he wanted his case to be dispatched without delay.
o Perez has clearly slept on his right. The matter could have taken a different dimension if during all those
twelve years, Perez had shown signs of asserting his right to a speedy disposition of his case or at least
made some overt acts, like filing a motion for early resolution, to show that he was not waiving that right.