DATUKAN GUIANI et. al v.

SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. Nos. 146897-917. August 6, 2002
Ynares-Santiago, J.

Doctrine: The right to a speedy disposition of cases, like the right to a speedy trial, is deemed
violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delay.

FACTS
The present case is a petition for Certiorari, assailing the decision of the Sandiganbayan
which dismissed the motion to quash filed by petitioners on the ground that the delay of almost 6
years in resolving the preliminary investigation violated their right to a speedy disposition of the
case.
It is alleged that the Commission on Audit-Special Audit Office conducted a physical
inspection of the impact projects funded by infrastructure seed money from the Office of Regional
Governor of the ARMM and found several irregularities therein. As a result of which, the Office
of the President asked the Ombudsman to conduct a preliminary investigation. The COA then filed
a complaint for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against the regional officials
of Coatabato and DPWH-ARMM. This was followed by the recommendation for indictment made
by the Graft Investigation officer and said report was consequently approved by Ombudsman
which led to the filing of the 21 criminal complaints against petitioners before the Sandiganbayan.
The Sandiganbayan then issued an order stating that it was not convinced at the existence
of probable cause and required the submission of documentary proof within 60 days therefrom.
Special Prosecution Officer then recommended the dismissal of two criminal cases but the same
was disapproved by the Ombudsman.
Consequently, petitioners filed with the Sandiganbayan an Omnibus Motion to quash the
information, to defer the issuance of warrants of arrest and arraignment. The Sandiganbayan did
not act on the said order on the basis that the petitioners have not yet submitted themselves to the
jurisdiction of the said court. Petitioners then posted surety bonds to indicate their voluntary
submission to the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan. At the hearing, petitioner filed a motion to quash
on the basis that delay in the resolution of the complaint against them by the Ombudsman violated
their constitutional right to speedy trial. The Sandiganbayan denied this motion, hence this appeal.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the delay in the preliminary investigation constitute a violation in the right of
petitioners to a speedy disposition of cases?
In making this argument, petitioners rely on the cases of Tatad v. Sandiganbayan,
Angchangco Jr. v. Ombudsman, Roque v Ombudsman and Cervantes v. Sandiganbayan.
In all these cases, the delay constituted a violation of constitutional right to speedy
disposition hence the dismissal of criminal complaints was ordered. There have been
circumstances which rendered the delay oppressive such as politically motivated charge,
no explanation for delay and late filing of information despite prompt filing of affidavits
and counter-affidavits.
In the present case, however, the delay was justified by the sequence of events and
complexity of transactions involved. Moreover, the parties have repeatedly asked for
extensions which contributed to the delay. It was only after the submission of the last

SERAPIO C2021 | 1
 pleading that a preliminary investigation can be said to have been concluded. This will
serve as the reckoning point as to the time the case was to be resolved.
Based from the foregoing, the delay of six years did not violate the right of the
petitioners to speedy disposition of cases. In the application of said right, it is important to
consider the attending facts and circumstances peculiar to the case. Well-settled is the rule
that the right to a speedy disposition of cases, like the right to a speedy trial, is deemed
violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive
delay. In the determination of whether or not that right has been violated, the factors that
may be considered and balanced are: the length of delay, the reasons for such delay, the
assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the
delay. Moreover, it can be shown from the records of the case that petitioners only raised
their objections to the delay with the Sandiganbayan, hence they are entirely not without
blame.
Lastly, the right to a speedy trial shall not be utilized to deprive the State of a
reasonable opportunity of fairly indicting criminals. The constitutional rights of the
accused guarantee the rights to a defendant, but it does not preclude the rights of public
justice. A party's individual rights should not work against and preclude the people's
equally important right to public justice.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED. The Temporary

Restraining Order dated February 21, 2001 is LIFTED. The Sandiganbayan is directed to proceed
with the arraignment of the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 24963-24983 and to conduct further
proceedings therein.

SERAPIO C2021 | 2