People vs. Sandiganbayan, Gamos (2018)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ALEJANDRO E. GAMOS et al

G.R. Nos. 232197-98, April 16, 2018

TIJAM, J.:

Facts: On February 18, 2008, a complaint was filed against former Sta. Magdalena, Sorsogon Mayor Alejandro E. Gamos (Gamos), Municipal Accountant Rosalyn E. Gile (Gile), and Municipal Treasurer Virginia E. Laco (Laco) for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. On March 30, 2015, two Informations for malversation of public funds were filed against Gamos, Gile, and Laco before the Sandiganbayan.

On February 1, 2017, the Sandiganbayan issued its assailed Resolution, dismissing the cases, on the ground of delay, depriving the respondents-accused Gamos, Gile and Laco of their right to a speedy disposition of their cases. Sandiganbayan found that seven years had passed since the filing of the First Complaint in 2008 until the filing of the Informations before it.

Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the cases before it on the ground of delay.

Ruling: Yes. The conduct of both the prosecution and defendant are weighed apropos the four-fold factors, to wit: (1) length of the delay; (2) reason for the delay; (3) defendant's assertion or non-assertion of his right; and (4) prejudice to defendant resulting from the delay.

It is not unreasonable for the investigating officer to embark into the detailed investigation of the cases. As alleged, there were 63 cash advance transactions in the two complaints to investigated upon, covering the period of 2004 to 2007.

There is nothing on record that would show that respondents asserted this right to speedy disposition during the OMB proceedings when they alleged that the delay occurred. In fact, it took respondents one year and eight months after the Informations were filed before the court a quo on March 30, 2015 before they finally asserted such right in their Motion to Dismiss. Neither was there a considerable prejudice caused by a delay upon the respondents. Respondents were practically not made to undergo any investigative proceeding prior to the COA's response to respondents' request for the review of the audit reports upon which the complaints were anchored.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient.

Gist: This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.