Case Digest (G.R. No. 245862)
Facts:
Hermis Carlos Perez v. Sandiganbayan and the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 245862, November 03, 2020, the Supreme Court First Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Hermis Carlos Perez (then Mayor of Biñan, Laguna) was charged after a complaint alleging irregularities in a municipal Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Etsaw Consultancy and Construction of Environmental Technologies International Corporation (ECCE), whose president, Victor G. Rojo, was impleaded as a private respondent. The MOA was executed on November 12, 2001 and allegedly amended on March 25, 2002; the Sangguniang Bayan had earlier authorized Perez to enter into the MOA by Kapasiyahan No. 239-(2001) dated October 1, 2001. The complaint, filed April 27, 2016, alleged lack of competitive bidding, ECCE’s supposed incapacity, and damages to nearby residents.
Following the complaint, the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) assigned the case to its Environmental Ombudsman Team (report dated September 6, 2016) and directed counter-affidavits (October 13, 2016). Perez filed a counter-affidavit on December 20, 2016. On February 22, 2018, the OMB investigating officer found probable cause to charge Perez with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and dismissed several other counts and the charges against Rojo; Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales approved that resolution on February 28, 2018, and a motion for partial reconsideration by Perez was denied on June 7, 2018.
An Information against Perez was prepared July 19, 2018, approved and filed with the Sandiganbayan on October 5, 2018. Perez moved to quash the Information on October 31, 2018, invoking prescription under Section 11 of R.A. No. 3019 (15-year prescriptive period) and his constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases. The People opposed. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash in a Resolution dated January 29, 2019, holding (inter alia) that prescription runs from discovery under the “blameless ignorance” doctrine and that the filing of the complaint with the OMB tolled prescription; it also found no violation of Perez’s speedy-disposition right. Perez filed a motion for reconsideration on February 13, 2019, which the Sandiganbayan denied as late and...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Has the offense charged against Perez prescribed?
- Was Perez’s constitutional right to the speedy disposition of cases violated by the Ombudsman’s handling of the preliminary inve...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)