Title
People vs. Teddy C. Tumang and William B. Colis
Case
G.R. No. 274922
Decision Date
Feb 17, 2025
The People of the Philippines sought to contest the Sandiganbayan’s dismissal of graft charges against Tumang and Colis, citing inordinate delay in the preliminary investigation proceedings.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 274922)

Factual Background

The case originated from a Complaint-Affidavit filed on December 13, 2017, by the Field Investigation Bureau of the Ombudsman against Tumang and Colis for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and malversation of public funds. The allegations included the purchase of construction materials by the Municipality of Mexico from Buyu, purportedly approved by Tumang through disbursement vouchers and checks despite the payments being disallowed by the Commission on Audit.

Proceedings in the Ombudsman

On February 7, 2018, Tumang and Colis were instructed to submit their Counter-Affidavits, which they did on February 28, 2018. A resolution was issued on November 20, 2018, finding probable cause to indict both parties, which passed through various levels of approval within the Ombudsman until March 28, 2019. However, their subsequent motions for reconsideration were only denied in April 2024, leading to the filing of Informations in court on April 25, 2024.

Motion to Quash

Prior to their arraignment, Tumang and Colis filed a Motion to Quash Informations and/or Dismiss the Cases on May 30, 2024. They claimed that the facts in the Informations did not constitute a crime, the Informations did not allege conspiracy, and their right to a speedy trial had been violated due to the lengthy preliminary investigation lasting over six years.

Sandiganbayan's Resolution

The Sandiganbayan granted the Motion to Quash on June 10, 2024, concluding that their right to a speedy disposition had been violated. It found the delay in the completion of the preliminary investigation, from December 2017 to April 2024, to constitute inordinate delay.

Petition for Certiorari

On August 9, 2024, the Office of the Ombudsman filed a petition for certiorari, contending that the Sandiganbayan had abused its discretion in recognizing the inordinate delay. The Ombudsman argued that the COVID-19 pandemic justified the delays and that the respondents had not invoked their right to a speedy disposition at any point during the investigation.

Court's Ruling on Certiorari Petition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Sandiganbayan's conclusion of inordinate delay. It emphasized several principles regarding the right to speedy disposition, notably that the duration of delays, the reasons for such delays, and the invocation of the right must be assessed comprehensively. The Court found that the Ombudsman failed to justify the delay and that respondents had not waived their right to a speedy disposition.

Prejudice to the Respondents

The Court recognized that the lengthy delay had caused actual prejudice to Tumang and Colis, which included anxiety, restrictions on their liberty, and potential impairment of their defense due to the protracte

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.