G.R. No. 111426 - Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People

Felicidad M. Roque served as a Schools Division Superintendent of the DECS in Koronadal, South Cotabato until her compulsory retirement on May 17, 1991.
Prudencio N. Mabanglo similarly held the position of Schools Division Superintendent of the DECS in Tagum, Davao Province until his compulsory retirement on May 8, 1997.

On January 14, 1991, COA auditors Laura S. Soriano and Carmencita Eden T. Enriquez conducted an audit on a P9.36 million allotment released by DECS Regional Office No. XI.
The audit uncovered major deficiencies and violations, including breaches of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) and several administrative circulars and orders (including COA Circular Nos. 78-84 and 85-55A, DECS Order No. 100, and provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1445).

As a result of the audit findings, affidavits of complaint were filed with the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao:

On June 11, 1991, the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao affirmed that the complaints were proper for preliminary investigation.
Petitioners submitted counter-affidavits contesting the allegations.

Despite the early determination on the propriety of the complaints, no substantive action was taken for nearly six years.
For petitioner Mabanglo, the Office eventually resolved the case on March 18, 1997, recommending filing a criminal information for violation of Section 3 (g) of RA 3019; the resolution was approved on September 19, 1997.
For petitioner Roque, a similar resolution was reached on April 30, 1997, with a recommendation to file cases for violations of Section 3 (e) and (g) of RA 3019, which were subsequently docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 24105 and 24106.
Petitioners instituted the petition for mandamus on August 14, 1997, based on the allegation that after the issuance of the initial orders and counter-affidavits, no resolution had been rendered over a period exceeding six years.
On November 24, 1997, a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was issued by the Court directing the respondents to cease any further processing of the cases.
Later, on August 21, 1998, petitioners sought to have respondents cited in contempt for proceeding with actions purportedly in violation of the TRO.

Whether the unexplained and excessive delay (of nearly six years) in resolving the complaints against petitioners violated their constitutional rights to due process and a speedy disposition of cases.
Whether such delay automatically warrants the dismissal of the pending complaints.

Whether a petition for mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the dismissal of criminal charges when the act involves a discretionary element.
Whether the recognized exception (gross abuse of discretion, manifest injustice, or palpable excess of authority) applies, thereby justifying the writ of mandamus.

Whether respondents should be held in contempt for allegedly filing a criminal information in violation of the TRO issued by the Court on November 24, 1997.
Whether the timing and procedural manner of the filing of such information invalidate the claim for contempt.