EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458. July 31, 2018.]

CESAR MATAS CAGANG, petitioner , vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, FIFTH

DIVISION, QUEZON CITY; OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN; and PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

[G.R. Nos. 210141-42. July 31, 2018.]

CESAR MATAS CAGANG, petitioner , vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, FIFTH

DIVISION, QUEZON CITY; OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN; and PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

DECISION

LEONEN, J : p

Every accused has the rights to due process and to speedy disposition of cases.
Inordinate delay in the resolution and termination of a preliminary investigation will result
in the dismissal of the case against the accused. Delay, however, is not determined
through mere mathematical reckoning but through the examination of the facts and
circumstances surrounding each case. Courts should appraise a reasonable period from
the point of view of how much time a competent and independent public officer would
need in relation to the complexity of a given case. Nonetheless, the accused must
invoke his or her constitutional rights in a timely manner. The failure to do so could be
considered by the courts as a waiver of right. aSc ITE

G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458 are Petitions for Certiorari with an urgent prayer
for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction 1
assailing the Resolutions dated September 12, 2012 2 and January 15, 2013 3 of the
Sandiganbayan. The assailed Resolutions denied Cesar Matas Cagang's (Cagang)
Motion to Quash/Dismiss with Prayer to Void and Set Aside Order of Arrest in Criminal
Case Nos. SB-11-CRM-0456 and SB-11-CRM-0457.
G.R. Nos. 210141-42, on the other hand, refer to a Petition for Certiorari with an
urgent prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
injunction 4 assailing the June 18, 2013 Order 5 and September 10, 2013 Resolution 6 of
the Sandiganbayan. The assailed Resolutions denied Cagang's Motion to Quash Order
of Arrest in Criminal Case Nos. SB-11-CRM-0456 and SB-11-CRM-0457.
Both Petitions question the Sandiganbayan's denial to quash the Informations and
Order of Arrest against Cagang despite the Office of the Ombudsman's alleged
inordinate delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation.
On February 10, 2003, the Office of the Ombudsman received an anonymous
complaint alleging that Amelia May Constantino, Mary Ann Gadian, and Joy Tangan of
the Vice Governor's Office, Sarangani Province committed graft and corruption by
diverting public funds given as grants or aid using barangay officials and cooperatives
as "dummies." The complaint was docketed as CPL-M-03-0163 and referred to the
Commission on Audit for audit investigation. A news report of Sun Star Davao dated
August 7, 2003 entitled "P61M from Sarangani coffers unaccounted" was also docketed
as CPL-M-03-0729 for the conduct of a fact-finding investigation. 7
On December 31, 2002, the Commission on Audit submitted its audit report
finding that the officials and employees of the Provincial Government of Sarangani
appear to have embezzled millions in public funds by sourcing out the funds from
grants, aid, and the Countrywide Development Fund of Representative Erwin Chiongbian
using dummy cooperatives and people's organizations. 8 In particular, the Commission
on Audit found that:
(1) There were releases of financial assistance intended for non-
governmental organizations/people's organizations and local government
units that were fraudulently and illegally made through inexistent local
development projects, resulting in a loss of P16,106,613.00;
(2) Financial assistance was granted to cooperatives whose officials and
members were government personnel or relatives of officials of Sarangani,
which resulted in the wastage and misuse of government funds amounting
to P2,456,481.00;
(3) There were fraudulent encashment and payment of checks, and frequent
travels of the employees of the Vice Governor's Office, which resulted in
the incurrence by the province of unnecessary fuel and oil expense
amounting to P83,212.34; and
(4) Inexistent Sagiptaniman projects were set up for farmers affected by
calamities, which resulted in wastage and misuse of government funds
amounting to P4,000,000.00. 9
On September 30, 2003, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a Joint Order
terminating Case Nos. CPL-M-03-0163 and CPL-M-03-0729. It concurred with the
findings of the Commission on Audit and recommended that a criminal case for
Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Public Documents and Violation of
Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 be filed against the public officers named by the
Commission on Audit in its Summary of Persons that Could be Held Liable on the
Irregularities. The list involved 180 accused. 10 The case was docketed as OMB-M-C-
0487-J.
After considering the number of accused involved, its limited resources, and the
volumes of case records, the Office of the Ombudsman first had to identify those
accused who appeared to be the most responsible, with the intention to later on file
separate cases for the others. 11
In a Joint Order dated October 29, 2003, the accused were directed to file their
counter-affidavits and submit controverting evidence. The complainants were also given
time to file their replies to the counter-affidavits. There was delay in the release of the
order since the reproduction of the voluminous case record to be furnished to the parties
"was subjected to bidding and request of funds from the Central Office." 12 Only five (5)
sets of reproductions were released on November 20, 2003 while the rest were released
only on January 15, 2004. 13 HEITAD

All impleaded elective officials and some of the impleaded appointive officials filed
a Petition for Prohibition, Mandamus, Injunction with Writ of Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order with Branch 28, Regional Trial Court of Alabel, Sarangani.
The Regional Trial Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the Office of
the Ombudsman from enforcing its October 29, 2003 Joint Order. 14
In an Order dated December 19, 2003, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the
Petition on the ground that the officials had filed another similar Petition with this Court,
which this Court had dismissed. 15 Thus, some of the accused filed their counter-
affidavits. 16
After what the Office of the Ombudsman referred to as "a considerable period of
time," it issued another Order directing the accused who had not yet filed their counter-
affidavits to file them within seven (7) days or they will be deemed to have waived their
right to present evidence on their behalf. 17
In a 293-page Resolution 18 dated August 11, 2004 in OMB-M-C-0487-J, the
Ombudsman found probable cause to charge Governor Miguel D. Escobar, Vice
Governor Felipe Constantino, Board Members, and several employees of the Office of
the Vice Governor of Sarangani and the Office of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan with
Malversation through Falsification of Public Documents and Violation of Section 3 (e) of
Republic Act No. 3019. 19 Then Tanodbayan Simeon V. Marcelo (Tanodbayan Marcelo)
approved the Resolution, noting that it was modified by his Supplemental Order dated
October 18, 2004. 20
In the Supplemental Order dated October 18, 2004, Tanodbayan Marcelo ordered
the conduct of further fact-finding investigations on some of the other accused in the
case. Thus, a preliminary investigation docketed as OMB-M-C-0480-K was conducted
on accused Hadji Moner Mangalen (Mangalen) and Umbra Macagcalat (Macagcalat). 21
In the meantime, the Office of the Ombudsman filed an Information dated July 12,
2005, charging Miguel Draculan Escobar (Escobar), Margie Purisima Rudes (Rudes),
Perla Cabilin Maglinte (Maglinte), Maria Deposo Camanay (Camanay), and Cagang of
Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification of Public Documents. 22 The Information
read:
That on July 17, 2002 or prior subsequent thereto in Sarangani,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Miguel
Draculan Escobar, being the Governor of the Province of Sarangani, Margie
Purisima Rudes, Board Member, Perla Cabilin Maglinte, Provincial
Administrator, Maria Deposo Carnanay, Provincial Accountant, and Cesar
Matas Cagang, Provincial Treasurer, and all high-ranking and accountable
public officials of the Provincial Government of Sarangani by reason of their
duties, conspiring and confederating with one another, while committing the
offense in relation to office, taking advantage of their respective positions, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, convert and
misappropriate the amount of THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY[-]FIVE
THOUSAND PESOS (P375,000.00), Philippine Currency, in public funds under
their custody, and for which they are accountable, by falsifying or causing to be
falsified Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2002-7-10376 and its supporting
documents, making it appear that financial assistance has been sought by
Amon Lacungam, the alleged President of Kalalong Fishermen's Group of Brgy.
Kalaong, Maitum, Sarangani, when in truth and in fact, the accused knew fully
well that no financial assistance had been requested by Amon Lacungan and
his association, nor did said Amon Lacungan and his association receive the
aforementioned amount, thereby facilitating the release of the above-mentioned
public funds in the amount of THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY[-]FIVE
THOUSAND PESOS (P375,000.00) through the encashment by the accused of
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) Check No. 11521401 dated July
17, 2002, which amount they subsequently misappropriated to their personal
use and benefit, and despite demand, said accused failed to return the said
amount to the damage and prejudice of the government and the public interest
in the aforesaid sum.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 23
The Sandiganbayan docketed the case as Crim. Case No. 28331. Escobar,
Maglinte, and Cagang were arraigned on December 6, 2005 where they pleaded not
guilty. Rudes and Camanay remained at large. 24
On June 17, 2010, the Sandiganbayan rendered a Decision 25 in Crim. Case No.
28331 acquitting Escobar, Maglinte, and Cagang for insufficiency of evidence. Maglinte,
however, was ordered to return P100,000.00 with legal interest to the Province of
Sarangani. The cases against Rudes and Camanay were archived until the
Sandiganbayan could acquire jurisdiction over their persons. 26 ATICc S

In a Memorandum 27 dated August 8, 2011 addressed to Ombudsman Conchita

Carpio Morales (Ombudsman Carpio Morales), Assistant Special Prosecutor III Pilarita
T. Lapitan reported that on April 12, 2005, a Resolution 28 was issued in OMB-M-C-
0480-K finding probable cause to charge Mangalen and Macagcalat with Malversation of
Public Funds through Falsification and Violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No.
3019. 29 Thus, it prayed for the approval of the attached Informations:
It should be noted that in a Memorandum dated 10 December 2004 and
relative to OMB-M-C-03-0487-J from which OMB-M-C-04-0480-K originated,
Assistant Special Prosecutor Maria Janina Hidalgo recommended to
Ombudsman Marcelo that the status of state witness be conferred upon Gadian.
This recommendation was approved by Ombudsman Marcelo on 20 December
2004. Hence, as may be noted[,] Gadian was no longer included as respondent
and accused in the Resolution dated 12 April 2005 and the attached
information.
Related cases that originated from OMB-M-C-03-0487-J for which no
further preliminary investigation is necessary were filed before the courts. One
of these cases is now docketed as Criminal Case No. 28293 and pending
before the Sandiganbayan, First Division. It is noteworthy that in its Order dated
14 November 2006 the Sandiganbayan, First Division granted the Motion to
Dismiss of the counsel of Felipe Constantino after having submitted a duly
certified true copy of his client's Death Certificate issued by the National
Statistics Office. Considering the fact therefore, there is a necessity to drop
Constantino as accused in this case and accordingly, revised the attached
Information.
An Information for Malversation through Falsification of Public
Documents is also submitted for your Honor's approval considering that no such
Information is attached to the records of this case.
VIEWED IN THE FOREGOING LIGHT, it is respectfully recommended
that, in view of his death, Felipe Constantino no longer be considered as
accused in this case and that the attached Informations be approved. 30
Ombudsman Carpio Morales approved the recommendation on October 20, 2011.
31 Thus, on November 17, 2011, Informations 32 for Violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic

Act No. 3019 and Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Public
Documents were filed against Cagang, Camanay, Amelia Carmela Constantino Zoleta
(Zoleta), Macagcalat, and Mangalen. The Informations read:
[For Violation of Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019]
That on 20 September 2002, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in
Sarangani, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
accused Provincial Treasurer CESAR MATAS CAGANG, Provincial
Accountant MARIA DEPOSO CAMANAY, and Executive Assistant to Vice
Governor Felipe Katu Constantino, AMELIA CARMELA CONSTANTINO
ZOLETA, and then Vice-Governor and now deceased Felipe Katu Constantino,
all of the Provincial Government of Sarangani, committing the offense in relation
to the performance of their duties and functions, taking advantage of their
respective official positions, through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
gross inexcusable negligence, conspiring and confederating with Barangay
Captain UMBRA ADAM MACAGCALAT and HADJI MONER MANGALEN, the
alleged President and Treasurer, respectively of Kamanga Muslim-Christian
Fishermen's Cooperative ("Cooperative"), did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously cause the disbursement of the amount of Three Hundred and
Fifty Thousand Pesos (P350,000.00) under SARO No. D-98000987 through
Development Bank of the Philippines Check No. 282398 dated 20 September
2002 and with HADJI MONER MANGELEN as payee thereof, by falsifying
Disbursement Voucher No. 401-200209-148 dated 20 September 2002 and its
supporting documents to make it appear that financial assistance was
requested and given to the Cooperative, when in truth and in fact, neither was
there a request for financial assistance received by the said Cooperative after
the check was encashed, as herein accused, conspiring and confederating with
each other, did then and there malverse, embezzle, misappropriate and convert
to their own personal use and benefit the said amount of P350,000.00 thereby
causing undue injury to the government in the aforesaid amount.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
[For Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification of Public Documents]
That on 20 September 2002, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in
Sarangani, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
accused Provincial Treasurer CESAR MATAS CAGANG, and now deceased
Felipe Katu Constantino, being then the Provincial Treasurer and Vice-
Governor respectively, of the Province of Sarangani who, by reason of their
public positions, are accountable for and has control of public funds entrusted
and received by them during their incumbency as Provincial Treasurer and
Vice-Governor respectively, of said province, with accused Provincial
Accountant MARIA DEPOSO CAMANAY, and Executive Assistant to Vice
Governor Felipe Katu Constantino, AMELIA CARMELA CONSTANTINO
ZOLETA, and then Vice-Governor and now deceased Felipe Katu Constantino,
all of the Provincial Government of Sarangani, committing the offense in relation
to the performance of their duties and functions, taking advantage of their
respective official positions, conspiring and confederating with Barangay
Captain UMBRA ADAM MACAGCALAT and HADJI MONER MANGALEN, the
alleged President and Treasurer, respectively of Kamanga Muslim-Christian
Fishermen's Cooperative ("Cooperative"), did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously falsify or cause to be falsified Disbursement Voucher No. 401-
200209-148 dated 20 September 2002 and its supporting documents, by
making it appear that financial assistance in the amount of Three Hundred and
Fifty Thousand Pesos (P350,000.00) had been requested by the Cooperative,
with CESAR MATAS CAGANG, despite knowledge that the amount of
P350,000.00 is to be sourced out from SARO No. D-98000987, still certifying
that cash is available for financial assistance when Countrywide Development
Funds could not be disbursed for financial aids and assistance pursuant to DBM
Circular No. 444, and MARIA DEPOSO CAMANAY certifying as to the
completeness and propriety of the supporting documents despite non-
compliance with Commission on Audit Circular No. 96-003 prescribing the
requirements for disbursements of financial assistance and aids, thus facilitating
the issuance of Development Bank of the Philippines Check No. 282398 dated
20 September 2002 in the amount of P350,000.00 and in the name of HADJI
MONER MANGELEN, the alleged Treasurer of the Cooperative, when in truth
and in fact, neither was there a request for financial assistance received by the
said Cooperative after the check was encashed, as herein accused, conspiring
and confederating with each other, did then and there malverse, embezzle,
misappropriate and convert to their own personal use and benefit the said
amount of P350,000.00 thereby causing undue injury to the government in the
aforesaid amount. TIADCc

CONTRARY TO LAW. 33
The cases were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. SB-11-0456 and SB-11-0457.
Cagang filed a Motion to Quash/Dismiss with Prayer to Void and Set Aside Order
of Arrest while Macagcalat and Mangalen separately filed their own Motion to
Quash/Dismiss with Prayer to Void and Set Aside Order of Arrest. Cagang argued that
there was an inordinate delay of seven (7) years in the filing of the Informations. Citing
Tatad v. Sandiganbayan 34 and Roque v. Ombudsman, 35 he argued that the delay
violated his constitutional rights to due process and to speedy disposition of cases. 36
The Office of the Ombudsman, on the other hand, filed a Comment/Opposition arguing
that the accused have not yet submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court and
that there was no showing that delay in the filing was intentional, capricious, whimsical,
or motivated by personal reasons. 37
On September 10, 2012, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution 38 denying the
Motions to Quash/Dismiss. It found that Cagang, Macagcalat, and Mangalen voluntarily
submitted to the jurisdiction of the court by the filing of the motions. 39 It also found that
there was no inordinate delay in the issuance of the information, considering that 40
different individuals were involved with direct participation in more or less 81 different
transactions. 40 It likewise found Tatad and Roque inapplicable since the filing of the
Informations was not politically motivated. 41 It pointed out that the accused did not
invoke their right to speedy disposition of cases before the Office of the Ombudsman
but only did so after the filing of the Informations. 42

