G.R. No. 236408 - Baterina vs. Sandiganbayan, 2nd Division

The case originated from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) cases involving the alleged misuse of pork barrel funds by certain lawmakers, including petitioner Salacnib F. Baterina, who served as Representative of the 1st District of Ilocos Sur from 1998 to 2007.
Petitioner was charged with multiple offenses including:

The criminal complaints and subsequent actions were tied to several Special Allotment Release Orders (SAROs) involving a total amount of P35,000,000.00.

On November 29, 2013, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed the “NBI-Baligod Complaint” (docketed as OMB-C-C-13-0409) against petitioner, centered on the alleged misuse of his 2007 PDAF allotment.
The SARO funds were reportedly transferred through the Technology Resource Center (TRC) to two non-government organizations to finance livelihood projects in the 1st District.
Responding to the complaint, petitioner filed a Counter-Affidavit on July 25, 2014, and later, on May 29, 2015, a new complaint (FIO-Complaint, docketed as OMB-C-C-15-0150) was initiated by the Field Investigation Office (FIO) for both the same subject matter as the NBI-Baligod Complaint and additional allegations involving other SAROs.
Petitioner maintained that he had submitted his Counter-Affidavit in response to the FIO-Complaint on July 21, 2015, although the Ombudsman later considered that he had waived his right by failing to file it as required.

On May 4, 2016, the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause to indict petitioner and other respondents for the various offenses, which eventually led to the filing of seven criminal Informations in the Sandiganbayan.
On June 24, 2016, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration regarding the OMB’s findings, which was subsequently denied in a Joint Order dated November 7, 2016.
On March 17, 2017, the Sandiganbayan raffled the seven Informations filed against petitioner and others.
Petitioner then filed an Omnibus Motion on May 25, 2017, seeking to quash the Informations on several grounds including:

The first, dated September 22, 2017, denied the Omnibus Motion on the ground of lack of merit.
The second, dated December 12, 2017, denied the Motion for Reconsideration, holding that there was no cogent reason to disturb the OMB’s earlier finding.

Petitioner argued that the Sandiganbayan’s rulings were tainted by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction because:

The OMB improperly ordered a further fact-finding investigation after having initiated a preliminary investigation related to the NBI-Baligod Complaint.
There was a misconstruction and mishandling of the investigative stages, including the alleged disregard of his Counter-Affidavit.
The proceedings allegedly infringed his right to due process by not properly recognizing procedural defaults such as the non-receipt or exclusion of his Counter-Affidavit.
The inquiry’s delay (amounting to three years, three months, and 18 days) amounted to a violation of his right to a speedy disposition of the case.
There was claimed bias on the part of the head of Task Force PDAF and alleged procedural irregularities in the investigation of the kickback and establishment of the alleged bribe amount.

In support of these allegations, petitioner cited specific grievances ranging from the mixing of new and old data in the investigation to claims that the OMB had overstepped its mandate as conferred by its administrative order.

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction by ruling that the OMB has the authority to order a fact-finding investigation even after having initiated a preliminary investigation on the NBI-Baligod Complaint pursuant to Section 2, Rule II of OMB Administrative Order No. 07.
Whether the Sandiganbayan abused its discretion—and thus acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction—by failing to recognize that petitioner was denied due process of law in relation to the handling of his Counter-Affidavit and other procedural actions.
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in its finding that petitioner’s right to a speedy disposition of the criminal case was not violated in light of the elapsed period of three years, three months, and 18 days from the initial filing of the NBI-Baligod Complaint to the filing of the criminal Informations.