G.R. No. 274922 – PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), TEDDY C. TUMANG and WILLIAM B. COLIS, respondents.

GAERLAN, J.

Rule Synopsis

In resolving issues concerning the right to speedy disposition of cases, the following must be considered: (a) the length of delay — counted from the filing of a formal complaint and the conduct of the preliminary investigation; (b) the reasons for the delay; (c) the time when the right is invoked; and (d) the prejudice caused by the delay, if any.

If the preliminary investigation proceedings were resolved beyond the period prescribed by the Rules of Court, the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution to prove the following to justify the delay: (a) it followed the prescribed procedure in the conduct of preliminary investigation and the prosecution of the case; (b) the complexity of the issues and the volume of evidence made the delay inevitable; and (c) no prejudice was suffered by the respondents as a result of the delay.

Facts

Teddy Tumang (Tumang) is the former Municipal Mayor of Mexico Pampanga, while William Colis (Colis) is the proprietor of Buyu Trading and Construction (Buyu).

On December 13, 2017, the Field Investigation Bureau of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon filed a complaint-affidavit against Tumang and Colis for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.

The complaint-affidavit alleged, among others, that in 2006 to 2007, the Municipality of Mexico, Pampanga purchased construction materials from Buyu for its barangays. Further, that Tumang, as then Municipal Mayor, illegally and invalidly approved and signed disbursement vouchers and checks in favor of Buyu.

After filing of their counter-affidavits, the investigation prosecutor issued a resolution finding probable cause to indict Tumang and Colis on November 20, 2018. The Ombudsman approved the said resolution on March 28, 2019.

In May 2019, Tumang and Colis filed their motions for reconsideration. However, the the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) only denied the motions its resolution dated April 23, 2024. The corresponding Informations were filed on April 25, 2024, and raffled to Sandiganbayan (SBN), First Division.

On May 30, 2024, before arraignment, Tumang and Colis filed their Motion to Quash Informations and/or Dismiss the Cases citing, among others, the violation of their right to speedy trial.

The SBN, First Division granted Tumang and Colis’ motion and dismissed the criminal cases against them.

Hence, the instant petition by the People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the OMB.

Issues

Did the SBN (First Division) commit grave abuse of discretion when it resolved to dismiss the cases against Tumang and Colis?

Ruling and Discussion

No. The SBN (First Division) did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it resolved to dismiss the cases against Tumang and Colis.

In resolving issues concerning the right to speedy disposition of cases, the following must be considered: (a) the length of delay — counted from the filing of a formal complaint and the conduct of the preliminary investigation; (b) the reasons for the delay; (c) the time when the right is invoked; and (d) the prejudice caused by the delay, if any.

Here, there exists inordinate delay in this case, and that Tumang and Colis’ right to speedy disposition of their cases was violated.

1. The OMB failed to observe the prescribed periods in conducting the preliminary investigation, causing delays in the approval of the Resolution finding probable cause and in filing the Informations before the SBN.
   
   While the Rules of Procedure of the OMB did not prescribe specific periods within which preliminary investigation must be conducted, the Rules of Court apply suppletorily. Under the Rules of Court, the investigating officer must determine whether there is sufficient ground to hold a respondent for trial within 10 days from the filing of the complaint. Further, the investigating prosecutor must forward their resolution to the Ombudsman, their deputy, and they must act on the same within 10 days.
   
   Here, the complaint-affidavit against Tumang and Colis was filed on December 13, 2017. After the filing of their counter-affidavits, the investigation officer issued a resolution finding probable cause to indict them on November 20, 2018. The Ombudsman approved the said resolution on March 28, 2019. Tumang and Colis filed their motions for reconsideration in May 2019, which the Ombudsman denied in April 2024. Finally, on April 25, 2024, Informations were filed with SBN.
2. The OMB failed to justify the unreasonable delay in conducting the preliminary investigation proceedings.
   
   As the preliminary investigation proceedings were resolved beyond the 10 days prescribed by the Rules of Court, the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution to prove the following to justify the delay: (a) it followed the prescribed procedure in the conduct of preliminary investigation and the prosecution of the case; (b) the complexity of the issues and the volume of evidence made the delay inevitable; and (c) no prejudice was suffered by the respondents as a result of the delay.
   
   Here, the OMB only raised the COVID-19 pandemic as justification for the delay. However, the complaint-affidavit was filed in 2017, and the resolution finding probable cause to indict Tumang and Colis was issued in 2018, even before the COVID-19 pandemic hit the Philippines. Further, the state of emergency was lifted on July 23, 2023. Yet, the OMB only resolved the motions for reconsideration filed by Tumang and Colis in 2024. The COVID-19 pandemic cannot justify the more than six-year delay and inaction of the OMB in terminating the preliminary investigation proceedings in this case.
3. Tumang and Colis timely asserted their right to speedy disposition of their cases.
   
   As soon as the Informations were filed against them before the Sandiganbayan, Tumang and Colis prayed that the same be quashed, and that the cases against them be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation proceedings.
4. Tumang and Colis suffered prejudice on account of the OMB’s delay in the disposition of their case.
   
   The long period of time while they were waiting for the resolution of the preliminary investigation proceedings constitute actual prejudice suffered by Tumang and Colis.

Note: the dismissal of the criminal cases against Tumang and Colis on the grounds of inordinate delay in the proceedings is tantamount to an acquittal, and therefore, they can no longer be re-litigated because double jeopardy has already attached.

dispositive

Petition dismissed. SBN Resolution affirmed. Criminal case against Tumang and Colis dismissed.