Cagang filed a Motion for Reconsideration 43 but it was denied in a Resolution 44

dated January 15, 2013. Hence, Cagang filed a Petition for Certiorari 45 with this Court,
docketed as G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458. 46
In an Urgent Motion to Quash Order of Arrest 47 dated June 13, 2013 filed before
the Sandiganbayan, Cagang alleged that an Order of Arrest was issued against him. 48
He moved for the quashal of the Order on the ground that he had a pending Petition for
Certiorari before this Court. 49
In an Order 50 dated June 28, 2013, the Sandiganbayan denied the Urgent Motion
to Quash Order of Arrest on the ground that it failed to comply with the three (3)-day
notice rule and that no temporary restraining order was issued by this Court.
Cagang filed a Motion for Reconsideration 51 but it was denied by the
Sandiganbayan in a Resolution 52 dated September 10, 2013. Hence, he filed a Petition
for Certiorari with an urgent prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
and/or writ of preliminary injunction, 53 essentially seeking to restrain the
implementation of the Order of Arrest against him. This Petition was docketed as G.R.
Nos. 210141-42.
On February 5, 2014, this Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order 54 in G.R.
Nos. 210141-42 enjoining the Sandiganbayan from continuing with the proceedings of
the case and from implementing the warrant of arrest against Cagang. This Court
likewise consolidated G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458 with G.R. Nos. 210141-42. 55 The
Office of the Special Prosecutor submitted its separate Comments 56 to the Petitions on
behalf of the People of the Philippines and the Office of the Ombudsman. 57
Petitioner argues that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion
when it dismissed his Motion to Quash/Dismiss since the Informations filed against him
violated his constitutional rights to due process and to speedy disposition of cases.
Citing Tatad v. Sandiganbayan , 58 he argues that the Office of the Ombudsman lost its
jurisdiction to file the cases in view of its inordinate delay in terminating the preliminary
investigation almost seven (7) years after the filing of the complaint. 59
Petitioner further avers that the dismissal of cases due to inordinate delay is not
because the revival of the cases was politically motivated, as in Tatad , but because it
violates Article III, Section 16 of the Constitution 60 and Rule 112, Section 3 (f) 61 of the
Rules of Court. 62 He points out that the Sandiganbayan overlooked two (2) instances of
delay by the Office of the Ombudsman: the first was from the filing of the complaint on
February 10, 2003 to the filing of the Informations on November 17, 2011, and the
second was from the conclusion of the preliminary investigation in 2005 to the filing of
the Informations on November 17, 2011. 63 AIDSTE

Petitioner asserts that the alleged anomalous transactions in this case were
already thoroughly investigated by the Commission on Audit in its Audit Report; thus,
the Office of the Ombudsman should not have taken more than seven (7) years to study
the evidence needed to establish probable cause. 64 He contends that "[w]hen the
Constitution enjoins the Office of the Ombudsman to 'act promptly' on any complaint
against any public officer or employee, it has the concomitant duty to speedily resolve
the same." 65
Petitioner likewise emphasizes that the Sandiganbayan should have granted his
Motion to Quash Order of Arrest since there was a pending Petition before this Court
questioning the issuance of the Informations against him. He argues that the case would
become moot if the Order of Arrest is not quashed. 66
The Office of the Special Prosecutor, on the other hand, alleges that petitioner,
along with his co-accused Camanay, Zoleta, Macagcalat, and Magalen have remained
at large and cannot be located by the police, and that they have not yet surrendered or
been arrested. 67 It argues that the parameters necessary to determine whether there
was inordinate delay have been repeatedly explained by the Sandiganbayan in the
assailed Resolutions. It likewise points out that petitioner should have invoked his right
to speedy disposition of cases when the case was still pending before the Office of the
Ombudsman, not when the Information was already filed with the Sandiganbayan. It
argues further that Tatad was inapplicable since there were peculiar circumstances
which prompted this Court to dismiss the information due to inordinate delay. 68
The Office of the Special Prosecutor argues that the Sandiganbayan already
made a judicial determination of the existence of probable cause pursuant to its duty
under Rule 112, Section 5 of the Rules of Court. 69 It points out that a petition for
certiorari is not the proper remedy to question the denial of a motion to quash and that
the appropriate remedy should be to proceed to trial. 70
Procedurally, the issues before this Court are whether or not the pendency of a
petition for certiorari with this Court suspends the proceedings before the
Sandiganbayan, and whether or not the denial of a motion to quash may be the subject
of a petition for certiorari . This Court is also tasked to resolve the sole substantive
issue of whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in
denying petitioner Cesar Matas Cagang's Motion to Quash/Dismiss with Prayer to Void
and Set Aside Order of Arrest and Urgent Motion to Quash Order of Arrest on the
ground of inordinate delay.

To give full resolution to this case, this Court must first briefly pass upon the
procedural issues raised by the parties.
Contrary to petitioner's arguments, the pendency of a petition for certiorari before
this Court will not prevent the Sandiganbayan from proceeding to trial absent the
issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction. Under Rule
65, Section 7 71 of the Rules of Court:
Section 7. Expediting proceedings; injunctive relief. — The court in which
the petition is filed may issue orders expediting the proceedings, and it may also
grant a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction for the
preservation of the rights of the parties pending such proceedings. The petition
shall not interrupt the course of the principal case, unless a temporary
restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued, enjoining
the public respondent from further proceeding with the case.
The public respondent shall proceed with the principal case within ten
(10) days from the filing of a petition for certiorari with a higher court or tribunal,
absent a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, or upon its
expiration. Failure of the public respondent to proceed with the principal case
may be a ground for an administrative charge.
Since this Court did not issue injunctive relief when the Petition in G.R. Nos.
206438 and 206458 was filed, the Sandiganbayan cannot be faulted from proceeding
with trial. It was only upon the filing of the Petition in G.R. Nos. 210141-42 that this
Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin the proceedings before the
Sandiganbayan.
As a general rule, the denial of a motion to quash is not appealable as it is merely
interlocutory. Likewise, it cannot be the subject of a petition for certiorari . The denial of
the motion to quash can still be raised in the appeal of a judgment of conviction. The
adequate, plain, and speedy remedy is to proceed to trial and to determine the guilt or
innocence of the accused. Thus, in Galzote v. Briones: 72 AaCTc I

. . . In the usual course of procedure, a denial of a motion to quash filed

by the accused results in the continuation of the trial and the determination of
the guilt or innocence of the accused. If a judgment of conviction is rendered
and the lower court's decision of conviction is appealed, the accused can then
raise the denial of his motion to quash not only as an error committed by the trial
court but as an added ground to overturn the latter's ruling.
In this case, the petitioner did not proceed to trial but opted to
immediately question the denial of his motion to quash via a special civil action
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
As a rule, the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and is
not appealable; an appeal from an interlocutory order is not allowed under
Section 1 (b), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Neither can it be a proper subject of
a petition for certiorari which can be used only in the absence of an appeal or
any other adequate, plain and speedy remedy. The plain and speedy remedy
upon denial of an interlocutory order is to proceed to trial as discussed above. 73
Ordinarily, the denial of a motion to quash simply signals the commencement of
the process leading to trial. The denial of a motion to quash, therefore, is not
necessarily prejudicial to the accused. During trial, and after arraignment, prosecution
proceeds with the presentation of its evidence for the examination of the accused and
the reception by the court. Thus, in a way, the accused is then immediately given the
opportunity to meet the charges on the merits. Therefore, if the case is intrinsically
without any grounds, the acquittal of the accused and all his suffering due to the
charges can be most speedily acquired.
The rules and jurisprudence, thus, balance procedural niceties and the immediate
procurement of substantive justice. In our general interpretation, therefore, the accused
is normally invited to meet the prosecution's evidence squarely during trial rather than
skirmish on procedural points.
A party may, however, question the denial in a petition for certiorari if the party
can establish that the denial was tainted with grave abuse of discretion:
[A] direct resort to a special civil action for certiorari is an exception rather than
the general rule, and is a recourse that must be firmly grounded on compelling
reasons. In past cases, we have cited the interest of a "more enlightened and
substantial justice;" the promotion of public welfare and public policy; cases that
"have attracted nationwide attention, making it essential to proceed with
dispatch in the consideration thereof;" or judgments on order attended by grave
abuse of discretion, as compelling reasons to justify a petition for certiorari.
In grave abuse of discretion cases, certiorari is appropriate if the
petitioner can establish that the lower court issued the judgment or order without
or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and the remedy of
appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief. The petitioner carries
the burden of showing that the attendant facts and circumstances fall within any
of the cited instances. 74
Petitioner alleges that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion
when it denied his Motion to Quash/Dismiss, insisting that the denial transgressed upon
his constitutional rights to due process and to speedy disposition of cases. A petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 is consistent with this theory.

II

The Constitution guarantees the right to speedy disposition of cases. Under

Article III, Section 16:
Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their
cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
The right to speedy disposition of cases should not be confused with the right to a
speedy trial, a right guaranteed under Article III, Section 14 (2) of the Constitution:
Section 14.
xxx xxx xxx
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent
until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him,
to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face,
and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may
proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been
duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
Ec TCAD

The right to a speedy trial is invoked against the courts in a criminal prosecution.
The right to speedy disposition of cases, however, is invoked even against quasi-judicial
or administrative bodies in civil, criminal, or administrative cases before them. As
Abadia v. Court of Appeals 75 noted:
The Bill of Rights provisions of the 1987 Constitution were precisely crafted to
expand substantive fair trial rights and to protect citizens from procedural
machinations which tend to nullify those rights. Moreover, Section 16, Article III
of the Constitution extends the right to a speedy disposition of cases to cases
"before all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies." This protection
extends to all citizens, including those in the military and covers the periods
before, during and after the trial, affording broader protection than Section 14(2)
which guarantees merely the right to a speedy trial. 76
Both rights, nonetheless, have the same rationale: to prevent delay in the
administration of justice. In Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan: 77
The right of the accused to a speedy trial and to a speedy disposition of
the case against him was designed to prevent the oppression of the citizen by
holding criminal prosecution suspended over him for an indefinite time, and to
prevent delays in the administration of justice by mandating the courts to
proceed with reasonable dispatch in the trial of criminal cases. Such right to a
speedy trial and a speedy disposition of a case is violated only when the
proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays. The
inquiry as to whether or not an accused has been denied such right is not
susceptible by precise qualification. The concept of a speedy disposition is a
relative term and must necessarily be a flexible concept.
While justice is administered with dispatch, the essential ingredient is
orderly, expeditious and not mere speed. It cannot be definitely said how long is
too long in a system where justice is supposed to be swift, but deliberate. It is
consistent with delays and depends upon circumstances. It secures rights to the
accused, but it does not preclude the rights of public justice. Also, it must be
borne in mind that the rights given to the accused by the Constitution and the
Rules of Court are shields, not weapons; hence, courts are to give meaning to
that intent. 78
While the right to speedy trial is invoked against courts of law, the right to speedy
disposition of cases may be invoked before quasi-judicial or administrative tribunals in
proceedings that are adversarial and may result in possible criminal liability. The right to
speedy disposition of cases is most commonly invoked in fact-finding investigations and
preliminary investigations by the Office of the Ombudsman since neither of these
proceedings form part of the actual criminal prosecution. The Constitution itself
mandates the Office of the Ombudsman to "act promptly" on complaints filed before it:
Section 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. 79
As if to underscore the importance of its mandate, this constitutional command is
repeated in Republic Act No. 6770, 80 which provides:
Section 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.
Neither the Constitution nor Republic Act No. 6770 provide for a specific period
within which to measure promptness. Neither do they provide for criteria within which to
determine what could already be considered as delay in the disposition of complaints.
Thus, judicial interpretation became necessary to determine what could be considered
"prompt" and what length of time could amount to unreasonable or "inordinate delay."
The concept of inordinate delay was introduced in Tatad v. Sandiganbayan , 81
where this Court was constrained to apply the "radical relief" of dismissing the criminal
complaint against an accused due to the delay in the termination of the preliminary
investigation. HSAc aE

I n Tatad , a report was submitted to the Legal Panel, Presidential Security

Command sometime in October 1974, charging Francisco S. Tatad (Tatad) with graft
and corruption during his stint as Minister of Public Information. In October 1979, Tatad
submitted his resignation. It was only on December 29, 1979 that a criminal complaint
was filed against him. Then President Ferdinand Marcos accepted his resignation on
January 26, 1980. On April 1, 1980, the Tanodbayan 82 referred the complaint to the
Criminal Investigation Service, Presidential Security Command for fact-finding. On June
16, 1980, the Investigation Report was submitted finding Tatad liable for violation of
Republic Act No. 3019.
Tatad moved for the dismissal of the case but this was denied on July 26, 1982.
His motion for reconsideration was denied on October 5, 1982. Affidavits and counter-
affidavits were submitted on October 25, 1982. On July 5, 1985, the Tanodbayan issued
a resolution approving the filing of informations against Tatad. Tatad filed a motion to
quash on July 22, 1985. The motion to quash was denied by the Sandiganbayan on
August 9, 1985. The Sandiganbayan, however, ordered the filing of an amended
information to change the date of the alleged commission of the offense. In compliance,
the Tanodbayan submitted its amended information on August 10, 1985. Tatad filed a
motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the Sandiganbayan on September 17,
1985. Hence, he filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with this Court, questioning
the filing of the cases with the Sandiganbayan.
On April 10, 1986, this Court required the parties to move in the premises
considering the change in administration brought about by the EDSA Revolution and the
overthrow of the Marcos regime. On June 20, 1986, the new Tanodbayan manifested
that as the charges were not political in nature, the State would still pursue the charges
against Tatad.
In resolving the issue of whether Tatad's constitutional rights to due process and
to speedy disposition of cases were violated, this Court took note that the finding of
inordinate delay applies in a case-to-case basis:
In a number of cases, this Court has not hesitated to grant the so-called
"radical relief" and to spare the accused from undergoing the rigors and
expense of a full-blown trial where it is clear that he has been deprived of due
process of law or other constitutionally guaranteed rights. Of course, it goes
without saying that in the application of the doctrine enunciated in those cases,
particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each
case. 83
This Court found that there were peculiar circumstances which attended the
preliminary investigation of the complaint, the most blatant of which was that the 1974
report against Tatad was only acted upon by the Tanodbayan when Tatad had a falling
out with President Marcos in 1979:
A painstaking review of the facts cannot but leave the impression that
political motivations played a vital role in activating and propelling the
prosecutorial process in this case. Firstly, the complaint came to life, as it were,
only after petitioner Tatad had a falling out with President Marcos. Secondly,
departing from established procedures prescribed by law for preliminary
investigation, which require the submission of affidavits and counter-affidavits
by the Tanodbayan referred the complaint to the Presidential Security
Command for fact-finding investigation and report.
We find such blatant departure from the established procedure as a
dubious, but revealing attempt to involve an office directly under the President in
the prosecution was politically motivated. We cannot emphasize too strongly
that prosecutors should not allow, and should avoid, giving the impression that
their noble office is being used or prostituted, wittingly or unwittingly, for political
ends or other purposes alien to, or subversive of, the basic and fundamental
objective of serving the interest of justice evenhandedly, without fear or favor to
any and all litigants alike, whether rich or poor, weak or strong, powerless or
mighty. Only by strict adherence to the established procedure may the public's
perception of the impartiality of the prosecutor be enhanced. 84
Thus, the delay of three (3) years in the termination of the preliminary
investigation was found to have been inordinate delay, which was violative of petitioner's
constitutional rights:
We find the long delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation
by the Tanodbayan in the instant case to be violative of the constitutional right of
the accused to due process. Substantial adherence to the requirements of the
law governing the conduct of preliminary investigation, including substantial
compliance with the time limitation prescribed by the law for the resolution of the
case by the prosecutor, is part of the procedural due process constitutionally
guaranteed by the fundamental law. Not only under the broad umbrella of the
due process clause, but under the constitutionally guarantee of "speedy
disposition" of cases as embodied in Section 16 of the Bill of Rights (both in the
1973 and the 1987 Constitutions), the inordinate delay is violative of the
petitioner's constitutional rights. A delay of close to three (3) years cannot be
deemed reasonable or justifiable in the light of the circumstance obtaining in the
case at bar. We are not impressed by the attempt of the Sandiganbayan to
sanitize the long delay by indulging in the speculative assumption that "the
delay may be due to a painstaking and grueling scrutiny by the Tanodbayan as
to whether the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation merited
prosecution of a former high-ranking government official." In the first place, such
a statement suggests a double standard of treatment, which must be
emphatically rejected. Secondly, three out of the five charges against the
petitioner were for his alleged failure to file his sworn statement of assets and
liabilities required by Republic Act No. 3019, which certainly did not involve
complicated legal and factual issues necessitating such "painstaking and
grueling scrutiny" as would justify a delay of almost three years in terminating
the preliminary investigation. The other two charges relating to alleged bribery
and alleged giving of unwarranted benefits to a relative, while presenting more
substantial legal and factual issues, certainly do not warrant or justify the period
of three years, which it took the Tanodbayan to resolve the case. 85 HESIc T

