People v. Desembrana
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Raul Desembrana, an Assistant City Prosecutor, was charged with two counts of violation of Section 7(d) in relation to Section 11 of RA 6713 for allegedly soliciting and accepting P4,000.00 from Dr. Alexis Montes in consideration for the dismissal of a case pending before him. Desembrana filed a Motion to Suspend Arraignment and a Motion to Conduct Preliminary Investigation. The Sandiganbayan directed the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) to conduct a full and complete preliminary investigation within sixty (60) days. Procedural History: The OSP recommended finding probable cause for Direct Bribery (Article 210, RPC) and violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, recommending withdrawal of the RA 6713 charge and substitution with the new charges. The Ombudsman approved this. Desembrana filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The Sandiganbayan, in a Resolution dated January 20, 2017, held in abeyance the resolution of the OSP's motion to withdraw the information, pending resolution of Desembrana's motion for reconsideration before the Ombudsman, and directed the OSP to provide an update. The OSP's motion for reconsideration was denied on January 27, 2017. Desembrana then filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging violation of his right to speedy disposition of cases due to delays. The Sandiganbayan granted this motion, dismissing the cases. The People, through the OSP, filed a petition for certiorari, assailing the dismissal. The Petition: The OSP argues that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the cases, claiming the Sandiganbayan itself caused the delay and misinterpreted the rules regarding preliminary investigations and motions for reconsideration.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the criminal cases against private respondent due to alleged unreasonable length of time in the conduct of preliminary investigation. Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly interpreted the rules regarding preliminary investigations and the necessity of leave of court for the resolution of a motion for reconsideration after an information has been filed.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions dated April 12, 2017 and May 22, 2017 of the Sandiganbayan are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Sandiganbayan is DIRECTED to IMMEDIATELY RESOLVE the Office of the Special Prosecutor's "Compliance with Omnibus Motion (for Withdrawal of Information docketed as SB-14-CRM-0427) and for the Lifting of the Resolution, dated July 8, 2015," and to PROCEED with hearing the criminal cases with reasonable dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Sandiganbayan's grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the cases due to alleged inordinate delay: The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that the Sandiganbayan itself was responsible for the delay by procrastinating for over a year to resolve the OSP's "Compliance with Omnibus Motion." Furthermore, the Sandiganbayan's reliance on the case of Sales v. Sandiganbayan to justify its stance that the OSP needed leave of court to resolve Desembrana's motion for reconsideration was misplaced, as the Sales ruling was based on an older version of the Ombudsman's Rules of Procedure. The current rules, as amended, no longer bar the OSP from filing an Information even with a pending motion for reconsideration, and once an Information is filed, action on such a motion becomes a privilege requiring leave of court, which the Sandiganbayan had implicitly granted by directing a "full and complete preliminary investigation." The Court also noted that private respondent did not assert his right to speedy disposition during the Sandiganbayan's year-long inaction and actively participated in the proceedings, thus suffering no prejudice. The delay in the preliminary investigation itself, from July 8, 2015, to November 10, 2015 (less than 120 days), was deemed reasonable, especially considering Desembrana's own filing of a Rejoinder-Affidavit. On the Sandiganbayan's interpretation of preliminary investigation rules and leave of court: The Supreme Court clarified that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in citing Sales v. Sandiganbayan and subsequently dispensing with the requirement of leave of court. The Sales ruling was based on Section 7 of the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure as it existed then, which stated that no motion for reconsideration would be entertained after the information had been filed, except upon order of the court. However, Section 7 was amended by Administrative Order No. 15, Series of 2000, to require leave of court for motions for reconsideration in cases where an information has already been filed. Crucially, the amended rule no longer bars the OSP from filing the Information while a motion for reconsideration is pending. Therefore, the preliminary investigation is considered full and complete upon the finding of probable cause and the filing of the Information. The Sandiganbayan's directive for a "full and complete preliminary investigation" implicitly granted the necessary leave for the OSP to act on any subsequent motions, and its subsequent inaction and misinterpretation of the rules led to the erroneous dismissal.
Main Doctrine
The Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing criminal cases due to alleged inordinate delay in the conduct of preliminary investigation, as the delay was primarily attributable to the Sandiganbayan's own inaction and misinterpretation of procedural rules regarding motions for reconsideration, and the accused failed to demonstrate prejudice.