SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 214747. July 18, 2022
NEMIA T. MAGALUNA, ANECIA C. PORE, EDELYN D. ESPEJON, HERMES P. FORCADILLA, EUTIQUIO C. PALER, CHARLITO B. PLAZA AND GLENDALE F. ESCATRON, Petitioners, v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (MINDANAO), REPRESENTED BY HON. RODOLFO M. ELMAN, DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR MINDANAO, HON. MARCO ANACLETO P. BUENA, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, EVALUATION AND INVESTIGATION BUREAU-B, HON. QUINTIN J. PEDRERO, JR., GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER II AND HON. RANDOLPH C. CADIOGAN, JR., GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER I AND NICASIO E. SULAPAS (FORMER SANGGUNIANG BAYAN MEMBER OF GENERAL LUNA, SURIGAO DEL NORTE), Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
KHO, JR., J.:
Assailed in this Petition for Certiorari with prayer for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction1 are the Resolution2 dated April 14, 2014 and the Order3 dated August 4, 2014, both issued by the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao (Ombudsman Mindanao) finding probable cause to indict petitioners Nemia T. Magaluna, Anecia C. Pore, Edelyn D. Espejon, Hermes P. Forcadilla, Eutiquio C. Paler, Glendale F. Escatron, Charlito B. Plaza (petitioners) and Juanito A. Antolin for violation of Article 171, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code.
On September 29, 2006, SB Secretary Peejay B. Gorgonio (Gorgonio) submitted a certified true copy of the February 23, 2004 minutes and a letter explaining that he cannot submit the original thereof as there is only one copy left in his office.19 He also executed and submitted an affidavit20 stating that SB Resolution Nos. 3 and 4 do not exist in record and that the February 23, 2004 minutes never mentioned them nor were they passed upon during the session for that day. To further prove the non-existence of SB Resolution Nos. 3 and 4, Gorgonio said that SB Resolution No. 19, Series of 2004 was passed on January 12, 2004, or on a date even prior to when SB Resolution Nos. 3 and 4 were allegedly passed.21chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
- SB Resolution No. 3 Series of 2004 dated 23 February 2004.
- SB Resolution No. 4 Series of 2004 dated 23 February 2004.
- Minutes of meeting of the Regular Session of the SB Members of General Luna, Surigao del Norte held on 23 February 2004.
"11. Let it be pointed out also that our respective constitutional rights to a Speedy Disposition of our Case have already been violated; Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that "All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial and quasi-judicial or administrative bodies." In the landmark case of Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, No. L-72335-39, 21 March 1988, the Supreme Court explained that inordinate delay in the disposition of cases is a violation of the constitutional right of the accused to due process of law..."42chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryOn April 25, 2014, Ombudsman Mindanao approved a Resolution dated April 14, 2014,43 the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, as for SB Resolution No. 03, this Office finds probable cause to indict respondents Nemia T. Magaluna, Anecia C. Pore, Edelyn D. Espejon, Hermes P. Forcadilla, Eutiquio C. Paler, Glendale F. Escatron, Charlito B. Plaza and Juanito A. Antolin for violation of Article 171, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code.On May 26, 2014, Plaza filed his Motion for Reconsideration (MR), in which he again asserted his right to speedy disposition of case.45chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
As for SB Resolution No. 04, this Office finds probable cause to indict respondents Nemia T. Magaluna, Anecia C. Pore, Edelyn D. Espejon, Hermes P. Forcadilla, Eutiquio C. Paler, Charlito B. Plaza and Juanito A. Antolin.
The case is dismissed as for respondent Erlinita B. Sta. Romana for lack of probable cause.
SO RESOLVED."44chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
"4. The truth of the matter is that the case is just a product of political conflict. x x xDespite such Affidavit, Ombudsman Mindanao issued an Order dated August 4, 2014 denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.49chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
5. After long consideration of the circumstances and facts surrounding the case, I can honestly say that what arose was a simple misapprehension of facts. That the respondents in question had no intention to falsify the document."48chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
First, the right to speedy disposition of cases is different from the right to speedy trial. While the rationale for both rights is the same, the right to speedy trial may only be invoked in criminal prosecutions against courts of law. The right to speedy disposition of cases, however, may be invoked before any tribunal, whether judicial or quasi-judicial. What is important is that the accused may already be prejudiced by the proceeding for the right to speedy disposition of cases to be invoked.The Court applies these rules to the case at bar.
Second, a case is deemed initiated upon the filing of a formal complaint prior to a conduct of a preliminary investigation. This Court acknowledges, however, that the Ombudsman should set reasonable periods for preliminary investigation, with due regard to the complexities and nuances of each case. Delays beyond this period will be taken against the prosecution. The period taken for fact-finding investigations prior to the filing of the formal complaint shall not be included in the determination of whether there has been inordinate delay.
