FIRST DIVISION
G.R. Nos. 230869-70, September 16, 2020
ASUNCION M. MAGBAET, PETITIONER, V. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J. JR., J.:
Before the Court is a Petition1 for Certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking the annulment of Sandiganbayan Resolutions dated April 1, 20162 and December 14, 20163 in Criminal (Crim.) Case Nos. SB-13-CRM-0603 to 04 with prayer for the issuance of a status quo order or a temporaiy restraining order.
That on November 15, 1996 and/or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused [Belicena], [Andutan], [Napenas] and [Magdaet], all public officers being then the Undersecretary of Department of Finance, Deputy Executive Director, Evaluator and supervising Tax Specialist II, respectively, of the [DOF-Center], while in the performance of their official functions, committing the offense in relation to the office, conspiring with each other, together with accused [Uy], [Tong], [Yu] and [Guballa], all private individuals, all connected with [NTMTJ) through manifest partiality and evident bad faith did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury to the government and give unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to [NTMI] by causing the processing, evaluation, recommending the approval and approving through the issuance of Tax Credit Certificate No. 006355 in Hie amount of [P]2,411,773.00 the tax credit claimed/applied by [NTMI] which was granted as tax credit on raw materials under Article 39(k) of Executive Order No. 226, as amended for the 83,144.88 kilograms of 70D Nylon Filament Yam which it falsely represented through falsified documents submitted in support of the tax credit application, such as among others, Import Entry and Internal Revenue Declaration No. 02103839, Bill of Lading No. BSMAD 6-0080 and Bureau of Customs' Official Receipt No. 59994543 to have been imported from Sunkyong Industries, Korea for which taxes and other fees were paid and which purported Nylon Knitted Fabrics end product in the total quantity of 80,731.00 kilograms were falsely represented through false documents submitted in support of the tax credit application such as among others, Bill of Lading No. NB44SB7528 and Bill of Lading No. NB46SB7651 to have been exported to Bright Sun Asia International, Singapore, despite the fact which the accused knew fully well that [NTMTJ did not import and export as represented to be entitled to the tax credit claimed/applied and once in possession of Tax Credit Certificate No. 006355, [NTMT] through its accused officers and stockholders, utilized the full amount thereof in payment of its taxes duties and fees to the damage, undue injury and prejudice of the Government.As it happened, the two Information were reviewed by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) and both were signed by Assistant Special Prosecutor III Irenio M. Paldeng (ASP Paldeng) on March 2,2007.10
CONTRARY TO LAW.8cralawredCrim. Case No. SB-13-CRM-0604
(Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents)
That on November 15, 1996 and/or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within tlie jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused [Belicena], [Andutan], [Napenas]and [Magdaet], all public officers being then tlie Undersecretary of Department of Finance, Deputy Executive Director, Evaluator and supervising Tax Specialist II, respectively, of the [DOF-Center], while in tlie performance of their official functions, committing the offense in relation to office, conspiring with each other, together with accused [Uy], [Tong], [Yu] and [Guballa], all private individuals, all connected with [NTMIJwith intent to defraud through deceit, false pretense and abuse of confidence did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously cause the processing, evaluation, recommending the approval and approving through the issuance of Tax Credit Certificate No. 006355 in the amount of [P]2,411,773.00, tlie tax credit claimed/applied by [NTMTJ which was granted as tax credit on raw materials under Article 39(k) of Executive Order No. 266, as amended for the fictitious/non-existent importation of 83,144.88 kilograms 70D Nylon Filament Yarn from Sunkyong Industries by [NTMTJ, which purported Nylon Knitted Fabrics end product in tlie total quantity of 80,731.00 kilograms were exported to Bright Sim Asia International, Singapore, falsely made to exist by the accused by falsifying, fabricating and simulating several documents, which were used/submitted in support of the tax credit application, such as, among others, Import Entry and Internal Revenue Declaration No. 02103839, Bill of Lading No. BSMAD 6-0080, Bureau of Customs' Official Receipt No. 59994543, by making it appeal- mat [NTMTJ imported 83,144.88 kilograms 70D Nylon Filament Yarn from Sunkyung Industries, Korea on May 6, 1996, paid the corresponding taxes/fees therefor; Bill of Lading No. NB44SB7528 and Bill of Lading No. NB46SB7651 by making it appeal' that [NTMI] shipped/exported, through vessel Neptune Beiyl a total of 80,731 kilograms of Nylon Knitted Fabrics on August 20, 1996 and September 9, 1996 respectively to Bright Sun Asia International, Singapore when in truth and in fact, as the accused knew fully well, no such import, payment of taxes/fees aid shipment/export were ever made by [NTMI], and once in possession of Tax Credit Certificate No. 006355, [NTMI] through its accused officers and stockholders, utilized tlie full amount thereof in payment of its taxes duties and fees to the damage and prejudice of the Government.
