Title
Supreme Court
Tumbocon vs. Sandiganbayan, 6th Division
Case
G.R. No. 235412-15
Decision Date
Nov 5, 2018
A 10-year delay in resolving perjury charges against a public official was deemed inordinate by the Supreme Court, violating his right to a speedy disposition, leading to case dismissal.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 215551)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Initiation of the Case
    • An anonymous complaint was filed against Eldred Palada Tumbocon in 2007 with the Office of the Ombudsman (docketed as CPL-C-07-1600) to initiate a fact-finding investigation.
    • The case initially revolved around allegations concerning untruthful statements in the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) involving a real property, a motor vehicle, and a business interest registered in the mid-1990s to 2000.
  • Factual Developments and Investigative History
    • On August 28, 2009, the Field Investigation Office (FIO) concluded its fact-finding investigation by filing a formal complaint against the petitioner.
      • The complaint charged the petitioner with violations of Section 2 of R.A. No. 1379.
      • It also alleged violations related to Section 8 of R.A. No. 3019; Article 172 in relation to Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code; and provisions concerning unethical conduct, serious dishonesty, grave misconduct, and actions prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
    • On April 6, 2010, following the filing of the formal complaint, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon conducted the preliminary investigation.
      • The petitioner and his wife, Camila, were ordered to submit counter-affidavits.
      • Their joint counter-affidavit was received on May 21, 2010.
  • Development of Charges and Resolution of Investigation
    • On March 11, 2013, the GIPO II led by Irmina H. Bautista found probable cause against the petitioner for eight counts of perjury.
    • Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales approved the resolution on December 22, 2014.
      • The petitioner sought reconsideration, which was denied on March 6, 2015.
    • On April 22, 2016, the Office of the Special Prosecutor drafted four informations for perjury, which were filed on January 23, 2017.
  • Motion to Dismiss and Sandiganbayan Resolutions
    • On February 23, 2017, the petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the criminal cases on the ground of inordinate delay in prosecuting the case.
    • On August 10, 2017, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying the motion to dismiss.
      • The resolution excluded several periods from the computation of the delay:
        • The period from November 13, 2007 to March 3, 2009 (covering the FIO’s time in issuing subpoenas and receiving certifications) amounting to 1 year, 3 months, and 18 days.
ii. The period between April 6, 2010 to May 23, 2012 (attributed to the petitioner’s delay in submitting counter-affidavits) amounting to 2 years, 1 month, and 17 days. iii. The period from May 23, 2012 to December 22, 2014 (time used by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for studying the case) amounting to 2 years, 6 months, and 29 days. iv. The period from December 22, 2014 to February 26, 2015 (attributed to the petitioner’s action in seeking reconsideration) totaling 2 months and 4 days.
  • An additional justified period of 1 year, 7 months, and 19 days while the reconsideration resolution was under review.
  • The cumulative delay computed by the Sandiganbayan was 5 years, 6 months, and 29 days—a period it deemed not “inordinate, capricious, oppressive and vexatious.”
  • Following the Sandiganbayan’s denial and resolution, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was likewise denied.
  • Summary of Allegations and Procedural Delays
    • The petitioner argued that the overall delay of approximately 10 years—from the anonymous complaint to the filing of the information—amounted to inordinate delay and thus violated his constitutional right to a speedy disposition.
    • The case was notably simple, involving only alleged perjury in SALNs, without complex or massive allegations, which further underscored the petitioner’s argument against the delay.

Issues:

  • Whether the prolonged delay in the resolution and prosecution of the case constitutes an inordinate delay.
    • Specifically, whether the delay violated the petitioner’s constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases as guaranteed by Section 16 of the Constitution.
  • Whether the exclusion of certain periods from the computation of the delay was proper and justified.
    • The petitioner contended that even with the exclusions, the overall delay was excessive and indefensible given the simplicity of the case.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

About Privacy Terms