G.R. No. 229656 - People vs. Sandiganbayan

The criminal case arose from the “P728 Million Fertilizer Scam” involving the Department of Agriculture (DA).
In 2004, the Department of Budget and Management issued a Special Allotment Release Order and Notice of Cash Allocation to the DA under the Farm Input/Implement Fund/Program in support of the Ginintuang Masaganang Ani (GMA) Program.
The Province of Pampanga, under the GMA Program, purchased 3,880 bottles (or liters, as noted elsewhere) of Macro-Micro Foliar Fertilizer from Malayan Pacific Trading Corporation (MPTC).

As early as 2006, the Field Investigation Office – Task Force Abono (FIO) of the Ombudsman conducted a fact-finding investigation regarding the procurement, issuing subpoenas duces tecum to various government offices.
The responses to these subpoenas were received in June 2006.
On May 2, 2011, the FIO filed a complaint before the Ombudsman against several officials of the Provincial Government of Pampanga, including respondent Manuel M. Lapid (Governor), and against officials of MPTC (Ma. Victoria M. Aquino-Abubakar, Leolita M. Aquino) and Dexter Alexander S.D. Vasquez of D.A. Vasquez Macro-Micro Fertilizer Resources.

On May 20, 2011, the Ombudsman ordered the respondents to file counter affidavits.
Lapid obtained an extension and filed his counter affidavit on June 30, 2011.
Other respondents, including notable parties, filed their pleadings with the last responsive pleading coming on February 28, 2012.
On November 5, 2012, Lapid’s counsel formally entered appearance and moved for resolution of the complaint.
The Special Panel for the Fertilizer Scam, in its Resolution dated September 18, 2013, found probable cause to indict six respondents (including Lapid, Aquino-Abubakar, Aquino, and Vasquez) for violations of Sections 3(e) and (g) of R.A. No. 3019 concerning breaches of the procurement law.
The Ombudsman approved the panel’s resolution on June 3, 2014.
Subsequent motions for reconsideration by Lapid (and by another respondent, Benjamin G. Yuzon) were denied, with final orders coming in early 2015.

An Information was filed before the Sandiganbayan on November 4, 2015, charging respondents with various violations including bypassing public bidding and overpricing.
On January 8, 2016, prior to arraignment, Lapid moved to dismiss the criminal case on the ground of inordinate delay during the fact-finding, preliminary investigation, and adjudication process.
Aquino-Abubakar, Aquino, and Vasquez adopted Lapid's motion to dismiss; their supplemental arguments were later also filed.
Arraignment took place on February 18, 2016 despite the pending motions.

On September 30, 2016, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the criminal case against Lapid, Aquino-Abubakar, Aquino, and Vasquez on the basis that the right to speedy disposition had been violated.
The Court’s observations noted the lapse from the filing of the complaint (May 2, 2011) to the filing of the Information (November 4, 2015) and the duration consumed by the Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation.
The decision characterized the delay as vexatious, capricious, and oppressive despite arguments by the prosecution regarding the complexity and voluminous records associated with the case.

The People of the Philippines, petitioner through the Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the Special Prosecutor, filed a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan for dismissing the case without applying the full balancing test for inordinate delay.
Petitioner argued that the dismissal improperly deprived the State of its prosecutorial right.
Lapid affirmed that the delay lacked justification in terms of complexity and caused prejudice, such as the loss of the testimony of one of his primary witnesses.
Respondents maintained that the Ombudsman’s delay was due to the inherent complexity of the case and that similar defenses were raised by all parties.

Justice Caguioa’s dissent emphasized that the delay should not be measured solely from the filing of the formal complaint but must include the fact-finding investigation period.
The dissent argued that the extended fact-finding stage (lasting over five years) led to significant prejudice and loss of evidence, impairing the defendants’ ability to mount an effective defense.
The dissent further maintained that the right to speedy disposition extends to all stages to which the accused is subjected, not merely the preliminary investigation phase.

Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion by dismissing the criminal case on the ground of violation of the right to a speedy disposition.

The central issue is whether the delay in the fact-finding and preliminary investigation phases was inordinate and prejudicial.
Whether a mere mathematical computation of the delay suffices as a basis for dismissal instead of application of a comprehensive balancing test.

Whether the Ombudsman committed inordinate delay during its preliminary investigation and whether such delay justifies dismissal of the criminal case.

The determination involves analyzing if the length of time taken from the filing of the complaint to the filing of the Information was reasonable under the circumstances.
Consideration of the complexity of the case, volume of records, number of respondents, and the nature of the alleged violations.

Whether the dismissal of the case unjustly deprived the State of its right to prosecute and whether the balancing test was correctly applied.

The propriety of dismissing the case in light of the procedural defenses grounded on the right to speedy disposition, including potential claims of double jeopardy raised by Lapid.