Case Digest (G.R. No. 274922)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan (First Division), Teddy C. Tumang and William B. Colis, G.R. No. 274922, February 17, 2025, the Supreme Court Third Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court.The petition was filed by the People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman, against the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan (First Division) that granted a Motion to Quash Informations and dismissed Criminal Case Nos. SB-24-CRM-0013 to 0043. The respondents in the underlying criminal cases are Teddy C. Tumang, former Municipal Mayor of Mexico, Pampanga, and William B. Colis, proprietor of Buyu Trading and Construction.
The facts began with a Complaint-Affidavit filed on December 13, 2017 by the Field Investigation Bureau of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, alleging that in 2006–2007 the Municipality of Mexico purchased construction materials from Buyu, that Tumang approved disbursements and checks in Buyu’s favor, and that the Commission on Audit issued Notices of Disallowance for those payments. On February 7, 2018, Tumang and Colis were ordered to file counter-affidavits, which they did on February 28, 2018.
On November 20, 2018, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer III Esther J. Velasco-Legaspi issued a Resolution finding probable cause to indict the respondents for twenty-nine counts under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and two counts of malversation (Art. 217, RPC). The Resolution received successive approvals within the Ombudsman hierarchy and was finally approved by Ombudsman Samuel R. Martires on March 28, 2019. The respondents filed Motions for Reconsideration in May 2019; the Office of the Ombudsman denied those motions only on April 23, 2024, and the corresponding Informations were filed in court on April 25, 2024. The cases were raffled to the Sandiganbayan (First Division) as SB-24-CRM-0013 to 0043.
Before arraignment, on May 30, 2024, Tumang and Colis filed a Motion to Quash Informations and/or Dismiss the Cases asserting that: (a) the facts, even if true, did not constitute an offense; (b) the Informations contained averments amounting to legal excuse or justification; (c) no conspiracy or overt acts were alleged; and (d) their right to speedy disposition of cases was violated by the prolonged preliminary investigation. The Office of the Ombudsman opposed the motion on June 3, 2024.
On June 10, 2024, the Sandiganbayan (First Division) granted the Motion to Quash and dismissed the cases, finding inordinate delay in the preliminary investigation (counted from December 13, 2017 to April 25, 2024), rejecting the Ombudsman’s invocation of the COVID-19 pandemic as a sufficient justification—noting the national state of emergency was lifted on July 23, 2023 while the Ombudsman resolved motions only in April 2024—and concluding the delay prejudiced the respondents’ ability to defend themselves. The Sandiganbayan ordered release of cash bonds and lifting of the Hold Departure Order.
The Office of the Ombudsman filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 on August 9, 2024, contending the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion (1) in ruling there was inordinate delay and a violation of respondents’ right to speedy disposition...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion in finding an inordinate delay in the preliminary investigation and in holding that Tumang and Colis’ right to speedy disposition of their cases was violated?
- Was the COVID‑19 pandemic a sufficient and reasonable justification for the delay in the Ombudsman’s handling of the preliminary investigation?
- Did the respondents waive their right to speedy disposition by not asserting it earlier or by availing themselves of Ombudsman remedies during the preliminary investigation?
- Was there a lack of proof that the respondents suffere...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)