Case Summary (G.R. No. 206438)
Petitioner
Cesar M. Cagang
Respondents
Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division; Office of the Ombudsman; People of the Philippines
Key Dates
• Feb 10, 2003: Office of the Ombudsman receives anonymous graft complaint (docketed CPL-M-03-0163, CPL-M-03-0729)
• Aug 11, 2004: Ombudsman issues Resolution finding probable cause (OMB-M-C-0487-J)
• Oct 18, 2004: Supplemental Order orders further fact-finding (OMB-M-C-0480-K)
• Apr 12, 2005: Resolution finding probable cause in OMB-M-C-0480-K
• Jul 12, 2005: First Information filed in Sandiganbayan (Crim. Case No. 28331)
• Jun 17, 2010: Sandiganbayan acquits Cagang in Crim. Case No. 28331
• Nov 17, 2011: Two new Informations filed (Crim. Case Nos. SB-11-CRM-0456; SB-11-CRM-0457)
• Sep 10, 2012 & Jan 15, 2013: Sandiganbayan denies Cagang’s Motion to Quash/Dismiss
• Jun 28 & Sep 10, 2013: Sandiganbayan denies Cagang’s Urgent Motion to Quash Arrest Order
• Feb 5, 2014: Supreme Court issues Temporary Restraining Order enjoining further proceedings
• Jul 31, 2018: En banc decision of the Supreme Court
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 16 (right to speedy disposition of cases)
• Rules of Court, Rule 112, Section 3(f) (ten-day resolution of preliminary investigation)
• Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3(e) (prohibited acts by public officers)
• Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (certiorari procedure, injunctive relief)
• Jurisprudential standards on inordinate delay (Tatad v. Sandiganbayan; Barker v. Wingo)
Procedural History
Cagang filed two certiorari petitions (G.R. Nos. 206438 & 206458) assailing the Sandiganbayan’s denial of his Motion to Quash/Dismiss the Informations and Order of Arrest on grounds of inordinate delay in the Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation. Upon denial of his Urgent Motion to Quash Arrest Order, Cagang filed a second certiorari petition (G.R. Nos. 210141-42) seeking injunctive relief. The Court granted a temporary restraining order in G.R. 210141-42 and consolidated the four petitions for resolution en banc.
Facts
An anonymous complaint alleged that vice-government officials in Sarangani Province diverted P61 million in public funds through dummy cooperatives. The COA audit report confirmed embezzlement and fraudulent disbursements amounting to over P22 million. The Ombudsman conducted two phases of fact-finding and preliminary investigation (2003–2005), finding probable cause to charge 180 public officials. Separate Informations were filed against Cagang in 2005 (malversation through falsification) and in 2011 (malversation and R.A. 3019 violations). Cagang was acquitted in 2010 for the 2005 Information but was later charged in the 2011 Informations. He moved to quash the latter Informations and the consequent arrest order, alleging that the Ombudsman’s delay (nearly eight years) violated his constitutional rights. The Sandiganbayan denied his motions, prompting the certiorari petitions.
Issues
- Does the pendency of a certiorari petition bar the Sandiganbayan from proceeding to trial absent injunctive relief?
- Is the denial of a Motion to Quash/Dismiss interlocutory and improper subject of certiorari?
- Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion in denying Cagang’s motions on the ground of inordinate delay, violating his rights to due process and speedy disposition?
Ruling
- Under Rule 65, the pendency of certiorari does not interrupt trial unless a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is issued. Only upon the Feb 2014 TRO did further proceedings stay.
- Denial of a Motion to Quash is interlocutory and not appealable; certiorari is available only for grave abuse of discretion.
- No grave abuse occurred. Cagang failed to timely invoke his constitutional rights; the complexity of the case involving 40 individuals and 81 transactions justified the Ombudsman’s preparation time; the delay did not exhibit malice or political motivation and caused no demonstrable prejudice to Cagang.
Reasoning
– CERTIORARI AND QUIASHAL: The denial of a Motion to Quash ordinarily leads to trial; a direct certiorari petition is exceptional, reserved for cases of grave abuse—i.e., orders issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with capricious arbitrariness.
– SPEEDY DISPOSITION RIGHT: Article III, Section 16 extends to quasi-judicial bodies; its breach occurs when inordinate, oppressive delay is unjustified by case complexity or caused by prosecutorial caprice. Fact-finding prior to a formal complaint is excluded from delay reckoning; only the period from the filing of a formal complaint and commencement of preliminary investigation is counted.
– BURDEN OF PROOF: When alleged delay falls within prescribed periods, the accused must show inordinate dela
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 206438)
Procedural History
- February 10, 2003: Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) receives anonymous complaint docketed as CPL-M-03-0163 and CPL-M-03-0729, referred to the Commission on Audit (COA).
- December 31, 2002: COA audit report finds multi-million-peso malversation through dummy cooperatives and fabricated projects.
- September 30, 2003: OMB issues Joint Order terminating CPL-M-03-0163 and CPL-M-03-0729, recommends criminal charges (OMB-M-C-0487-J).
- October 29, 2003–January 15, 2004: Counter-affidavits called for and delivered; delays due to record reproduction and bidding.
- August 11, 2004: OMB Resolution finds probable cause against 180 named public officers, including Cagang.
- October 18, 2004: OMB Supplemental Order directs further fact-finding (OMB-M-C-0480-K).
- July 12, 2005: OMB files Information in Sandiganbayan Crim. Case No. 28331 for malversation via falsification (1st case).
- December 6, 2005: Arraignment; Cagang pleads not guilty; eventual acquittal on June 17, 2010.
- October–November 2011: OMB files two new Informations for (i) violation of Section 3(e), R.A. 3019 and (ii) malversation through falsification (SB-11-CRM-0456 & SB-11-CRM-0457).
- Cagang, Mangalen, and Macagcalat file Motions to Quash/Dismiss alleging inordinate delay of seven years, invoking constitutional rights to due process and speedy disposition.
- September 10, 2012 and January 15, 2013: Sandiganbayan Fifth Division Resolutions deny motions, holding no inordinate delay and waiver by awaiting filing.
- G.R. Nos. 206438 & 206458: Petition for Certiorari filed in the Supreme Court challenging denial of motion to quash.
- June 13, 2013–September 10, 2013: Urgent motions to quash arrest order denied by Sandiganbayan for failure to comply with notice rule; G.R. Nos. 210141-42 petitioned.
- February 5, 2014: Supreme Court issues Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining Sandiganbayan from implementing warrant of arrest; petitions consolidated.
Facts
- An anonymous complainant alleges that provincial officials in Sarangani diverted grant funds through dummy people’s organizations and cooperatives.
- COA audit uncovers P16,106,613 in fictitious local development projects; P2,456,481 granted to government-linked cooperatives; P83,212.34 in fraudulent travel/fuel expenses; and P4,000,000 for non-existent calamity projects.
- OMB’s preliminary investigation involves voluminous records, bidding for reproduction, and delay in notification of respondents.
- Initial OMB resolution (August 11, 2004) finds probable cause against Governor Escobar, Vice Governor Constantino, board members, and employees, including Cagang.
- First Information (July 12, 2005) charges Cagang and co-accused with malversation of P375,000 via falsified Disbursement Voucher; Cagang is acquitted in 2010.
- Second and third Informations (November 17, 2011) charge Cagang and others with violation of Section 3(e), R.A. 3019 and malversation of P350,000 via falsification involving Kamanga cooperative.
Issues
- Whether the OMB’s protracted p