Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Carlito U. Alvizo, then a member of the Surigao del Sur Sangguniang Panlalawigan, was dismissed as Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Sur due to a deficiency in his accounts amounting to P31,612.50. This dismissal was without prejudice to his criminal prosecution. Congressman Ernesto T. Estrella called the attention of the Secretary of Justice to the apparent inability of the Provincial Fiscal to prosecute Alvizo. Procedural History: A preliminary investigation was conducted by Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Vicente L. Suarez, who recommended the filing of an information for malversation. This recommendation was reversed by the Provincial Prosecutor but overruled by the Ombudsman. An information for malversation of public funds was filed with the Sandiganbayan on May 17, 1990, initiating Criminal Case No. 14893. The Petition: Alvizo filed a motion to quash the information, alleging its defectiveness due to the absence of a certification by the investigating fiscal that he personally examined the complainant and witnesses. He also filed a supplemental motion to quash, contending that the filing of the information after eleven years from the supposed commencement of a preliminary investigation in 1979 violated his constitutional rights to due process and speedy disposition of his case. The Sandiganbayan denied both motions.
Issue(s)
Whether the information is defective for failure to contain a certification by the investigating prosecutor that he personally examined the complainant and his witnesses. Whether the petitioner's right to speedy disposition of his case was violated due to the alleged eleven-year delay in the filing of the information.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's motions to quash.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged defectiveness of the information: The Court held that the absence of a certification in the information stating that the investigating prosecutor personally examined the complainant and his witnesses is merely a formal defect. The records showed that the investigating officer, Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Vicente L. Suarez, did personally examine the witness, Nereo A. Sales. The Sandiganbayan found that the examination was conducted and the witness subscribed to his statement before the prosecutor. The certification in the information itself stated that a preliminary investigation had been conducted and there was reasonable ground to believe that the crime was committed and the accused was probably guilty. The Court reiterated the settled rule that such a certification is not an essential part of the information and its absence cannot vitiate it. The essential requirement is that a preliminary investigation must have been conducted, not the specific statement of compliance in the information itself. Therefore, the petitioner's argument on the supposed nullity of the indictment based on this formal defect was rendered nugatory. On the alleged violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases: The Court found the petitioner's theory to be erroneously premised. The records did not show that a preliminary investigation was initiated or conducted in 1979 as claimed by the petitioner. The documents presented by the petitioner merely contained directives for transmittal of records and authority to conduct an investigation, but not proof of actual commencement and conduct. The Court emphasized that the concept of speedy disposition of cases is relative and flexible, requiring a balancing of factors: the length of delay, the reasons for the delay, the assertion or failure to assert the right by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay. While acknowledging bureaucratic ennui and miscommunications, the Court noted the confusion and handicaps under a martial law regime and subsequent reorganizations. The Court found that the petitioner was aware of the potential prosecution and did not take steps to accelerate the disposition, implying acquiescence. Furthermore, the Court found no prejudice to the petitioner, as the evidence involved in the administrative case and the criminal case were identical and principally documentary, meaning any difficulty in obtaining evidence would affect both the prosecution and the defense equally. The Court concluded that the delay was not oppressive and should not forestall the prosecution enjoined by the Supreme Court.
Main Doctrine
The absence of a certification in the information that the investigating prosecutor personally examined the complainant and witnesses is a formal defect that does not vitiate the information if the preliminary investigation was actually conducted. The right to speedy disposition of cases is relative and flexible, requiring a balancing of factors such as the length of delay, reasons for delay, assertion of the right, and prejudice caused.