G.R. No. 232029-40 - Chingkoe vs. Sandiganbayan, 1st Division

Petitioners Grace T. Chingkoe and Uldarico P. Andutan, Jr. initiated separate Petitions for Certiorari assailing resolutions rendered by the Sandiganbayan.
The petitions challenge the denial of their motions to quash the criminal Informations on the grounds that their constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases was violated.

On March 18, 2003, the Special Presidential Task Force 156 filed a Complaint against officials and employees of the One-Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center of the Department of Finance as well as private individuals, related to alleged irregularities in the issuance of tax credit certificates.
In connection with the complaint:

Uldarico Andutan, then deputy executive director of the Center, was accused of having given unwarranted benefits by showing manifest partiality and gross inexcusable negligence in recommending approvals and transfers involving Filstar Textile Industrial Corporation, Petron Corporation, and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation.
Grace T. Chingkoe, corporate secretary of Filstar, was accused of using and submitting falsified documents in connection with the issuance and subsequent transfer of tax credit certificates.

On August 20, 2003, Chingkoe filed her Counter-Affidavit denying the allegations and arguing that her liability arose solely from her status as an incorporator of Filstar.
On February 23, 2009, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause to indict Chingkoe, Andutan, and other respondents; the Resolution was later approved by Deputy Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro on March 18, 2009.
On March 26, 2009, several Informations for violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (and for estafa through falsification of public documents) were filed against the petitioners and other respondents before the Sandiganbayan.
On October 20, 2009, Chingkoe sought reconsideration of the Ombudsman's Joint Resolution by filing a Memorandum.
On August 25, 2016, Chingkoe filed her Motion to Quash, faulting the Office of the Ombudsman for an inordinate delay of six years in concluding the preliminary investigation—alleging this delay violated her constitutional rights to due process and speedy disposition of cases.
Andutan later adopted Chingkoe’s Motion, and both petitioners filed respective Replies to the prosecution’s Consolidated Comment/Opposition, which argued that their failure to timely raise the issue amounted to waiver.
The Sandiganbayan rendered a Resolution denying the Motion to Quash/Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the petitioners’ motion was belatedly filed after their arraignment.

Chingkoe contended that the prolonged preliminary investigation—lasting more than six years—violated her constitutional right to speedy disposition, arguing that her arraignment did not preclude her from questioning the jurisdiction of the court or the validity of the Informations filed.
Andutan similarly invoked the violation of his right by alleging that the inordinate delay invalidated the authority of the prosecution to file the Informations and that his subsequent arraignment did not operate as a waiver of this right.
Both petitioners also raised issues regarding due process and, in Chingkoe’s case, equal protection, asserting that other accused were not similarly treated.

The prosecution maintained that the delays in the preliminary investigation were not unreasonable and attributable to ordinary judicial processes, further arguing that the petitioners’ failure to raise the issue in a timely manner waived their right to object.
Prior resolutions by the Sandiganbayan – including motions for reconsideration filed by the petitioners later on – had been denied for lack of merit.
Subsequent orders consolidated and managed the procedural aspects of these Petitions for Certiorari, which led to the present decision.

Whether or not the petitioners’ constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases was violated by the inordinate delay in the preliminary investigation and subsequent filing of Informations against them.

Whether the petitioners’ arraignment constitutes a waiver of their right to assert the violation of speedy disposition of cases and the jurisdiction of the filing officer.
Whether the prosecution’s delay in conducting and concluding the preliminary investigation was justifiable given the complexity of the case and volume of evidence.
Whether petitioners’ claims of violation of equal protection are sustainable given their failure to demonstrate that they were treated differently in circumstances comparable to the other accused.