G.R. No. L-37494 - Sy y Lim vs. Court of Appeals

The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman, filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 against the Sandiganbayan (First Division).
The case involves respondents Teddy C. Tumang, former Municipal Mayor of Mexico, Pampanga, and William B. Colis, proprietor of Buyu Trading and Construction.
The Sandiganbayan granted their Motion to Quash Informations and/or Dismiss the Cases in Criminal Case Nos. SB-24-CRM-0013 to 0043.

The Complaint-Affidavit was filed on December 13, 2017, by the Field Investigation Bureau of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon.
Charges were for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
It was alleged that in 2006-2007, the Municipality of Mexico, Pampanga, purchased construction materials from Buyu, and Tumang illegally approved payments to Buyu.
The Commission on Audit had issued Notices of Disallowance for payments made to Buyu.

Tumang and Colis received the Order to file Counter-Affidavits on February 7, 2018, which they did on February 28, 2018.
On November 20, 2018, the Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer found probable cause to indict them for 29 counts of graft and 2 counts of malversation.
The Resolution was approved by higher officials including Ombudsman Samuel R. Martires by March 28, 2019.
Tumang and Colis filed Motions for Reconsideration in May 2019, which were denied only in April 2024.
Informations were filed on April 25, 2024, with cases raffled to the Sandiganbayan (First Division).

Before arraignment, on May 30, 2024, respondents filed a Motion to Quash Informations citing:

Facts do not constitute an offense.
Legal excuse or justification in the Informations.
No allegation of conspiracy or overt act.
Violation of the right to speedy trial owing to delay from complaint filing to filing of Informations.

Sandiganbayan granted the Motion on June 10, 2024 and dismissed the cases.
It held there was inordinate delay in the preliminary investigation exceeding six years.
The Sandiganbayan did not accept COVID-19 pandemic as justification, noting the state of emergency was lifted in July 2023 but motions were only resolved in April 2024.
The delay was deemed prejudicial to the respondents' defense.

Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling there was inordinate delay.
COVID-19 pandemic justified delay.
Respondents did not assert the right to speedy disposition during preliminary investigation and availed Ombudsman remedies, thus waiving the right.
No showing of prejudice due to the delay.

Whether there was inordinate delay in the preliminary investigation proceedings violating respondents' right to speedy disposition of their case.
Whether the COVID-19 pandemic and other circumstances justified or excused the delay.
Whether respondents waived their right to speedy disposition by not asserting it during preliminary investigation and by filing motions for reconsideration.
Whether the delay caused actual prejudice to the respondents' ability to defend themselves.
Whether the dismissal of the cases based on inordinate delay amounts to an acquittal barring further prosecution under the doctrine of double jeopardy.