Title
Gonzales vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 94750
Decision Date
Jul 16, 1991
Former BFAR director Gonzales challenged delays in preliminary investigations, alleging due process violations, but the Supreme Court ruled delays were not solely prosecutorial, dismissing his petition.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 223125)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Background
    • Petitioner: Felix R. Gonzales, the former Director of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR).
    • Respondents:
      • The Sandiganbayan (First Division);
      • The Ombudsman; and
      • Antonio B. Baltazar, former Chief of the Deep Sea Fishing Demonstration Division, BFAR.
    • Context: The case arises out of an agreement between BFAR, represented by Gonzales, and Roberto F. Palanca for the experimental use of the “Otoshi-Ami Net” (also known as the “Lambaklad”) in test fishing operations.
  • Initiation of Allegations and Complaints
    • November 11, 1975: Baltazar filed an affidavit-complaint with the City Fiscal of Manila charging Gonzales with malversation of public funds and property involving the alleged illegal use of M/V Albacora.
    • December 16, 1976: The City Fiscal’s Office issued a resolution finding a prima facie case; however, Gonzales petitioned for review with the Ministry of Justice, which dismissed the complaint on the same day.
    • Subsequent Filing: Baltazar filed another complaint-affidavit with the Tanodbayan (now Ombudsman), which was docketed as TBP Case No. 83-01547. This complaint charged Gonzales not only with the illegal use of the M/V Albacora but also with the loss of the Lambaklad net. Gonzales responded with a counter-affidavit denying the allegations.
  • Developments in the Preliminary Investigation
    • March 16, 1984: Tanodbayan Special Prosecutor Carlos D. Montemayor issued a resolution recommending the dismissal of the first charge (illegal use of the vessel) due to lack of merit and ordering a preliminary investigation for the second charge (loss of the net). This resolution was approved by Bernardo P. Fernandez.
    • October 8, 1984: In response to the preliminary investigation initiated by Special Prosecutor Reynaldo L. Mendoza, a resolution was issued recommending the dismissal of TBP Case No. 83-01547 for insufficiency of evidence; this was approved by Tanodbayan Bernardo P. Fernandez.
    • October 24, 1984: Baltazar filed a Motion for Reconsideration challenging the dismissal.
    • February 28, 1985: Tanodbayan Special Prosecutor Andres B. Reyes, Jr. modified the earlier resolution by ordering a preliminary investigation on the charge for the illegal use of the government vessel and on the negligence in failing to recover the fishing net, with the order subsequently approved by Tanodbayan Raul M. Gonzalez.
    • Consolidation: TBP Case No. 83-01547 was later consolidated with TBP Cases Nos. 84-00787 and 84-02338, involving charges under Sections 12 and 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
    • January 4, 1988: Special Prosecutor Juan F. Templonuevo recommended the dismissal of all three consolidated cases, which was approved on January 28, 1988.
    • February 8, 1988: Baltazar again filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Manifestation challenging the consolidated dismissal.
    • March 20, 1989: Special Investigation Officer Teresita V. Diaz-Baldos recommended the reversal of the dismissal and the filing of an information against Gonzales and Palanca for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. This recommendation was approved by Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez.
    • Filing of Information:
      • May 5, 1989: Based on the approved resolution, an information was filed before the Sandiganbayan charging Gonzales and Palanca.
      • September 12, 1989: An amended information was later filed, excluding Palanca from the charge.
    • December 12, 1989: Gonzales filed a Motion to Dismiss/Quash the information before the Sandiganbayan, arguing:
      • There was an inordinate delay (spanning from May 29, 1984, the date his counter-affidavit was filed, to May 7, 1990, when the amended information was admitted), thereby violating his constitutional rights to due process and speedy disposition.
      • The process was tainted by the filing of multiple motions for reconsideration by Baltazar, allegedly in violation of Rule 13(c) of Administrative Order No. 3 issued by the Tanodbayan.
    • March 19, 1990: In response, the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution denying Gonzales’ motion to dismiss/quash.
    • May 7, 1990: The Sandiganbayan allowed the prosecution’s motion to amend the information and dismissed the case against Palanca.
    • Petition Grounds: Gonzales now seeks a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition coupled with a preliminary injunction, challenging the Sandiganbayan’s resolution on the basis that:
      • The prolonged delay in terminating the preliminary investigation violated his rights to due process and speedy disposition (invoking the doctrine in Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan).
      • The administrative requirement regarding the filing of a second motion for reconsideration under Administrative Order No. 3 was contravened.
  • Contributing Factors to the Delay (as Recounted by the Sandiganbayan)
    • Numerous procedural events and reschedulings after the consolidation of the cases:
      • Scheduling of clarificatory examinations by Special Prosecutor Juan T. Templonuevo.
      • Multiple subpoenas issued to BFAR officials, petitioner, and his counsel.
      • Rescheduling of hearing dates due to motions filed by Gonzales’ counsel, including those prompted by communications from Roberto Palanca.
    • The record shows that delays were partly attributable to the actions of the petitioner and his counsel who, through various motions and the submission of documents at different stages, contributed to the overall delay in the preliminary investigation.
    • The Sandiganbayan emphasized that while there was a noticeable delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation, it was not solely caused by prosecutorial inaction but also by the conduct and interventions of petitioner Gonzales and his legal team.

Issues:

  • Question of Delay and Constitutional Rights
    • Whether the six (6) year period—from the submission of the initial counter-affidavit by Gonzales in May 1984 to the filing and subsequent amendment of the information in May 1990—amounts to an inordinate delay that infringes upon the right to due process and speedy disposition as guaranteed by the Constitution.
    • Whether such delay warrants the annulment of the Sandiganbayan’s resolution denying the Motion to Dismiss/Quash.
  • Compliance with Administrative Order
    • Whether the filing of multiple (or allegedly “second”) motions for reconsideration by Baltazar, as alleged by Gonzales, violates Rule 13(c) of Administrative Order No. 3 issued by the Tanodbayan.
    • Whether such a violation (if any) should have legally compelled the Sandiganbayan to dismiss or quash the amended information.
  • Attribution of Responsibility for Delay
    • Whether the delay in terminating the preliminary investigation can be solely imputed to the actions of the Tanodbayan/Ombudsman and the prosecution.
    • Whether the petitioner's own conduct, including his motions and actions that led to various procedural postponements, contributes significantly to the delay and thus negates his claims.
  • Applicability of the Tatad Doctrine
    • Whether the precedent set in Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan—concerning a three-year delay constituting a violation of constitutional rights—is applicable to the present case, given the different facts and circumstances.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms