People v. Sandiganbayan

 

People v. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 233063

February 11, 2019

FACTS:

                On August 23, 2010, the Ombudsman was requested to conduct an investigation against Reynaldo O. Parojinog, Sr., then Mayor of Ozamiz City, Misamis Occidental, and Nova Princess E. Parojinog-Echavez, Mayor Parojinog’s daughter, for possible violation of Section 3(h) of RA 3019(Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices).  A complaint was filed by the Ombudsman Field Investigation Unit against respondents. On July 22, 2015 a subpoena duces tecum was issued to the COA and the DPWH for them to submit certified true copies of documents relating to the bidding, evaluation, and acceptance of the gymnasium project. On Nov. 27, 2015 the graft investigation officer found probable cause to indict herein respondents which was approved by the Ombudsman on April 29, 2016 but respondents failed to file their motion for reconsideration. On Nov. 26, 2016 an Information for violation of RA 3019 was filed with the Sandiganbayan. The Mayor, while in the performance of his administrative and/or official functions and in conspiracy with his daughter Nova Parojinog-Echavez, Managing Partner of Parojinog &Sons Construction Company. They possessed a financial or pecuniary interest in PSCC- a company owned by his family- when it participated as a bidder and was awarded the project for the improvement/renovation of multi-purpose building/Ramiro Gymnasium, Lam-an, Ozamiz City. He contends, on February 17, 2017, that the Information did not constitute an offense warranting the quashal thereof and that their right to a speedy disposition of cases had been violated. The Sandiganbayan granted such.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

HELD:

                Yes. The requirement of procedural process was met when petitioner sent the motion for reconsideration and notice of hearing to respondents’ counsel 15 days before the scheduled hearing giving the respondents opportunity to be heard. In Atty. Gonzales v. Serrano, Rules of procedure exists to ensure orderly, just and speedy dispensation of caess; to this end inflexibility or liberality must be weighed. It warranted only by compelling reasons or when the purpose of justice requires it. Art. III Sec. 16. of the Constitution(Speedy Disposition). This right is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays. A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient. Particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case. Factors: 1.) length of delay 2.) reasons of delay 3.) assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused 4.) prejudice cause by the delay. 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. 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. Petitioner did not assail the finding of the Sandiganbayan regarding the insufficiency of the allegations in the Information. Considering the Court’s finding that there was no violation of respondent’s right to a speedy disposition of cases, hence, the case should not be dismissed and, therefore, petitioner should be given an opportunity to amend the Information and correct its defect pursuant to Sec 4, Rule 117 of the ROC. Wherefore, the petition is granted. Resolutions issued by the Sandiganbayan are hereby reversed and set aside.