Third, courts must first determine which party carries the burden of proof. If the right is invoked within the given time periods contained in current Supreme Court resolutions and circulars, and the time periods that will be promulgated by the Office of the Ombudsman, the defense has the burden of proving that the right was justifiably invoked. If the delay occurs beyond the given time period and the right is invoked, the prosecution has the burden of justifying the delay.
If the defense has the burden of proof, it must prove first, whether the case is motivated by malice or clearly only politically motivated and is attended by utter lack of evidence, and second, that the defense did not contribute to the delay.
Once the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution, the prosecution must prove first, that it followed the prescribed procedure in the conduct of preliminary investigation and in the prosecution of the case; second, that the complexity of the issues and the volume of evidence made the delay inevitable; and third, that no prejudice was suffered by the accused as a result of the delay.
Fourth, determination of the length of delay is never mechanical. Courts must consider the entire context of the case, from the amount of evidence to be weighed to the simplicity or complexity of the issues raised.
An exception to this rule is if there is an allegation that the prosecution of the case was solely motivated by malice, such as when the case is politically motivated or when there is continued prosecution despite utter lack of evidence. Malicious intent may be gauged from the behavior of the prosecution throughout the proceedings. If malicious prosecution is properly alleged and substantially proven, the case would automatically be dismissed without need of further analysis of the delay.
Another exception would be the waiver of the accused to the right to speedy disposition of cases or the right to speedy trial. If it can be proven that the accused acquiesced to the delay, the constitutional right can no longer be invoked.
In all cases of dismissals due to inordinate delay, the causes of the delays must be properly laid out and discussed by the relevant court.
Fifth, 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 the statutory or procedural periods. Otherwise, they are deemed to have waived their right to speedy disposition of cases.64chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
There was inordinate delay in the preliminary investigation |
As previously mentioned, Cagang provides that a case is deemed initiated upon the filing of a formal complaint prior to the conduct of a preliminary investigation. However, the period taken for fact-finding investigations before the Ombudsman prior to the filing of the formal complaint shall not be included in the determination of whether there has been inordinate delay.65chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
February 23, 2004 Petitioners passed SB Resolution Nos. 3 and 4 July 21, 2006 Letter-complaint by Sulapas filed before the Ombudsman Mindanao August 3, 2006 Ombudsman Mindanao initiated fact-finding investigation September 11, 2006 Ombudsman Mindanao issued subpoena duces tecum directing SB secretary to submit originals of SB Resolution Nos. 3 and 4. September 29, 2006 SB Secretary wrote a letter stating SB Resolution Nos. 3 and 4 do not exist. March 11, 2008 Ombudsman Mindanao issued subpoena duces tecum directing CENRO Dapa, Surigao del Norte to submit originals of SB Resolution Nos. 3 and 4. April 18, 2008 Ombudsman Mindanao received originals of SB Resolution Nos. 3 and 4. April 7, 2009 Ombudsman Mindanao issued memorandum terminating fact-finding investigation and the start of preliminary investigation. May 4, 2009 Ombudsman Mindanao Order directed petitioners, except Plaza, to submit counter-affidavits. June 9, 2009 Petitioners, except Plaza, filed their joint counter-affidavit July 19, 2009 Reply filed by complainant Sulapas January 13, 2014 Ombudsman Mindanao impleaded Plaza directing him to file counter-affidavit February 11, 2014 Plaza filed his counter-affidavit and asserted his right to speedy disposition April 25, 2014 Ombudsman Mindanao issued resolution finding probable cause to indict petitioners May 26, 2014 Plaza filed his MR asserting his right to speedy disposition May 30, 2014 Petitioners, other than Plaza, filed their MR without invoking their right to speedy disposition of cases. June 4, 2014 Sulapas filed an Affidavit of Desistance August 4, 2014 Ombudsman Mindanao denied petitioners' MR
The prosecution had the burden to explain the delay in the preliminary investigation |
Thus the Rules of Court shall apply in a suppletory manner.68chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryRULE II
PROCEDURE IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
Section 4. Procedure – The preliminary investigation of cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and Regional Trial Courts shall be conducted in the manner prescribed in Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court x x x
x x x xRULE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 3. Rules of Court, application. – In all matters not provided in these rules, the Rules of Court shall apply in a suppletory character, or by analogy whenever practicable and convenient.
