re delays in the sandiganbayan

47
EN BANC [A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC. November 28, 2001.] RE: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN SYNOPSIS A judicial audit conducted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) disclosed that the Sandiganbayan has a backlog of 415 cases, 341 of which were in the First Division, chaired by Presiding Justice Francis Garchitorena, and that at least 73 cases were unassigned. The cases submitted for decision remained undecided beyond the reglementary period with several cases submitted as far back as 10 years ago. Even in the updated audit conducted almost a year later, there were still 138 cases still undecided in the First Division. It was also found that the First and Third Divisions unloaded cases already submitted for decision to other divisions even if the ponente is still in service. Justice Garchitorena, who was earlier warned by this Court in Canson vs. Garchitorena for his delay in the transfer of two criminal cases, admitted the backlog of cases in his division. The Sandiganbayan is a special court of the same level as the Court of Appeals and possesses all the inherent powers of a court of justice with functions of a trial court. P.D. 1606, creating the Sandiganbayan, provides that judgment shall be rendered within 3 months from the date the case is submitted for decision. Also, under its Revised Rules of Procedure, it is mandated to render judgment or final order within 3 months from the date the case is submitted for decision. It ought to be the first to observe its own rules. It cannot suspend its own rules, or except a case from its operation. Decision making is the primordial and most important duty of the member of the bench. Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Unreasonable delay in resolving cases, some as far back as more than 10 years ago, constitutes gross neglect of duty and inefficiency. When a case has been heard and tried before a division in the Sandiganbayan, it is ideal that the same division and no other must decide it as far as practicable. It is the duty of the Presiding Justice and the Chairmen of the Divisions to assign the ponente as soon as the case is declared submitted for decision, if not earlier. If he fails to make the assignment, he shall be deemed the ponente. Justice Garchitorena was fined P20,000.00 and was relieved of his duties as the Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan, and as Chairman of the First Division, so that he can devote himself exclusively to decision writing until the backlog of cases are finally decided. SYLLABUS 1.REMEDIAL LAW; SANDIGANBAYAN, A SPECIAL COURT OF THE SAME LEVEL AS THE COURT OF APPEALS. The Sandiganbayan is a special court of the same level as the Court of Appeals and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice, with functions of a trial court. Thus, the Sandiganbayan is not a regular court but a special one. The Sandiganbayan was originally empowered to promulgate its own rules of procedure. However, on March 30, 1995, Congress repealed the

Upload: czarina-bantay

Post on 22-Apr-2017

227 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

EN BANC

[A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC. November 28, 2001.]

RE: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN

SYNOPSIS

A judicial audit conducted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) disclosed that the

Sandiganbayan has a backlog of 415 cases, 341 of which were in the First Division, chaired by Presiding

Justice Francis Garchitorena, and that at least 73 cases were unassigned. The cases submitted for decision

remained undecided beyond the reglementary period with several cases submitted as far back as 10 years ago. Even in the updated audit conducted almost a year later, there were still 138 cases still undecided in

the First Division. It was also found that the First and Third Divisions unloaded cases already submitted

for decision to other divisions even if the ponente is still in service. Justice Garchitorena, who was earlier warned by this Court in Canson vs. Garchitorena for his delay in the transfer of two criminal cases,

admitted the backlog of cases in his division.

The Sandiganbayan is a special court of the same level as the Court of Appeals and possesses all the

inherent powers of a court of justice with functions of a trial court. P.D. 1606, creating the

Sandiganbayan, provides that judgment shall be rendered within 3 months from the date the case is submitted for decision. Also, under its Revised Rules of Procedure, it is mandated to render judgment or

final order within 3 months from the date the case is submitted for decision. It ought to be the first to

observe its own rules. It cannot suspend its own rules, or except a case from its operation.

Decision making is the primordial and most important duty of the member of the bench. Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Unreasonable delay in resolving cases, some as far back as

more than 10 years ago, constitutes gross neglect of duty and inefficiency.

When a case has been heard and tried before a division in the Sandiganbayan, it is ideal that the same

division and no other must decide it as far as practicable.

It is the duty of the Presiding Justice and the Chairmen of the Divisions to assign the ponente as soon as

the case is declared submitted for decision, if not earlier. If he fails to make the assignment, he shall be deemed the ponente. Justice Garchitorena was fined P20,000.00 and was relieved of his duties as the

Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan, and as Chairman of the First Division, so that he can devote himself

exclusively to decision writing until the backlog of cases are finally decided.

SYLLABUS

1.REMEDIAL LAW; SANDIGANBAYAN, A SPECIAL COURT OF THE SAME LEVEL AS THE

COURT OF APPEALS. — The Sandiganbayan is a special court of the same level as the Court of Appeals and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice, with functions of a trial court. Thus,

the Sandiganbayan is not a regular court but a special one. The Sandiganbayan was originally empowered

to promulgate its own rules of procedure. However, on March 30, 1995, Congress repealed the

Page 2: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

Sandiganbayan's power to promulgate its own rules of procedure and instead prescribed that the Rules of

Court promulgated by the Supreme Court shall apply to all cases and proceedings filed with the Sandiganbayan. "Special courts are judicial tribunals exercising limited jurisdiction over particular or

specialized categories of actions. They are the Court of Tax Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, and the Shari'a

Courts." aATHES

2.ID.; ID.; JUDGMENT SHALL BE RENDERED WITHIN THREE (3), NOT TWELVE (12),

MONTHS FROM DATE THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED FOR DECISION. — The law creating the Sandiganbayan, P.D. No. 1606 is clear on this issue. It provides: "Sec. 6. Maximum period for

termination of cases — As far as practicable, the trial of cases before the Sandiganbayan once

commenced shall be continuous until terminated and the judgment shall be rendered within three (3) months from the date the case was submitted for decision." On September 18, 1984, the Sandiganbayan

promulgated its own rules, thus: "Sec. 3 Maximum Period to Decide Cases — The judgment or final order

of a division of the Sandiganbayan shall be rendered within three (3) months from the date the case was submitted for decision." Given the clarity of the rule that does not distinguish, we hold that the three (3)

month period, not the twelve (12) month period, to decide cases applies to the Sandiganbayan.

3.ID.; ID.; CANNOT SUSPEND ITS OWN RULES OR EXCEPT A CASE FROM ITS OPERATION.