Political motivation, however, is merely one of the circumstances to be factored

in when determining whether the delay is inordinate. The absence of political motivation
will not prevent this Court from granting the same "radical relief." Thus, in Angchangco
v. Ombudsman, 86 this Court dismissed the criminal complaints even if the petition filed
before this Court was a petition for mandamus to compel the Office of the Ombudsman
to resolve the complaints against him after more than six (6) years of inaction:
Here, the Office of the Ombudsman, due to its failure to resolve the
criminal charges against petitioner for more than six years, has transgressed on
the constitutional right of petitioner to due process and to a speedy disposition
of the cases against him, as well as the Ombudsman's own constitutional duty
to act promptly on complaints filed before it. For all these past 6 years, petitioner
has remained under a cloud, and since his retirement in September 1994, he
has been deprived of the fruits of his retirement after serving the government for
over 42 years all because of the inaction of respondent Ombudsman. If we wait
any longer, it may be too late for petitioner to receive his retirement benefits, not
to speak of clearing his name. This is a case of plain injustice which calls for the
issuance of the writ prayed for. 87
As in Angchangco, this Court has applied the Tatad doctrine in Duterte v.
Sandiganbayan, 88 Roque v. Ombudsman, 89 Cervantes v. Sandiganbayan, 90 Lopez,
Jr. v. Ombudsman, 91 Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, 92 People v. SPO4 Anonas , 93
Enriquez v. Ombudsman, 94 People v. Sandiganbayan, First Division , 95 Inocentes v.
People, 96 Almeda v. Ombudsman, 97 People v. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division , 98
Torres v. Sandiganbayan, 99 and Remulla v. Sandiganbayan. 100
This Court, however, emphasized that "[a] mere mathematical reckoning of the
time involved is not sufficient" 101 to rule that there was inordinate delay. Thus, it
qualified the application of the Tatad doctrine in cases where certain circumstances do
not merit the application of the "radical relief" sought.
Despite the promulgation of Tatad , however, this Court struggled to apply a
standard test within which to determine the presence of inordinate delay. Martin v. Ver ,
102 decided in 1983, attempted to introduce in this jurisdiction the "balancing test" in the

American case of Barker v. Wingo , thus:

[T]he right to a speedy trial is a more vague and generically different concept
than other constitutional rights guaranteed to accused persons and cannot be
quantified into a specified number of days or months, and it is impossible to
pinpoint a precise time in the judicial process when the right must be asserted
or considered waived . . .
[A] claim that a defendant has been denied his right to a speedy trial is subject
to a balancing test, in which the conduct of both the prosecution and the
defendant are weighed, and courts should consider such factors as length of the
delay, reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion or non-assertion of his
right, and prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay, in determining
whether defendant's right to a speedy trial has been denied . . . 103
T h e Barker balancing test provides that courts must consider the following
factors when determining the existence of inordinate delay: first , the length of delay;
second , the reason for delay; third , the defendant's assertion or non-assertion of his or
her right; and fourth, the prejudice to the defendant as a result of the delay.
For a period of time, this balancing test appeared to be the best way to determine
the existence of inordinate delay. Thus, this Court applied both the Tatad doctrine and
the Barker balancing test in the 1991 case of Gonzales v. Sandiganbayan: 104
It must be here emphasized that the right to a speedy disposition of a
case, like the right to speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the proceeding
is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified
postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause or
justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party
having his case tried. Equally applicable is the balancing test used to determine
whether a defendant has been denied his right to a speedy trial, or a speedy
disposition of a case for that matter, in which the conduct of both the prosecution
and the defendant are weighed, and such factors as length of the delay, reason
for the delay, the defendant's assertion or non-assertion of his right, and
prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay, are considered. 105 c aITAC

The combination of both Tatad and the balancing test was so effective that it was
again applied in Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan, 106 where this Court took note that:
[D]elays per se are understandably attendant to all prosecutions and are
constitutionally permissible, with the monition that the attendant delay must not
be oppressive. Withal, it must not be lost sight of that the concept of speedy
disposition of cases is a relative term and must necessarily be a flexible
concept. Hence, the doctrinal rule is that in the determination of whether or not
that right has been violated, the factors that may be considered and balanced
are the length of delay, the reasons for such delay, the assertion or failure to
assert such right by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay. 107
Determining the length of delay necessarily involves a query on when a case is
deemed to have commenced. In Dansal v. Fernandez , 108 this Court recognized that the
right to speedy disposition of cases does not only include the period from which a case
is submitted for resolution. Rather, it covers the entire period of investigation even
before trial. Thus, the right may be invoked as early as the preliminary investigation or
inquest.
In criminal prosecutions, the investigating prosecutor is given a specific period
within which to resolve the preliminary investigation under Rule 112, Section 3 of the
Rules of Court. 109 Courts are likewise mandated to resolve cases within a specific time
frame. Article VIII, Section 15 of the Constitution provides:
Section 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this
Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of
submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court,
twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other
lower courts.
(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution
upon the filing of the last pending, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules
of Court or by the court itself.
(3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this
effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be
issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or matter, and
served upon the parties. The certification shall state why a decision or
resolution has not been rendered or issued within said period.
(4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court,
without prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in
consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted
thereto for determination, without further delay.
Under Republic Act No. 8493, or the Speedy Trial Act of 1998, the entire trial
period must not exceed 180 days, except as otherwise provided for by this Court. 110
The law likewise provides for a time limit of 30 days from the filing of the information to
conduct the arraignment, and 30 days after arraignment for trial to commence. 111 In
order to implement the law, this Court issued Supreme Court Circular No. 38-98 112
reiterating the periods for the conduct of trial. It also provided for an extended time limit
from arraignment to the conduct of trial:
Section 7. Extended Time Limit. — Notwithstanding the provisions of the
preceding Sections 2 and 6 for the first twelve-calendar-month period following
its effectivity, the time limit with respect to the period from arraignment to trial
imposed by said provision shall be one hundred eighty (180) days. For the
second twelve-month period, the time limit shall be one hundred twenty (120)
days, and for the third twelve-month period the time limit shall be eighty (80)
days.
The Circular likewise provides for certain types of delay which may be excluded
in the running of the periods:
Section 9. Exclusions. — The following periods of delay shall be excluded
in computing the time within which trial must commence:
(a) Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the
accused, including but not limited to the following:
(1) delay resulting from an examination of the physical and
mental condition of the accused;
(2) delay resulting from proceedings with respect to other
criminal charges against the accused;
(3) delay resulting from extraordinary remedies against
interlocutory orders;
(4) delay resulting from pre-trial proceedings: Provided, that
the delay does not exceed thirty (30) days; ICHDc a

(5) delay resulting from orders of inhibition or proceedings

relating to change of venue of cases or transfer from other courts;
(6) delay resulting from a finding of the existence of a valid
prejudicial question; and
(7) delay reasonably attributable to any period, not to exceed
thirty (30) days, during which any proceeding concerning the
accused is actually under advisement.
(b) Any period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of an
essential witness.
For purposes of this subparagraph, an essential witness shall be
considered absent when his whereabouts are unknown or his whereabouts
cannot be determined by due diligence. An essential witness shall be
considered unavailable whenever his whereabouts are known but his presence
for trial cannot be obtained by due diligence.
(c) Any period of delay resulting from the fact that the accused is mentally
incompetent or physically unable to stand trial.
(d) If the information is dismissed upon motion of the prosecution and
thereafter a charge is filed against the accused for the same offense, any period
of delay from the date the charge was dismissed to the date the time limitation
would commence to run as to the subsequent charge had there been no
previous charge.
(e) A reasonable period of delay when the accused is joined for trial with a
co-accused over whom the court has not acquired jurisdiction, or as to whom
the time for trial has not run and no motion for separate trial has been granted.
(f) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any court
motu proprio or on motion of either the accused or his counsel or the
prosecution, if the court granted such continuance on the basis of his findings
set forth in the order that the ends of justice served by taking such action
outweigh the best interest of the public and the accused in a speedy trial.
These provisions have since been incorporated in Rule 119, Sections 1, 113 2, 114

3, 115 and 6 116 of the Rules of Court.

Several laws have also been enacted providing the time periods for disposition of
cases.
In Republic Act No. 6975, as amended by Republic Act No. 8551, resolution of
complaints against members of the Philippine National Police must be done within ninety
(90) days from the arraignment of the accused:
Section 55. Section 47 of Republic Act No. 6975 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Section 47. Preventive Suspension Pending Criminal Case. — Upon the
filing of a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance against a
member of the PNP for grave felonies where the penalty imposed by law is six
(6) years and one (1) day or more, the court shall immediately suspend the
accused from office for a period not exceeding ninety (90) days from
arraignment: provided, however, that if it can be shown by evidence that the
accused is harassing the complainant and/or witnesses, the court may order the
preventive suspension of the accused PNP member even if the charge is
punishable by a penalty lower than six (6) years and one (1) day: provided,
further, that the preventive suspension shall not be more than ninety (90) days
except if the delay in the disposition of the case is due to the fault, negligence or
petitions of the respondent: provided, finally, that such preventive suspension
may be sooner lifted by the court in the exigency of the service upon
recommendation of the chief, PNP. Such case shall be subject to continuous
trial and shall be terminated within ninety (90) days from arraignment of the
accused."
Republic Act No. 9165, 117 Section 90 provides that trial for drug-related offenses
should be finished not later than 60 days from the filing of the information:
Section 90. Jurisdiction. —
xxx xxx xxx
Trial of the case under this Section shall be finished by the court not later than
sixty (60) days from the date of the filing of the information. Decision on said
cases shall be rendered within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of
submission of the case for resolution. TCASc E
Republic Act No. 9372, 118 Section 48 mandates continuous trial on a daily basis
for cases of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism:
Section 48. Continuous Trial. — In cases of terrorism or conspiracy to
commit terrorism, the judge shall set the continuous trial on a daily basis from
Monday to Friday or other short-term trial calendar so as to ensure speedy trial.
Republic Act No. 9516 119 amends Presidential Decree No. 1866 120 to provide for
continuous trial for cases involving illegal or unlawful possession, manufacture, dealing,
acquisition, and disposition of firearms, ammunitions, and explosives:
Section 4-B. Continuous Trial. — In cases involving violations of this
Decree, the judge shall set the case for continuous trial on a daily basis from
Monday to Friday or other short-term trial calendar so as to ensure speedy trial.
Such case shall be terminated within ninety (90) days from arraignment of the
accused.
Implementing rules and regulations have also provided for the speedy disposition
of cases. The Implementing Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of
Child Abuse Cases 121 provide that trial shall commence within three (3) days from
arraignment:
Section 21. Speedy Trial of Child Abuse Cases. — The trial of child abuse
cases shall take precedence over all other cases before the courts, except
election and habeas corpus cases. The trial in said cases shall commence
within three (3) days from the date the accused is arraigned and no
postponement of the initial hearing shall be granted except on account of the
illness of the accused or other grounds beyond his control.
The Revised Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 9208, 122 as
amended by Republic Act No. 10364, 123 mandates the speedy disposition of trafficking
cases:
Section 76. Speedy Disposition of [Trafficking in Persons] Cases. —
Where practicable and unless special circumstance require; otherwise, cases
involving violation of R.A. No. 9208 shall be heard contiguously: with hearing
dates spaced not more than two weeks apart. Unnecessary delay should be
avoided, strictly taking into consideration the Speedy Trial Act and SC Circular
No. 38-98 dated 11 August 1998.
Laws and their implementing rules and regulations, however, do not generally bind
courts unless this Court adopts them in procedural rules. 124 In any case, this Court has
already made several issuances setting periods for the conduct of trial.
Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure in Environmental Cases 125 provide
that trial must not exceed three (3) months from the issuance of the pre-trial order:
Section 1. Continuous trial. — The court shall endeavor to conduct
continuous trial which shall not exceed three (3) months from the date of the
issuance of the pre-trial order.
Rule 14, Section 2 of the Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights
Cases 126 limits the period of presenting evidence to 60 days per party:
Section 2. Conduct of trial. — The court shall conduct hearings
expeditiously so as to ensure speedy trial. Each party shall have a maximum
period of sixty (60) days to present his evidence-in-chief on the trial dates
agreed upon during the pre-trial.
Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 25-2007 127 provides that trial in cases
involving the killings of political activists and members of the media must be conducted
within 60 days from its commencement:
The cases referred to herein shall undergo mandatory continuous trial and shall
be terminated within sixty (60) days from commencement of trial. Judgment
thereon shall be rendered within thirty (30) days from submission for decision
unless a shorter period is provided by law or otherwise directed by this Court.
The Guidelines for Decongesting Holding Jails by Enforcing the Right of the
Accused to Bail and to Speedy Trial 128 provide for strict time limits that must be
observed:
Section 8. Observance of time limits. — It shall be the duty of the trial court,
the public or private prosecutor, and the defense counsel to ensure, subject to
the excluded delays specified in Rule 119 of the Rules of Court and the Speedy
Trial Act of 1998, compliance with the following time limits in the prosecution of
the case against a detained accused: c TDaEH

(a) The case of the accused shall be raffled and referred to the trial court to
which it is assigned within three days from the filing of the information;
(b) The court shall arraign the accused within ten (10) days from the date of
the raffle;
(c) The court shall hold the pre-trial conference within thirty (30) days after
arraignment or within ten (10) days if the accused is under preventive detention;
provided, however, that where the direct testimonies of the witnesses are to be
presented through judicial affidavits, the court shall give the prosecution not
more than twenty (20) days from arraignment within which to prepare and
submit their judicial affidavits in time for the pre-trial conference;
(d) After the pre-trial conference, the court shall set the trial of the case in
the pre-trial order not later than thirty (30) days from the termination of the pre-
trial conference; and
(e) The court shall terminate the regular trial within one hundred eighty
(180) days, or the trial by judicial affidavits within sixty (60) days, reckoned from
the date trial begins, minus the excluded delays or postponements specified in
Rule 119 of the Rules of Court and the Speedy Trial Act of 1998.
A dilemma arises as to whether the period includes proceedings in quasi-judicial
agencies before a formal complaint is actually filed. The Office of the Ombudsman, for
example, has no set periods within which to conduct its fact-finding investigations. They
are only mandated to act promptly. Thus, in People v. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division,
129 this Court stated that a fact-finding investigation conducted by the Office of the

Ombudsman should not be deemed separate from preliminary investigation for the
purposes of determining whether there was a violation of the right to speedy disposition
of cases:
The State further argues that the fact-finding investigation should not be
considered a part of the preliminary investigation because the former was only
preparatory in relation to the latter; and that the period spent in the former should
not be factored in the computation of the period devoted to the preliminary
investigation.
The argument cannot pass fair scrutiny.
The guarantee of speedy disposition under Section 16 of Article III of the
Constitution applies to all cases pending before all judicial, quasi-judicial or
administrative bodies. The guarantee would be defeated or rendered inutile if
the hair-splitting distinction by the State is accepted. Whether or not the fact-
finding investigation was separate from the preliminary investigation conducted
by the Office of the Ombudsman should not matter for purposes of determining
if the respondents' right to the speedy disposition of their cases had been
violated. 130 (Emphasis supplied)
People v. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division 131 must be re-examined.
When an anonymous complaint is filed or the Office of the Ombudsman conducts
a motu proprio fact-finding investigation, the proceedings are not yet adversarial. Even
if the accused is invited to attend these investigations, this period cannot be counted
since these are merely preparatory to the filing of a formal complaint. At this point, the
Office of the Ombudsman will not yet determine if there is probable cause to charge the
accused.
This period for case build-up cannot likewise be used by the Office of the
Ombudsman as unbridled license to delay proceedings. If its investigation takes too
long, it can result in the extinction of criminal liability through the prescription of the
offense.
Considering that fact-finding investigations are not yet adversarial proceedings
against the accused, the period of investigation will not be counted in the determination
of whether the right to speedy disposition of cases was violated. Thus, this Court now
holds that for the purpose of determining whether inordinate delay exists, a case is
deemed to have commenced from the filing of the formal complaint and the subsequent
conduct of the preliminary investigation. In People v. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division, 132
the ruling that fact-finding investigations are included in the period for determination of
inordinate delay is abandoned.
With respect to fact-finding at the level of the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman must
provide for reasonable periods based upon its experience with specific types of cases,
compounded with the number of accused and the complexity of the evidence required.
He or she must likewise make clear when cases are deemed submitted for decision.
The Ombudsman has the power to provide for these rules and it is recommended that
he or she amend these rules at the soonest possible time. c SaATC

