Sandiganbayan: The Pillar of Our Nation

Speech and Presentation of

Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Georgina D. Hidalgo
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Northern Luzon Regional Convention
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan
November 30, 2018
Theme: “Lawyers Leading in Governance and Change”

PREFATORY REMARKS

[SALUTATIONS]

Ladies and gentlemen, compañeros y compañeras, a pleasant evening!

It is my great pleasure and honor to be invited to speak in front of such legal

luminaries—most especially because the IBP Northern Luzon Region is my home
turf and I can never be as comfortable as I am before you. This humbling
opportunity to deliver a speech tonight gives me the chills, for I want to represent
my hometown, Bauang, La Union, well and this is one of my very first speaking
engagements as a newly minted Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan.

Good governance sets the normative standards of development. It fosters

participation, ensures transparency, demands accountability, promotes efficiency,
and upholds the rule of law in economic, political and administrative institutions
and processes. It is a hallmark of political maturity but also a requisite for growth
and poverty reduction.1

A cornerstone of good governance is adherence to the rule of law, that is,

the impersonal and impartial application of stable and predictable laws, statutes,
rules, and regulations, without regard for social status or political considerations.2

The failure to address governance issues has given rise in recent years to
marked political instability, bordering on threats to constitutional government and
a deepening cynicism and mistrust of formal political institutions.3

The framework of the rule of law serves as the foundation for a democratic
society. Its effect on economic performance, social development and integrity
structure of the country is pervasive. Otherwise stated, the rule of law is a
cornerstone to the improvement of public health, the safeguarding of citizens’
participation, of security and of the fight against poverty.4

Rule of law demands that the people and the civil society render habitual
obedience to the law. It also demands that the government acts within the limits of
the powers and functions prescribed by the law. The absence of rule of law is
anarchy. Anarchy happens when people act in utter disregard of law and when the
government act whimsically or arbitrarily beyond their powers. In more concrete
terms, rule of law means “peace and order,” “absence of corruption,” “impartial and

1 The National Economic and Development Authority, Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016,
Chapter 7, “Good Governance and the Law,” p. 206.
2 Id.
3 Id.
4 Id. at 211; citing World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2010.

1
effective justice system,” “observance and protection of human rights,” and “clear,
publicized, and stable laws.”5

POWERPOINT PRESENTATION SLIDES

The Sandiganbayan is a special court that gives life to the constitutional

mandate that public office is a public trust by exacting public accountability through
a fair and expeditious adjudication process.6

Mandate of the Sandiganbayan

1973 and 1987 Philippine Constitution

SEC. 5. The Batasang Pambansa shall create a special court, to be known

as Sandiganbayan, which shall have jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases
involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by public
officers and employees, including those in government-owned or controlled
corporations, in relation to their office as may be determined by law. (Article XIII),
1973 Constitution.

SEC. 4. The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall

continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be
provided by law. (Art. XI), 1987 Constitution.

To maintain honesty and efficiency in the bureaucracy, weed out misfits and
undesirable employees in government service, and eventually stamp out graft and
corruption, the 1973 Constitution, particularly Section 5, Art. XIII thereof, mandated
the creation of a special court known as the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over
“x x x criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such other
offenses committed by public officers and employees, including those in
government-owned and controlled corporations, in relation to their office as may
be determined by law.”

Responding to this mandate, the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued

Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1486 creating the Sandiganbayan and placed it on
the same level as the then Courts of First Instance. Later, the status of the
Sandiganbayan was elevated to the level of the Court of Appeals by virtue of P.D.
No. 1606.

At the start of its operation on February 12, 1979, the Sandiganbayan had
only one (1) Division, composed of a Presiding Justice and two (2) Associate
Justices, and a skeletal force of fifteen (15) employees. The third year of the
Court’s operation in 1981 marked the establishment of the Second Division, and
on August 4, 1982, the Third Division was added to complete the full membership
of the Court under P.D. No. 1606.

While the historic EDSA Revolution in February 1986 caused substantial

changes in the entire government machinery, including the judiciary, the
Sandiganbayan retained its special status in both the Freedom Constitution and
the 1987 Constitution as one of the principal instruments for public accountability.
The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan was then broadened to include the so-called

5 Tamayao, Michael Jhon M., Law, Politics, and Philosophy, “What is Governance?,”
<https://tamayaosbc.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/what-is-governance/> last visited November 13,
2018.
6 Mission of the Sandiganbayan, Sandiganbayan Official Website
<http://sb.judiciary.gov.ph/aboutsb.html> last visited November 13, 2018.

2
“ill-gotten wealth” cases investigated by the Presidential Commission on Good
Government through Executive Order (E.O.) Nos. 14 and 14-A.

To further strengthen the functional and structural organization of the

Sandiganbayan, the Congress amended P.D. No. 1606 by enacting Republic Act
(R.A.) Nos. 7975 and 8249 in 1995 and 1997, respectively. R.A. No. 7975
authorized the creation of two (2) additional Divisions which increased the
membership of the Court to fifteen (15) justices.