— In Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) v. Court of Appeals, the Court

faulted the DARAB for violating its own rules of procedure. We reasoned that the DARAB does not have unfettered discretion to suspend its own rules. We stated that the DARAB "should have set the example

of observance of orderly procedure." Otherwise, it would render its own Revised Rules of Procedure

uncertain and whose permanence would be dependent upon the instability of its own whims and caprices. Similarly, in Cabagnot v. Comelec, this Court held that the Commission on Elections ought to be the first

one to observe its own Rules. Its departure from its own rules constitutes "arrogance of power"

tantamount to abuse. Such inconsistency denigrates public trust in its objectivity and dependability. The

Court reminded the Comelec to be more judicious in its actions and decisions and avoid imprudent volte-face moves that undermine the public's faith and confidence in it. The ratio decidendi in the aforecited

cases applies mutatis mutandis to the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan ought to be the first to observe

its own rules. It cannot suspend its rules, or except a case from its operation.

4.ID.; SUPREME COURT ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 10-94 ON MANDATORY PHYSICAL INVENTORY OF CASES, APPLIES TO SANDIGANBAYAN. — Applicability of SC

Adm. Circular No. 10-94. — Supreme Court Circular No. 10-94 applies to the Sandiganbayan.

Administrative Circular 10-94 directs all trial judges to make a physical inventory of the cases in their

dockets. Given the rationale behind the Administrative Circular, we hold that it is applicable to the

Sandiganbayan with respect to cases within its original and appellate jurisdiction.

5.JUDICIAL ETHICS; JUDGES; SHOULD DECIDE CASES PROMPTLY AND EXPEDITIOUSLY

ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED. — We reiterate the

admonition we issued in our resolution of October 10, 2000: "This Court has consistently impressed upon judges (which includes justices) to decide cases promptly and expeditiously on the principle that justice

delayed is justice denied. Decision making is the primordial and most important duty of the member of

the bench. Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency that warrants disciplinary sanction, including fine, suspension and even dismissal. The

rule particularly applies to justices of the Sandiganbayan. Delays in the disposition of cases erode the

faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lower its standards, and bring it into disrepute. Delays

cannot be sanctioned or tolerated especially in the anti-graft court, the showcase of the nation's

determination to succeed in its war against graft (underscoring ours)."

Page 3: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

6.REMEDIAL LAW; SANDIGANBAYAN; AS THE NATION'S ANTI-GRAFT COURT IT MUST BE

FIRST TO AVERT OPPORTUNITIES FOR GRAFT AND UPHOLD RIGHT OF ALL PERSONS TO A SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF THEIR CASES. — In Yuchengco v. Republic, we urged the Sandiganbayan

to promptly administer justice. We stated that the Sandiganbayan has the inherent power to amend and

control its processes and orders to make them conformable to law and justice. The Sandiganbayan as the

nation's anti-graft court must be the first to avert opportunities for graft, uphold the right of all persons to

a speedy disposition of their cases and avert the precipitate loss of their rights.

7.ID.; ID.; WHEN A CASE HAS BEEN HEARD AND TRIED BEFORE A DIVISION OF THE

SANDIGANBAYAN, IT IS IDEAL THAT THE SAME DIVISION AND NO OTHER MUST DECIDE

IT AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE. — We suggest a review of the practice of unloading cases that greatly contributes to the backlog of undecided cases. When a case has been heard and tried before a division of

the Sandiganbayan, it is ideal that the same division and no other must decide it as far as practicable.

8.ID.; ID.; FAILURE OF THE PRESIDING JUSTICE AND THE CHAIRMAN TO ASSIGN PONENTE

OF AN UNASSIGNED CASE RENDERS HIM PONENTE OF SAID CASE. — Presiding Justice

Francis E. Garchitorena sits as the Chairman, First Division, with a backlog of cases pending decision. At least seventy-three cases have been unassigned for the writing of the extended opinion, though submitted

for decision. It may be the thinking of the Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan that an unassigned case is not

counted in its backlog of undecided cases. This is not correct. It is the duty of the Presiding Justice and the Chairmen of divisions to assign the ponente as soon as the case is declared submitted for decision, if

not earlier. If he fails to make the assignment, he shall be deemed to be the ponente. ETISAc

9.ID.; ACTIONS; WHEN IS A CASE DEEMED SUBMITTED FOR DECISION OR RESOLUTION. —

The Constitution provides that a case shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself. In

Administrative Circular No. 28, dated July 3, 1989, the Supreme Court provided that "A case is

considered submitted for decision upon the admission of the evidence of the parties at the termination of

the trial. The ninety (90) days period for deciding the case shall commence to run from submission of the case for decision without memoranda; in case the court requires or allows its filing, the case shall be

considered submitted for decision upon the filing of the last memorandum or the expiration of the period

to do so, whichever is earlier. Lack of transcript of stenographic notes shall not be a valid reason to interrupt or suspend the period for deciding the case unless the case was previously heard by another

judge not the deciding judge in which case the latter shall have the full period of ninety (90) days from the

completion of the transcripts within which to decide the same." The designation of a ponente to a case is

not a difficult administrative task.

10.JUDICIAL ETHICS; JUDGES; UNREASONABLE DELAY IN RESOLVING CASE CONSTITUTES GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY AND INEFFICIENCY. — We reiterate the principle

that decision-making is the most important of all judicial functions and responsibilities. In this area,

Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena, as the ponente assigned to the cases submitted for decision/resolution long ago, some as far back as more than ten (10) years ago, has been remiss

constituting gross neglect of duty and inefficiency. As we said in Canson, unreasonable delay of a judge

in resolving a case amounts to a denial of justice, bringing the Sandiganbayan into disrepute, eroding the

public faith and confidence in the judiciary.

R E S O L U T I O N

Page 4: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

PARDO, J p:

The Case

Submitted to the Court for consideration is a resolution of the Board of Governors, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (hereafter, the IBP) recommending an inquiry into the causes of delays in the resolution of

incidents and motions and in the decision of cases pending before the Sandiganbayan.

The Antecedents

On July 31, 2000, the IBP, through its National President, Arthur D. Lim, transmitted to the Court a Resolution 1 addressing the problem of delays in cases pending before the Sandiganbayan (hereafter, the

Resolution). 2 We quote the Resolution in full: 3

"WHEREAS, Section 16, Article III of the Constitution guarantees that, "[a]ll persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-

judicial, or administrative bodies";

"WHEREAS, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers

mandates that "[a] lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the

speedy and efficient administration of justice";

"WHEREAS, it is the duty of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to undertake measures to assist in the speedy disposition of cases pending before the various courts

and tribunals;

"WHEREAS, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines has received numerous complaints

from its members about serious delays in the decision of cases and in the resolution of motions and other pending incidents before the different divisions of the

Sandiganbayan;

"WHEREAS, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 requires all Regional

Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit

Trial Courts to submit to the Supreme Court a bi-annual report indicating the title of the case, its date of filing, the date of pre-trial in civil cases and arraignment in criminal

cases, the date of initial trial, the date of last hearing and the date that the case is

submitted for decision, and to post, in a conspicuous place within its premises, a

monthly list of cases submitted for decision;

"WHEREAS, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 has not been made

applicable to the Sandiganbayan;

"WHEREAS, considering that the Sandiganbayan is also a trial court, the requirements

imposed upon trial courts by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 should

also be imposed upon the Sandiganbayan;

"NOW, THEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Board of Governors of the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines hereby resolves as follows:

Page 5: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

"1.To recommend to the Supreme Court that Supreme Court Administrative Circular

No. 10-94 be made applicable to the Sandiganbayan in regard cases over which the

Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction; and

"2.To recommend to the Supreme Court an inquiry into the causes of delay in the

resolution of incidents and motions and in the decision of cases before the

Sandiganbayan for the purpose of enacting measures intended at avoiding such delays.