These time limits must be strictly complied with. If it has been alleged that there
was delay within the stated time periods, the burden of proof is on the defense to show
that there has been a violation of their right to speedy trial or their right to speedy
disposition of cases. The defense must be able to prove first , that the case took much
longer than was reasonably necessary to resolve, and second , that efforts were exerted
to protect their constitutional rights. 133
What may constitute a reasonable time to resolve a proceeding is not determined
by "mere mathematical reckoning." 134 It requires consideration of a number of factors,
including the time required to investigate the complaint, to file the information, to
conduct an arraignment, the application for bail, pre-trial, trial proper, and the
submission of the case for decision. 135 Unforeseen circumstances, such as
unavoidable postponements or force majeure, must also be taken into account.
The complexity of the issues presented by the case must be considered in
determining whether the period necessary for its resolution is reasonable. In Mendoza-
Ong v. Sandiganbayan 136 this Court found that "the long delay in resolving the
preliminary investigation could not be justified on the basis of the records." 137 In Binay
v. Sandiganbayan, 138 this Court considered "the complexity of the cases (not run-of-
the-mill variety) and the conduct of the parties' lawyers" 139 to determine whether the
delay is justifiable. When the case is simple and the evidence is straightforward, it is
possible that delay may occur even within the given periods. Defense, however, still has
the burden to prove that the case could have been resolved even before the lapse of the
period before the delay could be considered inordinate.
The defense must also prove that it exerted meaningful efforts to protect
accused's constitutional rights. In Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan, 140 the failure of the
accused to timely invoke the right to speedy disposition of cases may work to his or her
disadvantage, since this could indicate his or her acquiescence to the delay:
Petitioner was definitely not unaware of the projected criminal
prosecution posed against him by the indication of this Court as a
complementary sanction in its resolution of his administrative case. He appears,
however, to have been insensitive to the implications and contingencies thereof
by not taking any step whatsoever to accelerate the disposition of the matter,
which inaction conduces to the perception that the supervening delay seems to
have been without his objection hence impliedly with his acquiescence. 141
In Dela Peña v. Sandiganbayan , 142 this Court equated this acquiescence as one
that could amount to laches, which results in the waiver of their rights:
[I]t 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. As aptly stated in
Alvizo, the petitioner therein was "insensitive to the implications and
contingencies" of the projected criminal prosecution posed against him "by not
taking any step whatsoever to accelerate the disposition of the matter, which
inaction conduces to the perception that the supervening delay seems to have
been without his objection, [and] hence impliedly with his acquiescence." 143
This concept of acquiescence, however, is premised on the presumption that the
accused was fully aware that the preliminary investigation has not yet been terminated
despite a considerable length of time. Thus, in Duterte v. Sandiganbayan, 144 this Court
stated that Alvizo would not apply if the accused were unaware that the investigation
was still ongoing:
Petitioners in this case, however, could not have urged the speedy
resolution of their case because they were completely unaware that the
investigation against them was still on-going. Peculiar to this case, we reiterate,
is the fact that petitioners were merely asked to comment, and not file counter-
affidavits which is the proper procedure to follow in a preliminary investigation.
After giving their explanation and after four long years of being in the dark,
petitioners, naturally, had reason to assume that the charges against them had
already been dismissed. 145 c HDAIS

Similarly, in Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan: 146

Records show that they could not have urged the speedy resolution of
their case because they were unaware that the investigation against them was
still on-going. They were only informed of the March 27, 2003 Resolution and
Information against them only after the lapse of six (6) long years, or when they
received a copy of the latter after its filing with the SB on June 19, 2009. In this
regard, they could have reasonably assumed that the proceedings against them
have already been terminated. This serves as a plausible reason as to why
petitioners never followed-up on the case altogether . . .
xxx xxx xxx
Being the respondents in the preliminary investigation proceedings, it
was not the petitioners' duty to follow up on the prosecution of their case.
Conversely, it was the Office of the Ombudsman's responsibility to expedite the
same within the bounds of reasonable timeliness in view of its mandate to
promptly act on all complaints lodged before it. As pronounced in the case of
Barker v. Wingo :
A defendant has no duty to bring himself to trial; the State has that
duty as well as the duty of insuring that the trial is consistent with
due process. 147
Justice Caguioa submits that this Court should depart from Dela Peña . He
explains that the third factor of the Barker balancing test, i.e., waiver by the accused,
was applied within the context of the Sixth Amendment 148 of the American Constitution
in that it presupposes that the accused has already been subjected to criminal
prosecution. He submits that as the right to speedy disposition of cases may be invoked
even before criminal prosecution has commenced, waiver by the accused should be
inapplicable.
The right to speedy disposition of cases, however, is invoked by a respondent to
any type of proceeding once delay has already become prejudicial to the respondent.
The invocation of the constitutional right does not require a threat to the right to liberty.
Loss of employment or compensation may already be considered as sufficient to invoke
the right. Thus, waiver of the right does not necessarily require that the respondent has
already been subjected to the rigors of criminal prosecution. The failure of the
respondent to invoke the right even when or she has already suffered or will suffer the
consequences of delay constitutes a valid waiver of that right.
While the Barker balancing test has American roots, a catena of cases has
already been decided by this Court, starting from Tatad , which have taken into account
the Philippine experience.
The reality is that institutional delay 149 a reality that the court must address. The
prosecution is staffed by overworked and underpaid government lawyers with mounting
caseloads. The courts' dockets are congested. This Court has already launched
programs to remedy this situation, such as the Judicial Affidavit Rule, 150 Guidelines for
Decongesting Holding Jails by Enforcing the Right of the Accused to Bail and to Speedy
Trial, 151 and the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial. 152 These programs,
however, are mere stepping stones. The complete eradication of institutional delay
requires these sustained actions.
Institutional delay, in the proper context, should not be taken against the State.
Most cases handled by the Office of the Ombudsman involve individuals who have the
resources and who engage private counsel with the means and resources to fully
dedicate themselves to their client's case. More often than not, the accused only invoke
the right to speedy disposition of cases when the Ombudsman has already rendered an
unfavorable decision. The prosecution should not be prejudiced by private counsels'
failure to protect the interests of their clients or the accused's lack of interest in the
prosecution of their case.
For the court to appreciate a violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases,
delay must not be attributable to the defense. 153 Certain unreasonable actions by the
accused will be taken against them. This includes delaying tactics like failing to appear
despite summons, filing needless motions against interlocutory actions, or requesting
unnecessary postponements that will prevent courts or tribunals to properly adjudicate
the case. When proven, this may constitute a waiver of the right to speedy trial or the
right to speedy disposition of cases.
If it has been alleged that there was delay beyond the given time periods, the
burden of proof shifts. The prosecution will now have the burden to prove that there was
no violation of the right to speedy trial or the right to speedy disposition of cases.
Gonzales v. Sandiganbayan 154 states that "vexatious, capricious, and oppressive
delays," "unjustified postponements of the trial," or "when without cause or justifiable
motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his [or her]
case tried" 155 are instances that may be considered as violations of the right to speedy
disposition of cases. The prosecution must be able to prove that it followed established
procedure in prosecuting the case. 156 It must also prove that any delay incurred was
justified, such as the complexity of the cases involved or the vast amount of evidence
that must be presented. ISHCc T

The prosecution must likewise prove that no prejudice was suffered by the
accused as a result of the delay. Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan 157 defined prejudice to the
accused as:
Prejudice should be assessed in the light of the interest of the defendant that the
speedy trial was designed to protect, namely: to prevent oppressive pre-trial
incarceration; to minimize anxiety and concerns of the accused to trial; and to
limit the possibility that his defense will be impaired. Of these, the most serious
is the last, because the inability of a defendant adequately to prepare his case
skews the fairness of the entire system. There is also prejudice if the defense
witnesses are unable to recall accurately the events of the distant past. Even if
the accused is not imprisoned prior to trial, he is still disadvantaged by restraints
on his liberty and by living under a cloud of anxiety, suspicion and often,
hostility. His financial resources may be drained, his association is curtailed,
and he is subjected to public obloquy. 158
In Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan: 159

Lest it be misunderstood, the right to speedy disposition of cases is not

merely hinged towards the objective of spurring dispatch in the administration of
justice but also to prevent the oppression of the citizen by holding a criminal
prosecution suspended over him for an indefinite time. Akin to the right to
speedy trial, its "salutary objective" is to assure that an innocent person may be
free from the anxiety and expense of litigation or, if otherwise, of having his guilt
determined within the shortest possible time compatible with the presentation
and consideration of whatsoever legitimate defense he may interpose. This
looming unrest as well as the tactical disadvantages carried by the passage of
time should be weighed against the State and in favor of the individual. 160
The consequences of delay, however, do not only affect the accused. The
prosecution of the case will also be made difficult the longer the period of time passes.
In Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan: 161
Delay is a two-edge sword. It is the government that bears the burden of
proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. The passage of time may make it
difficult or impossible for the government to carry its burden. The Constitution
and the Rules do not require impossibilities or extraordinary efforts, diligence or
exertion from courts or the prosecutor, nor contemplate that such right shall
deprive the State of a reasonable opportunity of fairly prosecuting criminals. As
held in Williams v. United States, for the government to sustain its right to try the
accused despite a delay, it must show two things: (a) that the accused suffered
no serious prejudice beyond that which ensued from the ordinary and inevitable
delay; and (b) that there was no more delay than is reasonably attributable to
the ordinary processes of justice. 162
The consequences of the prosecution's failure to discharge this burden are
severe. Rule 119, Section 9 of the Rules of Court requires that the case against the
accused be dismissed if there has been a violation of the right to speedy trial:
Section 9. Remedy where accused is not brought to trial within the time
limit. — If the accused is not brought to trial within the time limit required by
Section 1(g), Rule 116 and Section 1, as extended by Section 6 of this rule, the
information may be dismissed on motion of the accused on the ground of denial
of his right to speedy trial. The accused shall have the burden of proving the
motion but the prosecution shall have the burden of going forward with the
evidence to establish the exclusion of time under section 3 of this Rule. The
dismissal shall be subject to the rules on double jeopardy.
Failure of the accused to move for dismissal prior to trial shall constitute a
waiver of the right to dismiss under this section.
Tatad , as qualified by Angchangco, likewise mandates the dismissal of the case
if there is a violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases. The immediate
dismissal of cases is also warranted if it is proven that there was malicious prosecution,
if the cases were politically motivated, or other similar instances. Once these
circumstances have been proven, there is no need for the defense to discharge its
burden to prove that the delay was inordinate. CAac TH

To summarize, inordinate delay in the resolution and termination of a preliminary

investigation violates the accused's right to due process and the speedy disposition of
cases, and may result in the dismissal of the case against the accused. The burden of
proving delay depends on whether delay is alleged within the periods provided by law or
procedural rules. If the delay is alleged to have occurred during the given periods, the
burden is on the respondent or the accused to prove that the delay was inordinate. If the
delay is alleged to have occurred beyond the given periods, the burden shifts to the
prosecution to prove that the delay was reasonable under the circumstances and that no
prejudice was suffered by the accused as a result of the delay.
The determination of whether the delay was inordinate is not through mere
mathematical reckoning but through the examination of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the case. Courts should appraise a reasonable period from the point of view
of how much time a competent and independent public officer would need in relation to
the complexity of a given case. If there has been delay, the prosecution must be able to
satisfactorily explain the reasons for such delay and that no prejudice was suffered by
the accused as a result. The timely invocation of the accused's constitutional rights
must also be examined on a case-to-case basis.

III

This Court proceeds to determine whether respondent committed inordinate delay

in the resolution and termination of the preliminary investigation against petitioner.
There is no showing that this case was attended by malice. There is no evidence
that it was politically motivated. Neither party alleges this fact. Thus, this Court must
analyze the existence and cause of delay.
The criminal complaint against petitioner was filed on February 10, 2003. On
August 11, 2004, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a Resolution finding probable
cause against petitioner. This Resolution, however, was modified by the Resolution
dated October 18, 2004, which ordered the conduct of further fact-finding investigation
against some of the other respondents in the case. This further fact-finding was
resolved by the Office of the Ombudsman on April 12, 2005. On August 8, 2011, or six
(6) years after the recommendation to file informations against petitioner was approved
by Tanodbayan Marcelo, Assistant Special Prosecutor II Pilarita T. Lapitan submitted
the informations for Ombudsman Carpio Morales' review. Informations against petitioner
were filed on November 17, 2011.
Six (6) years is beyond the reasonable period of fact-finding of ninety (90) days.
The burden of proving the justification of the delay, therefore, is on the prosecution, or in
this case, respondent.
Respondent alleged that the delay in the filing of the informations was justified
since it was still determining whether accused Mary Ann Gadian (Gadian) could be
utilized as a state witness and it still had to verify accused Felipe Constantino's death.
The recommendation, however, to utilize Gadian as a state witness was approved by
Tanodbayan Marcelo on December 20, 2004. 163 Felipe Constantino's death was
verified by the Sandiganbayan in its November 14, 2006 Order. 164 There is, thus, delay
from November 14, 2006 to August 8, 2011.
This Court finds, however, that despite the pendency of the case since 2003,
petitioner only invoked his right to speedy disposition of cases when the informations
were filed on November 17, 2011. Unlike in Duterte and Coscolluela, petitioner was
aware that the preliminary investigation was not yet terminated.
Admittedly, while there was delay, petitioner has not shown that he asserted his
rights during this period, choosing instead to wait until the information was filed against
him with the Sandiganbayan.
Furthermore, the case before the Sandiganbayan involves the alleged
malversation of millions in public money. The Sandiganbayan has yet to determine the
guilt or innocence of petitioner. In the Decision dated June 17, 2010 of the
Sandiganbayan acquitting petitioner in Crim. Case No. 28331:
We wish to iterate our observation gathered from the evidence on record that the
subject transaction is highly suspect. There is a seeming acceptance of the use
of questionable supporting documents to secure the release of public funds in
the province, and the apparent undue haste in the processing and eventual
withdrawal of such funds. However, obvious as the irregularities may be, which
can only lead to distrust in the ability of public officials to safeguard public funds,
we are limited to a review only of the evidence presented vis-à-vis the charges
brought forth before this Court. Thus, We cannot make any pronouncement in
regard to such seeming irregularities. 165 IAETDc

The records of the case show that the transactions investigated are complex and
numerous. As respondent points out, there were over a hundred individuals
investigated, and eventually, 40 of them were determined to have been involved in 81
different anomalous transactions. 166 Even granting that the Commission on Audit's
Audit Report exhaustively investigated each transaction, "the prosecution is not bound
by the findings of the Commission on Audit; it must rely on its own independent
judgment in the determination of probable cause." 167 Delays in the investigation and
review would have been inevitable in the hands of a competent and independent
Ombudsman.
The dismissal of the complaints, while favorable to petitioner, would undoubtedly
be prejudicial to the State. "[T]he State should not be prejudiced and deprived of its right
to prosecute the criminal cases simply because of the ineptitude or nonchalance of the
Office of the Ombudsman." 168 The State is as much entitled to due process as the
accused. In People v. Leviste: 169
[I]t must be emphasized that the state, like any other litigant, is entitled to its day
in court, and to a reasonable opportunity to present its case. A hasty dismissal
such as the one in question, instead of unclogging dockets, has actually
increased the workload of the justice system as a whole and caused uncalled-
for delays in the final resolution of this and other cases. Unwittingly, the
precipitate action of the respondent court, instead of easing the burden of the
accused, merely prolonged the litigation and ironically enough, unnecessarily
delayed the case — in the process, causing the very evil it apparently sought to
avoid. Such action does not inspire public confidence in the administration of
justice. 170
This Court finds that there is no violation of the accused's right to speedy
disposition of cases considering that there was a waiver of the delay of a complex case.
Definitely, granting the present Petitions and finding grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the Sandiganbayan will only prejudice the due process rights of the State.
IV

This Court now clarifies the mode of analysis in situations where the right to
speedy disposition of cases or the right to speedy trial is invoked.
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.
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, 171 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. Dc HSEa

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.
WHEREFORE, the Petitions are DENIED. The Temporary Restraining Order
dated February 5, 2014 is LIFTED. The Sandiganbayan is DIRECTED to resolve Case
No. SB-11-CRM-0456 and Case No. SB-11-CRM-0457 with due and deliberate dispatch.
The period for the determination of whether inordinate delay was committed shall
commence from the filing of a formal complaint and the conduct of the preliminary
investigation. The periods for the resolution of the preliminary investigation shall be that
provided in the Rules of Court, Supreme Court Circulars, and the periods to be
established by the Office of the Ombudsman. Failure of the defendant to file the
appropriate motion after the lapse of the statutory or procedural periods shall be
considered a waiver of his or her right to speedy disposition of cases.
The ruling in People v. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division 172 that fact-finding
investigations are included in the period for determination of inordinate delay is
ABANDONED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Acting C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Del Castillo, Tijam and Reyes, Jr., JJ.,
concur.
Velasco, Jr., J., please see concurring opinion.
Peralta, * Jardeleza, * Martires * and Gesmundo, * JJ., took no part.
Bersamin, J., I join the dissent of J. Caguioa.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., I join the concurring opinion of J. Velasco.
Caguioa, J., I dissent. See separate dissenting opinion.

