G.R. No. 109376 - Domingo vs. Sandiganbayan

On May 26, 1987, the Philippine National Bank (PNB) filed a complaint with the Tanodbayan against former President Ferdinand E. Marcos; Rodolfo M. Cuenca, then president of the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP); and Joaquin T. Venus, Jr., former Deputy Presidential Assistant. The complaint was docketed as TBP Case No. 87-02391.
Petitioner Panfilo O. Domingo was not initially a respondent but was subpoenaed on September 1, 1987, as evidence suggested his involvement. The subpoena was returned unserved, as Domingo was no longer connected with PNB at the address indicated.

The Tanodbayan's authority to conduct investigations was questioned and temporarily nullified by the Supreme Court, prompting Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez to issue Administrative Order No. 1 on June 8, 1988, authorizing the continuation of preliminary investigations.
On February 6, 1992, Special Prosecution Officer (SPO) III Teresita V. Diaz-Baldos found probable cause and directed Domingo to submit a counter-affidavit, which he did on March 9, 1992.
On July 9, 1992, SPO Diaz-Baldos recommended prosecution of Domingo and Cuenca for violating Section 3(e) in relation to Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019. The complaint as to Marcos and Venus was dismissed.
The information was filed with the Sandiganbayan on July 30, 1992 as Criminal Case No. 17847.

Domingo, as PNB president, allegedly conspired with Cuenca to grant CDCP unwarranted benefits, particularly facilitating approval by the PNB Board of a U.S. $40 million letter of credit without collateral, causing undue injury to PNB that assumed a $29 million obligation after CDCP defaulted.
Domingo filed a petition for reinvestigation on August 11, 1992, treated as a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on January 14, 1993.
On February 19, 1993, Domingo filed a motion to quash the information alleging prescription and that the facts did not constitute an offense, denied by the Sandiganbayan on March 15, 1993.
During arraignment on August 17, 1993, Domingo refused to plead, and a plea of not guilty was entered for him.

Domingo claimed violation of his right to a speedy trial due to delay in preliminary investigation and filing of the information.
The prosecution explained that delays were due to legal challenges in the Tanodbayan's authority, restructuring, prosecutor retirement, and giving Domingo opportunity to submit a counter-affidavit.
The Supreme Court noted the delay did not prejudice Domingo but rather protected his right to defend himself.

Whether the criminal action against Domingo has been extinguished by prescription.
Whether the facts charged in the information constitute an offense under Section 3(e) in relation to Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended.
Whether Domingo's right to a speedy trial was violated by the delay in preliminary investigation and filing of information.
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Domingo's motion to quash the information.