"Done in Los Baños, Laguna, this 29th day of July, 2000."

On August 8, 2000, the Court required Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena to

comment on the letter of the IBP and to submit a list of all Sandiganbayan cases pending decision, or with motion for reconsideration pending resolution, indicating the dates they were deemed submitted for

decision or resolution. 4

On September 27, 2000, complying with the order, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena submitted a

report 5 (hereafter, the compliance) admitting a number of cases submitted for decision and motion for

reconsideration pending resolution before its divisions. We quote:

"Cases SubmittedW/ Motions For

"For DecisionReconsideration

"1st Division341None

"2nd Division5None

"3rd Division12None

"4th Division5None

"5th Division521

————

"Total415" 6

Thus, the Sandiganbayan has a total of four hundred fifteen (415) cases for decision remaining undecided

long beyond the reglementary period to decide, with one case submitted as early as May 24, 1990, 7 and

motion for reconsideration which has remained unresolved over thirty days from submission. 8

On October 20, 2000, Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena submitted a "schedule of

cases submitted for decision, the schedule indicating the number of detained prisoners, of which there are

(were) none." 9

On October 26, 2000, the IBP submitted its reply to the compliance stating: First, that it was not in a position to comment on the accuracy of the compliance; nonetheless, it showed that there was much to be

desired with regard to the expeditious disposition of cases, particularly in the Sandiganbayan's First

Division, where cases submitted for decision since 1990 remained unresolved. Second, the compliance

Page 6: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

did not include pending motions, and it is a fact that motions not resolved over a long period of time

would suspend and delay the disposition of a case. Third, since the Sandiganbayan is a trial court, it is required to submit the same reports required of Regional Trial Courts. Fourth, the Constitution 10 states

that, "all lower collegiate courts" must decide or resolve cases or matters before it within twelve (12)

months "from date of submission"; however, the Sandiganbayan, as a trial court, is required to resolve

and decide cases within a reduced period of three (3) months like regional trial courts, or at the most, six

(6) months from date of submission. 11

On November 21, 2000, the Court resolved to direct then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo

(hereafter, the OCA) "to conduct a judicial audit of the Sandiganbayan, especially on the cases subject of

this administrative matter, and to submit a report thereon not later than 31 December 2000." 12

On December 4, 2000, in a letter addressed to the Chief Justice, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena admitted that the First Division of the Sandiganbayan 13 has a backlog of cases; that one case 14 alone

made the backlog of the First Division so large, involving 156 cases but the same has been set for

promulgation of decision on December 8, 2000, which would reduce the backlog by at least fifty percent

(50%). 15

On January 26, 2001, the Court Administrator submitted a memorandum to the Court 16 stating that the

causes of delay in the disposition of cases before the Sandiganbayan are: 17

(1)Failure of the Office of the Special Prosecutor to submit reinvestigation report

despite the lapse of several years;

(2)Filing of numerous incidents such as Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Quash,

Demurrer to Evidence, etc. that remain unresolved for years;

(3)Suspension of proceedings because of a pending petition for certiorari and

prohibition with the Supreme Court;

(4)Cases remain unacted upon or have no further settings despite the lapse of

considerable length of time; and

(5)Unloading of cases already submitted for decision even if the ponente is still in

service.

We consider ex mero motu the Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) as an

administrative complaint against Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena for "serious delays in the decision of cases and in the resolution of motions and other pending incidents before the different

divisions of the Sandiganbayan," amounting to incompetence, inefficiency, gross neglect of duty and

misconduct in office.

We find no need to conduct a formal investigation of the charges in view of the admission of Justice

Francis E. Garchitorena in his compliance of October 20, 2000, that there are indeed hundreds of cases pending decision beyond the reglementary period of ninety (90) days from the submission. In one case, he

not only admitted the delay in deciding the case but took sole responsibility for such inaction for more

than ten (10) years that constrained this Court to grant mandamus to dismiss the case against an accused

to give substance and meaning to his constitutional right to speedy trial. 18

The Issues

Page 7: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

The issues presented are the following: (1) What is the reglementary period within which the Sandiganbayan must decide/resolve cases falling within its jurisdiction? (2) Are there cases submitted for decision remaining undecided by the Sandiganbayan or any of its divisions beyond the afore-stated

reglementary period? (3) Is Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 1094 applicable to the

Sandiganbayan? 19

The Court's Ruling

We resolve the issues presented in seriatim.

1.Period To Decide/Resolve Cases. — There are two views. The first view is that from the time a case is

submitted for decision or resolution, the Sandiganbayan has twelve (12) months to decide or resolve it. 20 The second view is that as a court with trial function, the Sandiganbayan has three (3) months to decide

the case from the date of submission for decision. 21

Article VIII, Section 15 (1) and (2), of the 1987 Constitution provides:

"SECTION 15.(1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution

must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission to the

Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower

collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.

"(2)A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the

filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by

the court itself." 22

The above provision does not apply to the Sandiganbayan. The provision refers to regular courts of lower

collegiate level that in the present hierarchy applies only to the Court of Appeals. 23

The Sandiganbayan is a special court of the same level as the Court of Appeals and possessing all the

inherent powers of a court of justice, 24 with functions of a trial court. 25

Thus, the Sandiganbayan is not a regular court but a special one. 26 The Sandiganbayan was originally

empowered to promulgate its own rules of procedure. 27 However, on March 30, 1995, Congress

repealed the Sandiganbayan's power to promulgate its own rules of procedure 28 and instead prescribed that the Rules of Court promulgated by the Supreme Court shall apply to all cases and proceedings filed

with the Sandiganbayan. 29

"Special courts are judicial tribunals exercising limited jurisdiction over particular or specialized

categories of actions. They are the Court of Tax Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, and the Shari'a Courts." 30

Under Article VIII, SECTION 5 (5) of the Constitution "Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-

judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court."