Separate Opinions
VELASCO, JR., J., concurring:

I concur with the ponencia of Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen. Allow me, however,
to submit my elucidation of the factors to be considered in determining inordinate delay.
SCaITA

a. Length of the delay

The Court has never set a threshold period for concluding preliminary
investigation proceedings before the Office of the Ombudsman premised on the idea
that "speedy disposition" is a relative and flexible concept. It has often been held that a
mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient in determining
whether or not there was inordinate delay on the part of the investigating officer, and
that particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each
case. 1 This is diametrically opposed with Sec. 58 of the 2008 Manual for Prosecutors 2
observed by the National Prosecutorial Service, which states that the investigating
prosecutor must terminate the preliminary investigation proceeding within sixty (60)
days from the date of assignment, extendible to ninety (90) days for complaints
charging a capital offense. And to further contradistinguish, the Judiciary is mandated
by the Constitution to resolve matters and controversies within a definite timeline. 3 The
trial courts are required to decide cases within sixty (60) days from date of submission,
twelve (12) months for appellate courts, and two (2) years for the Supreme Court. The
prescribed period for the Judicial branch at least gives the party litigants an idea on
when they could reasonably expect a ruling from the courts, and at the same time
ensures that judges are held to account for the cases not so timely disposed.
The Court is not unmindful of the duty of the Ombudsman under the Constitution
and Republic Act No. 6770 to act promptly on complaints brought before him. This
imposition, however, should not be mistaken with a hasty resolution of cases at the
expense of thoroughness and correctness. 4 More importantly, this duty does not
license this Court to fix a specific period for the office to resolve the cases and matters
before it, lest We encroach upon the constitutional prerogative of the Ombudsman to
promulgate its own rules and procedure. 5
Be that as it may, the Court is not precluded from determining the inclusions and
exclusions in determining the period of delay. For instance, in People v.
Sandiganbayan, 6 We have ruled that the fact-finding investigation should not be
deemed separate from the preliminary investigation conducted by the Office of the
Ombudsman if the aggregate time spent for both constitutes inordinate and oppressive
delay in the disposition of cases.
In the said case, the Ombudsman, on November 25, 2002, ordered the Philippine
Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) to submit documents relevant to the exposé on the
alleged involvement of then Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez in acts of bribery. The
following day, then Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo ordered Cong. Mark Jimenez to
submit a complaint-affidavit on the exposé, which directive he complied with on
December 23, 2002. On January 2, 2003, a Special Panel was created to evaluate and
conduct preliminary investigation. The informations based on the complaint of Cong.
Jimenez were all filed on April 15, 2008.
Upholding the dismissal of the criminal information by the Sandiganbayan, the
Court ruled thusly:
The State further argues that the fact-finding investigation should not be
considered a part of the preliminary investigation because the former was only
preparatory in relation to the latter; and that the period spent in the former should
not be factored in the computation of the period devoted to the preliminary
investigation.
The argument cannot pass fair scrutiny.
The guarantee of speedy disposition under Section 16 of Article III of the
Constitution applies to all cases pending before all judicial, quasi-judicial or
administrative bodies. The guarantee would be defeated or rendered inutile if
the hair-splitting distinction by the State is accepted. Whether or not the fact-
finding investigation was separate from the preliminary investigation conducted
by the Office of the Ombudsman should not matter for purposes of determining if
the respondents' right to the speedy disposition of their cases had been
violated. 7 (emphasis added)
This ruling necessitates a re-examination.
In Ombudsman v. Jurado, 8 we ruled that:
x x x It is undisputed that the FFB of the OMB recommended that
respondent together with other officials of the Bureau of Customs be criminally
charged for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Section 3601 of the
Tariff and Customs Code. The same bureau also recommended that respondent
be administratively charged. Prior to the fact-finding report of the FFB of the
OMB, respondent was never the subject of any complaint or investigation
relating to the incident surrounding Magleis non-existent customs bonded
warehouse. In fact, in the original complaint filed by the Bureau of Customs,
respondent was not included as one of the parties charged with violation of the
Tariff and Customs Code. With respect to respondent, there were no vexatious,
capricious, and oppressive delays because he was not made to undergo
any investigative proceeding prior to the report and findings of the FFB.
aTHCSE

Simply put, prior to the report and recommendation by the FFB that
respondent be criminally and administratively charged, respondent was neither
investigated nor charged. That respondent was charged only in 1997 while the
subject incident occurred in 1992, is not necessarily a violation of his right to the
speedy disposition of his case. The record is clear that prior to 1997, respondent
had no case to speak of he was not made the subject of any complaint or made
to undergo any investigation. x x x (emphasis added)
We must distinguish between fact-finding investigations conducted before and
after the filing of a formal complaint. When a formal criminal complaint had been
initiated by a private complainant, the burden is upon such complainant to substantiate
his allegations by appending all the necessary evidence for establishing probable cause.
The fact-finding investigation conducted by the Ombudsman after the complaint is filed
should then necessarily be included in computing the aggregate period of the preliminary
investigation.
On the other hand, if the fact-finding investigation precedes the filing of a
complaint as in incidents investigated motu proprio by the Ombudsman, such
investigation should be excluded from the computation. The period utilized for case
build-up will not be counted in determining the attendance of inordinate delay.
It is only when a formal verified complaint had been filed would the obligation on
the part of the Ombudsman to resolve the same promptly arise. Prior to the filing of a
complaint, the party involved is not yet subjected to any adverse proceeding and cannot
yet invoke the right to the speedy disposition of a case, which is correlative to an actual
proceeding. In this light, the doctrine in People v. Sandiganbayan should be revisited.
With respect to investigations relating to anonymous complaints or motu proprio
investigations by the Ombudsman, the date when the Ombudsman receives the
anonymous complaint or when it started its motu proprio investigations and the periods
of time devoted to said investigations cannot be considered in determining the period of
delay. For the respondents, the case build up phase of an anonymous complaint or a
motu proprio investigation is not yet exposed to an adversarial proceeding. The
Ombudsman should of course be aware that a long delay may result in the extinction of
criminal liability by reason of the prescription of the offense.
Even if the person accused of the offense subject of said anonymous complaint
or motu proprio investigations by the Ombudsman is asked to attend invitations by the
Ombudsman for the fact finding investigations, this directive cannot be considered in
determining inordinate delay. These conferences or meetings with the persons subject
of the anonymous complaints or motu proprio investigations are simply conducted as
preludes to the filing of a formal complaint if it finds it proper. This should be
distinguished from the exercise by the Ombudsman of its prosecutory powers which
involve determination of probable cause to file information with the court resulting from
official preliminary investigation. Thus, the period spent for fact-finding investigations of
the ombudsman prior to the filing of the formal complaint by the Field Investigation
Office of the Ombudsman is irrelevant in determining inordinate delay.
In sum, the reckoning point when delay starts to run is the date of the filing of a
formal complaint by a private complainant or the filing by the Field Investigation Office
with the Ombudsman of a formal complaint based on an anonymous complaint or as a
result of its motu proprio investigations. The period devoted to the fact-finding
investigations prior to the date of the filing of the formal complaint with the Ombudsman
shall NOT be considered in determining inordinate delay. After the filing of the formal
complaint, the time devoted to fact finding investigations shall always be factored in.
b. Reasons for the delay
Valid reasons for the delay identified and accepted by the Court include, but are
not limited to: (1) extraordinary complications such as the degree of difficulty of the
questions involved, the number of persons charged, the various pleadings filed, and the
voluminous documentary and testimonial evidence on record; and (2) acts attributable to
the respondent.
The period for re-investigation cannot automatically be taken against the State.
Re-investigations cannot generally be considered as "vexatious, capricious, and
oppressive" practices proscribed by the constitutional guarantee since these are
performed for the benefit of the accused. As Braza v. Sandiganbayan 9 (Braza)
instructs: c AaDHT

Indeed, the delay can hardly be considered as "vexatious, capricious and

oppressive." x x x Rather, it appears that Braza and the other accused were
merely afforded sufficient opportunities to ventilate their respective defenses in
the interest of justice, due process and fair investigation. The re-investigation
may have inadvertently contributed to the further delay of the proceedings but
this process cannot be dispensed with because it was done for the protection of
the rights of the accused. Albeit the conduct of investigation may hold back the
progress of the case, the same was essential so that the rights of the accused
will not be compromised or sacrificed at the altar of expediency. (emphasis
added) x x x
A survey of jurisprudence reveals that most of the complaints dismissed for
violation of the right to speedy disposition of a case stems from the Ombudsman's
failure to satisfactorily explain the inordinate delay. 10
c. Assertion of Right by the Accused
The Court had ruled in several cases that failure to move for the early resolution
of the preliminary investigation or similar reliefs before the Ombudsman amounted to a
virtual waiver of the constitutional right. Dela Peña v. Sandiganbayan (Dela Peña), for
example, ruled that the petitioners therein slept on their rights, amounting to laches,
when they did not file nor send any letter-queries to the Ombudsman during the four-
year (4-year) period the preliminary investigation was conducted. The Court, citing
Alvi zo, further held therein that:
x x x 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 are not waiving that right. Their silence may,
therefore be interpreted as a waiver of such right. As aptly stated in Alvizo, the
petitioner therein was insensitive to the implications and contingencies of the
projected criminal prosecution posed against him by not taking any step
whatsoever to accelerate the disposition of the matter, which inaction conduces
to the perception that the supervening delay seems to have been without his
objection, [and] hence impliedly with his acquiescence.
Following Dela Peña , it is the duty of the respondent to bring to the attention of
the investigating officer the perceived inordinate delay in the proceedings of the formal
preliminary investigation. Failure to do so may be considered a waiver of his/her right to
speedy disposition of cases. If respondent fails to assert said right, then it may be
presumed that he/she is allowing the delay only to later claim it as a ruse for dismissal.
This could also address the rumored "parking fee" allegedly being paid by some
respondents so that delay can be set up as a ground for the dismissal of their
respective cases. Needless to say, investigating officers responsible for this kind of
delay should be subjected to administrative sanction.
d. Prejudice to the respondent
The length of the delay and the justification proffered by the investigating officer
therefor would necessarily be counterbalanced against any prejudice suffered by the
respondent. Indeed, reasonable deferment of the proceedings may be allowed or
tolerated to the end that cases may be adjudged only after full and free presentation of
evidence by all the parties, especially where the deferment would cause no substantial
prejudice to any party. 11 As taught in Coscolluela:
Lest it be misunderstood, the right to speedy disposition of cases is not
merely hinged towards the objective of spurring dispatch in the administration of
justice but also to prevent the oppression of the citizen by holding a criminal
prosecution suspended over him for an indefinite time. Akin to the right to
speedy trial, its "salutary objective" is to assure that an innocent person may be
free from the anxiety and expense of litigation or, if otherwise, of having his guilt
determined within the shortest possible time compatible with the presentation
and consideration of whatsoever legitimate defense he may interpose. This
looming unrest as well as the tactical disadvantages carried by the passage of
time should be weighed against the State and in favor of the individual. 12 x x x
"Prejudice," as a criterion in the speedy disposition of cases, has been discussed
in Cor puz v. Sandiganbayan 13 in the following manner:
x x x Prejudice should be assessed in the light of the interest of the
defendant that the speedy trial was designed to protect, namely: to prevent
oppressive pre-trial incarceration; to minimize anxiety and concerns of the
accused to trial; and to limit the possibility that his defense will be impaired. Of
these, the most serious is the last, because the inability of a defendant
adequately to prepare his case skews the fairness of the entire system. There is
also prejudice if the defense witnesses are unable to recall accurately the
events of the distant past. Even if the accused is not imprisoned prior to trial, he
is still disadvantaged by restraints on his liberty and by living under a cloud of
anxiety, suspicion and often, hostility. His financial resources may be drained,
his association is curtailed, and he is subjected to public obloquy. HCaDIS

In the macro-perspective, though, it is not only the respondent who stands to

suffer prejudice from any delay in the investigation of his case. For inordinate delays
likewise makes it difficult for the prosecution to perform its bounden duty to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt when the case is filed in court:
Delay is a two-edge sword. It is the government that bears the burden of
proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. The passage of time may make it
difficult or impossible for the government to carry its burden. The Constitution
and the Rules do not require impossibilities or extraordinary efforts, diligence or
exertion from courts or the prosecutor, nor contemplate that such right shall
deprive the State of a reasonable opportunity of fairly prosecuting criminals. As
held in Williams v. United States, for the government to sustain its right to try the
accused despite a delay, it must show two things: (a) that the accused suffered
no serious prejudice beyond that which ensued from the ordinary and inevitable
delay; and (b) that there was no more delay than is reasonably attributable to
the ordinary processes of justice. 14
It is for the Courts then to determine who between the two parties was placed at a
greater disadvantage by the delay in the investigation.

Time frame for resolution

of criminal complaint

The Ombudsman has the power to formulate its own rules on pleading and
procedure. It has in fact laid down its rules on preliminary investigation. All these
controversies surrounding inordinate delay can easily be avoided had it prescribed a
rule on the disposition period for the investigating graft officer to resolve the preliminary
investigation of the formal complaints. Like the Department of Justice with respect to
preliminary investigations by its prosecutors, it should provide a disposition
period from the date of the filing of the formal complaint up to a specific date
within which the graft prosecutor should determine the existence of probable
cause. This will potentially solve all the motions and petitions that raise the defense of
inordinate delay, putting the perennial issue to rest. In the meantime, the above-
enunciated criteria shall be considered in determining the presence of inordinate delay.
I, therefore, vote to DENY the petitions.

CAGUIOA, J., dissenting:

Citing Dela Peña v. Sandiganbayan 1 (Dela Peña), the ponencia holds that "the
failure x x x to invoke the right of speedy disposition even when [he] or she has already
suffered or will suffer the consequences of delay constitutes a valid waiver of that right."
2 On this basis, the ponencia resolves to deny the Petitions, since "petitioner [Cesar
Matas Cagang (petitioner)] has not shown that he asserted his rights [from 2003 to
2011], choosing instead to wait until the information was filed against him with the
Sandiganbayan." 3
With due respect, I disagree.
For the reasons set forth below, I submit that: (i) petitioner's right to speedy
disposition had been violated; and (ii) petitioner cannot be deemed to have waived such
right by mere inaction.
The facts are not disputed.
Sometime in 2003, the Commission on Audit (COA) launched a fact-finding
investigation (COA investigation) involving the officials and employees of the Sarangani
provincial government. The COA investigation was prompted by an anonymous
complaint filed before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) and a news report by
SunStar Davao alleging that public funds, in the approximate amount of P61,000,000.00,
were wrongfully diverted and given as aid to dummy cooperatives.
The COA investigation led to the implication of petitioner in two separate
preliminary investigations before the OMB, petitioner having served as the Provincial
Treasurer of Sarangani during the relevant period. These OMB preliminary
investigations, in turn, led to the filing of three separate criminal Informations before the
Sandiganbayan charging petitioner with the following offenses:
(i) Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Public Documents in
2005, in connection with the release of public aid in favor of the Kalalong
Fishermen's Group (1st Sandiganbayan case); and AHCETa

