G.R. No. 250504 - Campa, Jr. vs. Paras

Case Summary (G.R. No. 250504)

Factual Background

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) filed a complaint on September 12, 2007 against officers of BankWise, Inc., including the petitioners, for issuing unfunded manager’s checks and failing to present supporting documents for disbursements, invoking Monetary Board Resolution No. 1460 and Section 3, RA 7653; after investigation the case was submitted for resolution on August 29, 2008; the Department of Justice issued a Resolution finding probable cause on February 8, 2019, over ten (10) years after filing, and thereafter informations were filed in the RTC, Makati City and raffled to Branch 58.

Trial Court Proceedings

After the filings in RTC-Branch 58, petitioners filed a Manifestation with Motion to Adopt dated May 28, 2019 and an Entry of Appearance with Motion to Dismiss dated June 18, 2019 seeking dismissal for inordinate delay in the DOJ preliminary investigation; by Order dated August 13, 2019 the trial court denied the motions, reasoning that the delay of ten (10) years and five (5) months was attributable to the complexity and volume of documents and to repeated changes in the leadership of the DOJ; the trial court denied reconsideration and issued Orders dated October 1 and October 7, 2019 setting and resetting arraignment.

The Parties' Contentions

Petitioners contended that the trial court acted in grave abuse of discretion by refusing to dismiss the informations despite constitutional violation of the right to speedy disposition, and invoked the balancing test refined in Cagang v. Sandiganbayan to show inordinate delay; the Office of the Solicitor General countered that certiorari was the wrong remedy and that petitioners violated the rule on hierarchy of courts, that certiorari should have been filed with the Court of Appeals, that the trial court correctly found no grave abuse, and that the delay was justified by case complexity, DOJ leadership changes, alleged waiver by petitioners for not asserting the right earlier, lack of prejudice, and the State’s paramount interest in prosecuting banking offenses.

Issues Presented

The dispositive issues were whether the protracted DOJ preliminary investigation violated petitioners’ constitutional right to speedy disposition under Art. III, Sec. 16, 1987 Constitution, and whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to dismiss and motions to quash.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Court granted the petition for certiorari under Rule 65, held that certiorari was a proper remedy in the circumstances, found that the doctrine on hierarchy of courts admitted exceptions applicable here, concluded that the DOJ’s delay of about ten (10) years and five (5) months constituted inordinate delay in violation of Art. III, Sec. 16, ruled that the trial court acted in grave abuse of discretion by denying the motions without properly applying the Cagang balancing test, nullified the Orders dated August 13, 2019, October 1, 2019 and October 7, 2019 of RTC-Branch 58, Makati City, and dismissed the charges against VICENTE J. CAMPA, JR. and PERFECTO M. PASCUA on the ground of inordinate delay.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated that the right to speedy disposition of cases under Art. III, Sec. 16, 1987 Constitution applied to preliminary investigations and that delay must be assessed by the Balancing Test derived from Barker v. Wingo and refined by Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, which directs consideration of four criteria: length of delay; reason for delay; assertion of the right; and prejudice to the accused; the Court emphasized that the Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 112, Sections 3 and 4) and the Manual for Prosecutors prescribe procedural periods that effectively limit preliminary investigations to a maximum of sixty (60) days from assignment, that the DOJ took approximately ten (10) years and five (5) months from filing to Resolution which far exceeded those periods, and that comparable jurisprudence — Javier and Tumamao (five years), Remulla (nine years), and Catamco (almost five years) — treated similar or shorter delays as inordinate; the Court found that the prosecution bore the burden to justify overlength once the delay exceeded prescribed periods and that the OSG’s proffered reasons — leadership changes, complexity, and workload — were insufficient because the records showed the matter had been submitted for resolution as early as August 29, 2008 and that when reassigned in January 2019 the investigating prosecutor completed the Resolution in less than a month, leaving about ten (10) years and four (4) months of unexplained dormancy attributable to the prosecution; the Court rejected the waiver argument, citing precedent that respondents in preliminary investigation are not obliged to follow up prosecution and noting that petitioners timely asserted their right by moving to dismiss soon after the DOJ Resolution and promptly filing the present petition after denial; on prejudice the Court found substantial prejudice in impaired access to records and witnesses, inability to prepare defense, anxiety, and the petitioners’ advanced age, relying on Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan and Magante v. Sandiganbayan for the

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 250504)

Parties and Posture

Vicente J. Campa, Jr. and Perfecto M. Pascua filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking to reverse interlocutory orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 58, Makati City.
The respondents to the petition were Hon. Eugene C. Paras, Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 58, Makati City, and the People of the Philippines as represented by the Office of the Solicitor General.
The petition challenged the RTC Orders dated August 13, 2019, October 1, 2019, and October 7, 2019, which denied motions to dismiss or quash and set petitioners for arraignment.
The petition sought injunctive relief to enjoin further proceedings and the dismissal of charges on the ground of inordinate delay in the preliminary investigation.

Key Facts

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas filed a complaint on September 12, 2007 against officers of BankWise, Inc., including petitioners, for violation of Monetary Board Resolution No. 1460 in relation to Section 3, R.A. 7653.
The BSP alleged that the accused issued unfunded manager's checks and failed to present documents supporting the bank's disbursements in acquiring assets.
The preliminary investigation was submitted for resolution before the Department of Justice on August 29, 2008.
The DOJ issued a Resolution finding probable cause on February 8, 2019, after a period of about ten years and five months, and informations were filed before the RTC, Makati City.
Petitioners filed a Manifestation with Motion to Adopt on May 28, 2019 and an Entry of Appearance with Motion to Dismiss on June 18, 2019 invoking their right to a speedy disposition under Article III, Section 16, 1987 Constitution.

Procedural History

The trial court denied the motions to dismiss and/or quash by Order dated August 13, 2019, citing case complexity and changes in the office of the Secretary of Justice as justifications for the delay.
The trial court denied reconsideration and scheduled arraignment by Orders dated October 1, 2019, and October 7, 2019.
Petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari, asserting that the RTC acted in grave abuse of discretion in denying their motions.

Issues

Whether the delay in the preliminary investigation before the DOJ violated petitioners' constitutional right to a speedy disposition under Article III, Section 16, 1987 Constitution.
Whether the RTC acted in grave abuse of discretion when it denied petitioners' motions to dismiss and/or quash and set the cases for arraignment.
Whether certiorari under Rule 65 was a proper remedy and whether petitioners’ direct recourse to the Supreme Court violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

Statutory and Doctrinal Framework

Article III, Section 16, 1987 Constitution guarantees the right to speedy disposition of cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
Sections 3 and 4, Rule 112, Rules of Criminal Procedure prescribe procedural periods for preliminary investigation and resolution.
The Manual for Prosecutors establishes a sixty-day period for resolution of preliminary investigations involving offenses cognizable by the Regional Trial Courts.
The Balancing Test from Barker v. Wingo assesses delay by reference to length of delay, reason for delay, assertion of the right, and prejudice to the accused.
Cagang v. Sandiganbayan refined the application of the Balancing Test to preliminary investigations and set out burden-shifting rules for de