In his report, the Court Administrator would distinguish between cases which the Sandiganbayan has cognizance of in its original jurisdiction, 31 and cases which fall within the appellate jurisdiction of the

Sandiganbayan. 32 The Court Administrator posits that since in the first class of cases, the Sandiganbayan

Page 8: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

acts more as a trial court, then for that classification of cases, the three (3) month reglementary period

applies. For the second class of cases, the Sandiganbayan has the twelve-month reglementary period for

collegiate courts. 33 We do not agree.

The law creating the Sandiganbayan, P.D. No. 1606 34 is clear on this issue. 35 It provides:

"SECTION 6.Maximum period for termination of cases — As far as practicable, the

trial of cases before the Sandiganbayan once commenced shall be continuous until

terminated and the judgment shall be rendered within three (3) months from the date

the case was submitted for decision."

On September 18, 1984, the Sandiganbayan promulgated its own rules, 36 thus 37

"SECTION 3Maximum Period to Decide Cases — The judgment or final order of a division of the Sandiganbayan shall be rendered within three (3) months from the date

the case was submitted for decision (italics ours)."

Given the clarity of the rule that does not distinguish, we hold that the three (3) month period, not the

twelve (12) month period, to decide cases applies to the Sandiganbayan. Furthermore, the Sandiganbayan

presently sitting in five (5) divisions, 38 functions as a trial court. The term "trial" is used in its broad sense, meaning, it allows introduction of evidence by the parties in the cases before it. 39 The

Sandiganbayan, in original cases within its jurisdiction, conducts trials, has the discretion to weigh the

evidence of the parties, admit the evidence it regards as credible and reject that which they consider

perjurious or fabricated. 40

Compliance with its Own Rules

In Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) v. Court of Appeals, 41 the Court faulted the DARAB for violating its own rules of procedure. We reasoned that the DARAB does not have

unfettered discretion to suspend its own rules. We stated that the DARAB "should have set the example

of observance of orderly procedure." Otherwise, it would render its own Revised Rules of Procedure

uncertain and whose permanence would be dependent upon the instability of its own whims and caprices.

Similarly, in Cabagnot v. Comelec, 42 this Court held that the Commission on Elections ought to be the

first one to observe its own Rules. Its departure from its own rules constitutes "arrogance of power"

tantamount to abuse. Such inconsistency denigrates public trust in its objectivity and dependability. The Court reminded the Comelec to be more judicious in its actions and decisions and avoid imprudent volte-

face moves that undermine the public's faith and confidence in it.

The ratio decidendi in the afore-cited cases applies mutatis mutandis to the Sandiganbayan. The

Sandiganbayan ought to be the first to observe its own rules. It cannot suspend its rules, or except a case

from its operation.

2.Undecided Cases Beyond the Reglementary Period. — We find that the Sandiganbayan has several cases undecided beyond the reglementary period set by the statutes and its own rules, some as long as

more than ten (10) years ago.

According to the compliance submitted by the Sandiganbayan, three hundred and forty one (341) cases

were submitted for decision but were undecided as of September 15, 2000. A number of the cases were

Page 9: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

submitted for decision as far back as more than ten (10) years ago. As of September 15, 2000, the

following cases 43 had not been decided: 44

First Division

Case TitleCase No.Date Submitted for Decision

(1)People v. Pañares12127May 24, 1990

(2)People v. Gabriel Duero11999December 11, 1990

(3)People v. Rhiza Monterozo133533December 14, 1990

(4)People v. Zenon R. Perez13353January 7, 1991

(5)People v. Bernardo B. Dayao, Jr.12305-12306February 7, 1991

(6)People v. Melquiades Ribo13521May 7, 1991

(7)People v. Carlos Benitez12102June 19, 1991

(8)People v. Salvador P. Nopre, et al.11156-11160August 9, 1991

(9)People v. Delfina A. Letegio12289August 28, 1991

(10)People v. Rodolfo A. Lasquite13618August 28, 1991

(11)People v. Potenciana Evangelista13679-13680September 3, 1991

(12)People v. RamonN. Guico, Jr. et al.16516December 2, 1991

(13)People v. Ruperto N. Solares16239January 10, 1992

(14)People v. Socorro Alto13708March 9, 1992

(15)People v. Tomas Baguio130151March 11, 1992

(16)People v. Felipa D. de Veyra13672April 13, 1992

(17)People v. Felicidad Tabang12139July 23, 1992

(18)People v. Jose S. Buguiña14227September 9, 1992

(19)People v. Eleno T. Regidor, et al.13689-13695January 6, 1993

(20)People v. Serafin Unilongo14411February 2, 1993

(21)People v. Manual Parale, et al.15168June 21, 1993

(22)People v. Robert P. Wa-acon14375June 21, 1993

(23)People v. Linda J. Necessito13668July 13, 1993

(24)People v. Simon Flores16946August 4, 1993

(25)People v. Alejandro F. Buccat14986August 31, 1993

(26)People v. Irma Collera Monge15301March 9, 1994

(27)People v. Melencio F. Ilajas9977May 10, 1994

(28)People v. Buenaventura Q. Sindac, et al.13747-13748August 19, 1994

(29)People v. Jesus A. Bravo17514August 24, 1994

(30)People v. Raul S. Tello15006November 15, 1994

(31)People v. Celso N. Jacinto14975January 10, 1995

Page 10: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

(32)People v. Mayor Antonio17670January 24, 1995

Abad Santos, et al.

(33)People v. Lamberto R. Te20588February 14, 1995

(34)People v. Ale Francisco21020July 18, 1995

(35)People v. Dir. Felix R.13563July 25, 1995

Gonzales, et al.

(36)People v. Mayor Adelina14324January 3, 1996 Gabatan, et al.

(37)People v. Victoria Posadas-Adona17202January 4, 1996

(38)People v. Roberto Estanislao Chang, et al.16854January 22, 1996

(39)People v. Godofredo Yambao, et al.16927-16928March 13, 1996

(40)People v. Honesto G. Encina13171April 26, 1996

(41)People v. Pablito Rodriguez13971May 10, 1996

(42)People v. Leandro A. Suller17759June 28, 1996

(43)People v. Trinidad M. Valdez16695August 26, 1996

(44)People v. Vivencio B. Patagoc19651January 27, 1997

(45)People v. Engr. Antonio B. Laguador14195March 31, 1997

(46)People v. Paterno C. Belciña, Jr.16583-16585March 31, 1997

(47)People v. SPO3 Serafin V. Reyes21608March 31, 1997

(48)People v. Mayor Samuel F. Bueser, et al.22195-22196March 31, 1997

(49)People v. Romeo C. Monteclaro14223May 6, 1997

(50)People v. Rodolfo E. Aguinaldo20948-20949October 17, 1997

(51)People v. Aniceto M. Sobrepeña23324October 27, 1997

(52)People v. Marietta T. Caugma, et al.17001November 26, 1997

(53)People v. Mayor Meliton19708February 23, 1998

Geronimo, et al.

