Title
Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 72335-39
Decision Date
Mar 21, 1988
A 1974 graft complaint against Francisco Tatad, revived in 1979, faced delays and political undertones, leading to Supreme Court dismissal due to inordinate delay violating due process and speedy trial rights.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 72335-39)

Applicable Law

Primary substantive law: Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft). Relevant procedural and administrative instruments: Presidential Decree No. 911 (governing preliminary investigations), Presidential Decree No. 1791 (claimed immunity), P.D. 379 (as discussed by parties), Batas Pambansa Blg. 195 (on extension of limitation period), Rule 117, Sections 2 and 4 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure (grounds for quashal and curable defects), and constitutional guarantees of due process and speedy disposition of cases (as discussed with reference to the Bill of Rights in the constitutions cited in the decision).

Key Dates and Chronology (as presented)

  • October 1974: Initial report by Antonio de los Reyes to the PSC Legal Panel alleging RA 3019 violations by Tatad.
  • December 12, 1979: Formal complaint filed with the Tanodbayan (TBP Case No. 8005-16-07).
  • January 26, 1980: Tatad’s resignation accepted by the President.
  • April 1, 1980: Tanodbayan referred the complaint to CIS for fact-finding.
  • June 16, 1980: CIS investigation report recommending charges.
  • October 25, 1982: Affidavits and counter-affidavits purportedly completed before Tanodbayan.
  • April 1, 1985 (resolution date approved July 5, 1985): Tanodbayan resolution recommending filing of five informations.
  • June 12, 1985: Five informations filed with the Sandiganbayan (Criminal Cases Nos. 10499–10503).
  • July 22, 1985: Consolidated motion to quash filed by petitioner.
  • August 9, 1985: Sandiganbayan denied motion to quash and ordered amendment of one information.
  • September 17, 1985: Motion for reconsideration denied.
  • October 16, 1985: Petition for certiorari and prohibition filed with the Supreme Court.
  • October 22, 1985: Supreme Court issued temporary restraining order enjoining further proceedings.
  • March 21, 1988: Supreme Court decision dismissing the five informations.

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

Petitioner sought certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction to annul the Tanodbayan’s April 7, 1985 resolution and the Sandiganbayan’s August–September 1985 resolutions, and to enjoin further trial proceedings in the five criminal cases. Before the Supreme Court, petitioner raised, inter alia, denial of due process and speedy disposition, prescription of offenses, lack of prima facie evidence, and alleged discriminatory prosecution. The Sandiganbayan had denied the quashal motion and directed amendment of one information for a curable defect.

Factual Allegations Underlying the Charges

The informations charged (1) acceptance of a P125,000 check as consideration for release of government funds (Sec. 3(b), RA 3019); (2–4) failure to file Statements of Assets and Liabilities for calendar years 1973, 1976 and 1978 (Sec. 7, RA 3019); and (5) giving unwarranted benefits to D’ Group (Sec. 3(e), RA 3019) involving transfer/usage of funds and assets without accounting or reimbursement. The underlying events took place between 1973 and 1979 according to the informations and the Tanodbayan investigation.

Petitioner’s Principal Contentions

Petitioner’s central claim was that the Tanodbayan’s prolonged preliminary investigation and the delay in filing informations—effectively spanning several years after the evidentiary stage ended in October 1982—deprived him of due process and the constitutional right to speedy disposition, thus extinguishing the Tanodbayan’s jurisdiction to prosecute. Other claims included prescription, absence of prima facie evidence, non-constitutive facts for one count, discriminatory prosecution, and immunity under PD 1791.

Respondents’ Principal Contentions

Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan defended the prosecutions on multiple grounds: filing of the complaint/denuncia in the prosecutor’s office interrupts the prescriptive period (citing Francisco vs. Court of Appeals), extensions of limitation under BP Blg. 195 are constitutional, the P.D. 379 requirement is distinct from RA 3019 reporting obligations, delay in a preliminary investigation does not render the informations defective, and PD 911’s ten-day resolution period is directory rather than mandatory. Sandiganbayan further emphasized the procedural limit on quashal grounds under Rule 117 and asserted that summary dismissal at that stage would be premature absent clear proof of constitutional deprivation.

Sandiganbayan’s Rationale for Denying Quashal

The Sandiganbayan refused to grant the “radical relief” of quashal at the pretrial stage, reasoning that mere allegations of undue delay were insufficient without indubitable proof of procedural irregularity or abuse. It posited that PD 911’s ten-day period is directory and that complexities or careful review might account for the hiatus between completion of affidavits and formal resolution. The court held that constitutional or procedural defects alleged by accused might be more properly addressed during trial where evidence can be fully developed.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Delay, Due Process and Political Motivation

The Supreme Court closely examined the undisputed chronology and procedures. It emphasized that the complaint lay dormant from the initial PSC report in 1974 and was resurrected only after petitioner’s falling out with the President and his resignation, creating a strong inference of political motivation. The Court criticized the Tanodbayan’s departure from ordinary preliminary investigation procedure—specifically its referral to the Presidential Security Command for fact-finding—and considered that conduct suggestive of politicization of the prosecutorial process. The Court found the near three-year interval between termination of preliminary investigation (October 1982) and the Tanodbayan’s resolution (April 1985) excessive. While acknowledging that PD 911’s ten-day resolution rule is dire

...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.

About Privacy Terms