Atty. Julius Gregory Delgado
“APOLINARIO CAMSOL, ET AL. VS. SEVENTH (7TH) DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN”, G.R. NO. 242892 (JULY 6, 2022): INORDINATE AND UNEXPLAINED DELAY OF SIX (6) YEARS FROM THE FILING OF THE CASE WITH THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN TO THE FILING OF THE INFORMATION BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN IS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES
Petitioners are town officials of the Municipality of Buguias, Benguet who were charged of violating Sections 3 (b), (e) and (g) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, in connection with the so-called Fertilizer Scam. A Complaint was filed against them before Task Force Abono of the Field Investigation Office of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Complaint alleges that the amount of Php1,050,000.00 was released to the municipality and a purchase request was lodged for the procurement of certain fungicides and insecticides. After negotiated canvass, PMB Agro Goods and Services submitted the lowest process among the three (3) entities which participated. An undated and unnumbered purchase order was then issued in favor of PMB Agro. Despite lack of delivery receipt, an undated and unnumbered inspection and acceptance report was signed attesting delivery of the insecticides and fungicides. Payment was then released to PMB Agro after petitioners affixed their signatures on the Disbursement Voucher.
After preliminary investigation, the Office of the Ombudsman issued Resolution dated November 10, 2015 which found probable cause to indict petitioners with violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. On April 20, 2018, an Information dated 05 January 2018 was filed. The petitioners moved for the deferment of the arraignment and for the dismissal of the case due to inordinate and unexplained delay. The Sandiganbayan denied the motions of the petitioners in a Resolution dated September 17, 2018 and denied the motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated October 11, 2018. In a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, the Supreme Court granted the same and dismissed the case against the petitioners for inordinate and unexplained delay.
On the procedural aspect, the Supreme Court held that: (1) the denial of a motion to quash or for dismissal may be questioned via Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 if it can be shown that it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction; and (2) the remedy of Mandamus can be resorted to compel the Ombudsman to dismiss the case for violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases as it is a form of a grave abuse of discretion or excess in the exercise of authority on the part of the Ombudsman.
On the substantive aspect, the Supreme Court invoked Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which states that all persons have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to justify the delay of approximately six (6) years in the preliminary investigation of the case until the filing of the Information before the Sandiganbayan. The Court held:
“We now consider the propriety of the relevant period which lapsed in this case. The records show that delay in this case is approximately six years and nine months from the filing of the complaint on 01 July 2011 until the filing of the Information with the Sandiganbayan on 20 April 2018. Even if counted from the last pleading filed by Camsol which was received by the Office of the Ombudsman on 03 May 2012, the delay is more than five years and eleven months until the time of the filing of the Information with the Sandiganbayan. In either case, the delay is unreasonable under the circumstance since it is way beyond what is provided under the Rules of Court, and even if AO 1, Series of 2020 is retroactively applied using the 3-year period stated therein by assuming that the case is complex and the Office of the Ombudsman has justifiably exercised the I-year extension period. Given this, and applying Cagang, the burden of proof to justify the delay in this case has shifted to the prosecution.”
Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution cannot justify the delay because while it alleges that the case has countless/voluminous documents, the prosecution failed to offer any proof to this assertion at least specifying how voluminous such records were. The Supreme Court struck down the general invocation and blanket characterization of the Fertilizer Fund Scam as the prosecution still has but failed to state reasons and justifications which specifically relate to the case at hand. Hence, the Supreme Court reversed and set aside the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan and dismissed the case against the petitioners.