(54)People v. Fernando Miguel, et al.17600April 7, 1998

(55)People v. Rogelio A. Aniversario17601April 7, 1998

(56)People v. Corazon Gammad Leaño9812-9967May 8, 1998

(57)People v. Teresita S. Lazaro17901June 8, 1998

(58)People v. Brig. Gen. Raymundo20688October 19, 1998 Jargue, et al.

(59)People v. Pros. Filotea Estorninos23509October 19, 1998

(60)People v. Orlando Mina19534-19545October 20, 1998

(61)People v. Vice Gov. Milagros A. Balgos23042October 20, 1998

(62)People v. Ceferino Paredes, Jr., et al.18857November 17, 1998

(63)People v. Brig. Gen. Raymundo18696January 15, 1999

Jarque, et al.

Page 11: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

(64)People v. Mayor Agustin R.23336January 15, 1999

Escaño, Jr.

(65)People v. Mayor Edgar V. Teves, et al.23374January 15, 1999

(66)People v. C/Supt. Alfonso T.22832January 29, 1999 Clemente, et al.

(67)People v. Dominica Santos19059-19063February 18, 1999

(68)People v. Edith G. Tico23273April 20, 1999

(69)People v. Sec. Hilarion J. Ramiro, et al.23511August 6, 1999

(70)People v. Timoteo A. Garcia, et al.24042-24098August 6, 1999

(71)People v. Mayor Jeceju L. Manaay24402August 6, 1999

(72)People v. Dir. Rosalinda Majarais, et al.24355August 18, 1999

(73)People v. Victor S. Limlingan24281August 13, 1999

(74)People v. Nestor S. Castillo, et al.24631August 31, 1999

(75)People v. Apolinar Candelaria22145September 6, 1999

(76)People v. Bernardo Billote Resoso19773-19779October 11, 1999

(77)People v. Atty. Alfredo Fordan24433-24434October 11, 1999

Rellora, et al.

(78)People v. Faustino Balacuit98December 22, 1999

(79)People v. Mayor Bernardino23418-23423January 6, 2000 Alcaria, Jr., et al.

(80)People v. Joel R. Lachica, et al.24319-24329January 6, 2000

(81)People v. Jose Micabalo, et al.24531-24534April 27, 2000

(82)People v. Mayor Eduardo Alarilla23069May 29, 2000

(83)People v. Pros. Nilo M. Sarsaba, et al.23323May 29, 2000

(84)People v. Philip G. Zamora24150May 29, 2000

Second Division*

Case TitleCase No.Date Submitted for Decision

(1)People v. Marcelino Cordova, et al.18435August 11, 2000

(2)People v. Benjamin T. Damian22858August 11, 2000

(3)People v. Lino L. Labis, et al.22398July 18, 2000

(4)People v. Alfredo Sarmiento, et al.24407-24408August 11, 2000

Third Division**

Case TitleCase No.Date Submitted

for Decision

(1)People v. Sergia ZoletaA/R # 016November 16, 1999

Page 12: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

(2)People v. Manuel Solon Y. TenchavesA/R # 029December 9, 1999

(3)People v. Eliseo L. Ruiz13861-13863April 6, 2000

(4)People v. Manuel R. Galvez, et al.13889September 30, 1999

(5)People v. Tolentino Mendoza, et al.16756August 28, 1999

(6)People v. Rodrigo Villas19563April 6, 2000

(7)People v. Ernesto Vargas19574April 6, 2000

(8)People v. Ernesto, Vargas, et al.20053April 6, 2000

(9)People v. Marcelo T. Abrenica, et al.23522July 6, 2000

(10)People v. Florencio Garay, et al.25657May 5, 2000

Fourth Division***

Case TitleCase No.Date Submitted

for Decision

(1)People v. Jaime Alos, et al.17664August 31, 1999

(2)People v. Antonio R. De Vera23366November 26, 1999

(3)People v. Aurora Mantele24841-42May 9, 2000

(4)People v. Olegario Clarin, Jr., et al.25198July 12, 2000

Fifth Division****

Case TitleCase No.Date Submitted

for Decision

(1)People v. Nestor A. Pablo13344January 16, 1998

(2)People v. Hernand D. Dabalus, et al.14397January 13, 1999

(3)People v. Eduardo Pilapil16672March 23, 2000

(4)People v. P/Sgt. Nazario Marifosque17030April 16, 1998

(5)People v. Ignacio B. Bueno17055September 12, 1995

(6)People v. Corazon G. Garlit17072March 31, 1997

(7)People v. Mayor Rufo Pabelonia, et al.17538November 14, 1995

(8)People v. Enrique B. Lenon, et al.17617March 13, 1996

(9)People v. Constancio Bonite, et al.17618-17619May 1, 1995

(10)People v. Jesus Villanueva17884January 9, 1996

(11)People v. Ricardo T. Liwanag, et al.18008March 9, 1998

(12)People v. Ma. Lourdes L. Falcon18036January 18, 1995

(13)People v. Luis D. Montero, et al.18684July 24, 1998

(14)People v. Roel D. Morales18699December 22, 1995

(15)People v. Diosdado T. Gulle18759October 18, 1995

(16)People v. Benjamin Sapitula, et al.18785August 31, 1995

(17)People v. Danilo R. Santos, et al.18932November 4, 1997

Page 13: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

(18)People v. Pat. Danilo Marañon19039May 24, 1995

(19)People v. Romeo Cabando, et al.19378-19379May 27, 1996

(20)People v. SPO2 Rodolfo Burbos19593July 6, 1998

(21)People v. Guillermo M. Viray, et al.19614August 31, 1998

(22)People v. Mayor Bonifacio Balahay20427November 5, 1999

(23)People v. Enrique Sy, et al.20487December 17, 1998

(24)People v. PO2 Manuel L. Bien20648-20649March 31, 1998

(25)People v. Felipe L. Laodenio23066September 28, 1999

(26)People v. Mayor Walfrido A. Siasico23427January 16, 1998

* Second Division composed of Edilberto G. Sandoval (Associate Justice and Chairman);

Godofredo L. Legaspi (Associate Justice) and Raul V. Victorino (Associate Justice).