(ii) Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Public Documents

and violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 in 2011, in connection with the
release of public aid in favor of the Kamanga Muslim-Christian Fishermen's
Cooperative (2nd and 3rd Sandiganbayan cases).
Petitioner alleges that the OMB incurred in delay in the conduct of preliminary
investigation with respect to the 2nd and 3rd Sandiganbayan cases, considering the
lapse of eight years between the start of preliminary investigation to the filing of the
corresponding criminal informations. On such basis, petitioner claims that his
constitutional right to speedy disposition was violated. Hence, petitioner prays that the
2nd and 3rd Sandiganbayan cases filed against him be dismissed.
The ponencia finds that while the OMB had in fact incurred in delay in the conduct
of preliminary investigation against the petitioner, the latter is precluded from invoking
his right to speedy disposition as he failed to assert the same in a timely manner. 4 This
finding is primarily anchored on the case of Dela Peña , 5 where the Court held that
silence on the part of the accused operates as an implied waiver of one's right to speedy
disposition. 6
I respectfully submit that it is time the Court revisits this sweeping
statement in Dela Peña and that further clarification be made by the Court moving
forward.
To recall, Dela Peña espouses that the following factors must be considered in
determining whether the right to speedy trial or speedy disposition of cases is violated:
"(1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the assertion or failure to
assert such right by the accused; and (4) the prejudice caused by the delay." 7
This criterion adopts the "balancing test" which, as observed by the Court in
Perez v. People 8 (Perez), finds its roots in American jurisprudence, particularly, in the
early case of Barker v. Wingo 9 (Barker).
Quoted below are the relevant portions of the US Supreme Court's (SCOTUS)
decision in Barker :
The nature of the speedy trial right does make it impossible to pinpoint a
precise time in the process when the right must be asserted or waived, but that
fact does not argue for placing the burden of protecting the right solely on
defendants. A defendant has no duty to bring himself to trial; the State has that
duty as well as the duty of insuring that the trial is consistent with due process.
Moreover, for the reasons earlier expressed, society has a particular interest in
bringing swift prosecutions, and society's representatives are the ones who
should protect that interest.
xxx xxx xxx
We reject, therefore, the rule that a defendant who fails to demand a
speedy trial forever waives his right. This does not mean, however, that the
defendant has no responsibility to assert his right. We think the better rule is
that the defendant's assertion of or failure to assert his right to a speedy
trial is one of the factors to be considered in an inquiry into the deprivation
of the right. Such a formulation avoids the rigidities of the demand-waiver rule
and the resulting possible unfairness in its application. It allows the trial court to
exercise a judicial discretion based on the circumstances, including due
consideration of any applicable formal procedural rule. It would permit, for
example, a court to attach a different weight to a situation in which the defendant
knowingly fails to object from a situation in which his attorney acquiesces in
long delay without adequately informing his client, or from a situation in which
no counsel is appointed. It would also allow a court to weigh the frequency and
force of the objections, as opposed to attaching significant weight to a purely pro
forma objection.
In ruling that a defendant has some responsibility to assert a
speedy trial claim, we do not depart from our holdings in other cases
concerning the waiver of fundamental rights, in which we have placed the
entire responsibility on the prosecution to show that the claimed waiver
was knowingly and voluntarily made. Such cases have involved rights which
must be exercised or waived at a specific time or under clearly identifiable
circumstances, such as the rights to plead not guilty, to demand a jury trial, to
exercise the privilege against self-incrimination, and to have the assistance of
counsel. We have shown above that the right to a speedy trial is unique in
its uncertainty as to when and under what circumstances it must be
asserted or may be deemed waived. But the rule we announce today,
which comports with constitutional principles, places the primary burden
on the courts and the prosecutors to assure that cases are brought to trial.
We hardly need add that, if delay is attributable to the defendant, then his waiver
may be given effect under standard waiver doctrine, the demand rule aside. Sc HADI

xxx xxx xxx

A balancing test necessarily compels courts to approach speedy
trial cases on an ad hoc basis. We can do little more than identify some of the
factors which courts should assess in determining whether a particular
defendant has been deprived of his right. Though some might express them in
different ways, we identify four such factors: Length of delay, the reason for
the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the
defendant.
The length of the delay is to some extent a triggering mechanism. Until
there is some delay which is presumptively prejudicial, there is no necessity for
inquiry into the other factors that go into the balance. Nevertheless, because of
the imprecision of the right to speedy trial, the length of delay that will provoke
such an inquiry is necessarily dependent upon the peculiar circumstances of
the case. To take but one example, the delay that can be tolerated for an
ordinary street crime is considerably less than for a serious, complex conspiracy
charge.
Closely related to length of delay is the reason the government assigns
to justify the delay. Here, too, different weights should be assigned to different
reasons. A deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense
should be weighted heavily against the government. A more neutral reason
such as negligence or overcrowded courts should be weighted less heavily but
nevertheless should be considered since the ultimate responsibility for such
circumstances must rest with the government rather than with the defendant.
Finally, a valid reason, such as a missing witness, should serve to justify
appropriate delay.
We have already discussed the third factor, the defendant's
responsibility to assert his right. Whether and how a defendant asserts his
right is closely related to the other factors we have mentioned. The
strength of his efforts will be affected by the length of the delay, to some
extent by the reason for the delay, and most particularly by the personal
prejudice, which is not always readily identifiable, that he experiences. The
more serious the deprivation, the more likely a defendant is to complain.
The defendant's assertion of his speedy trial right, then, is entitled to
strong evidentiary weight in determining whether the defendant is being
deprived of the right. We emphasize that failure to assert the right will
make it difficult for a defendant to prove that he was denied a speedy trial.
A fourth factor is prejudice to the defendant. Prejudice, of course, should
be assessed in the light of the interests of defendants which the speedy trial
right was designed to protect. This Court has identified three such interests: (i)
to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern
of the accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility that the defense will be
impaired. Of these, the most serious is the last, because the inability of a
defendant adequately to prepare his case skews the fairness of the entire
system. If witnesses die or disappear during a delay, the prejudice is obvious.
There is also prejudice if defense witnesses are unable to recall accurately
events of the distant past. Loss of memory, however, is not always reflected in
the record because what has been forgotten can rarely be shown. 10 (Emphasis
and underscoring supplied)
I n Barker , SCOTUS explained the nature of the accused's right to speedy trial
under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Sixth Amendment), and set forth
the four factors to be considered in determining whether such right had been violated —
length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and
prejudice to the defendant. aICc HA
prejudice to the defendant.
However, it bears stressing that this criterion was specificsally crafted to
address unreasonable delay within the narrow context of a criminal trial, since the
scope of the Sixth Amendment right does not extend to cover delay incurred by
the prosecution prior to indictment or arrest. SCOTUS' ruling in Betterman v.
Montana 11 (Betterman) lends guidance:
The Sixth Amendment's Speedy Trial Clause homes x x x from arrest or
indictment through conviction. The constitutional right, our precedent holds,
does not attach until this phase begins, that is, when a defendant is
arrested or formally accused. x x x 12 (Emphasis supplied and citations
omitted)
In turn, Betterman makes reference to United States v. Marion 13 (Marion), a
case decided prior to Barker . In Marion, SCOTUS ruled that the protection afforded by
the Sixth Amendment right attaches only after a person has been "accused" of a crime.
Hence, in Marion, SCOTUS held:
Appellees do not claim that the Sixth Amendment was violated by the
two-month delay between the return of the indictment and its dismissal. Instead,
they claim that their rights to a speedy trial were violated by the period of
approximately three years between the end of the criminal scheme charged and
the return of the indictment; it is argued that this delay is so substantial and
inherently prejudicial that the Sixth Amendment required the dismissal of the
indictment. In our view, however, the Sixth Amendment speedy trial
provision has no application until the putative defendant in some way
becomes an "accused," an event that occurred in this case only when the
appellees were indicted x x x.
The Sixth Amendment provides that, "[i]n all criminal prosecutions,
the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. . . ." On its
face, the protection of the Amendment is activated only when a criminal
prosecution has begun and extends only to those persons who have been
"accused" in the course of that prosecution. These provisions would
seem to afford no protection to those not yet accused, nor would they
seem to require the Government to discover, investigate, and accuse any
person within any particular period of time. The Amendment would appear to
guarantee to a criminal defendant that the Government will move with the
dispatch that is appropriate to assure him an early and proper disposition of the
charges against him. "[T]he essential ingredient is orderly expedition and not
mere speed." x x x
Our attention is called to nothing in the circumstances surrounding the
adoption of the Amendment indicating that it does not mean what it appears to
say, nor is there more than marginal support for the proposition that, at the time
of the adoption of the Amendment, the prevailing rule was that prosecutions
would not be permitted if there had been long delay in presenting a charge. The
framers could hardly have selected less appropriate language if they had
intended the speedy trial provision to protect against pre-accusation delay. No
opinions of this Court intimate support for appellees' thesis, and the courts of
appeals that have considered the question in constitutional terms have never
reversed a conviction or dismissed an indictment solely on the basis of the Sixth
Amendment's speedy trial provision where only pre-indictment delay was
involved. 14 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)
Apart from clarifying the parameters of the Sixth Amendment right, Marion and
Betterman appear to confirm that no constitutional right similar to that of speedy
disposition exists under the U.S. Constitution. Hence, Barker's balancing test should not
be understood to contemplate unreasonable delay during "pre-accusation," or the period
within which the State conducts an investigation to determine whether there exists
probable cause to arrest or charge a particular suspect. 15
In the Philippine context, this "pre-accusation" period falls precisely within the
scope of the right to speedy disposition protected by the Constitution, particularly, under
Section 16, Article III:
Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of
their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
The right to speedy disposition covers the periods "before, during, and after trial."
16 Hence, the protection afforded by the right to speedy disposition, as detailed in the
foregoing provision, covers not only preliminary investigation, but extends further,
to cover the fact-finding process. As explained by the Court in People v.
Sandiganbayan: 17 EHaASD

The guarantee of speedy disposition under Section 16 of Article III of the

Constitution applies to all cases pending before all judicial, quasi-judicial or
administrative bodies. The guarantee would be defeated or rendered inutile if
the hair-splitting distinction by the State is accepted. Whether or not the fact-
finding investigation was separate from the preliminary investigation
conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman should not matter for
purposes of determining if the respondents' right to the speedy
disposition of their cases had been violated. 18 (Emphasis supplied)
Moreover, in Torres v. Sandiganbayan 19 (Torres) the Court categorically stated
that the speedy disposition of cases covers "not only the period within which the
preliminary investigation was conducted, but also all stages to which the accused is
subjected, even including fact-finding investigations conducted prior to the
preliminary investigation proper." 20
Unreasonable delay incurred during fact-finding and preliminary investigation, like
that incurred during the course of trial, is equally prejudicial to the respondent, as it
results in the impairment of the very same interests which the right to speedy trial
protects — against oppressive pre-trial incarceration, unnecessary anxiety and
concern, and the impairment of one's defense. To hold that such right attaches only
upon the launch of a formal preliminary investigation would be to sanction the
impairment of such interests at the first instance, and render respondent's right to
speedy disposition and trial nugatory. Further to this, it is oppressive to require that for
purposes of determining inordinate delay, the period is counted only from the filing of a
formal complaint or when the person being investigated is required to comment (in
instances of fact-finding investigations). 21
Prejudice is not limited to when the person being investigated is notified of the
proceedings against him. Prejudice is more real in the form of denial of access to
documents or witnesses that have been buried or forgotten by time, and in one's failure
to recall the events due to the inordinately long period that had elapsed since the acts
that give rise to the criminal prosecution. Inordinate delay is clearly prejudicial when it
impairs one's ability to mount a complete and effective defense. Hence, contrary to the
majority, I maintain that People v. Sandiganbayan and Torres remain good law in
this jurisdiction. The scope of right to speedy disposition corresponds not to any
specific phase in the criminal process, but rather, attaches the very moment the
respondent (or accused) is exposed to prejudice, which, in turn, may occur as early as
the fact-finding stage.
The right to speedy disposition is two-pronged. Primarily , it serves to extend to
the individual citizen a guarantee against State abuse brought about by protracted
prosecution. Conversely, it imposes upon the State the concomitant duty to expedite all
proceedings lodged against individual citizens, whether they be judicial, quasi-judicial or
administrative in nature. This constitutional duty imposed upon the State stands
regardless of the vigor with which the individual citizen asserts his right to speedy
disposition. Hence, the State's duty to dispose of judicial, quasi-judicial or
administrative proceedings with utmost dispatch cannot be negated solely by the
inaction of the respondent upon the dangerous premise that such inaction, without more,
amounts to an implied waiver thereof.
Verily, the Court has held that the State's duty to resolve criminal complaints with
utmost dispatch is one that is mandated by the Constitution. 22 Bearing in mind that the
Bill of Rights exists precisely to strike a balance between governmental power and
individual personal freedoms, it is, to my mind, unacceptable to place on the individual
the burden to assert his or her right to speedy disposition of cases when the State has
the burden to respect, protect, and fulfill the said right.
It is thus not the respondent's duty to follow up on the prosecution of his case, for
it is the prosecution's responsibility to expedite the same within the bounds of
reasonable timeliness. 23 Considering that the State possesses vast powers and has
immense resources at its disposal, it is incumbent upon it alone to ensure the speedy
disposition of the cases it either initiates or decides. Indeed, as the Court held in
Secretary of Justice v. Lantion , 24 "[t]he individual citizen is but a speck of particle or
molecule vis-a-vis the vast and overwhelming powers of government. His only
guarantee against oppression and tyranny are his fundamental liberties under the Bill of
Rights which shield him in times of need." 25 Further, as earlier observed, no such
similar duty is imposed by the U.S. Constitution. DaIAc C

Proceeding therefrom, I find the adoption of the third factor in Barker's

balancing test improper. Instead, I respectfully submit that in view of the
fundamental differences between the scope of the Sixth Amendment right to
speedy trial on one hand, and the right to speedy disposition on the other, the
third factor in Barker's balancing test (that is, the assertion of one's right) should
no longer be taken against those who are subject of criminal proceedings.
I am not unaware of the catena of cases that have applied Barker's balancing
test, including those wherein the accused's invocation of the right to speedy disposition
had been rejected on the basis of its third factor. 26 I maintain, however, that the
adoption of Barker's third factor in the Philippine context fails to take into account the
limited scope of the Sixth Amendment right for which the balancing test had been
devised vis-à-vis the expanded scope of the right to speedy disposition under the
Constitution.
One such case is Dela Peña , wherein it was required that an individual at least
perform some overt act to show that he was not waiving that right. The ridiculousness of
the principle of waiver of the right to speedy disposition of cases, however, could be
easily gleaned from the ratiocination in Dela Peña itself — wherein it cited the filing of a
motion for early resolution as an instance where the individual would be deemed not to
have waived the right. It is absurd to place on the individual the burden to egg on , so to
speak, government agencies to prioritize a particular case when it is their duty in the
first place to resolve the same at the soonest possible time. To stress, it is the State
which has the sole burden to see to it that the cases which it files, or are filed before it,
are resolved with dispatch. Thus, to sustain the same principle laid down in Dela Peña
in present and future jurisprudence is to perpetuate the erroneous notion that the
individual, in any way, has the burden to expedite the proceedings in which he or she is
involved.
Considering that the Constitution, unlike its U.S. counterpart, imposes upon
the State the positive duty to ensure the speedy disposition of all judicial, quasi-
judicial or administrative proceedings, waiver of the right to speedy disposition
should not be implied solely from the respondent's silence. To be sure, the duty to
expedite proceedings under the Constitution does not pertain to the respondent,
but to the State. To fault the respondent for the State's inability to comply with
such positive duty on the basis of mere silence is, in my view, the height of
injustice.
Following these parameters, it is my view that petitioner cannot be precluded
from invoking his right to speedy disposition in the present case.
The ponencia further averred that institutional delay is a reality, and is thus
inevitable. It further stated that "[p]rosecution is staffed by overworked and underpaid
government lawyers with mounting caseloads. Court dockets are congested." 27 While
this "reality" may exist, as it exists in any government, it does not, as it should not, in
any way justify the State's act of subjecting its citizens to unreasonable delays that
impinge on their fundamental rights. I therefore disagree with the ponencia where it said
that:
Institutional delay, in the proper context, should not be taken against the
State. Most cases handled by the Office of the Ombudsman involve powerful
politicians who engage private counsel with the means and resources to fully
dedicate themselves to their client's case. More often than not, respondents only
invoke the right to the speedy disposition of cases when the Ombudsman has
already rendered an unfavorable decision. The prosecution should not be
prejudiced for private counsels' failure to protect the interests of their clients or
the accused's lack of interest in the prosecution of their case. 28
I disagree for two reasons:
First , this statement is based on the premise that the individual has the burden to
do something to expedite the proceedings. To repeat, to require individuals to do so
would be to sanction deviation by government agencies, including the courts, from its
sacrosanct duty of dispensing justice. Cliché as it may be, it cannot be denied that
justice delayed is justice denied.
Second , the fact that "[m]ost cases handled by the Office of the Ombudsman
involve powerful politicians who engage private counsel with the means and resources
to fully dedicate themselves to their client's case" 29 does not constitute a sufficient
excuse. The State's disadvantage, if any, brought about by the creativity of defense
counsels is easily balanced out by the second of the four factors laid down in Dela Peñ
a, namely, when the court takes into consideration the reasons for the delay in
determining whether the right to speedy disposition has indeed been violated.
For instance, in Mendoza-Ong v. Sandigan bayan, 30 the Court held that the right
to speedy disposition of cases was not violated, as the accused herself contributed to
the instances of delay for her refusal to provide certain information despite orders from
the Court. In Domondon v. Sandiganbayan (First Division) , 31 the Court ruled that the
right was not violated because the "postponements were caused by numerous pending
motions or petitions" 32 filed by the accused themselves. TAac HE