Under R.A. No. 8249, “the Sandiganbayan shall have its principal office in
the Metro Manila area and shall hold sessions thereat for the trial and
determination of cases filed with it.” The new law, however, adds that “cases
originating from the principal geographical regions of the country, that is, from
Luzon, Visayas or Mindanao, shall be heard in their respective regions of origin
except only when the greater convenience of the accused and of the witnesses or,
other compelling considerations require the contrary, in which instance a case
originating from one geographical region may be heard in another geographical
region.”

In 2015, the Congress enacted R.A. No. 10660 to further strengthen the
functional and structural organization of the Sandiganbayan and help declog
the Court’s docket. The amendatory law added two (2) Divisions of the Court,
thereby increasing its membership to twenty-one (21) justices. To expedite
court proceedings, R.A. No. 10660 provides that: “Two (2) members shall
constitute a quorum for sessions in divisions: Provided, That when the required
quorum for the particular division cannot be had due to the legal disqualification or
temporary incapacity of a member or a vacancy therein, the Presiding Justice may
designate a member of another division to be determined by strict rotation on the
basis of reverse order of precedence, to sit as a special member of said division in
the trial and determination of a case or cases assigned thereto.”7

Thus, the Supreme Court approved the 2018 Revised Internal Rules of
the Sandiganbayan, effective November 16, 2018 following its publication in two
(2) newspapers of general circulation. As provided in R.A. No. 10660, the increase
in the Sandiganbayan’s membership to 21 Justices is now incorporated in the new
Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan, viz:

Rule II
ORGANIZATIONAL SET-UP

Section 1. Composition of the Sandiganbayan x x x. –– (a) composition.

–– The Sandiganbayan shall be composed of a Presiding Justice and twenty (20)
Associate Justices appointed by the President of the Philippines.

Secs. 2 and 3 of the 2018 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan

pertinently state:

Sec. 2. Sandiganbayan En Banc. –– The Sandiganbayan en banc shall

have exclusive control, direction and supervision of all matters pertaining to the
conduct of its affairs. It shall be presided over by the Presiding Justice who shall
implement its policies and resolutions, or, in his/her absence, by the most senior
Justice in attendance.

Sec. 3. Constitution of the Divisions. –– The Sandiganbayan shall sit in

seven (7) Divisions of three (3) Justices each, including the Presiding Justice. The

7 Sandiganbayan 39th Annual Report (2018), “Our History,” pp. 4-5.

3
seven (7) Divisions may sit at the same time. The Presiding Justice and each of
the six (6) most senior Associates Justices shall be the Chairperson of a Division;
each of the seven (7) most senior Associates Justices next in rank shall be the
Senior Member of a Division, and each of the last seven (7) Associate Justices
shall be the Junior Member of a Division.

To ensure that the Sandiganbayan would be able to devote its time in

resolving cases of national import, R.A. No. 10660 now confers on Regional Trial
Courts (RTC) the exclusive original jurisdiction over cases where the Criminal
Information: (a) does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or
(b) alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely-
related transactions or acts in the amount not exceeding One Million Pesos
(₱1,000,000.00).8

Case Disposition of the Sandiganbayan

STATISTICS AS OF DECEMBER 2017

TOTAL CASE DISPOSAL 1,278
(Including Archived Cases)
2017 TARGET CASE 418
DISPOSAL
DISPOSITION RATE 19%
ACCOMPLISHMENT RATE 306%9

ANNUAL CASE DISPOSAL

2016 371

2017 1,278
2018 (as of August 2018) 696

In 22 years, the Sandiganbayan attained its highest disposition rate with

1,278 cases disposed in 2017.10

Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

Proceedings in the Sandiganbayan are governed by the Rules of Court

promulgated by the Supreme Court. However, the conduct of its internal operations
is controlled by the Supreme Court-approved Revised Internal Rules of the
Sandiganbayan pursuant to Sec. 9 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended.

Exclusive original jurisdiction

The Sandiganbayan exercises original jurisdiction over the following cases:

A. Violations of R.A. No. 3019, as amended (otherwise known as the Anti-

Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), R.A. No. 1379, and Chapter II, Sec. 2,

8 Id. at 7.
9 The Judiciary Annual Report 2017, p. 13.
10 Sandigabayan At Present (2018), presentation for the Sandiganbayan’s 40th Anniversary

produced by Atty. Ma. Teresa S. Pabulayan, Executive Clerk of Court IV, Sandiganbayan.

4
 Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), where one or more
of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the
government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the
time of the commission of the offense:

(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional

director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade “27” and higher, of the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (R.A. No. 6758)
specifically including:

(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang

panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and
other provincial department heads;
(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod,
city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department
heads;
(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul
and higher;
(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers
of higher rank;
(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position
of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior
superintendent or higher;
(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and
prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned
or controlled corporations, state universities or educational
institutions or foundations.

(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade “27” and
up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;

(3) Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the

Constitution;

(4) Chairpersons and members of Constitutional Commissions, without

prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and

(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher
under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

B. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other

crimes committed in relation to their office by the public officials and
employees mentioned above

C. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with E.O.
Nos. 1, 2, 14 & 14-A issued in 1986, which executive orders refer to the
recovery of the supposed ill-gotten wealth of the late President
Marcos, his family and his associates

D. Petitions for issuance of writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,

habeas corpus, injunction and other ancillary writs and processes in
aid of its appellate jurisdiction; Provided, jurisdiction is not exclusive
of the Supreme Court

E. Petitions for quo warranto arising or that may arise in cases filed or
that may be filed under E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 & 14-A

5
 F. OTHERS provided the accused belongs to Salary Grade (SG) 27 or
higher:

(1) Violation of R.A. No. 6713 - Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards

(2) Violation of R.A. No. 7080 - The Plunder Law

(3) Violation of R.A. No. 7659 - The Heinous Crime Law

(4) R.A. No. 9160 - Violation of The Anti-Money Laundering Law when
committed by a public officer

(5) P.D. No. 46 referred to as the Gift-Giving Decree which makes it

punishable for any official or employee to receive directly or indirectly
and for the private person to give or offer to give any gift, present or
other valuable thing on any occasion including Christmas, when such
gift, present or valuable thing is given by reason of his/her official
position, regardless of whether or not the same is for past favors or the
giver hopes or expects to receive a favor or better treatment in the future
from the public official or employee concerned in the discharge of his/her
official functions. Included within the prohibition is the throwing of parties
or entertainment in honor of the official or employee or his/her immediate
relatives.

(6) P.D. No. 749 which grants immunity from prosecution to any person who
voluntarily gives information about any violation of Arts. 210, 211 or 212
of the RPC, R.A. No. 3019, Sec. 345 of the National Internal Revenue
Code, Sec. 3604 of the Customs and Tariff Code and other provisions
of the said Codes penalizing abuse or dishonesty on the part of the
public officials concerned and other laws, rules and regulations
penalizing graft, corruption and other forms of official abuse, and who
willingly testifies against the public official or employee subject to certain
conditions.

It should be noted that private individuals can be sued in cases before the
Sandiganbayan if they are alleged to be in conspiracy with the public officer.

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction

The Sandiganbayan is vested with appellate jurisdiction over final

judgments, resolutions or orders of the RTC whether in the exercise of their original
or appellate jurisdiction over crimes and civil cases falling within the original
exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but which were committed by public
officers below SG 27.11

2018 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan

The Rules shall take effect on November 16, 2018 following its publication
in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Sandiganbayan 39th Annual Report (2018), “Our History,” pp. 16-17; Sandiganbayan Official
11

Website <http://sb.judiciary.gov.ph/aboutsb.html> last visited November 13, 2018.

6
 Comparative Table of Salient Features of the
2002 and 2018 Sandiganbayan Revised Internal Rules

Part II
Original Actions

RULE IV
SESSIONS AND TRIALS
2002 Revised Sandiganbayan 2018 Revised Sandiganbayan
Internal Rules Internal Rules
Sec. 3. Regular Court Sec. 3. Court Sessions. — (a)
Sessions. — (a) Sandiganbayan En Sandiganbayan En Banc. — The
Banc. — The regular sessions of the regular sessions of the Sandiganbayan
Sandiganbayan en banc shall be held en banc shall be held every first and
at least twice a month on a Friday third Monday of the month at 11:00
morning, particularly on the first and a.m., or at any date and time as may
third week of the month. The Presiding be agreed upon. The Presiding
Justice or at least eight (8) Associate Justice or at least seven (7) Associate
Justices may call a special session at Justices may call a special session at
another date and time. another date and time, by written
notice to all the Justices.
(b) Divisions. — Regular
sessions for trial of cases brought to The presence of a majority of
and cognizable by the Sandiganbayan the members of the Sandiganbayan
shall be from 8:30 A.M. to 12:00 noon shall constitute a quorum of the en
or from 2:00 P.M. to 4:30 P.M., from banc. Upon a quorum having been
Monday to Friday. The Division established, it continues until the
Chairman, however, for urgent and session is finally adjourned or
valid reasons, may schedule the terminated. The votes of a majority
hearing of a case assigned to his of the quorum shall be required to
Division on other dates and time after pass a resolution.
consultation with the parties.
(b) Divisions. — Regular
sessions for trial of cases before the
Divisions shall be from 8:30 a.m. to
12:00 p.m. and/or from 1:30 p.m. to
4:30 p.m., from Monday to Friday,
without prejudice to extension of
the session hours in the interest of
the service. The Division Chairperson,
however, for urgent and valid reasons,
may schedule the hearing of a case
assigned to the Division on other dates
and time after consultation with the
parties.

