Case Summary (G.R. No. 218040)
Background and Procedural History
Remulla filed the complaint in August 2005 before the Ombudsman. After nearly nine years, the Ombudsman found probable cause in August 2014 and filed information before the Sandiganbayan in November 2014. Maliksi filed a motion to dismiss citing inordinate delay and violation of his right to speedy disposition. The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case in February 2015, holding that the 9-year delay violated Maliksi’s constitutional rights, and denied a subsequent motion for partial reconsideration in March 2015. Remulla then filed a petition for certiorari questioning the dismissal on grounds of grave abuse of discretion.
Issue Presented
Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the criminal case against Maliksi on the basis of violation of the right to speedy disposition of the case, thereby allegedly lacking jurisdiction.
Legal Framework and Applicable Law
The 1987 Philippine Constitution is the basis for the ruling, specifically Section 16, Article III, which guarantees the right to a speedy disposition of cases. The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 3019, provides the criminal prohibition under which Maliksi was charged. The procedural framework includes the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and the administrative jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan.
The Right to a Speedy Disposition: Concept and Balancing Test
The right to a speedy disposition is relative and requires analysis of multiple factors: (1) length of delay; (2) reason for the delay; (3) defendant’s assertion or non-assertion of the right; and (4) prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay. None of these factors alone is determinative; courts must engage in a sensitive and context-dependent balancing test (as established from U.S. Supreme Court precedent Barker v. Wingo and adopted by the Philippine Supreme Court in Martin v. Ver and subsequent cases).
Arguments on Right to Speedy Disposition and Accused’s Duty to Follow Up
Remulla argued that dismissal was improper as there was probable cause, no prompt assertion of the right by Maliksi, and that the delay was not inordinate without active assertion. He cited cases (Tilendo, Guerrero, Bernat, Tello) to support that an accused must actively assert their right to avoid waiver. Conversely, Maliksi and the OSP emphasized precedents (Coscolluela, Duterte, Cervantes, People v. Sandiganbayan, Inocentes) which hold that it is the prosecutor’s duty to expedite cases, and the accused is not obliged to follow up for the speedy resolution of their case, even if fully informed of the proceedings.
Harmonization of Precedents
The Court clarified that cases cited by Remulla show dismissal was not solely based on non-assertion of the right, but balanced with reasons for delay and prejudice experienced. The delay in those cases was justified by procedural necessities such as lost transcripts of stenographic notes. In contrast, in the second set of cases where dismissal was upheld, the State failed to justify delay and the accused suffered prejudice. Therefore, the balancing test remains ad hoc and flexible, and there is no constitutional requirement compelling accused to actively follow up their case.
Ombudsman’s Inordinate Delay and Failure to Justify
The Court found that the delay extended from fact-finding in 2005 to filing of information in 2014, totaling nine years, with six years during preliminary investigation, was inordinate. The Ombudsman’s explanations were scrutinized and found wanting: delays in approval and consolidation of cases, mechanical and unjustified delays in routing and transmitting records, and unsubstantiated impact of unrelated political events were insufficient to excuse the long procedural lull. The defendants suffered prejudice from anxiety, uncertainty, and impairment of defense.
Petitioner's Lack of Legal Standing
The Court held Remulla had no legal standing to file the petition before the Supreme Court as a private party since criminal cases are to be prosecuted under the control of public prosecutors such as the Office of the Solicitor General or Office of the Special Prosecutor. Although Remulla styled the petition in the name of the People, he did not represent the State, and exceptional circumstances that could allow a private party to litigate criminal dismissals were not presen
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 218040)
Nature and Procedural History of the Case
- Juanito Victor C. Remulla filed a criminal complaint on August 12, 2005, before the Office of the Ombudsman against Erineo S. Maliksi for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
- Allegation: Maliksi, then Governor of Cavite, caused the purchase of medical supplies from Allied Medical Laboratories Corporation in 2002 without public bidding, granting unwarranted benefit.
- Maliksi submitted his counter-affidavit on December 15, 2005.
- After almost nine (9) years, on August 27, 2014, the Ombudsman found probable cause to charge Maliksi.
- Maliksi filed a motion for reconsideration alleging no probable cause and violation of his right to speedy disposition; the motion was denied on October 22, 2014.
- The Ombudsman filed an information before the Sandiganbayan in November 2014.
- Maliksi moved to dismiss citing nullity of probable cause finding and violation of his constitutional speedy disposition right due to nine-year delay.
- The Sandiganbayan initially dismissed the case on February 2, 2015, for violation of Maliksi’s right to speedy disposition.
- The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) filed a motion for partial reconsideration denied on March 20, 2015.
- Remulla then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the Sandiganbayan's dismissal.
Issues Presented
- Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the criminal case due to alleged violation of Maliksi’s right to a speedy disposition of his case.
Arguments of the Parties
- Remulla (Petitioner):
- Sandiganbayan erred in dismissing as probable cause was found.
- Maliksi did not promptly assert his right to speedy disposition.
- Mere passage of time does not establish inordinate delay.
- Authority and cases (e.g. Tilendo) require active assertion of speedy disposition.
- Coscolluela doctrine is inapplicable as in that case the respondent was unaware of the charge.
- Maliksi (Respondent):
- Petitioner lacks legal standing to file the petition as a private party.
- Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) or OSP must represent the People.
- Nine (9)-year delay is clearly inordinate; cited previous jurisprudence affirming this.
- Dismissal on speedy disposition grounds amounts to acquittal; thus, petition violates double jeopardy.
- OSP and Ombudsman (through Comment):
- Case law on inordinate delay is in flux; definitive ruling needed.
- Argued Coscolluela is inapplicable as Maliksi was aware and participated in preliminary investigation.
- Failure to assert right weighs in favor of no violation.
- The accused sleeping on the right constitutes acquiescence of delays.