Petitioners, except for Plaza, acquiesced to the delay and failed to timely raise their right |
"Moreover, it is worthy to note that it was only on 21 December 1999, after the case was set for arraignment, that petitioners raised the issue of the delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation. As stated by them in their Motion to Quash/Dismiss, "[o]ther than the counter-affidavits, [they] did nothing." Also, in their petition, they averred: "Aside from the motion for extension of time to file counter-affidavits, petitioners in the present case did not file nor send any letter-queries addressed to the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao which conducted the preliminary investigation." They slept on their right – a situation amounting to laches. The matter could have taken a different dimension if during all those four years, they showed signs of asserting their right to a speedy disposition of their cases or at least made some overt acts, like filing a motion for early resolution, to show that they were not waiving that right. Their silence may, therefore be interpreted as a waiver of such right."74 (Emphasis supplied)Here, petitioners, except for Plaza, cannot deny that they knew that the preliminary investigation was still ongoing as they were asked to file counter-affidavits as early as May 2009. They submitted their counter-affidavits and did nothing until the resolution of the case on April 2014 or five (5) years later. Petitioners, except for Plaza, slept on their rights amounting to laches.
Respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in indicting petitioner Plaza |
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, p. 3-50.
2 Id. at 69-80. Signed by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II Quintin J. Pedrido, Jr. and approved by Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao Rodolfo M. Elman.
3 Id. at 81-87. Signed by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer I Randolph C. Cadiogan, Jr. and approved by Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao Rodolfo M. Elman.
4 Id. at 217-218.
5 Id.
6 Id. at 217.
7 Id. at 217-222.
8 Id. at 223-226.
9 Id. at 224 and 226.
10 Id. at 230-231.
11 Id. at 217-218.
12 Id. at 218.
13 Id. at 217.
14 Id. at 177.
15 Id. at 218.
16 Id. at 178.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 234.
19 Id. at 235.
20 Id. at 239.
21 Id.
22 Id. at 240.
23 Id.
24 Id. at 241.
25 Id.
26 Id. at 242-244.
27 Id. at 245.
28 Id. at 181.
29 Id. at 246-248.
30 Id.
31 Id. at 248.
32 Id. at 182.
33 Id. at 125-126.
34 Id. at 125.
35 Id. at 129-133.
36 Id. at 130-131.
37 Id. at 249-251.
38 Id. at 127-128.
39 Id. at 333.
40 Id. at 137-142.
41 Id. at 139-142.
42 Id. at 139-140.
43 Id. at 69-80.
44 Id. at 78-79.
45 Id. at 88-102.
46 Id. at 113-120.
47 Id. at 143-144.
48 Id. at 143.
49 Id. at 81-87.
50 Id. at 395.
51 Id. at 396.
52 Id. at 403.
53 Id. at 397.
54 Id. at 403.
55 Id.
56 Id.
57 Id. at 404.
58 Id. at 338.
59 Id. at 341-342.
60 Id. at 343-344.
61 Id. at 348.
62 Id.
63 837 Phil. 815 (2018).
64 Id.
65 Supra note 63.
66 Rollo, p. 182.
67 See Section 4, Rule II, Ombudsman Administrative Order No. 7, as amended, April 10, 1990.
68 See Section 3, Rule V, Ombudsman Administrative Order No. 7, as amended, April 10, 1990.
69 See Section 3, Rule 112, Rules of Court.SECTlON 3. Procedure. — The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in the following manner:70 Rollo, p. 344.
(a) The complaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, as well as other supporting documents to establish probable cause. They shall be in such number of copies as there are respondents, plus two (2) copies for the official file. The affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath, or in their absence or unavailability, before a notary public, each of whom must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits. (b) Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the investigating officer shall either dismiss it if he finds no ground to continue with the investigation, or issue a subpoena to the respondent attaching to it a copy of the complaint and its supporting affidavits and documents. The respondent shall have the right to examine the evidence submitted by the complainant which he may not have been furnished and to copy them at his expense. If the evidence is voluminous, the complainant may be required to specify those which he intends to present against the respondent, and these shall be made available for examination or copying by the respondent at his expense. Objects as evidence need not be furnished a party but shall be made available for examination, copying, or photographing at the expense of the requesting party. (c) Within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena with the complaint and supporting affidavits and documents, the respondent shall submit his counter-affidavit and that of his witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for his defense. The counter-affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to and certified as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, with copies thereof furnished by him to the complainant. The respondent shall not be allowed to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of a counter-affidavit. (d) If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed, does not submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10)-day period, the investigating officer shall resolve the complaint based on the evidence presented by the complainant. (e) The investigating officer may set a hearing if there are facts and issues to be clarified from a party or a witness. The parties can be present at the hearing but without the right to examine or cross-examine. They may, however, submit to the investigating officer questions which may be asked to the party or witness concerned. The hearing shall be held within ten (10) days from submission of the counter-affidavits and other document or from the expiration of the period for their submission. It shall be terminated within five (5) days. (f) Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the investigating officer shall determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial. (Emphasis supplied)
71 See Catamco v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 243560-62 & 243261-63, July 28, 2020.
72 See Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan, 714 Phil. 55 (2013).
73 Dela Peña v. Sandiganbayan, 412 Phil. 921 (2001).
74 Id. at 932.
75 See Section 3 and 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.cralawredlibrary