At the start of the session, a

quorum of three (3) Justices is
required for a Division to validly
conduct proceedings, provided that,
for cases over which trial has not
started on the date of effectivity of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10660, a
majority of two (2) Justices shall be
required to constitute a quorum.
Upon a quorum having been
established, it continues until the

7
 session is finally adjourned or
terminated. x x x

RULE V
ISSUANCE OF WRITS AND PROCESSES
(The 2002 Revised Sandiganbayan Sec. 3. Subpoenas and
Internal Rules is up to Sec. 2 only) Notices. — In addition to the
provisions of Rules 13 and 21 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Sandiganbayan may serve
subpoenas and notices to parties,
their counsels and witnesses in
criminal and civil cases through
email, telephone call (landline or
mobile phone), or by Short Message
Service (SMS). x x x

RULE VII
MOTIONS
[Sec. 2. Resolution on Sec. 2. Prohibited Motions. —
Interlocutory or Incidental Motions.
— x x x x] (a) Motion for judicial
determination of probable cause;

(b) Motion for preliminary

investigation filed beyond the five
(5)-day reglementary period in
inquest proceedings under
Section 6, Rule 112, or when
preliminary investigation is
required under Section 8, Rule
112, or allowed in inquest
proceedings and the accused
failed to participate in the
preliminary investigation despite
due notice;

(c) Motion for

reinvestigation of the prosecutor
recommending the filing of
information once the information
has been filed before the
Sandiganbayan [1] if the motion is
filed without prior leave of court;
[2] when preliminary investigation
is not required under Section 8,
Rule 112; and [3] when the regular
preliminary investigation is
required and has been actually
conducted, and the grounds
relied upon in the motion are not
meritorious, such as issues of
credibility, admissibility of
evidence, innocence of the
accused, or lack of due process
when the accused was actually
notified, among others;

8
 (d) Motion to quash
information when the ground is
not one of those stated in Section
3, Rule 117;

(e) Motion for bill of

particulars that does not conform
to Section 9, Rule 116;

(f) Motion to suspend

arraignment based on grounds
not stated under Section 11, Rule
116; and

(g) Petition to suspend the

criminal action on the ground of
prejudicial question, when no civil
case has been filed, pursuant to
Section 7, Rule 111.

The Sandiganbayan shall

deny outright any prohibited
motion.

RULE XI
REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS
Section 1. Method of Section 1. Methods of Review.
Review. — (a) In General. — A party —
may appeal from a judgment or final (a) In General. — The
order of the Sandiganbayan imposing appeal to the Supreme Court in
or affirming a penalty less than death, criminal cases decided by the
life imprisonment or reclusion Sandiganbayan in the exercise of
perpetua in criminal cases, and, in civil its original jurisdiction shall be by
cases, by filing with the Supreme Court notice of appeal filed with the
a petition for review on certiorari in Sandiganbayan and by serving a
accordance with Rule 45 of the 1997 copy thereof upon the adverse
Rules of Civil Procedure. party.

The appeal to the Supreme

Court in criminal cases decided by
the Sandiganbayan in the exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction, and in
civil cases shall be by petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.

PART III
MODES OF APPEAL TO THE SANDIGANBAYAN

Sec. 1. Ordinary Appeal. — Section 1. Ordinary appeal. —

[same provisions]
Appeal to the Sandiganbayan from a
decision rendered by a Regional Trial
Court in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction shall be by ordinary appeal
under Rules 41 and 44 of the 1997

9

Sec. 2. Petition for Review. — [same
provisions]
Rules of Civil Procedure, or Rules 122
and 124 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, as the case may
be.
Sec. 2. Petition for Review. —
Appeal to the Sandiganbayan from a
decision of the Regional Trial Court in
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
shall be by Petition for Review under
Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Recent Jurisprudence

Landmark case on inordinate delay as ground for dismissal of a case:

Cagang vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. Nos. 206438 & 206458 and 210141-42, July 31, 2018, Leonen, J.

(First applied in Sandiganbayan Resolution – People of the Philippines vs.

Apolinario T. Camsol, et al., Crim. Case No. SB-18-CRM-0293, September 17,
2018, Hidalgo, J.)

FACTS: These consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court both

question the Sandiganbayan’s denial to quash the Informations and Order of Arrest
against petitioner Cesar Cagang despite the Office of the Ombudsman’s alleged
inordinate delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation.

The complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman alleged that certain
public officers in the Vice Governor’s Office, Sarangani Province committed graft
and corruption by diverting public funds given as grants or aid using barangay
officials and cooperatives as “dummies.”

The Commission on Audit submitted its audit report finding that the officials
and employees of the Provincial Government of Sarangani appear to have
embezzled millions in public funds using dummy cooperatives and people’s
organizations.

ISSUE: Whether there was inordinate delay on the part of the Ombudsman
in filing the Informations before the Sandiganbayan

HELD: NO.

In this case, the Supreme Court analyzed the existence and cause of delay
by taking account of the timeline of the incidents that led to the delay, as follows:

February 10, 2003 – The criminal complaint against petitioner was filed.

August 11, 2004 – The Office of the Ombudsman issued a Resolution

finding probable cause against petitioner.

October 18, 2004 – An amended Resolution was issued by the

Ombudsman, ordering the conduct of further fact-finding investigation against
some of the other respondents in the case.

10
 April 12, 2005 – This further fact-finding was resolved by the Office of the
Ombudsman.

August 8, 2011 – Six (6) years after the recommendation to file informations
against petitioner was approved by the tanodbayan, the special prosecutor
submitted the Informations for the Ombudsman’s review.

November 17, 2011 – Informations against petitioners were filed.

The Supreme Court held that inordinate delay commences from the time
of the filing of the formal complaint and the subsequent conduct of the
preliminary investigation. It abandoned the ruling in People vs. Sandiganbayan,
Fifth Division12 that fact-finding investigations are included in the period for
determination of inordinate delay.13 The Supreme Court explained:

When an anonymous complaint is filed or the Office of the

Ombudsman conducts a motu proprio fact-finding investigation, the
proceedings are not yet adversarial. Even if the accused is invited to
attend these investigations, these period cannot be counted since these are
merely preparatory to the filing of a formal complaint. At this point, the Office
of the Ombudsman will not yet determine if there is probable cause to
charge the accused.

This period for case build-up cannot likewise be used by the Office of the
Ombudsman as unbridled license to delay proceedings. If its investigation
takes too long, it can result in the extinction of criminal liability through the
prescription of the offense.

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.14 x x x (emphasis added)

Six (6) years is beyond the reasonable period of fact-finding of ninety (90)
days. The burden of proving the justification of the delay, therefore, is on the
prosecution, or in this case, respondent Ombudsman.

Respondent Ombudsman alleged that the delay in the filing of the

informations was justified since it was still determining whether accused Mary Ann
Gadian could be utilized as a state witness and it still had to verify accused Felipe
Constantino's death. The recommendation, however, to utilize Gadian as a state
witness was approved by Tanodbayan Marcelo on December 20, 2004. Felipe
Constantino's death was verified by the Sandiganbayan in its November 14, 2006
Order. There is, thus, delay from November 14, 2006 to August 8, 2011.

The Supreme Court Court found, however, that despite the pendency of the
case since 2003, petitioner only invoked his right to speedy disposition of cases
when the informations were filed on November 17, 2011. Petitioner Cagang was
aware that the preliminary investigation was not yet terminated.

Admittedly, while there was delay, petitioner has not shown that he asserted
his rights during this period, choosing instead to wait until the information was filed
against him with the Sandiganbayan.

12 723 Phil. 444 (2013).

13 Cagang case.
14 Id.

11
 Furthermore, the case before the Sandiganbayan involves the alleged
malversation of millions in public money. The Sandiganbayan has yet to determine
the guilt or innocence of petitioner.

The records of the case show that the transactions investigated are complex
and numerous. As respondent points out, there were over a hundred individuals
investigated, and eventually, 40 of them were determined to have been involved
in 81 different anomalous transactions. Even granting that the Commission on
Audit's Audit Report exhaustively investigated each transaction, "the prosecution
is not bound by the findings of the Commission on Audit; it must rely on its own
independent judgment in the determination of probable cause." Delays in the
investigation and review would have been inevitable in the hands of a
competent and independent Ombudsman.

Mode of Analysis When Right to Speedy Disposition Is Invoked

The Supreme Court in the Cagang case clarified the mode of analysis in
situations where the right to speedy disposition of cases or the right to speedy trial
is invoked.

First, the right to speedy disposition of cases is different from the right to
speedy trial. While the rationale for both rights is the same, the right to speedy trial
may only be invoked in criminal prosecutions against courts of law. The right to
speedy disposition of cases, however, may be invoked before any tribunal,
whether judicial or quasi-judicial. What is important is that the accused may already
be prejudiced by the proceeding for the right to speedy disposition of cases to be
invoked.

Second, a case is deemed initiated upon the filing of a formal complaint

prior to a conduct of a preliminary investigation. The Supreme Court
acknowledged, however, that the Ombudsman should set reasonable periods for
preliminary investigation, with due regard to the complexities and nuances of each
case. Delays beyond this period will be taken against the prosecution. The period
taken for fact-finding investigations prior to the filing of the formal complaint shall
not be included in the determination of whether there has been inordinate delay.

Third, courts must first determine which party carries the burden of proof. If
the right is invoked within the given time periods contained in current Supreme
Court resolutions and circulars, and the time periods that will be promulgated by
the Office of the Ombudsman, the defense has the burden of proving that the right
was justifiably invoked. If the delay occurs beyond the given time period and the
right is invoked, the prosecution has the burden of justifying the delay.

If the defense has the burden of proof, it must prove first, whether the case
is motivated by malice or clearly only politically motivated and is attended by utter
lack of evidence, and second, that the defense did not contribute to the delay.

Once the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution, the prosecution must
prove first, that it followed the prescribed procedure in the conduct of preliminary
investigation and in the prosecution of the case; second, that the complexity of the
issues and the volume of evidence made the delay inevitable; and third, that no
prejudice was suffered by the accused as a result of the delay.

Fourth, determination of the length of delay is never mechanical. Courts

must consider the entire context of the case, from the amount of evidence to be
weighed to the simplicity or complexity of the issues raised.

