G.R. No. 204267 - Almeda vs. Office of the Ombudsman

In 2001, Luz S. Almeda, then Schools Division Superintendent of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports in Surigao del Norte, along with several public officers and employees, was charged administratively and criminally in connection with the alleged improper use and disbursement of the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF).
The charges were consolidated in a docketed case designated OMB-MIN-01-0183, which involved petitioner and co-respondents—including the Surigao del Norte Congressman, Constantino H. Navarro, Jr.—with the alleged violation of Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019 forming one of the bases for indictment.

On March 19, 2003, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer (GIPO) II Hilde C. dela Cruz-Likit issued a Resolution finding probable cause to indict petitioner and her co-accused for violations of Sections 3(e) and (g) of RA 3019.
The Resolution, which underwent minor modifications by then Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo, ultimately paved the way for the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) to take over the case and prepare the corresponding Information.

Petitioner received a copy of the approved Resolution on May 29, 2003, and subsequently filed her Motion for Reconsideration on July 3, 2003 – through a courier service – requesting the reversal of the Resolution and asking to hold in abeyance the filing of the Information in court.
An advance copy of the motion was sent by fax on June 16, 2003, and a separate Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Filing of the Information was filed on July 7, 2003, which was later transmitted to the Ombudsman for necessary action.

On July 18, 2003, dela Cruz-Likit issued an Order giving due course to the motions for reconsideration, directing that copies be served on key parties including Constantino H. Navarro, Jr. and relevant auditors, with a ten-day period for their comment or opposition.
Subsequently, petitioner filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration on August 25, 2003. Later developments saw both petitioner’s motions and accompanying pleadings forwarded, via indorsements by the Ombudsman for Mindanao and the Deputy Ombudsman, to the appropriate offices—first to then Ombudsman Marcelo and later to the OSP.
In 2010 and 2011, petitioner sent a letter and filed Manifestations seeking early resolution; despite these efforts, the case witnessed administrative “ping-pong” between the Ombudsman and the OSP, partly due to issues such as the absence of an assigned GIPO when dela Cruz-Likit went on study leave.
On August 8, 2012, petitioner filed a third Manifestation reiterating her right to a speedy trial and decrying the prolonged inaction and reversal in handling jurisdiction, thereby contending that her constitutional rights were being violated.

On September 6, 2012, the Ombudsman for Mindanao, through dela Cruz-Likit, issued an Order denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration on the ground that the motions were filed out of time as prescribed by Section 7(a), Rule II of Administrative Order No. 07.
The Order also noted that the issues raised in the motions were already previously considered and were better suited for resolution in court, and that the motions to hold in abeyance the filing of the Information were properly filed by petitioner herself.
Consequently, the corresponding Information for the alleged violation under RA 3019 was directed to be filed with the Regional Trial Court of Dapa, Surigao del Norte.

Whether the public respondent (the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao) violated petitioner’s constitutional right to speedy trial and prompt disposition of cases by failing to resolve her Motion for Reconsideration and her Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Filing of Information for a period of nine (9) years.

Whether, based on the facts of the case, the respondent Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it refused to order the dismissal of the case (OMB-MIN-01-0183), despite the clear violation of petitioner’s constitutional right to speedy trial and prompt disposition of cases.