Case Summary (G.R. No. 235965-66)
Antecedent Facts
PAGCOR charged Figueroa and co-respondents with corruption under RA 3019 arising from certain financial transactions. The Ombudsman conducted a preliminary investigation, directing respondents to submit counter-affidavits. Figueroa filed his counter-affidavit within an extended period. After over three years, the Ombudsman recommended filing of informations and, following minor formal amendments, the informations were admitted by the Sandiganbayan in July 2017.
Procedural History
Figueroa moved to quash both informations on the ground of inordinate delay in the preliminary investigation and in the filing and admission of the charges. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion, holding that delay was reasonable, that Figueroa failed to invoke his right before the Ombudsman, and that no oppressive or arbitrary postponement occurred. Figueroa’s motion for reconsideration was also denied, prompting his Rule 65 petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court.
Issue
Whether the Sandiganbayan grave-abused its discretion in denying Figueroa’s motion to quash for alleged violation of his constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases.
Constitutional Guarantee and Jurisprudential Framework
Under the 1987 Constitution, every person is entitled to a speedy disposition of cases. The Supreme Court in Cagang v. Sandiganbayan established a multi-factor analysis for speedy disposition: length of delay; reasons for delay; assertion or waiver of the right; and prejudice to the accused. Preliminary investigations before the Ombudsman, though not governed by strict Rule 112 timeframes, must conform to reasonable periods—in absence of specific Ombudsman rules, the ten-day period under Rule 112 § 3(f) applies suppletorily. Ombudsman A.O. 1 (2020) prescribes 12-month limits for simple cases and 24-month for complex cases, extendable only for justifiable reasons.
Analysis of Delay
The interval from June 2011 (filing of complaint) to September 2014 (joint resolution) spanned over three years—far exceeding the ten-day, 12-month, or 24-month benchmarks. The burden thus shifted to the Ombudsman to justify the delay. Its generalized assertions—that complexity, thorough review, and the steady stream of cases warranted the lapse—failed to identify case-specific complexities, volume of evidence, or justifiable extensions. The Ombudsman’s reliance on procedural thoroughness and institutional backlog did not satisfy the requisite demonstration of reasonable delay.
Waiver and Assertion of the Right
A constitutional right may be waived
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 235965-66)
Antecedents
- On June 21, 2011, the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) filed a corruption complaint against Rene C. Figueroa and co-officers.
- July 19, 2011: The complaint was endorsed by PAGCOR for preliminary investigation before the Office of the Ombudsman.
- July 29, 2011: The Ombudsman directed the respondents to file counter-affidavits within ten (10) days; Rene received the order on August 16, 2011, and sought an additional ten days.
- September 5, 2011: Rene filed his counter-affidavit.
- September 22, 2014: The Ombudsman issued a joint resolution finding probable cause to charge Rene and others with two counts of violation of Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019.
- Denied motions for reconsideration; on June 3, 2016, the Ombudsman filed informations in SB16-CRM-0326 and SB16-CRM-0327 before the Sandiganbayan.
- March 6, 2017: The Office of the Special Prosecutor recommended—and the Overall Deputy Ombudsman approved—formal amendments to the informations (adding middle names and correct designation).
- July 4, 2017: The Sandiganbayan admitted the amended informations as formal changes not altering the nature of the offense.
- July 20, 2017: Rene moved to quash the informations due to inordinate delay in the preliminary investigation and charging process.
- October 11, 2017: The Sandiganbayan denied the motion, finding the delay reasonable and noting Rene’s failure to invoke speedy-disposition rights before the Ombudsman.
- Denied reconsideration; Rene filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Issues
- Whether the prolonged preliminary investigation and delay in filing the informations violated Rene’s constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases and ousted the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over his person.
- Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash despite alleged inordinate delay.
- Whether Rene’s failure to raise the right to speedy disposition before the Ombudsman amounted to a waiver of that right.
Applicable Legal Precepts
- Article III, Section 16, 1987 Constitution: guarant