Thus, even as the Court may recognize institutional delay as a reality, the result
of such recognition should be a thrust towards structural and procedural changes. The
answer lies in reforming these institutions, but certainly not in sanctioning a violation of
an individual's constitutionally guaranteed right to a speedy disposition of his case.
Time and again, this Court has recognized the State's inherent right to prosecute
and punish violators of the law. 33 This right to prosecute, however, must be balanced
against the State's duty to respect the fundamental constitutional rights extended to
each of its citizens.
This Court has held that every reasonable presumption against the waiver of
fundamental constitutional rights must be afforded. 34 Such waiver "not only must be
voluntary, but must be knowing, intelligent, and done with sufficient awareness of the
relevant circumstances and likely consequences." 35
To constitute a valid waiver of a constitutional right, it must appear that: (i) the
right exists; (ii) the persons involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the
existence of such right; and, (iii) the person possessing the right had an actual
intention to relinquish the right. 36
Intent, being a product of one's state of mind, may be inferred only from external
acts. 37 Hence, the intention to relinquish a constitutional right cannot be deduced
solely from silence or inaction. A valid waiver of one's right to speedy disposition
cannot thus be predicated on acquiescence alone, but rather, simultaneously anchored
on acts indicative of an intent to relinquish. Verily, "[m]ere silence of the holder of the
right should not be easily construed as surrender thereof." 38
The principles on waiver of constitutional rights find emphatic application in this
case, for unlike other fundamental rights, the right to speedy disposition cannot be
confined to a particular point in time, as it necessarily covers an indefinite period which
expands and contracts for reasons not solely attributable to the whims of the accused
but also on the nature of the offense, the complexity of the case, as well as other
factors over which the accused has absolutely no control.
On such basis, I urge that the principle espoused in Dela Peña be revisited
accordingly.
The case of R v. Jordan 39 (Jordan) is consistent with the foregoing principles
proffered in this dissent. In Jordan, the Supreme Court of Canada declared as waived
only those periods of time when the delay was attributable to the defense. Thus:
only those periods of time when the delay was attributable to the defense. Thus:
In this case, the total delay between the charges and the end of trial was
49.5 months. As the trial judge found, four months of this delay were waived
by J when he changed counsel shortly before the trial was set to begin,
necessitating an adjournment. In addition, one and a half months of the delay
were caused solely by J for the adjournment of the preliminary inquiry
because his counsel was unavailable for closing submissions on the last
day. This leaves a remaining delay of 44 months, an amount that vastly
exceeds the presumptive ceiling of 30 months in the superior court. The Crown
has failed to discharge its burden of demonstrating that the delay of 44 months
(excluding defence delay) was reasonable. While the case against J may
have been moderately complex given the amount of evidence and the number
of co-accused, it was not so exceptionally complex that it would justify such a
delay. 40 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In addition, Jordan used different factors in determining if there was a waiver,
unlike in the case of Dela Peña that limited it to an inquiry on whether the individual
asserted his or her right to speedy disposition of cases. The Supreme Court of Canada,
in interpreting "meaningful steps that demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite the
proceedings" stated:
As to the first factor, while the defence might not be able to resolve the
Crown's or the trial court's challenges, it falls to the defence to show that it
attempted to set the earliest possible hearing dates, was cooperative with
and responsive to the Crown and the court, put the Crown on timely notice
when delay was becoming a problem, and conducted all applications
(including the s. 11(b) application) reasonably and expeditiously. At the
same time, trial judges should not take this opportunity, with the benefit of
hindsight, to question every decision made by the defence. The defence is
required to act reasonably, not perfectly. 41HDICSa

To my mind, if the Court intends to insist on including the third of the four factors
laid down in Dela Peña — the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused —
as upheld by the ponencia, then the said factor should be interpreted in the same
manner as it was in Jordan. Again, bearing in mind that it is primarily the State's duty to
see to it that the right to speedy disposition of cases is fulfilled, it bears to stress that it
is the State which has the burden to prove that the individual indeed waived his or her
right, instead of the other way around.
In fact, in this jurisdiction, the Court had already settled the appreciation of waiver
vis-à-vis the right to speedy disposition. In Remulla v. Sandiganbayan, 42 the Court
made a distinction on the seemingly conflicting two sets of cases that have dealt with
waiver, and reconciled them. In apparent conflict, in the first set of cases, 43 the Court
found that there was no violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases due to the
failure to assert such right, while in the second set of cases, 44 the Court found
otherwise.
The Court in Remulla found no conflict between these two sets of cases. In the
first set, the Court did not solely rely on the failure of the accused to assert his right;
rather, the proper explanation on the delay and the lack of prejudice to the accused were
also considered therein. Likewise, the Court in the second set of cases took into
account several factors in upholding the right to a speedy disposition of cases, such as
length of delay, failure of the prosecution to justify the period of delay, and the prejudice
caused to the accused. Hence, the Court in the second set of cases found that the lack
of follow ups from the accused outweighed the utter failure of the prosecution to explain
the delay of the proceedings. 45
What can be deduced from both sets of cases is that the balancing test
necessarily compels the court to approach speedy trial and speedy disposition cases on
an ad hoc basis. In considering the four factors, the Court cautioned that none of these
factors is "either a necessary or sufficient condition; they are related and must be
considered together with other relevant circumstances. These factors have no
talismanic qualities as courts must still engage in a difficult and sensitive balancing
process." 46
As regards waiver, the Court in Remulla made the following pronouncements:
In addition, there is no constitutional or legal provision which states
that it is mandatory for the accused to follow up his case before his right
to its speedy disposition can be recognized. To rule otherwise would
promote judicial legislation where the Court would provide a compulsory
requisite not specified by the constitutional provision. It simply cannot be done,
thus, the ad hoc characteristic of the balancing test must be upheld.
Likewise, contrary to the argument of the OSP, the U.S. case of Barker
v. Wingo, from which the balancing test originated, recognizes that a
respondent in a criminal case has no compulsory obligation to follow up
on his case. It was held therein that "[a] defendant has no duty to bring himself
to trial; the State has that duty as well as the duty of insuring that the trial is
consistent with due process." 47 (Emphasis supplied)
The Court even went further and stated that the rule that the accused has no duty
to follow up on the prosecution of their case is not limited to cases where the accused is
unaware of the preliminary investigation as was the case in Coscolluela v.
Sandiganbayan 48 (Coscolluela). On the contrary, the subsequent rulings of Duterte v.
Sandiganbayan 49 ( Duter te), Cer vantes v. Sandiganbayan 50 (Cervantes), People v.
Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division 51 (People), and Inocentes v. People 52 ( Inocentes)
show that the rule is applicable even if the accused was fully informed and had
participated in the investigation. 53 Verily, the factors in the balancing test must not be
rigidly applied but must be weighed in light of the factual circumstances of each case.
As applied in the facts of Remulla, the Court therein ruled that the failure of the
prosecution to justify the nine-year interval before the case was filed in court far
outweighed the accused's own inaction over the delay. Citing Coscolluela, Duterte,
Cervantes, People, and Inocentes, the Court reiterated that it is the duty of the
prosecutor to expedite the prosecution of the case regardless of whether or not the
accused objects to the delay. 54
In the recent case of People v. Macasaet , 55 the Court pronounced that "the
silence of the accused during such period [of delay] could not be viewed as an
unequivocal act of waiver of their right to speedy determination of their cases. That the
accused could have filed a motion for early resolution of their cases is immaterial. The
more than eight years delay the [Prosecutor] incurred before issuing his resolution of
the complaints is an affront to a reasonable dispensation of justice and such delay could
only be perpetrated in a vexatious, capricious, and oppressive manner." 56 IDaEHC
The following pronouncements in Almeda v. Office of the Ombudsman
(Mindanao) 57 illustrate why the burden of expediting the cases should not be placed on
the accused:
Regarding delays, it may be said that "[i]t is almost a universal
experience that the accused welcomes delay as it usually operates in his favor,
especially if he greatly fears the consequences of his trial and conviction. He is
hesitant to disturb the hushed inaction by which dominant cases have been
known to expire." These principles should apply to respondents in other
administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings as well. It must also be
remembered that generally, respondents in preliminary investigation
proceedings are not required to follow up on their cases; it is the State's
duty to expedite the same "within the bounds of reasonable timeliness."
xxx xxx xxx
"It is the duty of the prosecutor to speedily resolve the complaint, as
mandated by the Constitution, regardless of whether the (respondent) did
not object to the delay or that the delay was with his acquiescence
provided that it was not due to causes directly attributable to him." Failure
or inaction may not have been deliberately intended, yet unjustified delay
nonetheless causes just as much vexation and oppression. Indeed, delay
prejudices the accused or respondent — and the State just the same. 58
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In any event, I find that even if the third factor of the balancing test were to
be applied, petitioner's alleged inaction in this case still fails to qualify as an
implied waiver of his right to speedy disposition.
A review of recent jurisprudence that rely on and follow Dela Peña illustrates
that, far too often, the Court has used this one factor alone in denying the right against
speedy disposition of cases. 59 Such practice, as explained, is contrary to the
parameters set in Barker .
To recall, Barker instructs that the third factor in the balancing test serves as an
important factor that should be measured in conjunction with the prejudice that the
accused experiences as a consequence of the delay ascribed to the prosecution.
Hence, inaction on the part of the accused, without more, should not be a priori
deemed as an implied waiver of such right.
In this connection, I respectfully submit that even if the third factor of the
balancing test, as applied in Dela Peña , is adopted herein, petitioner still cannot be
deemed to have waived his right to speedy disposition because he purportedly failed to
show that he had asserted his right during the period of delay.
It bears emphasizing that petitioner had been criminally charged as a result of
two separate investigations before the OMB — OMB-M-C-0487-J (PI-1) and OMB-M-C-
0480-K (PI-2), which began sometime in September 2003 and October 2004,
respectively. 60 PI-1 led to the filing of an Information dated July 12, 2005 for the 1st
Sandiganbayan case. 61 Petitioner was acquitted of this charge through the Decision
dated June 17, 2010 rendered by the Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan. 62
It appears, however, that on November 17, 2011, two Informations were filed for
the 2nd and 3rd Sandiganbayan cases. 63 The Informations in question proceed from the
results of PI-2, which, in turn, is the subject of the present Petition.
To my mind, the petitioner cannot be said to have slept on his rights from July 12,
2005 to June 17, 2010, in view of his participation in the 1st Sandiganbayan case. In
other words, it was reasonable for petitioner to assume that his participation in the 1st
Sandiganbayan case would work towards the termination of PI-2 in his favor,
considering that both proceed from closely related incidents.
Moreover, the State failed to show that the delay from July 12, 2005 to June 17,
2010 was reasonable. The ponencia's holding that the transactions were complex and
numerous, involving 40 individuals in 81 transactions, is not sufficient to justify the
delay. As the ponencia admits, the COA Report already exhaustively investigated each
transaction. It nonetheless ruled that delay was inevitable in the hands of a competent
and independent Ombudsman. 64 This fails to justify the delay.
Given that a constitutional right is at stake, the Ombudsman should justify what it
had done during the period from July 12, 2005 to June 17, 2010. Indeed, the
Ombudsman is not bound by the findings of COA. But the Ombudsman should show the
actions it had done with regard to the findings of the COA. Its failure to do so shows the
lack of justification for its delay in filing the Informations subject of these Petitions.
DTCSHA

I vote to GRANT the Petitions.

Footnotes

* No part.

1. Rollo (G.R. Nos. 206438 & 206458), pp. 4-69.

2. Id. at 83-540. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang
and concurred in by Associate Justices Roland B. Jurado and Alexander G. Gesmundo
of the Fifth Division of the Sandiganbayan.

3. Id. at 71-81. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang
and concurred in by Associate Justices Roland B. Jurado and Alexander G. Gesmundo
of the Fifth Division of the Sandiganbayan.

4. Rollo (G.R. Nos. 210141-42), pp. 4-21.

5. Id. at 23. The Order was penned by Associate Justices Alexander G. Gesmundo (Acting
Chair), Alex L. Quiroz, and Oscar C. Hetrera, Jr. of the Fifth Division of the
Sandiganbayan.

6. Id. at 26-27. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justices Roland B. Jurado (Chair),
Alexander G. Gesmundo, and Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang of the Fifth Division of the
Sandiganbayan.

7. Rollo (G.R. Nos. 206438 & 206458), pp. 206-207.

8. Id. at 207-208.

9. Id. at 208.
10. Id. at 210.

11. Id. at 210-211.

12. Id. at 211.

13. Id. at 212.

14. Id. at 212.

15. Id. at 212-213.

16. Id. at 213.

17. Id.

18. Id. at 201-490.

19. Id. at 468-490.

20. Id. at 490.

21. Id. at 1091.

22. Id. at 936-939.

23. Id. at 941.

24. Id.

25. Id. at 491-583. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong (Chair) and
concurred in by Associate Justices Jose R. Hernandez and Samuel R. Martires of the
Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan.

26. Id. at 582.

27. Id. at 430-434.

28. Id. at 424-429.

29. Id. at 428-429.

30. Rollo (G.R. Nos. 210141-42), pp. 433-434.

31. Id. at 434.

32. Rollo (G.R. Nos. 206438 & 206458), pp. 140-147.

33. Rollo (G.R. Nos. 210141-42), pp. 35-42.

34. 242 Phil. 563 (1988) [Per J. Yap, En Banc].

35. 366 Phil. 368 (1999) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].

36. Rollo (G.R. Nos. 206438 & 206458), p. 84.

37. Id. at 85-86.

38. Id. at 83-108. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang
and concurred in by Associate Justices Roland B. Jurado (Chair) and Alexander G.
Gesmundo of the Fifth Division of the Sandiganbayan.

39. Rollo (G.R. Nos. 206438 & 206458), pp. 91-92.

40. Id. at 103-104.

41. Id. at 94-95.

42. Id. at 104.

43. Id. at 109-139.

44. Id. at 71-81. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang
and concurred in by Associate Justices Roland B. Jurado (Chair) and Alexander G.
Gesmundo of the Fifth Division Sandiganbayan.

45. Id. at 4-69.

46. The Sandiganbayan, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the People were ordered to
comment on the petition. (Rollo [G.R. Nos. 206438 & 206458], p. 1036).

47. Rollo (G.R. Nos. 210141-42), pp. 43-47.

48. A copy of the Order of Arrest is not attached to the rollo.

49. Rollo (G.R. Nos. 210141-42), pp. 44-45.

50. Id. at 23. The Order was penned by Associate Justices Alexander G. Gesmundo (Acting
Chair), Alex L. Quirol, and Oscar C. Herrera, Jr. of the Fifth Division of the
Sandiganbayan.

51. Id. at 29-34.

52. Id. at 26-27. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justices Roland B. Jurado (Chair),
Alexander G. Gesmundo, and Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang of the Fifth Division of the
Sandiganbayan.

53. Id. at 4-21.

54. Id. at 112-113.

55. Id. at 111.

56. Rollo (G.R. Nos. 206438 & 206458), pp. 1062-1074, and Rollo (G.R. Nos. 210141-42), pp.
117-129.

57. Petitioner filed his Reply in G.R. Nos. 206438 & 206458 (Rollo, pp. 1522-1526) and filed a
Compliance with Motion to Adopt Reply dated 11 September 2015 in G.R. Nos. 210141-
42 (Rollo, pp. 482-487).

58. 242 Phil. 563 (1988) [Per J. Yap, En Banc].

59. Rollo (G.R. Nos. 206438 & 206458), p. 30.

60. CONST, art. III, sec. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their
cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

61. RULES OF COURT, Rule 112, sec. 3. Procedure. — The preliminary investigation shall be
conducted in the following manner:

xxx xxx xxx

  (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.

62. Rollo (G.R. Nos. 206438 & 206458), pp. 42-55.

63. Id. at 51.

64. Id. at 56.

65. Id. at 60.

66. Rollo (G.R. Nos. 210141-42), pp. 13-14.

67. Rollo (G.R. Nos. 206438 & 206458), p. 1062.

68. Id. at 1069-1072.

69. Rollo (G.R. Nos. 210141-42), p. 125.

70. Id. at 127.

71. As amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC (2007).

72. 673 Phil. 165 (2011) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

73. Id. at 172 citing Santos v. People, 585 Phil. 337 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third
Division].

74. Id. at 172-173 citing Curata v. Philippine Ports Authority , 608 Phil. 9 (2009) [Per J. Velasco,
En Banc].

75. 306 Phil. 690 (1994) [Per J. Kapunan, En Banc].

76. Id. at 698-699.

77. 484 Phil. 899 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].

78. Id. at 917 citing State v. Frith, 194 So. 1 (1940); Smith v. United States, 3 L.Ed.2d 1041
(1959); Barker v. Wingo , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); and McCandles v. District Court , 61
N.W.2d. 674 (1954).

79. CONST., art. XI, sec. 12.

80. The Ombudsman Act of 1989.

81. 242 Phil. 563 (1988) [Per J. Yap, En Banc].

82. The Tanodbayan is now the Ombudsman. See CONST, art. XI, sec. 5 & The Ombudsman
Act of 1989.

83. 242 Phil. 563, 573 (1988) [Per J. Yap, En Banc] citing Salonga vs. Cruz Paño , 219 Phil.
402 (1985) [Per J. Gutierrez, En Banc]; Mead vs. Argel , 200 Phil. 650 (1982) [Per J.
Vasquez, First Division]; Yap vs. Lutero, 105 Phil. 3007; and People vs. Zulueta, 89 Phil.
752 (1951) [Per J. Bengzon, First Division].

84. Id. at 574-575.

85. Id. at 575-576.

86. 335 Phil. 766 (1997) [Per J. Melo, Third Division].

87. Id. at 772.

88. 352 Phil. 557 (1998) [Per J. Kapunan, Third Division].

89. 366 Phil. 368 (1999) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].

90. 366 Phil. 602 (1999) [Per J. Pardo, First Division].

91. 417 Phil. 39 (2001) [Per J. Gonzaga-Reyes, Third Division].

92. 421 Phil. 1075 (2001) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].

93. 542 Phil. 539 (2007) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, First Division].

94. 569 Phil. 309 (2008) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, First Division].

95. 723 Phil. 444 (2013) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].

96. G.R. Nos. 205963-64, July 7, 2016 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?

file=/jurisprudence/2016/july2016/205963-64.pdf> [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

97. G.R. No. 204267, July 25, 2016, <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?

file=/jurisprudence/2016/july2016/204267.pdf> [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].

