People of the Philippines vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan, Alfonso Servana Casurra,
G.R. No. 239878, February 28, 2022
Facts:
1. This case arose from a complaint filed by Task Force Abono, Field Investigation Office of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) against respondents.
2. The task force alleged that in early 2004, the DBM Office issued a special allotment order amounting to P723,000,000.00 for the implementation of the Farm Inputs and Farm Implements Program of the Department of Agriculture. Out of the amount, the City Government of Surigao, Surigao del Norte received P5,000,000.00.
3. Thus, the city, through respondents, entered into a contract with Palacio and Rosa "Mia" Trading for the purchase of 3,332 kilograms of Fertilizer. This was allegedly done without the requisite public bidding under the procurement law.
4. Thereafter, on July 4, 2011, Task Force Abono filed the Complaint against respondents for violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of RA 3019, otherwise known as the "Government Procurement Reform Act," and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, as well as administrative charges.
5. The OMB issued a resolution dated October 5, 2016 finding probable cause for the filing of an Information. This was approved by the Ombudsman on March 22, 2017.
6. On September 11, 2017, an Information dated May 2, 2017 was filed before the Sandiganbayan charging respondents.
7. Then respondents filed a motion to quash information/dismiss the case. Monteros claimed that her right to speedy disposition of cases was violated because of the length of time that had passed from COA investigation in 2006 to the filing of information before the Sandiganbayan in 2017.
8. Sandiganbayan granted the motion and dismissed the case.
Issue:
Whether or not Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in grating the motions.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
No. The Supreme Court finds that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal case.
A case is deemed initiated upon the filing of a formal complaint prior to a conduct of a preliminary investigation. This Court acknowledges, 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.
It is very clear that the period taken for fact-finding investigations shall not be included in the determination of whether there is inordinate delay; the period shall be reckoned from the filing of a formal complaint. In other words, inordinate delay on cases filed with the OMB primarily pertains to the period taken for preliminary investigation.
In fine, the OMB’s preliminary investigation of the case started from the filing of the complaint on July 4, 2011 and ended on the filing of the Information before the Sandiganbayan on September 11, 2017. Thus, it took six years, two months, and seven days for the OMB to conduct its preliminary investigation. The question now is whether this amount of time constitutes inordinate delay.
As the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman then in effect do not provide for the period within which preliminary investigation shall be concluded, the period provided for in Rule 112 of the Rules of Court shall have suppletory application. Thus, the graft investigation officer shall have 10 days after the investigation to determine probable cause; then he has five days from resolution to forward the records of the case to the ombudsman, who shall act upon the resolution within 10 days from receipt.
0 comments:
Post a Comment