Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 233061-62
Decision Date
Jul 28, 2020
A DOJ prosecutor charged with bribery for soliciting money to dismiss a case; delays in preliminary investigation led to dismissal, reversed by Supreme Court due to misinterpretation of inordinate delay.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 233061-62)

Factual Background and Charges

Raul Y. Desembrana was charged in two Informations dated November 15, 2014, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. SB-14-CRM-0427 and SB-14-CRM-0428, with violations of Section 7(d) in relation to Section 11 of Republic Act No. 6713. The allegations involve Desembrana using his position as Assistant City Prosecutor to solicit and accept money in exchange for dismissing a complaint involving Dr. Alexis Montes, thus committing acts of bribery and abuse of office.

After posting bail, Desembrana filed a Motion to Suspend Arraignment to allow the Office of the Special Prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation as directed by the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan ordered a "full and complete preliminary investigation" to be conducted within 60 days from notice, which was later extended upon OSP motions. During the investigation, filings and motions including a motion for reconsideration by Desembrana were submitted to the OSP and the Sandiganbayan.

Procedural History and Issues Raised

The OSP proceeded with its preliminary investigation and, on September 29, 2015, found probable cause against Desembrana for direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code. It recommended withdrawal of the initial information and substitution with a proper charge under Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Ombudsman approved this recommendation on October 21, 2015.

Desembrana filed a motion for reconsideration with the OSP on November 9, 2015. Meanwhile, the OSP filed a Compliance with Omnibus Motion with the Sandiganbayan on November 10, 2015, seeking withdrawal of the original information and lifting of the prior directive for a preliminary investigation. The Sandiganbayan took more than a year before it took any definite action on this motion, instead holding it in abeyance pending resolution of Desembrana’s motion for reconsideration with the OSP.

Desembrana filed a motion to dismiss in February 2017, alleging violations of his constitutional right to speedy disposition due to undue delays — over a year in resolving the motion for reconsideration and over two years overall from the preliminary investigation directive. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion to dismiss on April 12, 2017, concluding the delay was unreasonable and denied the People’s motion for reconsideration.

Sandiganbayan’s Rationale for Dismissal

The Sandiganbayan found that the delay violated Desembrana’s constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases, which extends to preliminary investigations. It ruled that a "full and complete preliminary investigation" must include the opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration before an information is filed, consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Sales v. Sandiganbayan.

The Court rejected the OSP’s argument that leave of court was required before acting on the motion for reconsideration, reasoning that the Sandiganbayan had implicitly granted this leave in its July 8, 2015 Resolution directing the preliminary investigation. It held the prosecution guilty of constitutional infirmity by failing to act on the motion for reconsideration in a timely manner, thus effectively denying Desembrana’s right to a complete preliminary investigation. The delay was deemed oppressive, unreasonable, and arbitrary, warranting dismissal of the cases.

Issues on the Proper Remedy and Jurisdiction

The People, through the OSP, filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the criminal cases for alleged delay. They claimed that once the information was filed, the Sandiganbayan acquired jurisdiction and controlled the case. The OSP maintained it complied with directives and reasoned that the delay in acting on the motion for reconsideration was a result of procedural requirements, specifically the need for leave of court as per the Ombudsman’s amended Rules of Procedure, which the Sandiganbayan ignored.

The OSP further alleged that the Sandiganbayan’s mathematical computation of delay ignored the proper balancing test for speedy disposition, and that there was no malicious or capricious delay attributable to the prosecution.

Supreme Court’s Findings: Proper Remedy and Interpretation of Rules

The Supreme Court ruled that the special civil action for certiorari was the correct remedy to question the Sandiganbayan’s dismissal of the case due to alleged delay, citing existing jurisprudence that such dismissals for undue delay may be assailed by certiorari due to grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

The Court held that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion when it interpreted Sales v. Sandiganbayan to dispense with the requirement of leave of court before the OSP may resolve motions for reconsideration after an information has been filed. The Court clarified that Sales was based on pre-amendment rules and that the current Ombudsman Rules require leave of court in cases where an information has been filed. Consequently, the filing of a motion for reconsideration after the filing of information is a privilege, not a right. The preliminary investigation is considered full and complete upon the finding of probable cause and the opportunity to be heard. Filing a motion for reconsideration after the information is already filed does not stop the preliminary investigation from being complete.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Inordinate Delay and Speedy Disposition

The Court emphasized that the 60-day period given for the preliminary investigation exceeded with granted extensions, and that the OSP completed its recommendation and compliance within a reasonable time (less than 120 days). The delay in resolving the motion for reconsideration, which the OSP could not act on without leave of the court, cannot be imputed to the OSP’s bad faith or undue procrastination.

Furthermore, the Court found that the Sandiganbayan itself was responsible for the prolonged delay after the OSP’s compliance filing, as it took more than a year to resolve the motion, without any prompt action by either party to move the case forward. The Sandiganbayan should have set clear deadlines for the arraignment and ordered the resolution of motions within reasonable periods to avoid such delays.

In applying the balancing test for speedy disposition (derived from Barker v. Wingo and adopted Philippine jurisprudence), the Court found:

  • The delay by the OSP was not oppressive or unreasonable given the circumstances and the granted extensions;
  • Desembrana himself contributed to the delay by actively participating and filing pleadings in the preliminary investigation;
  • There was no evidence that Desembrana suffered actual prejudice, such as impairment of his defense, undue anxiety beyond what is normal in litigation, or oppressive pre-trial custody (he was out on bail);
  • The Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the case and procedural control, and therefore it bore responsibility for expediting the resolution and failing which it should have proceeded without awaiting further motions.

Supreme Court’s Conclusion and Directive

The Court granted the Petition for Certiorari, reversed and set aside the Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions dismissing the criminal case for alleged undue delay and denying reconsideration. It instructed the Sandiganbayan to immediately resolve the pending Omnibus Motion filed by the OSP and to proceed with the hearing of the cases against Desembrana with reasonable dispatch.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion Highlights (Justice Caguioa)

Justice Caguioa concurred with the outcome but wrote separately to emphasize:

  • The OSP did not commit inordinate delay; the imputation of delay to the OSP was baseless and arbitrary.
  • The Sandiganbayan’s reliance on Sales v. Sandiganbayan was misplaced given the amendment of the Ombudsman Rules that now require leave of court before motions for reconsideration filed after information is filed can be acted upon.
  • The right to speedy disposition of cases is a constitutional mandate that puts the burden solely on the State to expedite proceedings, not on the accused. Therefore, the accused’s failure to assert the right during the delay period should not be construed as waiver.
  • Prejudice from delay is not defined solely by pre-trial incarceration but includes anxiety, impairment of defense, loss of evidence or witnesses’ memory, public obloquy, and financial burdens. Even when out on bail, a respondent may suffer substantial prejudice.
  • The doctrine that silence or inaction






...continue reading

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