** Third Division composed of Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr. (Associate Justice and Chairman);

Teresita Leonardo-De Castro (Associate Justice) and Ricardo M. Ilarde (Associate Justice, Retired November 27, 2001).

*** Fourth Division composed of Narciso S. Nario (Associate Justice and Chairman); Rodolfo G.

Palattao (Associate Justice) and Nicodemo T. Ferrer (Associate Justice).

**** Fifth Division composed of Minita V. Chico-Nazario (Associate Justice and Chairman);

Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada (Associate Justice) and Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr. (Associate Justice).

The Sandiganbayan is a special court created "in an effort to maintain honesty and efficiency in the bureaucracy, weed out misfits and undesirables in the government and eventually stamp out graft and corruption." 45 We have held consistently that a delay of three (3) years in deciding a single case is

inexcusably long. 46 We can not accept the excuses of Presiding Justice Sandiganbayan Francis E.

Garchitorena that the court was reorganized in 1997; that the new justices had to undergo an orientation

and that the Sandiganbayan relocated to its present premises which required the packing and crating of

records; and that some boxes were still unopened. 47

We likewise find unacceptable Presiding Justice Garchitorena's excuse that one case alone 48 comprises

more that fifty percent (50%) of the First Division's backlog and that the same has been set for

promulgation on December 8, 2000. 49 As we said, a delay in a single case cannot be tolerated, "para muestra, basta un boton." (for an example, one button suffices). It is admitted that there are several other

cases submitted for decision as far back as ten (10) years ago that have remained undecided by the First

Division, of which Justice Garchitorena is presiding justice and chairman. Indeed, there is even one case, which is a simple motion to withdraw the information filed by the prosecutor. This has remained

unresolved for more than seven (7) years (since 1994). 50 The compliance submitted by the

Sandiganbayan presiding justice incriminates him. The memorandum submitted by the Court

Administrator likewise testifies to the unacceptable situation in the Sandiganbayan. Indeed, there is a disparity in the reports submitted by the Sandiganbayan presiding justice and the OCA. According to the

Court Administrator, the cases submitted for decision that were still pending promulgation 51 before the

