People v. Herrera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A complaint was filed on November 6, 2014, by the Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) against twenty-five (25) public officials, including respondents, for violation of Section 3 (e) and (g) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, and for Gross Neglect of Duty, Inefficiency, and Incompetence in the Performance of Official Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The complaint stemmed from alleged irregularities in the procurement of equipment in 2006 and 2009, specifically the charging of Letter of Credit (LC) opening and negotiation fees to the Province of Bohol's Land Bank Account, which was allegedly prohibited under Section 42.5 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations-Part A of RA 9184 and Memorandum Order No. 213, Series of 2006. Procedural History: Respondents were directed to submit their counter-affidavits, which they filed between February 16-20, 2015. In a Resolution approved on December 6, 2016, the OMB found probable cause to indict respondents for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, dismissing the complaint against other officials. Respondents' motions for reconsideration were denied on March 7, 2017. The Information was filed before the Sandiganbayan (SB) on December 1, 2017, docketed as Crim. Case No. SB-17-CRM-2200. Subsequently, respondents filed Motions to Dismiss/Quash Information, alleging violation of their right to speedy disposition of cases and speedy trial due to the alleged six-year delay in the investigation and filing of the Information. The prosecution argued that only three years and twenty-five days elapsed from the filing of the complaint to the filing of the Information, and that the delay was reasonable given the number of respondents and complexity of the case. The SB, in Resolutions dated March 16, 2018, and April 17, 2018, found inordinate delay and dismissed the case against respondents. The OMB's motions for reconsideration were denied on June 4, 2018. The Petition: The People of the Philippines filed a petition for certiorari, assailing the SB Resolutions that dismissed the criminal case against respondents for violation of their right to speedy disposition of cases.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in quashing the Information and dismissing the case against respondents on the ground of inordinate delay.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Resolutions dated March 16, 2018, April 17, 2018, and June 4, 2018, of the Sandiganbayan (SB) in Crim. Case No. SB-17-CRM-2200 are annulled and set aside for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. The case is remanded to the SB with direction to resolve the same with due and deliberate dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Grave Abuse of Discretion and Inordinate Delay: The Court held that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal cases against respondents on the ground of inordinate delay. Grave abuse of discretion occurs when an act is done contrary to the Constitution, law, or jurisprudence, or when it is executed whimsically, capriciously, or arbitrarily out of malice, ill-will, or personal bias. The constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases, guaranteed under Section 16, Article III of the Constitution and mandated for the Office of the Ombudsman under Section 12, Article XI of the Constitution and Section 13 of RA 6770, requires prompt action on complaints. However, a mere mathematical reckoning of time is insufficient to determine a violation; factors such as the length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of the right, and prejudice to the defendant must be considered. Crucially, the Court reiterated the ruling in Cagang v. Sandiganbayan that the period taken for fact-finding investigations prior to the filing of a formal complaint shall not be included in the determination of inordinate delay, as these are not yet adversarial proceedings. Therefore, a case is deemed initiated upon the filing of a formal complaint and the subsequent conduct of the preliminary investigation. In this case, the complaint was filed on November 6, 2014, and the Information was filed on December 1, 2017, a period of three years and twenty-five days. This period, considering the twenty-five respondents, the complexity of the charges involving multiple transactions, and the parallel adjudication of an administrative case, was not considered vexatious, capricious, or oppressive. Furthermore, the respondents failed to timely assert their right to speedy disposition of cases, only invoking it after the Information was filed with the SB, thereby waiving such right.
Main Doctrine
The Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal case against respondents on the ground of inordinate delay, as the period for fact-finding investigations prior to the filing of a formal complaint should not be included in the determination of whether there has been inordinate delay, and the respondents failed to timely assert their right to speedy disposition of cases.