98. G.R. Nos. 199151-56, July 25, 2016, <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?

file=/jurisprudence/2016/july2016/199151-56.pdf> [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].

99. G.R. Nos. 221562-69, October 5, 2016, <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?

file=/jurisprudence/2016/october2016/221562-69.pdf> [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third
Division].

100. G.R. No. 218040, April 17, 2017, <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?

file=/jurisprudence/2017/april2017/218040.pdf> [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division.]

101. Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, 421 Phil. 1075, 1093 (2001) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc]
citing Dela Peña v. Sandiganbayan, 412 Phil. 921 (2001) [Per C.J. Davide, Jr., En
Banc].
102. 208 Phil. 658 (1983) [Per J. Plana, En Banc].

103. Id. at 664 citing Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514 (1972).

104. 276 Phil. 323 (1991) [Per J. Regalado, En Banc].

105. Id. at 333-334 citing CONST., art. III, sec. 16; CONST., art. III, sec. 14 (2); Kalaw vs.
Apostol, et al., 64 Phil. 852 (1937) [Per J. Imperial, First Division]; Que, et al. vs. Cosico,
et al., 258 Phil. 211 (1989) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., Third Division]; Andres, et al. vs.
Cacdac, Jr., et al., 198 Phil. 600 (1981) [Per J. Concepcion, Jr., Second Division]; and
Martin vs. Ver, et al., 208 Phil. 658 (1983) [Per J. Plana, En Banc].

106. 292-A Phil. 144 (1993) [Per J. Regalado, En Banc].

107. Id. at 155 citing Pollard vs. United States , 352 U.S. 354 (1957); I BERNAS, THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 421 (1st ed); and Barker
vs. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972).

108. 383 Phil. 897 (2000) [Per J. Purisima, Third Division].

109. RULES OF COURT, Rule 110, sec. 3 provides:

  Section 3. Procedure. — The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in the

following manner:

  (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 who 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 documents 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.

110. Rep. Act No. 8493, sec. 5 provides:

  Section 5. Time Limit for Trial. — In criminal cases involving persons charged of a
crime, except those subject to the Rules on Summary Procedure, or where the penalty
prescribed by law does not exceed six (6) months imprisonment, or a fine of One
thousand pesos (P1,000.00) or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, the
justice or judge shall, after consultation with the public prosecutor and the counsel for
the accused, set the case for continuous trial on a weekly or other short-term trial
calendar at the earliest possible time so as to ensure speedy trial. In no case shall the
entire trial period exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from the first day of trial, except
as otherwise authorized by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court pursuant to Sec. 3,
Rule 22 of the Rules of Court.

111. Rep. Act No. 8493, sec. 7 provides:

  Section 7. Time Limit between Filing of Information and Arraignment and between
Arraignment and Trial. — The arraignment of an accused shall be held within thirty (30)
days from the filing of the information, or from the date the accused has appeared before
the justice, judge or court in which the charge is pending, whichever date last occurs.
Thereafter, where a plea of not guilty is entered, the accused shall have at least fifteen
(15) days to prepare for trial. Trial shall commence within thirty (30) days from
arraignment as fixed by the court.

112. Implementing the Provisions of Republic Act No. 8493 (1998).

113. RULES OF COURT, rule 119, sec. 11. Time to prepare for trial. — After a plea of not guilty
is entered, the accused shall have at least fifteen (15) days to prepare for trial. The trial
shall commence within thirty (30) days from receipt of the pre-trial order.

114. RULES OF COURT, rule 119, sec. 2 provides:

  Section 2. Continuous trial until terminated; postponements. — Trial once commenced

shall continue from day to day as far as practicable until terminated. It may be postponed
for a reasonable period of time for good cause.
  The court shall, after consultation with the prosecutor and defense counsel, set the case
for continuous trial on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar at the earliest possible
time so as to ensure speedy trial. In no case shall the entire trial period exceed one
hundred eighty (180) days from the first day of trial, except as otherwise authorized by
the Supreme Court.

  The time limitations provided under this section and the preceding section shall not
apply where special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court provide for a shorter period
of trial.

115. RULES OF COURT, rule 119, sec. 3 provides:

  Section 3. Exclusions. — The following periods of delay shall be excluded in computing

the time within which trial must commence:

  (a) Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the accused,
including but not limited to the following:

  (1) Delay resulting from an examination of the physical and mental condition of the
accused;

  (2) Delay resulting from proceedings with respect to other criminal charges against the
accused;

  (3) Delay resulting from extraordinary remedies against interlocutory orders;

  (4) Delay resulting from pre-trial proceedings; provided, that the delay does not exceed
thirty (30) days;

  (5) Delay resulting from orders of inhibition, or proceedings relating to change of venue
of cases or transfer from other courts;

  (6) Delay resulting from a finding of the existence of a prejudicial question; and

  (7) Delay reasonably attributable to any period, not to exceed thirty (30) days, during
which any proceeding concerning the accused is actually under advisement.

  (b) Any period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of an essential
witness.

  For purposes of this subparagraph, an essential witness shall be considered absent

when his whereabouts are unknown or his whereabouts cannot be determined by due
diligence. He shall be considered unavailable whenever his whereabouts are known but
his presence for trial cannot be obtained by due diligence.

  (c) Any period of delay resulting from the mental incompetence or physical inability of
the accused to stand trial.

  (d) If the information is dismissed upon motion of the prosecution and thereafter a charge
is filed against the accused for the same offense, any period of delay from the date the
charge was dismissed to the date the time limitation would commence to run as to the
subsequent charge had there been no previous charge.

  (e) A reasonable period of delay when the accused is joined for trial with a co-accused
over whom the court has not acquired jurisdiction, or, as to whom the time for trial has
not run and no motion for separate trial has been granted.

  (f) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any court motu proprio, or
on motion of either the accused or his counsel, or the prosecution, if the court granted the
continuance on the basis of its findings set forth in the order that the ends of justice
served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the accused in
a speedy trial.

116. RULES OF COURT, rule 119, sec. 6 provides:

  Section 6. Extended time limit. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1 (g), Rule
116 and the preceding section 1, for the first twelve-calendar-month period following its
effectivity on September 15, 1998, the time limit with respect to the period from
arraignment to trial imposed by said provision shall be one hundred eighty (180) days.
For the second twelve-month period, the time limit shall be one hundred twenty (120)
days, and for the third twelve-month period, the time limit shall be eighty (80) days.

117. The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

118. The Human Security Act of 2007.

119. An Act Further Amending the Provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as Amended
(2007).

120. Entitled Codifying the Law on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in,
Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives or Instruments Used in
the Manufacture of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives, and Imposing Stiffer Penalties
for Certain Violations Thereof, and for Other Relevant Purposes (1983).

121. IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS of Rep. Act No. 7610 (1992).

122. The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003.

123. The Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012.

124. See CONST., art. VIII, sec. 5 (5) on this Court's power to promulgate rules of practice and
procedure.

125. A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC (2010).

126. A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC (2011).

127. Re: Designation of Courts to Hear, Try, and Decide Cases Involving Killings of Political
Activists and Members of the Media (2007).

128. A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC (2014).

129. 723 Phil. 444 (2013) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].

130. Id. at 493.

131. 723 Phil. 444 (2013) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].

132. 723 Phil. 444 (2013) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].

133. See R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631.

134. Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, 421 Phil. 1075, 1093 (2001) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc]
citing Dela Peña v. Sandiganbayan, 412 Phil. 921 (2001) [Per C.J. Davide, Jr., En
Banc].

135. See R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631.

136. 483 Phil. 451 (2004) [Per J. Quisumbing, Special Second Division].

137. Id. at 457.

138. 374 Phil. 413 (1999) [Per J. Kapunan, En Banc).

139. Id. at 448 citing Cadalin vs. POEA's Administrator , 308 Phil. 728 (1994) [Per J. Quiason,
First Division].

140. 292-A Phil. 144 (1993) [Per J. Regalado, En Banc].

141. Id. at 155-156.

142. 412 Phil. 921 (2001) [Per C.J. Davide, En Banc].

143. Id. at 932 citing Guerrero v. Court of Appeals , 327 Phil. 496 (1996) [Per J. Panganiban,
Third Division] and Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan, 292-A Phil. 144 (1993) [Per J. Regalado,
En Banc].

144. 352 Phil. 557 (1998) [Per J. Kapunan, Third Division].

145. Id. at 582-583.

146. 714 Phil. 55 (2013) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].

147. Id. at 63-64 citing Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514 (1972).

148. U.S. CONST., Amendment 6 provides:

  In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public
trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been
committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses
against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to
have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

149. See R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631 for a full definition of the term.

150. A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC (2012).

151. A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC (2014).

152. A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC (2017).

153. See Ty-Dazo v. Sandiganbayan, 424 Phil. 945 (2002) [Per J. Kapunan, First Division].
154. 276 Phil. 323 (1991) [Per J. Regalado, En Banc].

155. Id. at 333-334.

156. See Ty-Dazo v. Sandiganbayan, 424 Phil. 945 (2002) [Per J. Kapunan, First Division].

157. 484 Phil. 899 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].

158. Id. at 918 citing Barker v. Wingo , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972) and United States v. Marion, 30
L.Ed.2d 468 (1971).

159. 714 Phil. 55 (2013) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].

160. Id. at 66 citing Mari v. Gonzales, 673 Phil. 46 (2011) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].

161. 484 Phil. 899 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].

162. Id. at 918 citing United States v. Hawk , 88 L.Ed.2d 640 (1986); State v. Frith, 194 So. 1
(1940); and Williams v. United States, 250 F.2d. 19 (1957).

163. Rollo (G.R. Nos. 210141-42), p. 433.

164. Id.

165. Rollo (G.R. Nos. 206438 & 206458), pp. 581-582.

166. Rollo (G.R. Nos. 210141-42), pp. 119-120.

167. Binay v. Sandiganbayan , 374 Phil. 413, 450 (1999) [Per J. Kapunan, En Banc].

168. Jacob v. Sandiganbayan, 649 Phil. 374, 392 (2010) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First
Division].

169. 325 Phil. 525 (1996) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].

170. Id. at 538.

171. See ponencia, pp. 24, 28-29 for stating current resolutions and circulars of this Court
setting the periods for disposition.

172. 723 Phil. 444 (2013) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].

VELASCO, JR., J., concurring:

1. Ombudsman v. Jurado, G.R. No. 154155, August 6, 2008.

2. SEC. 58. Period to resolve cases under preliminary investigation. — The following periods
shall be observed in the resolution of cases under preliminary investigation:

  a) The preliminary investigation of complaints charging a capital offense shall be

terminated and resolved within ninety (90) days from the date of assignment to the
Investigating Prosecutor.

  b) The preliminary investigation of all other complaints involving crimes cognizable by
the Regional Trial Courts shall be terminated and resolved within sixty (60) days from
the date of assignment.

  c) In cases of complaints involving crimes cognizable by the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, the preliminary investigation —
should the same be warranted by the circumstances — shall be terminated and resolved
within sixty (60) days from the date of assignment to the Investigating Prosecutor.

3. Article VIII, Section 15 (1) of the 1987 Constitution relevantly reads:

   SECTION 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution
must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission
for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months
for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.

4. Flores v. Hernandez, Sr., G.R. No. 126894, March 2, 2000.

5. Constitution, Article XI, Section 13 (8).

6. G.R. No. 188165, December 11, 2013.

7. Id.

8. G.R. No. 154155, August 6, 2008.

9. G.R. No. 195032, February 20, 2013.

10. Tatad v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 72335-39, March 21, 1988; Angchangco v.
Ombudsman, G.R. No. 122728, February 13, 1997; Roque v. Ombudsman, G.R. No.
129978, May 12, 1999; Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 191411, July 15, 2013;
and People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 188165, December 11, 2013.

11. Padua v. Ericta, No. L-38570, May 24, 1988.

12. Supra note 10.

13. G.R. No. 162214, November 11, 2004.

14. Caballes v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 163108, February 23, 2005.

CAGUIOA, J., dissenting:

1. 412 Phil. 921 (2001) [En Banc, Per C.J. Davide, Jr.].

2. Ponencia, p. 33.

3. Id. at 37.

4. Ponencia, p. 37.

5. Supra note 1.

6. Id. at 932.

7. Id. at 929.
8. 568 Phil. 491 (2008) [Third Division, Per J. R.T. Reyes].

9. 407 US 514 (1972).

10. Id. at 527-532.

11. 136 S. Ct. 1609 (2016).

12. Id. at 1613.

13. 404 U.S. 307 (1971).

14. Id. at 313-315.

15. Id.

16. I Joaquin G. Bernas, Constitutional Rights and Duties 270 (1974).

17. 723 Phil. 444 (2013) [First Division, Per J. Bersamin].

18. Id. at 493.

19. 796 Phil. 856 (2016) [Third Division, Per J. Velasco, Jr.].

20. Id. at 868. Emphasis supplied.

21. Ponencia, p. 30.

22. See Almeda v. Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao) , 791 Phil. 129, 144 (2016) [Second
Division, Per J. Del Castillo], citing Cer vantes v. Sandiganbayan, 366 Phil. 602, 609
(1999) [First Division, Per J. Pardo].

23. See Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan, 714 Phil. 55, 64 (2013) [Second Division, Per J.
Perlas-Bernabe].

24. 379 Phil. 165-251 (2000) [En Banc, Per J. Melo].

25. Id. at 185.

26. See Dela Peña, supra, note 1; see also Guerrero v. Court of Appeals , 327 Phil. 496 (1996)
[Third Division, Per J. Panganiban]; Republic v. Desierto, 480 Phil. 214 (2004) [Special
Second Division, Per J. Austria-Martinez]; and Perez v. People, supra note 8.

27. Ponencia, p. 33.

28. Id. at 34.

29. Id.

30. 483 Phil. 451, 457 (2004) [Special Second Division, Per J. Quisumbing].

31. 512 Phil. 852 (2005) [First Division, Per J. Ynares-Santiago].

32. Id. at 863.

33. See Allado v. Diokno, 302 Phil. 213, 238 (1994) [First Division, Per J. Bellosillo].
34. See generally Chavez v. Court of Appeals , 133 Phil. 661 (1968) [En Banc, Per J.
Sanchez].

35. People v. Bodoso, 446 Phil. 838, 850 (2003) [En Banc, Per J. Bellosillo]; see also People v.
Caguioa, 184 Phil. 1 (1980) [En Banc, Per C.J. Fernando].

36. Pasion v. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689, 694-695 (1938) [En Banc, Per J. Laurel]; emphasis supplied.

37. On intent, see J. Velasco, Jr., Concurring Opinion in Poe-Llamanzares v. Commission on

Elections, G.R. Nos. 221697 & 221698-700, March 8, 2016, 786 SCRA 1, 402.

38. People v. Bodoso, supra note 35, at 850-851; emphasis supplied. See also Alonte v.
Savellano, Jr., 350 Phil. 700, 720 (1998) [En Banc, Per J. Vitug].

39. 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631.

40. Id. at 634-635.

41. Id. at 633.

42. G.R. No. 218040, April 17, 2017, 823 SCRA 17 [Second Division, Per J. Mendoza].

43. See Tilendo v. Sandiganbayan, 559 Phil. 739 (2007) [Second Division, Per J. Carpio],
Guerrero v. Court of Appeals , supra note 26, Bernat v. Sandiganbayan , 472 Phil. 869
(2004) [First Division, Per J. Azcuna, and Tello v. People, 606 Phil. 514 (2009) [First
Division, Per J. Carpio].

44. See Cer vantes v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 22; People v. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division,
791 Phil. 37 (2016) [Third Division, Per J. Peralta]; Inocentes v. People, 789 Phil. 318
(2016) [Second Division, Per J. Brion]; Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 23;
and Duterte v. Sandiganbayan, 352 Phil. 557 (1998) [Third Division, Per J. Kapunan].

45. Supra note 42, at 33.

46. Id. at 27.

47. Id. at 35-36.

48. Supra note 23.

49. Supra note 44.

50. Supra note 22.

51. Supra note 44.

52. Supra note 44.

53. See Remulla v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 42, at 36.

54. Id. at 42.

55. G.R. Nos. 196094, 196720 & 197324, March 5, 2018 [Second Division, Per J. Caguioa].
56. Id. at 19.

57. 791 Phil. 129 (2016) [Second Division, Per J. Del Castillo].

58. Id. at 144.

59. See Perez v. People, supra note 8; Bernat v. Sandiganbayan , supra note 43, at 875-876;
Valencia v. Sandiganbayan, 510 Phil. 70, 90 (2005) [First Division, Per J. Ynares-
Santiago]; and De Guzman, Jr. v. People, G.R. Nos. 232693-94, August 23, 2017
(Unsigned Resolution).

60. See ponencia, pp. 4-5.

61. Id. at 5-6.

62. Id. at 6.

63. Id. at 7.

64. Id. at 38.