five divisions of the Sandiganbayan are: 52

First Division

Case NumberDate Submitted

Criminal Cases

Page 14: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

1.111568/9/91

2.111578/9/91

3.111588/9/91

4.111598/9/91

5.111608/9/91

6.1199912/10/90

7.121027/1/91

8.121272/12/90

9.121396/10/92

10.122898/28/91

11.123052/7/91

12.123062/7/91

13.130153/2/92

14.1317111/16/95

15.1335310/6/90

16.1352112/12/99

17.135637/4/95

18.136187/14/91

19.136686/13/93

20.136723/5/92

21.136798/6/91

22.136808/6/91

23.1368911/14/92

24.1369011/14/92

Page 15: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

25.1369111/14/92

26.1369211/14/92

27.1369311/14/92

28.1369411/14/92

29.1369511/14/92

30.137083/9/92

31.137478/19/94

32.137488/19/94

33.139713/12/95

34.142233/7/97

35.142279/5/92

36.1423011/30/90

37.142877/3/94

38.1432411/5/95

39.143755/22/95

40.144111/24/93

41.149759/29/94

42.1498612/11/92

43.1500611/19/94

44.151683/25/93

45.153013/16/94

46.1623912/26/91

47.1651611/19/91

48.165838/13/96

Page 16: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

49.165848/13/96

50.165858/13/96

51.166958/15/96

52.168541/15/96

53.1692712/17/95

54.1692812/17/95

55.169468/4/93

56.170019/4/97

57.172785/2/94

58.174479/6/94

59.174489/6/94

60.175148/19/94

61.176008/30/97

62.176018/30/97

63.1767011/25/94

64.177596/25/96

65.179015/28/98

66.182832/21/95

67.186968/9/98

68.1885710/21/98

69.190592/11/99

70.190602/11/99

71.190612/11/99

72.190622/11/99

Page 17: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

73.190632/11/99

74.195349/2/98

75.195359/2/98

76.1965111/15/96

77.197088/25/98

78.197735/21/99

79.197745/21/99

80.197755/21/99

81.199765/21/99

82.199775/21/99

83.199785/21/99

84.199795/21/99

85.205882/14/95

86.206887/9/98

87.2094810/9/97

88.2094910/9/97

89.210207/4/95

90.221457/7/99

91.221956/14/96

92.221966/14/96

93.2283210/21/98

94.230428/27/98

95.2314611/13/00

96.232734/19/99

Page 18: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

97.233233/23/00

98.233248/3/97

99.233369/4/97

100.2337412/17/98

101.2341810/15/99

102.2341910/15/99

103.2342010/15/99

104.2342110/15/99

105.2342210/15/99

106.2342310/15/99

107.235099/5/98

108.235114/23/99

109.2354010/15/99

110.240424/28/99

111.240434/28/99

112.240444/28/99

113.240454/28/99

114.240464/28/99

115.240474/28/99

116.240484/28/99

117.240494/28/99

118.240504/28/99

119.240514/28/99

120.240524/28/99

Page 19: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

121.240534/28/99

122.240544/28/99

123.240554/28/99

124.240564/28/99

125.240574/28/99

126.240584/28/99

127.240594/28/99

128.240604/28/99

129.240614/28/99

130.240624/28/99

131.240634/28/99

132.240644/28/99

133.240654/28/99

134.240664/28/99

135.240674/28/99

136.240684/28/99

137.240694/28/99

138.240704/28/99

139.240714/28/99

140.240724/28/99

141.240734/28/99

142.240744/28/99

143.240754/28/99

144.240764/28/99

Page 20: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

145.240774/28/99

146.240784/28/99

147.240794/28/99

148.240804/28/99

149.240814/28/99

150.240824/28/99

151.240834/28/99

152.240844/28/99

153.240854/28/99

154.240864/28/99

155.240874/28/99

156.240884/28/99

157.240894/28/99

158.240904/28/99

159.240914/28/99

160.240924/28/99

161.240934/28/99

162.240944/28/99

163.240954/28/99

164.240964/28/99

165.240974/28/99

166.240984/28/99

167.241501/31/00

168.242362/14/00

Page 21: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

169.242372/14/00

170.242815/9/99

171.2431911/4/99

172.2432011/4/99

173.2432111/4/99

174.2432211/4/99

175.2432311/4/99

176.2432411/4/99

177.2432511/4/99

178.2432611/4/99

179.2432711/4/99

180.2432811/4/99

181.2432911/4/99

182.2433910/20/00

183.243552/18/99

184.243957/13/99

185.244026/17/99

186.244339/6/99

187.244349/6/99

188.2453112/16/99

189.2453212/16/99

190.2453312/16/99

191.2453412/16/99

192.246318/9/99

Page 22: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

193.247687/8/00

194.66727/11/90

195.99775/10/94

Civil Case

1.01121/11/92

2.011610/16/91

3.01563/14/97

Second Division

Case NumberDate Submitted

Criminal Case

1.195424/16/99

2.190049/10/96

3.2293410/14/00

4.204838/28/96

5.204848/28/96

6.2352910/23/00

7.2353010/23/00

8.2333812/2/99

9.1878611/28/00

10.1968607/2/97

11.18440312/4/98

12.18440412/4/98

13.18440512/4/98

14.18440612/4/98

15.18440712/4/98

Page 23: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

16.18440812/4/98

17.18440912/4/98

18.18441012/4/98

19.18441112/4/98

20.18441212/4/98

21.18441312/4/98

22.18441412/4/98

23.18441512/4/98

24.18441612/4/98

25.18441712/4/98

26.138278/30/00

27.138288/30/00

28.138298/30/00

29.138308/30/00

30.138318/30/00

31.138328/30/00

32.1896511/30/00

33.198483/28/96

34.207658/30/96

35.208163/11/98

36.196928/27/00

37.196938/27/00

38.196948/27/00

Page 24: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

39.196958/27/00

40.196968/27/00

41.196978/27/00

42.196988/27/00

43.196998/27/00

44.197008/27/00

45.197018/27/00

46.197028/27/00

47.197038/27/00

48.197048/27/00

49.197058/27/00

50.197068/27/00

51.197078/27/00

52.2326210/11/00

53.AR#03512/9/00

54.249948/17/00

55.2109712/13/00

56.2066012/20/00

57.2311111/27/00

58.244077/27/00

59.244087/27/00

60.184353/21/00

61.228588/4/00

62.229765/4/99

Page 25: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

Civil Case

1.01717/10/00

Third Division

Case NumberDate Submitted

1.SCA/00512/18/00

2.A/R 0168/5/99

3.A/R 02910/2/00

4.4874/8/98

5.4884/8/98

6.4894/8/98

7.4904/8/98

8.4914/8/98

9.117946/10/00

10.138614/6/00

11.138624/6/00

12.138634/6/00

13.138893/25/99

14.167568/25/99

15.1753212/11/00

16.1886710/5/00

17.1886810/5/00

18.1886910/5/00

19.1887010/5/00

20.1887110/5/00

21.1887210/5/00

Page 26: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

22.191824/6/00

23.195634/6/00

24.195744/6/00

25.196224/6/00

26.196234/6/00

27.196244/6/00

28.200534/6/00

29.200544/6/00

30.2027112/18/00

31.2214312/18/00

32.230149/23/00

33.235227/6/00

34.236993/22/00

35.237003/22/00

36.237013/22/00

37.238029/10/00

38.238039/10/00

39.2415312/18/00

40.246979/10/00

41.246989/10/00

42.2474112/7/00

43.2477910/28/00

44.2478010/28/00

45.2478110/28/00

Page 27: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

46.256575/5/00

Fourth Division

Case NumberDate Submitted

1.1196009/21/98

2.1766401/29/98

3.1303602/22/99

4.1303702/22/99

5.1359305/21/96

6.1359405/21/96

7.1375703/21/97

8.1438002/14/95

9.1680903/26/00

10.1701506/06/94

11.1701606/06/94

12.1714006/13/96

13.1714106/13/96

14.1720912/27/96

15.1780502/15/00

16.1780602/15/00

17.1780902/15/00

18.1785604/02/00

19.1800505/07/96

20.1800605/07/96

21.1825709/22/97

22.1889411/17/00

Page 28: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

23.1889511/17/00

24.1889611/17/00

25.1890010/28/00

26.1893506/16/00

27.1893606/16/00

28.1893706/16/00

29.1956705/21/96

30.2033805/19/97

31.2046907/07/00

32.2047007/07/00

33.2047107/07/00

34.2047207/07/00

35.2047307/07/00

36.2047407/07/00

37.2047507/07/00

38.2047607/07/00

39.2066406/29/96

40.2068502/18/00

41.2082809/13/00

42.2109308/07/99

43.2113108/04/96

44.2177809/29/97

45.2177909/29/97

46.2178009/29/97

Page 29: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

47.2289103/02/00

48.2289203/02/00

49.2300705/24/99

50.2305804/27/00

51.2305904/27/00

52.2306004/27/00

53.2306104/27/00

54.2306204/27/00

55.2336603/28/99

56.2341505/25/00

57.2353412/15/00

58.2370809/27/00

59.2444709/18/00

60.2444809/18/00

61.2446407/26/00

62.2446507/26/00

63.2474210/10/00

64.2484103/22/00

65.2484203/22/00

66.2485110/29/00

67.2519805/31/00

68.2538909/26/00

69.2554312/27/00

70.2565807/28/00

Page 30: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

Fifth Division

Case NumberDate Submitted

Criminal Cases

1.143971/4/99

2.166722/13/00

3.170302/19/98

4.1782612/9/00

5.1782712/9/00

6.184788/21/00

7.186845/29/98

8.1888012/6/00

9.1951012/4/00

10.1951112/4/00

11.1951212/4/00

12.195936/5/98

13.196147/31/98

14.196687/26/98

15.201941/8/01

16.2042711/3/99

17.206481/4/98

18.206491/4/98

19.206943/11/98

20.218828/12/00

21.2218412/16/00

22.2287312/4/99

Page 31: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

23.2292611/13/00

24.230668/16/99

25.233199/30/00

26.234509/16/00

27.235151/29/00

28.2415511/30/00

29.243798/27/00

30.247595/5/00

31.2485812/28/00

We find that Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena failed to devise an efficient recording and filing

system to enable him to monitor the flow of cases and to manage their speedy and timely disposition. This

is his duty on which he failed. 53

Memorandum of the Court Administrator

On November 14, 2001, the Court required the Office of the Court Administrator 54 to update its report.

55

On November 16, 2001, OCA Consultant Pedro A. Ramirez (Justice, Court of Appeals, Retired) submitted a "compliance report" with the Court's order. The compliance report shows that to this day,

several cases that were reported pending by the Sandiganbayan on September 26, 2000, and likewise

reported undecided by the OCA on January 26, 2001, have not been decided/resolved. We quote the

compliance report: 56

First Division

CaseDatePonenteReason for

NumberSubmittedAssignedNot Deciding Case

194.1199912/10/90GarchitorenaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

195.121027/1/91GarchitorenaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

196.121272/12/90Not reported; unaccounted for the Sandiganbayan report

197.121396/10/92Castaneda*Under study, submitted before the

reorganization

* Justice Catalino R. Castaneda, Jr. joined the Sandiganbayan on September 24, 1997.

