Case Digest (G.R. No. 213104)
Facts:
Cesar Matas Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division, Office of the Ombudsman, and People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458; G.R. Nos. 210141-42, July 31, 2018, Supreme Court En Banc, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Cesar Matas Cagang (then Provincial Treasurer of Sarangani) was implicated by a Commission on Audit report (Dec. 31, 2002) and an anonymous complaint (filed Feb. 10, 2003) alleging diversion and misappropriation of provincial funds through dummy cooperatives. The complaints were docketed with the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) (CPL-M-03-0163 and CPL-M-03-0729) and ultimately consolidated in OMB preliminary-investigation proceedings (OMB-M-C-0487-J), which involved a large number of accused (initially about 180, later narrowed).
The OMB issued various orders: a Joint Order (Sept. 30, 2003) directing counter-affidavits; an August 11, 2004 Resolution finding probable cause against several officials (modified by a Supplemental Order, Oct. 18, 2004, to order further fact-finding as to some respondents); and a separate preliminary investigation (OMB-M-C-0480-K) that resulted in an April 12, 2005 Resolution recommending charges against other persons. Reproducing voluminous records and administrative steps caused delays in furnishing documents; some respondents obtained an RTC TRO in late 2003 which was later dismissed, and some counter-affidavits were filed thereafter.
The OMB filed an Information (July 12, 2005) in the Sandiganbayan (Crim. Case No. 28331) charging several officials including petitioner; the Sandiganbayan acquitted Cagang in that case by Decision dated June 17, 2010. Later, after prosecutorial memoranda and review, OMB Secretary Conchita Carpio-Morales approved the filing of further Informations, and on November 17, 2011 Informations were filed in Criminal Case Nos. SB-11-0456 and SB-11-0457 charging Cagang (and others) with malversation through falsification and violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
Cagang moved to quash/dismiss these new Informations and to void an alleged order of arrest, asserting an inordinate delay (about seven–eight years) in the termination of the OMB preliminary investigations and invoking Tatad v. Sandiganbayan and Roque v. Ombudsman. The Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division denied the motions (Resolution Sept. 10, 2012; reconsideration denied Jan. 15, 2013), reasoning among other things that (a) the accused had voluntarily submitted to the court by filing motions, (b) the case involved many accused and many transactions, and (c) petitioner only invoked his speedy-disposition right after filing of the Informations.
Cagang filed certiorari petitions with the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 206438 & 206458 and, after the Sandiganbayan denied his urgent motion to quash an alleged warrant of arrest, G.R. Nos. 210141-42). This Court issued a temporary restr...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the pendency of a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court automatically suspend proceedings before the Sandiganbayan in the absence of injunctive relief?
- Is the denial of a motion to quash an Information an appropriate subject of a petition for certiorari?
- Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion in denying Cagang’s Motion to Quash/Dismiss and motions to quash the order of arrest on the ground of inordinate del...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)