873 Phil. 951
CAGUIOA, J:
That on 26 March 2004, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Province of Isabela, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Provincial Accountant PETE GERALD L. JAVIER a high-ranking public officer being then a provincial department head, and Provincial Agriculturist DANILO B. TUMAMAO, together with the late Provincial Vice-Governor Santiago P. Respicio, while in the performance of their administrative and/or official functions and committing the crime in relation to office, taking advantage of their official position, acting with evident bad faith, manifest partiality and/or gross inexcusable negligence, conspiring and confederating with one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and/or criminally cause undue injury to the government for in the amount of as (sic) Nine Million Four Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Four Pesos (P9,475,794.00), more or less, representing the overpriced amount in the purchase of 15,333 bottles of Bio Nature Liquid Fertilizer at P750.00 per bottle or a total payment of Eleven million four hundred ninety-nine thousand and seven hundred fifty pesos (P11,499,750.00), despite the absence of a public bidding in the procurement process and failure of the supplier, Feshan Philippines (Feshan), to meet the mandated requirements specified in Section 8(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1144 which prohibits the sale and distribution of fertilizers and pesticide without securing from the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority the necessary license, which defects accused knew fully well, were in violation of Republic Act No. 9184 (The Government Procurement Reform Act) and other pertinent existing rules and regulations, thereby giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to Feshan, to the damage and prejudice of the government.The Sandiganbayan set the date of the supposed arraignment. Javier and Tumamao, however, manifested that they were not ready for arraignment as they intended to file a motion to quash on the ground of inordinate delay.[11] They then filed the Motion to Quash[12] on November 24, 2017, arguing that the period constituting five years and four months from the filing of the complaint to the approval of the resolution finding probable cause constituted delay which violated their right to speedy disposition of cases. Javier and Tumamao cited the following jurisprudence wherein the cases were dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay: (a) Tatad v. Sandiganbayan,[13] where the delay was close to three years; (b) Duterte v. Sandiganbayan,[14] where the delay was more than four years; and (c) People v. Sandiganbayan, First Division, et al. and People v. Sandiganbayan, Second Division, et al.[15] (People v. Sandiganbayan), where the delay was around five years and five months.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[10]
First, the right to speedy disposition of cases is different from the right to speedy trial. While the rationale for both rights is the same, the right to speedy trial may only be invoked in criminal prosecutions against courts of law. The right to speedy disposition of cases, however, may be invoked before any tribunal, whether judicial or quasi-judicial. What is important is that the accused may already be prejudiced by the proceeding for the right to speedy disposition of cases to be invoked.From the foregoing guidelines, the Court concludes that, as will be explained below, the right to speedy disposition of cases of both Javier and Tumamao were violated by the Ombudsman's delay in concluding the preliminary investigation.
Second, a case is deemed initiated upon the filing of a formal complaint prior to a conduct of a preliminary investigation. This Court acknowledges, however, that the Ombudsman should set reasonable periods for preliminary investigation, with due regard to the complexities and nuances of each case. Delays beyond this period will be taken against the prosecution. The period taken for fact-finding investigations prior to the filing of the formal complaint shall not be included in the determination of whether there has been inordinate delay.
Third, courts must first determine which party carries the burden of proof. If the right is invoked within the given time periods contained in current Supreme Court resolutions and circulars, and the time periods that will be promulgated by the Office of the Ombudsman, the defense has the burden of proving that the right was justifiably invoked. If the delay occurs beyond the given time period and the right is invoked, the prosecution has the burden of justifying the delay.
If the defense has the burden of proof, it must prove first, whether the case is motivated by malice or clearly only politically motivated and is attended by utter lack of evidence, and second, that the defense did not contribute to the delay.
Once the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution, the prosecution must prove first, that it followed the prescribed procedure in the conduct of preliminary investigation and in the prosecution of the case; second, that the complexity of the issues and the volume of evidence made the delay inevitable; and third, that no prejudice was suffered by the accused as a result of the delay.
Fourth, determination of the length of delay is never mechanical. Courts must consider the entire context of the case, from the amount of evidence to be weighed to the simplicity or complexity of the issues raised.
An exception to this rule is if there is an allegation that the prosecution of the case was solely motivated by malice, such as when the case is politically motivated or when there is continued prosecution despite utter lack of evidence. Malicious intent may be gauged from the behavior of the prosecution throughout the proceedings. If malicious prosecution is properly alleged and substantially proven, the case would automatically be dismissed without need of further analysis of the delay.
Another exception would be the waiver of the accused to the right to speedy disposition of cases or the right to speedy trial. If it can be proven that the accused acquiesced to the delay, the constitutional right can no longer be invoked.
In all cases of dismissals due to inordinate delay, the causes of the delays must be properly laid out and discussed by the relevant court.
