Tatad v. Sandiganbayan [G.R. Nos. 72335-39. March 21, 1988] 2.

2. In this case, a delay of 3 years is not reasonable and justifiable. SB's

statement that it was due to a painstaking and grueling scrutiny by
FACTS:
the Tanodbayan as to whether the preliminary investigation was
1. Executive Asst. delos Reyes of Department of Public merited of Tatad suggests a double standard of treatment and must
Information (DPI) filed a formal report w/ Presidential be rejected. Charges against Tatad were for his alleged failure to file
Security Command (PSC) against Sec. Tatad of DPI for his SALN, bribery, and unwarranted benefits to his relative certainly
commiting graft and corruption. did not involve complicated legal and factual issues to justify such
2. The report was made to sleep in the office of PSC until the delay.
end of 1979 (5 years siguro) when it became known that Sec.
Tatad had a falling out w/ Pres. Marcos and had resigned
from the Cabinet.
3. The complaint was resurrected in the form of a formal
complaint filed with the Tanodbayan. The Tanodbayan acted
on the complaint by referring the complaint to CIS, 2 months
after Tatad's resignation was accepted by Pres. Marcos
4. CIS report was submittted to the Taodbayan, recommending
the filing of charges for graft and corrupt practices against
Tatad. By October 1982, all affidavit and counter-affidavits
were in and the case was ready for disposition by the
Tanodbayan. However, it was only in July 1985 that a
resolution was approved by the Tanodbayan, recommending
the filing of the corresponding criminal informations against
the accused Tatad. 5 criminal informations were filed w/ SB
on June 1985, all against Tatad alone.

ISSUE: WON Tatad was deprived of his constitutional right to due

process and speedy disposition of cases. - YES.

1. Substantial adherence to the requirements of the law governing

the conduct of preliminary investigation, including substantial
compliance with the limitation prescribed by the law for resolution of
the cases is part of the procedural due process. Inordinate delay of
cases is violative of Tatad's constitutional rights.