Almeda v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Luz S. Almeda, then Schools Division Superintendent of DepEd, Surigao del Norte, was charged administratively and criminally before the Ombudsman in connection with the alleged improper use and disbursement of the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) allotted to Congressman Constantino H. Navarro, Jr. and implemented through the DILG and DepEd. The criminal charges were consolidated as OMB-MIN-01-0183. Procedural History: On March 19, 2003, a Resolution was issued finding probable cause to indict petitioner and co-accused for violation of Sections 3(e) and (g) of RA 3019. This was modified by then Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo. The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) prepared an Information, which was approved and forwarded for filing. Petitioner received the Resolution on May 29, 2003. On July 3, 2003, she filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On July 7, 2003, she filed a Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Filing of Information. On July 18, 2003, the Ombudsman gave due course to the motions. Navarro filed his Comment. Petitioner filed a Supplemental motion for reconsideration. The case was forwarded to Marcelo for appropriate action. An Order dated October 11, 2004, terminated the case as far as the Ombudsman for Mindanao was concerned, as Marcelo ordered the OSP to conduct the preliminary investigation. Petitioner sent a letter on May 25, 2010, seeking resolution, but it was not acted upon. She filed manifestations on September 1, 2011, and November 18, 2011, seeking resolution and dismissal. On August 8, 2012, she filed a third Manifestation reiterating her right to speedy trial and praying for dismissal, citing the Ombudsman and OSP's "ping-pong" of her case and the delay. The Petition: On September 6, 2012, the Ombudsman issued an Order denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, stating the motions were filed out of time and that the matters raised were already passed upon or were evidentiary in nature. The Ombudsman also noted the manifestation for dismissal due to alleged violation of speedy trial, but stated that OMB-MIN could not be faulted as petitioner herself moved to hold in abeyance the filing of the Information, and that OMB-MIN acted upon the motions timely. The Ombudsman ordered the filing of the Information. Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Certiorari.
Issue(s)
Did the Office of the Ombudsman violate petitioner’s constitutional right to speedy trial and prompt disposition of cases when it failed to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Filing of Information for a period of nine (9) years from the date of its filing? Did the Respondent Ombudsman act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it refused to order the dismissal of the case despite the clear and patent violation of the petitioner’s constitutional right to speedy trial and prompt disposition of cases?
Ruling
The Court grants the Petition. The September 6, 2012 Order of the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao in OMB-MIN-01-0183 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. OMB-MJN-01-0183 and all proceedings or actions arising therefrom are ordered DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases: The Court found that the preliminary investigation proceedings took over 11 years to resolve, from March 23, 2001, to September 6, 2012. This inordinate delay was caused by the repeated indorsement between the Ombudsman and the OSP, attributed to the Ombudsman's failure to recognize that petitioner was not under the OSP's or Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction. The handling GIPO's leave and lack of reassignment further contributed to neglect. The Court held that the petitioner's motion for reconsideration being tardy or her motion to hold in abeyance the filing of the information were irrelevant to the Ombudsman's failure to resolve the case in a timely manner. The simple procedural issue for denial of the motion for reconsideration highlighted the Ombudsman's failure to act promptly. The Court emphasized that the State has the duty to expedite cases, and respondents are not generally required to follow up. Petitioner's actions to seek resolution could not be considered late, nor did they constitute a waiver or acquiescence to the delay. The pendency of the case undoubtedly prejudiced petitioner, causing distress, anxiety, and embarrassment, and potentially impairing her defense and reputation. On the grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that the Ombudsman's explanation for the delay was unacceptable, demonstrating a failure to apply basic rules on jurisdiction based on rank. The administrative "ping-pong" between offices, coupled with the prolonged delay, constituted a violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases. Citing previous cases like Coscolluela, Cervantes, Tatad, Lopez, Jr., People v. Sandiganbayan, Angchangco, Jr., Roque, and Licaros, the Court reiterated that inordinate delay in resolving a criminal complaint is violative of due process and the right to speedy disposition of cases, warranting dismissal. The Ombudsman's denial of the motion for reconsideration and order to file the information, despite the excessive delay and the procedural nature of the denial, was deemed an act of grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The right to a speedy disposition of cases is violated when a proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays, or when unjustified postponements occur, or when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the case being tried. Such violation warrants the dismissal of the case.