Case Digest (G.R. No. 199151-56)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. The Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division, G.R. Nos. 199151-56, July 25, 2016, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. The petition challenges Sandiganbayan resolutions of October 15, 2010 and September 16, 2011 that granted motions to quash or dismiss informations filed with the Sandiganbayan arising from an Ombudsman preliminary investigation.Petitioner is the People of the Philippines (prosecution). Public respondent is the Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division. Private respondents are numerous former Philippine Air Force officers and civilian personnel, including Lt. Gen. Leopoldo S. Acot, B/Gen. Ildefenso N. Dulinayan, and others, who were charged with violations of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
On December 28, 1994 a complaint was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman—MOLEO (Military and Other Law Enforcement Officers) alleging ghost deliveries and government loss amounting to P89 million. MOLEO conducted fact-finding; the Office of the Inspector General of the Philippine Air Force had earlier reported unaccounted supplies and ghost deliveries. MOLEO’s investigators prepared a Resolution on April 12, 1996 recommending six counts of violation of Section 3(e), R.A. 3019 and related malversation/falsification counts. Subsequent memoranda (July 10, 1996; January 12, 1998) recommended narrower charges and, in 1998, Ombudsman Aniano Desierto approved the April 12, 1996 Resolution with modifications (dropping charges as recommended against Acot and Dulinayan).
Despite that approval, the case was re-evaluated on January 12, 1999, and again subjected to further reviews after a change in the Ombudsman in 2003. MOLEO received the records for preparation of informations on April 27, 2005; further memoranda and referrals followed (July 7, 2005 memorandum, referral to Office of Legal Affairs on September 19, 2005). A Review Memorandum by OLA finding probable cause was prepared June 25, 2007 and approved by Deputy Ombudsman on October 23, 2008. Ultimately, six informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan on October 6, 2009 (docketed SB-09-CRM-0184 to -0189).
Arraignment was set November 20, 2009. Various respondents filed motions to quash or dismiss (November 2009–February 2010) asserting an inordinate delay—almost fifteen years from complaint to filing—violated their constitutional rights to due process and to a speedy disposition (Article III, Sec. 16, 1987 Constitution). The prosecution replied that respondents failed to timely assert the right and that the State’s interest in prosecution and the magnitude of the loss warranted careful hierarchical review (citing precedents such as Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan).
On October 15, 2010 the Sandiganbayan granted several motions to quash, finding the Ombudsman’s protracted re-evaluations and hierarchical reviews produced a vexatious and oppressive delay—seven years of re‑evaluation alone and nearly fifteen years from complaint to filing—without adequate justification and with prejudice to the accused. On September 16, 2011 the Sandiganbayan denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration and granted additional motions to quash by other responde...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy to challenge the Sandiganbayan’s grant of motions to quash that resulted in dismissal of criminal informations?
- Did the Sandiganbayan gravely abuse its discretion or act without jurisdiction in granting motions to quash on the ground of inordinate delay, i.e., was the accused respondents’ constitutional right to speed...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)