Fifth, the right to speedy disposition of cases or the right to speedy trial must be timely raised. The respondent or the accused must file the appropriate motion upon the lapse of the statutory or procedural periods. Otherwise, they are deemed to have waived their right to speedy disposition of cases.[20]
first, that it followed the prescribed procedure in the conduct of preliminary investigation and in the prosecution of the case; second, that the complexity of the issues and the volume of evidence made the delay inevitable; and third, that no prejudice was suffered by the accused as a result of the delay.[27]In stark contrast, however, the prosecution, in its Comment/Opposition[28] to the Motion to Quash, justified the delay of five years by merely claiming that the case had voluminous records, without offering any proof as to the said assertion or at least specifying how voluminous such records were. The prosecution basically relied on such unsubstantiated claim, and rested on the Court's recognition in a previous case that there is a steady stream of cases that reaches their office. The Ombudsman simply argued:
x x x Accused-movants' assertion that the issues relating to the instant case are not complicated as would justify more than 5 years of preliminary investigation deserves scant consideration. It must be noted that the case at hand has voluminous records, thus each document demands careful scrutiny to ensure that justice is fairly served.Despite the Ombudsman's bare assertions above, the Sandiganbayan still denied Javier and Tumamao's Motion to Quash, reasoning as follows:
x x x Let it also be emphasized that the complaints lodged before the Office of the Ombudsman are endless. Thus, the Supreme Court has already taken judicial notice of the steady stream of cases reaching the Office of the Ombudsman. As held in Dansal v. Judge Fernandez, Sr., the Supreme Court held that: "(J)udicial notice should be taken of the fact that the nature of the Office of the Ombudsman encourages individuals who clamor for efficient government service to freely lodge their Complaints against wrongdoings of government personnel, thus resulting in steady stream of cases reaching the Office of the Ombudsman."[29] (Emphasis in the original)
According to the prosecution, it took a long time to terminate the preliminary investigation because the Office of the Ombudsman had to go through voluminous records in properly evaluating and resolving the Complaint filed before it. Aside from the present case, the Office of the Ombudsman also handled other cases. Inevitably, the termination of the preliminary investigation took some time.Notably, the Sandiganbayan provided its own justification for the delay, i.e., the number of respondents and the number of charges against them, even if the Ombudsman itself did not claim that these factors caused the delay.
The Court finds that the prosecution provided a valid justification for the delay.
The Court notes that the Information filed is only for violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. However, a reading of the Complaint filed by Task Force Abono would show that the same was for the following offenses:
1. Violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019;
2. Violation of Sec. 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019;
3. Malversation through Falsification under Art. 217 in relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code; and
4. Violation of Section 65.2(4) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9184.
Furthermore, although only accused Javier and Tumamao ended up being charged in Court for violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, it must be noted that there were ten (10) respondents involved.
Because of the number of charges against the respondents, the Office of the Ombudsman had to evaluate more documents. Some documents relevant to one or some of the charges may not be relevant to the others. On the other hand, all ten (10) respondents had to be given an opportunity to explain their side, in view of their right to due process. This means that the Office of the Ombudsman had to evaluate their respective counter-affidavits, as well as their respective countervailing evidence.
The preliminary investigation in the present case necessarily took more time to conduct than in a simpler case involving fewer respondents and fewer charges. Be it noted that aside from the present case, the Office of the Ombudsman also hand led other cases.[30]
The defense must also prove that it exerted meaningful efforts to protect accused 's constitutional rights. In Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan, the failure of the accused to timely invoke the right to speedy disposition of cases may work to his or her disadvantage, since this could indicate his or her acquiescence to the delay[.]Here, the Court holds that Javier and Tumamao's acts, or their inaction, did not amount to acquiescence. While it is true that the records are bereft of any indication that Javier and/or Tumamao "followed-up" on the resolution of their case, the same could not be construed to mean that they acquiesced to the delay of five years.
Being the respondents in the preliminary investigation proceedings, it was not the petitioners' duty to follow up on the prosecution of their case. Conversely, it was the Office of the Ombudsman 's responsibility to expedite the same within the bounds of reasonable timeliness in view of its mandate to promptly act on all complaints lodged before it.[33]The Court in Cagang did not explicitly abandon Coscolluela — considering that it explicitly abandoned People v. Sandiganbayan in the said case — and even cited it in one of its discussions. Thus, the pronouncements in Coscolluela remain good law, and may still be considered in determining whether the right to speedy disposition of cases was properly invoked.
Sec. 3. Rules of Court , application. - In all matters not provided in these rules, the Rules of Court shall apply in a suppletory character, or by analogy whenever practicable and convenient.[26] REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Rule 112, Section 3(f).