CONTRARY TO LAW.9cralawlawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES the Consolidated Motion to Quash Informations riled by accused Asuncion Magdaet for utter lack of merit.In denying the Consolidated Motion to Quash Information, the Sandiganbayan, citing Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan17 held that structural reorganization in prosecutorial agencies was a valid reason for delay. Fuither, tlie Sandiganbayan ruled that the delay cannot be entirely attributed to the Ombudsman but to Magdaet as well for failing to timely demand her right to the prompt resolution of her case.
SO ORDERED.16cralawlawlibrary
(1) The right to speedy disposition of cases is different from the right to speedy trial.Applying the foregoing tenets to the case at bench, the Court finds that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying Magdaet's Consolidated Motion to Quash Information.
The former may only be invoked in criminal prosecutions against courts of law while the latter may be invoked before any tribunal as long as Hie respondent may already be prejudiced by the proceeding.
(2) For purposes of determining inordinate delay, a case is deemed to have commenced from the filing of the formal complaint and the subsequent conduct of the preliminary investigation.
Cagang, thus, abandoned People v. Sandiganbayan. The Ombudsman should set reasonable periods for preliminary investigation and delays beyond this period will be taken against the prosecution.
(3) Courts must determine which party carries the burden of proof.
If it has been alleged mat mere was delay within the time periods (i.e., according to the time periods that will be issued by the Ombudsman), the burden is on the defense to show that mere has been violation of their rights to speedy disposition of case or to speedy trial. The defense must prove: (a) that the case took much longer than was reasonably necessary to resolve and (b) that efforts were exerted to protect their constitutional rights.
If the delay occurs beyond the given time period and the right is invoked, tlae prosecution has the burden of justifying the delay. The prosecution must prove: (a) mat it followed the prescribed procedure in the conduct of preliminary investigation and case prosecution; (b) the delay was inevitable due to the complexity of the issues and volume of evidence; and (c) accused was not prejudiced by the delay.
(4) Detemiination of the length of delay is never mechanical.
Courts must consider the entire context of the case, the amount of evidence and the complexity of issues involved. An examination of the delay is no longer necessary to justify the dismissal of the case if the prosecution of the case was solely motivated by malice.
(5) The right to speedy disposition of cases (or the right to speedy trial) must be timely raised.
The respondent or the accused must file the appropriate motion upon the lapse of tlae statutory or procedural periods, otherwise, they are deemed to have waived their right.
Endnotes:
* Designated as additional member in lieu of Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta per Raffle dated
September 14, 2020.
1Rollo, pp. 19-39.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Teresita V. Diaz-Baldos, with Associate Justices Napoleon E. Inoturan and Michael Frederick L. Musngi, concurring; id. at 48-52.
3 Penned by Associate Justice Michael Frederick L. Musngi, with Associate Justices Samuel R. Martires (now Ombudsman) and Geraldine Faith A. Econg (sitting as a Special Member per Administrative Order No. 242-2016 dated August 9, 2016); id. at 45-47.
4 Id. at 136-143.
5 Id. at 102-135.
6 Also referred to as "May Uy Yu" and "Mary Uy Yu" in some parts of the rollo.
7 ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT.
8Rollo, pp. 80-81.
9 Id. at 84-85.
10 Id. at 90.
11 Id. at 134.
12 Id. at 90.
13 Id. at 53-57.
14 RULE 117 - Motion to Quashx x x x15Rollo, pp. 87-97.
SECTION 3. Grounds. — The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the
following grounds:
x x x x
(d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so[.]
16 Id. at 51.
17 292-APhil. 144(1993).
18 Id. at 58-62.
19 Id. at pp. 313-336.
20 Article III, Section 16 provides:
Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, qwos/'-judicial or administrative bodies.
21Magno v. People, G.R. No. 230657, March 14, 2018.
22Magante v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), G.R. Nos. 230950-51, July 23, 2018.
23 Article XI, Section 12 provides:
SEC. 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and the result thereof. (Emphasis supplied).
24 Sec. 13 ofR.A. No. 6770, otherwise known as "The OMBUDSMAN ACT OF 1989" states:
SEC. 13. Mandate.— The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against officers or employees of the Government, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people. (Emphasis supplied).
25 Supra note 22.
26Tumbocon v. Sandiganbayan Sixth Division, G.R. Nos. 235412-15, November 5, 2018.
27 G.R. No. 229656, August 19, 2019.
28 G.R. Nos. 206438, 206458 & 210141-42, July 31, 2018.
29Rollo, p. 88.
30 Id. at 174-185.
31People, v. Sandiganbayan, 723 Phil. 444 (2013).
32 791 Phil. 37 (2016).
33 Supra note 26.
34 Supra note 32.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary