Case Digest (G.R. No. 235965-66)
Facts:
Rene C. Figueroa v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 235965-66, February 15, 2022, First Division, Lopez, M., J., arose from criminal charges filed by the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) and prosecuted by the Office of the Ombudsman through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, docketed as SB16-CRM-0326 and SB16-CRM-0327 before the Sandiganbayan Special Third Division. Petitioner Rene Figueroa sought relief under Rule 65 (certiorari and prohibition) after the Sandiganbayan denied his motion to quash.On June 21, 2011, PAGCOR filed a complaint against Rene and other officers for corruption; the complaint was endorsed for preliminary investigation on July 19, 2011. The Ombudsman ordered respondents to file counter-affidavits on July 29, 2011; Rene received the order on August 16, 2011, requested an additional ten days, and filed his counter-affidavit on September 5, 2011. The Ombudsman issued a joint resolution finding probable cause on September 22, 2014; motions for reconsideration were filed on January 12, 2015 and denied on January 28, 2015.
On June 3, 2016 the Ombudsman filed informations against Rene. The Office of the Special Prosecutor later sought formal amendments (e.g., middle names, correct designation); these amendments were approved March 6, 2017 and the amended informations were admitted by the Sandiganbayan on July 4, 2017. Rene moved to quash the informations on July 20, 2017, alleging inordinate delay in the preliminary investigation (more than six years from complaint filing to admission of amended informations). The Sandiganbayan denied the motion on October 11, 2017, reasoning the delay was reasonable, that Rene had not raised the speedy-disposition issue before the Ombudsman, and that the de...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Ombudsman commit an inordinate delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation so as to violate petitioner’s right to speedy disposition of cases under Article III, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution?
- Did petitioner waive his right to speedy disposition by failing to raise the issue before the Ombudsman?
- Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)