Title
Pancho vs. Sandiganbayan, 6th Division
Case
G.R. No. 234886-911
Decision Date
Jun 17, 2020
Former provincial treasurer charged for failing to remit GSIS premiums over a decade; SC ruled no inordinate delay, affirmed charges.
pancho
sandiganbayan
certiorari
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 234886-911)

Facts:

  • Initiation of the Complaint and Preliminary Investigation
    • On October 21, 2013, the Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Office of the Ombudsman, through GIPO I Marie Beth S. Almero, filed a complaint-affidavit dated January 16, 2013.
    • The complaint charged former Nueva Ecija Governor Tomas Joson III and petitioner Edilberto M. Pancho, former Provincial Treasurer, with multiple violations including:
      • Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act);
      • Violation of Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code;
      • Violations of R.A. Nos. 8291, 7875, 9679, and 8424;
      • Gross neglect of duty for failure to remit GSIS premiums and other trust liabilities from 1997 to June 2007.
    • The complaint-affidavit was referred on October 31, 2013, to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, with records received on November 7, 2013.
  • Submission and Correction of Counter-Affidavits
    • On January 7, 2014, the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, through GIPO II Paul Elmer M. Clemente, directed both respondents to submit their counter-affidavits.
    • Petitioner filed his counter-affidavit on January 28, 2014 and later sought to correct a clerical error on February 11, 2014.
    • Joson, on the other hand, sought an extension on February 25, 2014 and submitted his counter-affidavit on March 20, 2014.
  • Handling of the Preliminary Investigation and Draft Resolution
    • On March 18, 2015, the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon approved a request for an extension of time to resolve the complaint.
    • On July 1, 2015, the Special Panel of Investigators, through GIP I Maxlen C. Balanon and GIPO I Elbert L. Bunagan, submitted a draft resolution that found probable cause against petitioner for:
      • Violation of Section 52(g), in relation to Section 6(b) of R.A. No. 8291; and
      • Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019;
while dismissing other charges against petitioner and all charges against Joson.
  • Director Joaquin F. Salazar reviewed the draft resolution on July 6, 2015.
  • Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-A. Morales approved the resolution on September 15, 2016. Notably, petitioner did not seek a reconsideration of this resolution.
  • Filing of Informations and Subsequent Motions
    • On January 31, 2017, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed informations before the Sandiganbayan for:
      • Thirteen counts for violation of Section 52(g), in relation to Section 6(b) of R.A. No. 8291; and
      • Thirteen counts for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 against petitioner.
    • Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash/Dismiss the Informations on May 17, 2017, alleging that:
      • The Office of the Ombudsman lacked authority or had lost jurisdiction due to an inordinate delay in the preliminary investigation;
      • The delay spanned approximately three years and two months from the commencement of the investigation to the filing of the informations.
    • In its Comment/Opposition, the People through the Office of the Special Prosecutor argued that:
      • No inordinate delay occurred;
      • The extensive volume of records, the complexity of the cases, and numerous involved parties justified the time taken.
    • On August 4, 2017, the Sandiganbayan Sixth Division issued a Resolution denying the Motion to Quash/Dismiss, affirming that the total investigation period (three years and twenty-eight days) was justified.
    • Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration, claiming:
      • An error in the indicated date of the Ombudsman's approval of the draft resolution (stating “September 15, 2016” instead of “September 15, 2015”);
      • That the delay between this approval and the filing of the informations amounted to inordinate delay.
    • The People, via the OSP, argued that the Resolution should be viewed in its entirety and that the preparation of informations required the scrutiny of various OMB offices.
    • Petitioner later filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, reiterating two grounds:
      • Inordinate delay in the conducting of the investigation; and
      • The insufficiency of the allegations in constituting an offense.
    • On October 4, 2017, the Sandiganbayan issued a second Resolution that:
      • Denied the Motion for Reconsideration;
      • Affirmed the previous Resolution; and
      • Declared that the erroneous date did not affect the overall justification of the duration, nor did it alter the findings on the sufficiency of the investigation period.
  • Petition for Certiorari and the Court’s Final Action
    • Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari assailing the aforementioned Resolutions on the ground of inordinate delay and the improper filing of charges.
    • The petition argued grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by the Sandiganbayan for not dismissing the cases based on the alleged delay and on the ground that the facts did not constitute an offense.
    • The Court, after reviewing the entire proceedings, found that petitioner’s late invocation of his right to speedy disposition weakened his claim and amounted to a waiver of said right.

Issues:

  • Whether there was an inordinate delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation and in the filing of the informations against petitioner.
    • The petitioner contended that the period of delay—from the approval of the draft resolution by the Ombudsman to the filing of the informations—was excessive and violated his constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases.
    • The issue centered on whether the three-year and twenty-eight-day period was capricious, oppressive, or vexatious.
  • Whether the allegations contained in the informations constituted an offense.
    • Petitioner additionally argued that the specific allegations as set out in the informations did not amount to an offense, and that this ground should have led to the dismissal of the cases.
    • The procedural propriety of raising such a ground at the stage it was presented also became an issue.
  • Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction in:
    • Denying petitioner’s Motion to Quash/Dismiss the Informations; and
    • Failing to dismiss the case on the ground that the allegations did not constitute an offense.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (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. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms