1674 Dela Peña v Sandiganbayan

Date: June 29, 2001 G.R. No. 144542 Davide Jr., J

Section 16 Rica Aggabao

Petitioners: FRANCISCO DELA PEÑA and, Respondents: THE SANDIGANBAYAN,
TRANQUILINO BENIGNO FOURTH DIVISION, THE SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR and COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, REGION XI

Doctrine: Right to speedy disposition of cases

Facts:

1. On 14 August 1992, Graft Investigation Officer (GIO) Marie Dinah Tolentino

issued an order requiring herein petitioners and three other respondents,
namely, Tomas Quijano, Domingo Ang, and Atty. Venancio Nava to file their
respective counter-affidavits. After seeking for an extension of time to file their
counter-affidavits, petitioners and their co-respondents filed their respective
counter-affidavits, the last of which was filed on 3 December 1992. They never
filed or sent any further pleadings, letters or queries to the Office of the
Ombudsman for Mindanao.
2. On several occasions, however, Bernardino E. Placia and Vicente C. Hermoso,
Vocational Instruction Coordinator Designate and Vocational School
Administrator, respectively, of the Davao del Norte School of Fisheries, who
were not parties to the case, sent letters regarding the case. Mr. Placia sent a
letter1 to the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao dated 9 March 1993 to ask for
clearance to move to its homeport or dockyard the fishing boat subject of the
graft case in order to repair and use it. On 7 April 1993, GIO Tolentino sent a
reply saying that her office had no objection to the transfer provided that
sufficient safeguards be taken to protect the boat. Again, on 15 March 1993
 Mr. Placia sent a letter to the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao asking for a
copy of the clearance to the said transfer, as the original copy had been
misplaced.
3. Mr. Hermoso, on the other hand, in his letter of 18 March 1994, inquired from
the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao about the status of the case in his
capacity as the administrator of the school using the fishing vessel. On 4 May
1994, he wrote GIO Tolentino another letter5 requesting that the case be given
preferential attention, as one of the respondents therein had already retired.
In his letter of 3 April 1995, GIO Jovito Coresis, Jr., informed Mr. Hermoso that
he was reviewing the voluminous records of the case with a view to resolving
the same.
4. GIO Coresis came up with a resolution on 10 October 1996, which was
reviewed by Director Rodolfo M. Elman on 21 October 1996. The resolution
was recommended for approval by Margarito P. Gervacio, Deputy Ombudsman
for Mindanao, on 13 March 1997. It was finally approved by Ombudsman
Aniano Desierto on 28 April 1997.
5. Based on that Resolution, an information was filed with the Sandiganbayan on
6 May 1997 charging petitioners with the violation of Section 3(g) of Republic
Act No. 3019, as amended. The Information was docketed as Criminal Case No.
23662.
6. On 21 March 2000, the Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division) denied the Motion to
Quash/Dismiss for lack of merit.

Issue/s: Ruling:
1. Whether or not accused-appellant’s right to speedy disposition of 1. No
cases was violated by the Sandiganbayan
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis:
1. The prosecution, in its Comment/Opposition to the Motion to Quash/Dismiss,
explained the delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation by claiming
that (a) herein petitioners and their co-accused sought on several occasions for
an extension of time to file their counter-affidavits; (b) GIO Tolentino received
queries, requests, and other communication, which she had to take into
consideration, reply to, and act upon; and (c) the case was transferred to GIO
Coresis, who thereafter terminated the investigation.
2. The first two reasons cited do not justify the delay. Indeed, as pointed out by
petitioners, it took them only three months to complete their counter-
affidavits. If we reckon the length of delay from the time of the filing of the last
affidavit, a period of three (3) years, ten (10) months and seven (7) days had
elapsed before the investigation was terminated. Anent the letters (a)
requesting the transfer of the fishing boat to its homeport for repair; (b)
requesting a copy of the clearance for such transfer; (3) inquiring about the
status of the case; and (4) requesting preferential attention to the case, the
same could have hardly contributed to the delay. Not much time was needed
to act on those inquiries or requests. Besides, they had no relation to the issue
of the innocence or guilt of the petitioners and were made by individuals who
were not parties to the case. One of such letters even requested "preferential
action on the case," since one of the accused had already retired.
3. The third cited reason could have been one of the causes of the delay. The case
was transferred to GIO Coresis sometime between the last quarter of 1994 and
first quarter of 1995 as can be gleaned from the letters on record. He had to go
over the lengthy COA report and counter-affidavits of the five respondents, as
well as the numerous receipts and other evidence forming part of the
"voluminous records." It took him more or less two years to evaluate the
evidence and come up with a resolution. In any event, the delay could scarcely
be considered as "vexatious, capricious and oppressive."
§