PEREZ v.

PEOPLE
G.R. No. 164763; 12 February 2008
Reyes, R.T., J.
FACTS:
An audit team conducted a cash examination on the account of petitioner Zenon Perez, who was
then the acting municipal treasurer of Tubigon, Bohol. It was found that there was a shortage of
P72,784.57. When asked by the auditing team as to the location of the missing funds, Perez
explained that the money was used to pay for the loan of his late brother and another portion was
spent for the food of his family, and the rest for his medicine. Thus, he was charged before the
Sandiganbayan for malversation of public funds. Petitioner asserts that his right to due process of
law and to speedy disposition of his case was violated because the decision of the Sandiganbayan
was handed down after the lapse of more than 12 years. The years that he had to wait for the
outcome of his case were allegedly spent in limbo, pain and agony.
ISSUE:
Is petitioner's right to due process and the speedy disposition of his case violated?
HELD:
No. Due process of law as applied to judicial proceedings has been interpreted to mean "a law
which hears before it condemns, which proceeds on inquiry, and renders judgment only after
trial." Petitioner cannot complain that his right to due process has been violated. He was given all
the chances in the world to present his case, and the Sandiganbayan rendered its decision only
after considering all the pieces of evidence presented before it.
More important than the absence of serious prejudice, petitioner himself did not want a speedy
disposition of his case. Petitioner was duly represented by counsel de parte in all stages of the
proceedings before the Sandiganbayan. From the moment his case was deemed submitted for
decision up to the time he was found guilty by the Sandiganbayan, however, petitioner has not
filed a single motion or manifestation which could be construed even remotely as an indication
that he wanted his case to be dispatched without delay.
Petitioner has clearly slept on his right. The matter could have taken a different dimension if
during all those twelve years, petitioner had shown signs of asserting his right to a speedy
disposition of his case or at least made some overt acts, like filing a motion for early resolution,
to show that he was not waiving that right. Pending his conviction by the Sandiganbayan,
petitioner may have truly lived in suspicion and anxiety for over twelve years. However, any
prejudice that may have been caused to him in all those years was only minimal. The supposed
gravity of agony experienced by petitioner is more imagined than real.