REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES~anbiganba!,an

Quezon City

SPECIAL FIFTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

CRIM. CASE No. SB-17-CRM-1387

For: Perjury (Art. 183 of theRevised Penal Code)

-versus- CRIM. CASE No. SB-17-CRM-1388

JULIUS SIMBAJON MAQUILINGAccused.

For: Violation of Sec. 8(a),R.A. No. 6713

Present:

Lagos, J., Chairperson,Mendoza-Arcega, J., andCruz, J.*

Promulgated:

December os I '2. 011 ~x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

,RESOLUTION

MENDOZA-ARCEGA, J.:

This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration I filed by the prosecutionon October 24, 2017 seeking to overturn the Court's Resolution/ datedOctober 5,2017 .

• As per Administrative Order No. 025-2017 dated February 1,2017.1 Records, pp. 96-102.2 Ibid., pp. 82-88.

RESOLUTIONPeople v. MaquilingCriminal Case Nos. SB-17-CRM-1387-1388Page 2 of 4x-----------------------------------------------------x

The prosecution claimed that the Court erred in finding that there is inordinatedelay in the resolution of the instant case since there is no showing that accusedJulius S. Maquiling ("Maquiling") was prejudiced during the fact-finding phaseconducted by the field investigation unit of the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao.It was argued by the prosecution that the complexity of the issue is not one of thefactors which the Court should assess in determining whether the accused wasdeprived of his right to speedy disposition of cases.

Meanwhile, Maquiling filed a Comment' on the prosecution's Motion forReconsideration and countered that the Court is correct in upholding theconstitutional right of the accused to speedy disposition of cases. As the Office ofthe Ombudsman committed inordinate delay in the disposition of the present case, itis ousted of its authority to file the information against the accused.

THE COURT'S RULING

Upon weighing the parties' contrasting arguments and after an in-depthscrutiny of the records, the Court discerns no compelling reason to depart from itsResolution dated October 5,2017.

In the main, it is the prosecution's stance that the Constitutional guarantee onthe right of the accused to a speedy disposition of cases is a flexible concept and isdeemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capriciousand oppressive delays. It was reasoned that the "complexity of the fact in issue" isnot one of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in determining whether

. or not the accused's right to a speedy disposition of cases has been violated. Moreso, the prosecution posited that the accused failed to prove that he was prejudicedwith the delay in the resolution of the case pursuant to Section 1, Rule 131 of theRules of Court".

The Court is not persuaded.

In one case.' the Supreme Court held:

"Delay is a two-edge sword. It is the government that bears theburden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. The passage of time

3 Ibid., pp. 105-106.4 Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides:

"Burden of proof is the-duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary toestablish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law."

5 G.R. No. 191411, July 15,2013.

RESOLUTIONPeople v. MaquilingCriminal Case Nos. SB-17-CRM-1387-1388Page 3 of4x-----------------------------------------------------x

may make it difficult or impossible for the government to carry its burden. TheConstitution and the Rules do not require impossibilities or extraordinaryefforts, diligence or exertion from courts or the prosecutor, nor contemplate thatsuch right shall deprive the State of a reasonable opportunity of fairlyprosecuting criminals. As held in WiIliams v. United States, for thegovernment to sustain its right to try the accused despite a delay, it mustshow two things: (a) that the accused suffered no serious prejudice beyondthat which ensued from the ordinary and inevitable delay; and (b) thatthere was no more delay than is reasonably attributable to the ordinaryprocesses of justice." (Emphasis supplied.)

Measured against these legal standards, We find that the prosecution failed tojustify the long delay in the resolution of the instant case. It bears stressing that inits Comment/Opposition" dated August 29, 2017, the prosecution merely averredthat the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman is nationwide and that due toheavy case load, the latter could not be acted upon precipitately. There was no otherplausible explanation advanced to justify the delay in the resolution of the case.

Section 12, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution clearly states that theOmbudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly oncomplaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of theGovernment, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, includinggovernment-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notifythe complainants of the action taken and the result thereof. The said Constitutionalprovision is further accentuated in Section 13, Republic Act No. 6770, viz:

"The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shallact promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against officers oremployees of the Government, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentalitythereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and enforcetheir administrative, civil and criminal liability in every case where the evidencewarrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people."(Emphasis supplied.)

The prosecution likewise contended that the complexity of the issue in aparticular case should not be used as a gauge to determine whether there is inordinatedelay in a particular case since it is not one of the guidelines laid down by theSupreme Court.

The prosecution harps on a wrong premise.

6 Supra note 1, pp. 75-76.

RESOLUTIONPeople v. MaquilingCriminal Case Nos. SB-17-CRM-1387-1388Page 4 of4x--~------------------------------------------------- x

In the landmark case of Tatad v. Sandiganbayan, et al.,? the High Courtjustified the dismissal of the case as the three out of the five charges against thepetitioner therein did not involve complicated legal and factual issues necessitatingsuch "painstaking and grueling scrutiny" as would justify a delay of almost three (3)years in terminating the preliminary investigation. The complexity of the issuesinvolved was likewise passed upon by the Supreme Court in the cases of Santiagov. Garchitorena" and Cadalin v. POEA Administrator? to determine whether the rightto a speedy disposition of cases of the accused has been violated. Besides, the Courtsees no other reason why it took the Office of the Ombudsman six (6) years, seven(7) months and eight (8) days to resolve the instant case.

Finally, the other arguments raised need not be passed upon as the Courtalready discussed the same in the assailed resolution .. Since no new substantialmatters have been asserted, the instant motion must be denied outright.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration filedby the prosecution on October 24, 2017 is DENIED for utter lack of merit.

Accordingly, the Resolution dated October 5,2017 hereby STANDS.

SO ORDERED.

EGA

WE CONCUR:

a~LAGOSAssociate JusticeChairperson

7 G.R. No. 72335-39, March 21, 1988.8 G.R. No. 109266, December 2, 1993.9 G.R. No. L-I04776, December 5, 1994.