12
 An exception to this rule is if there is an allegation that the prosecution of
the case was solely motivated by malice, such as when the case is politically
motivated or when there is continued prosecution despite utter lack of evidence.
Malicious intent may be gauged from the behavior of the prosecution throughout
the proceedings. If malicious prosecution is properly alleged and substantially
proven, the case would automatically be dismissed without need of further analysis
of the delay.

Another exception would be the waiver of the accused to the right to speedy
disposition of cases or the right to speedy trial. If it can be proven that the accused
acquiesced to the delay, the constitutional right can no longer be invoked.

In all cases of dismissals due to inordinate delay, the causes of the delays
must be properly laid out and discussed by the relevant court.

Fifth, the right to speedy disposition of cases or the right to speedy trial
must be timely raised. The respondent or the accused must file the appropriate
motion upon the lapse of the statutory or procedural periods. Otherwise, they are
deemed to have waived their right to speedy disposition of cases.

Application of Cagang’s inordinate delay doctrine in Sandiganbayan

Resolution – People vs. Camsol, September 17, 2018, Hidalgo, J.

FACTS: The Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan an Information on

April 20, 2018, charging accused former Mayor Apolinario T. Camsol (Camsol),
Municipal Treasurer Anecita C. Suyat (Suyat), Municipal Accountant Marcelino P.
Endi (Endi), and Municipal Agricultural Officer Asano E. Aban (Aban), all of the
Municipality of Buguias, Benguet, for Violation of Section 3(e), Republic Act No.
3019.

The Information alleged that in 2004, or sometime prior or subsequent

thereto, accused Camsol, Suyat, Endi, and Aban, conspiring and confederating
with one another, willfully, unlawfully, and criminally gave unwarranted benefit,
advantage, and preference to PMB-Agro Goods and Services by awarding it the
contract for the purchase of insecticides and fungicides, sans any public bidding
and with particular reference to brand names, both in violation of the Government
Procurement Reform Act, thereby causing undue injury to the Municipality of
Buguias, Benguet in the total amount of One Million Fifty Thousand Pesos
(₱1,050,000.00).

A hearing was set on July 31, 2018 supposedly for the arraignment and pre-
trial for all the accused. However, the defense filed a Motion to Dismiss dated July
2, 2018 based on inordinate delay and prayed for the deferment of their
arraignment and the pre-trial of this case. Despite its objection to such deferment,
the prosecution was required to file its comment and/or opposition to the said
Motion to Dismiss.

Consequently, the Sandiganbayan, in its July 31, 2018 Order, cancelled and
reset the arraignment and pre-trial to September 21, 2018 and deemed the incident
submitted for resolution.

In its “Entry of Appearance with Motions to Defer Arraignment and Pre-Trial

and to Dismiss the Above-Entitled Case” (Motion to Dismiss), the defense argued
that inordinate delay attended the filing and preliminary investigation that led to the
filing of the Information herein, in violation of the accused’s right to speedy
disposition of cases under Article III, Section 16 of the Constitution. Specifically,

13
the accused averred that from the Commission on Audit’s Notice of Disallowance
issued on June 23, 2006, it took more than four (4) years to file the Complaint
dated April 18, 2011; and that seven (7) years had elapsed from the time the
complaint was lodged for the Ombudsman to file the Information with the
Sandiganbayan on April 20, 2018.

In its “Comment/Opposition,” the prosecution countered that the motion to

dismiss is anchored only on the length of delay and failed to consider three other
factors, namely: the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right,
and prejudice to the defendant. Thus, it prayed for the denial of the Motion to
Dismiss for lack of merit and being pro forma.

ISSUE: Whether there was inordinate delay on the part of the Ombudsman
in filing the Information before the Sandiganbayan

HELD: NO.

In the recent case of Cagang vs. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court has
once and for all settled what constitutes inordinate delay as ground for dismissal
of a case. As cited in the Cagang case, Martin vs. Ver15 introduced in our
jurisdiction the “balancing test” from the American case of Barker vs. Wingo,16
which became the basis of a standard test within which to determine the presence
of inordinate delay.

The Barker balancing test provides for the following factors to be considered
in determining the existence of inordinate delay: (1) the length of delay; (2) the
reason for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion or non-assertion of his or her
right to speedy disposition of cases; and (4) the prejudice to the defendant as a
result of the delay.17

The Sandiganbayan applied the guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court
in the Cagang case to determine whether there was inordinate delay sufficient to
declare the dismissal of this case:

(1) The length of delay. The Supreme Court held that inordinate delay
commences from the time of the filing of the formal complaint and the
subsequent conduct of the preliminary investigation.

The Motion to Dismiss presented two periods of supposed inordinate delay:

1. Four (4) years and ten (10) months to file the Complaint from the Notice of
Disallowance; and

2. Seven (7) years and two (2) days, more or less, to file the Information from
the filing of the Complaint.

Applying the doctrine laid down in Cagang, a case is deemed to have

commenced from the filing of the formal complaint and the subsequent conduct of
preliminary investigation. Otherwise stated, the length of the fact-finding
investigation and case build-up conducted by the Ombudsman that preceded the
filing of the complaint is excluded from the determination of the existence of
inordinate delay. The supposed delay of four years and 10 months that it took for
the Ombudsman to file a Complaint, from the issuance of the Notice of

15 208 Phil. 658 (1983).

16 407 U.S. 514 (1972).
17 Cagang case.

14
Disallowance on June 23, 2006 until April 18, 2011, cannot then be considered a
violation of the right of the accused to a speedy disposition of cases, for there is
no “case” to speak of yet at that time, and the proceeding can in no way be
considered as adversarial.

Nevertheless, the Court found that from the filing of the formal complaint
dated April 18, 2011, more than four (4) years had elapsed before the issuance
of the Resolution of the Ombudsman on November 10, 2015 finding probable
cause against the accused, and that, it took almost three (3) years for the
Ombudsman to file with this Court an Information on April 20, 2018.

Thus, a delay of seven (7) years can be attributed to the Ombudsman prior
to the filing of the Information with the Court.

The mere length of delay, however, is not the sole basis in determining
whether there is a violation of the accused’s right to speedy disposition of cases.
The Sandiganbayan took into consideration the other factors in the balancing test.

(2) The reason for the delay. The Sandiganbayan ruled that the
Ombudsman’s delay in resolving the case is justifiable. Although this case is just
one of the many Fertilizer Fund Scam cases, the Ombudsman cannot be faulted
for the delay since the case is “not run-of-the-mill variety” and is itself complex.18

The Supreme Court, in the Cagang case, stated that “vexatious, capricious,
and oppressive delays,” “unjustified postponements of the trial,” or “when without
cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the
party having his or her case tried” are instances that may be considered as
violations of the right to speedy disposition of cases.19 The Ombudsman in this
case clearly did not commit these fatal lapses. Neither did the accused prove that
the Ombudsman committed such infractions. Hence, the prosecution appeared to
have regularly followed established procedure in prosecuting the case and justified
that delay was incurred because of the complexity of the cases involved and the
vast amount of evidence that must be presented.20

Institutional delay must also be considered in favor of the prosecution. As

the Supreme Court observed:

[Institutional delay is] a reality that the court must address. The prosecution
is staffed by overworked and underpaid government lawyers with mounting
caseloads. x x x

Institutional delay, in the proper context, should not be taken against the
State. Most cases handled by the Office of the Ombudsman involve
individuals who have resources and who engage private counsel with the
means and resources to fully dedicate themselves to their client’s case.
More often than not, the accused can only invoke the right to speedy
disposition of cases when the Ombudsman has already rendered an
unfavorable decision. The prosecution should not be prejudiced by private
counsels’ failure to protect the interests of their clients or the accused’s lack
of interest in the prosecution of their case.21

(3) The defendant’s assertion of his or her right to speedy

disposition of cases. The Sandiganbayan agreed with the prosecution that the
18 See Cagang case, citing Binay vs. Sandiganbayan, 374 Phil. 413, 448 (1999).
19 Id., citing Gonzales vs. Sandiganbayan, 276 Phil. 323, 333-334 (1991).
20 Id., citing Ty-Dazo vs. Sandiganbayan, 424 Phil. 945 (2002).
21 Id., citation omitted.

15
accused belatedly raised the issue of inordinate delay before the Sandiganbayan
during their supposed arraignment, when they could have properly raised it in the
proceedings before the Ombudsman. The failure of the accused to timely invoke
the right to speedy disposition of cases may work to their disadvantage, since this
could indicate their acquiescence to the delay.22

The Ombudsman revealed that other than filing counter-affidavits, the

accused did nothing else to inquire about the delay. Aside from the motion for
extension of time to file counter-affidavits, accused in this case did not file or send
any letter-queries addressed to the Office of the Ombudsman which conducted the
preliminary investigation.23

Despite the pendency of this case since 2011, the accused only invoked
their right to speedy disposition of cases after the filing of the Information on April
20, 2018. Admittedly, while there was delay, the accused have not shown that they
asserted their rights during the preliminary investigation, opting instead to wait until
the Information was filed against them with the Sandiganbayan.24

(4) The prejudice to the defendant as a result of the delay. There is

no violation of the accused’s right to speedy disposition of cases considering that
there is a waiver of the delay in this case. Granting the present Motion to Dismiss
will instead prejudice the due process rights of the State. The State should not be
prejudiced and deprived of its right to prosecute criminal cases simply because of
the ineptitude or nonchalance of the Office of the Ombudsman.

The State is as much entitled to due process as the accused.25 Withal, the
finding of inordinate delay applies in a case-to-case basis. Differently stated, in the
application of the doctrine of inordinate delay, particular regard must be taken of
the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case. The Supreme Court has
consistently held that the concept of speedy disposition is relative or flexible. 26 A
mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient to rule that there
was inordinate delay.27

Verily, where it is clear that the accused have been deprived of due process
of law or other constitutionally guaranteed rights, the Sandiganbayan will not
hesitate to grant the so-called “radical relief” and to spare the accused from
undergoing the rigors and expense of a full-blown trial,28 but if otherwise, prudence
dictates the Sandiganbayan to proceed to trial, as in this case.

In fine, and taking into consideration the circumstances surrounding this

case, the Sandiganbayan was constrained to rule that inordinate delay is absent
here, for the Office of the Ombudsman has successfully overcome the burden of
proving that there was no violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases and
that the delay is not inordinate and unjustified.29

22 Alvizo vs. Sandiganbayan, 292-A Phil. 144 (1993).

23 Dela Peña vs. Sandiganbayan, 412 Phil. 921 (2001).
24 See Cagang case.
25 Cagang case.
26 Corpuz vs. Sandiganbayan, 484 Phil. 899 (2004).
27 Dela Peña vs. Sandiganbayan, 412 Phil. 921 (2001).
28 Cagang case, citing Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, 242 Phil. 563, 573 (1988).
29 See the Cagang case, id., where the Supreme Court ruled that courts must first determine which

party carries the burden of proof. If the right is invoked within the given time periods contained in
current Supreme court resolutions and circulars (see Supreme Court Circular No. 38-98, entitled
“Implementing the Provisions of Republic Act No. 8493” [1998]; Supreme Court Administrative
Order No. 25-2007, entitled “Re: Designation of Courts to Hear, Try, and Decide Cases Involving
Killings of Political Activists and Members of the Media” [2007]; and A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC, entitled
“Guidelines for Decongesting Holding Jails by Enforcing the Right of the Accused to Bail and to

16
 CLOSING REMARKS

The words of the Sandiganbayan Hymn verily describe its important task to
uphold Honor, Integrity and Accountablity in the judiciary and the government as
a whole. And I hereby quote:

THE SANDIGANBAYAN HYMN

I
Here stands our Special Court
Sandiganbayan
To do a noble task upon our hands
Uphold the rule of law
Justice to all our vow
Our creed is a must
That Public Office is a Public Trust

CHORUS:

Sandiganbayan, Sandiganbayan
The Pillar of Our Nation
The bastion for truth seekers
The nemesis of the grafters
Our Court with high aspirations
To help our Native Land move on
Sandiganbayan, Sandiganbayan
The Pillar of Our Nation

II

There is a higher call

For us whose heart is true
To be accountable in all we do
To serve our country
With all dignity
For God be glorified
And bless our Court of Law in our stride

BRIDGE:

We hail that Public Office

Is a Public Trust
Immortal Principles
Worth bequeathing
Honor, Integrity, Accountability

As we uphold the rule of law, we are promoting the much sought national
development using our sphere of influence and altogether, we shall see genuine
change. Good governance smacks of undying commitment to the welfare of our
nation and its people. Hence, it goes hand-in-hand with eradicating corruption in
the government and encouraging accountability among its constituents.

Speedy Trial” [2014]), and the time periods that will be promulgated by the Office of the
Ombudsman, the defense has the burden of proving that the right was justifiably invoked. If the
delay occurs beyond the given time period and the right is invoked, the prosecution has the
burden of justifying the delay. (emphasis added)

17
 This is what the Sandiganbayan has always hoped to contribute to our
nation—envisioning a judicial institution that the Filipino people can rely on to
uphold the highest norms of official conduct towards the attainment of a graft-free
country30 and dispensing justice without fear or favor. I am both honored and
proud to be part of this revered institution as the Sandiganbayan celebrates its 40th
anniversary this year, when I was fortunately appointed as its 70th Associate
Justice. Happy Anniversary, Sandiganbayan!

We shall, too, never lose hope for our country, and so that we shall achieve
what our de facto National Hero Andres Bonifacio had expressed passionately. Let
us relive his patriotic words:

“Aling pag-ibig pa ang hihigit kaya sa pagka-dalisay at pagka-dakila gaya

ng pag-ibig sa tinubuang lupa? Aling pag-ibig pa? Wala na nga, wala.”

“Itinuturo ng katwiran na tayo’y magkaisang-loob, magkaisang-isip at nang

tayo’y magkalakas na maihanap ang naghaharing kasamaan sa ating Bayan.
Panahon na ngayong dapat na lumitaw ang liwanag ng katotohanan; panahon ng
dapat nating ipakilala na tayo’y may sariling pagdaramdam, may puri, may hiya, at
may pagdadamayan.”

("Reason teaches us that we must be united in will, united in thought, and

that we might have strength to search out the reigning evil in our Nation. This is
the time for the light of truth to surface; this is the time for us to show that we have
our own sentiments, have honour, have shame, and have solidarity.") 31

Thank you and Happy Bonifacio Day! Mabuhay ang Pilipinas! Mabuhay
tayong lahat!

30 Vision of the Sandiganbayan, Sandiganbayan Official Website

<http://sb.judiciary.gov.ph/aboutsb.html> last visited November 13, 2018.
31 Quoted in: "Talumpati ni Pangulong Aquino sa Pagdiriwang ng Anibersaryo ng Araw ng

Kalayaan,” ika-12 ng Hunyo 2013.

18