198.122898/28/91CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

Page 32: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

199.12305-062/7/91CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

200.130153/2/92GarchitorenaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

201.1317111/16/95CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

202.1335310/6/90GarchitorenaUnder study, submitted before the reorganization

203.1352112/12/99GarchitorenaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

204.135637/4/95GarchitorenaUnderstudy, submitted before the

reorganization

205.136187/14/91CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

206.136686/13/93CastanedaUnderstudy, submitted before the reorganization

207.136723/5/92CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

208.13679-808/6/91CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

209.13689-9511/14/92CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

210.137083/9/92CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the reorganization

211.13747-488/19/94CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

212.139713/12/95CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

213.142233/7/97Death of accused is unconfirmed and dismissal of the case

was held in abeyance. (Ong, J.)*

* Justice Gregory S. Ong was appointed to the Sandiganbayan on October 5, 1998.

214.142279/5/92CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

215.1423011/30/90CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

216.142877/3/94CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the reorganization

217.1432411/5/95CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

218.143755/22/95CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

Page 33: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

219.144111/24/93GarchitorenaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

220.149759/29/94CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

221.1498612/11/92CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

222.1500611/19/94CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the reorganization

223.151683/25/93CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

224.153013/16/94CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

225.1623912/26/91CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

226.1651611/19/91CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the reorganization

227.16583-858/13/96CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

228.166958/15/96CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

229.168541/15/96CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

230.16927-2812/17/95CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the reorganization

231.169468/4/93CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

232.170019/4/97Not yet assigned

233.172785/2/94Death of accused is unconfirmed and dismissal of the case was held in abeyance. (Ong, J.)

234.176008/30/97Not yet assigned

235.176018/30/97Not yet assigned

236.177596/25/96OngDecided and set for promulgation

237.179015/28/98Not yet assigned

238.186968/9/98Not yet assigned

239.1885710/21/98Not yet assigned

240.19059-632/11/99Not yet assigned

241.19534-359/2/98Not yet assigned

242.197088/25/98Not yet assigned

243.19773-795/21/99Not yet assigned

244.206887/9/98Not yet assigned

Page 34: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

245.2094810/9/97Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report

246.2094910/9/97Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report

247.210207/4/95OngSet for Promulgation on November 27,

2001

248.221457/7/99Not yet assigned

249.22195-966/14/96CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the

reorganization

250.2283210/21/98Not yet assigned

251.230428/27/98Not yet assigned

252.2314611/13/00Not yet assigned

253.232734/19/99Not yet assigned

254.233233/23/00Not yet assigned

255.233248/3/97Not yet assigned

256.233369/4/97Not yet assigned

257.2337412/17/98Not yet assigned

258.23418-2310/15/99Not yet assigned

259.235099/5/98Not yet assigned

260.235114/23/99Not yet assigned

261.2354010/15/99Not yet assigned

262.24042-984/28/99OngSet for Promulgation on November 27, 2001

263.241501/31/00Not yet assigned

264.24236-372/14/00Not yet assigned

265.242815/9/99Not yet assigned

266.24319-2911/4/99Not yet assigned

267.24339-2910/20/99Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report

268.243552/18/99Not yet assigned

269.243957/13/99Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report

270.244026/17/99Not yet assigned

271.24433-349/6/99Not yet assigned

272.24531-3412/16/99Not yet assigned

273.246318/9/99Not yet assigned

274.247687/8/00Not yet assigned

275.66727/11/90GarchitorenaUnder study, before the reorganization

276.99775/10/94GarchitorenaUnder study, before the reorganization

277.01121/11/92Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report

Page 35: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

278.011610/16/91Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report

279.01563/14/97Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report

Summary/Tally

Cases Assigned to Garchitorena, PJ.9

Cases Assigned to Castaneda, J.42

Cases Assigned to Ong, J.5

Cases not yet assigned73

Cases not accounted for or reported9

——

Total138

Second Division

CaseDatePonenteReason for

NumberSubmittedAssignedNot Deciding Case

63.195424/16/99For retaking of testimony due to incomplete TSN

64.13827-328/30/00VictorinoFor promulgation

65.1896511/30/00For retaking of testimony due to incomplete TSN

Third Division

CaseDatePonenteReason for

NumberSubmittedAssignedNot Deciding Case

47.SCA/00512/18/00Ilarde—

48.A/R 02910/2/00Illarde

49.487-4914/8/98With pending demurrer to evidence, submitted, 01/26/01 re

Submitted, 03/20/01

50.117946/10/00De Castro—

51.1753212/11/00Ilarde—

52.18867-7210/5/00Pending trial per order dated 08/17/00

53.191824/6/00Unloaded to the 5th Division, 10/13/97

54.195634/6/00No Assignment—

55.195744/6/00No Assignment—

56.19622-244/6/00Unloaded to the 5th Division, 10/13/97.

57.20053-544/6/00Not with the 3rd Division

58.2027112/18/00Illarde—

59.2214312/18/00De Castro—

60.230149/23/00De Castro—

Page 36: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

61.23699-7013/22/00Ilarde—

62.23802-039/10/00No Assignment—

63.2415312/18/00No Assignment—

64.24697-989/10/00Ilarde—

65.2474112/7/00De Castro—

66.24779-8110/28/00No Assignment—

67.256575/5/00With Defense pending motion for the re-examination of the

Information and the parties' affidavits, etc. Order dated

08/31/01

Summary/Tally

Cases Assigned to Illarde, J.9

Cases Assigned to De Castro, J.4

Cases not yet assigned8

Others18

——

Total39

Fourth Division**

CaseDatePonenteReason for

NumberSubmittedAssignedNot Deciding Case

71.1196009/21/98Draft of decision penned by J. Nario in view of the

dissenting opinion of one Justice was referred to a Division

of five (5) composed of Nario, Palattao, Ferrer, Badoy, Jr. and De Castro, JJ.

72.1680903/26/00Palattao—

73.23058-6204/27/00Nario—

74.2538909/26/00Nario—

** The Fourth and Fifth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan were created only on September 25, 1997.

Fifth Division

CaseDatePonenteReason for NumberSubmittedAssignedNot Deciding Case

32.143971/4/99Badoy, Jr.Inherited case/lack of personnel

33.166722/13/00Badoy, Jr,Inherited case/lack of personnel

34.170302/19/98Badoy, Jr.Inherited case/lack of personnel

35.184788/21/00EstradaInherited case/lack of personnel

36.186845/29/98Badoy, Jr.Inherited case/lack of personnel

37.1888012/6/00Badoy, Jr.Inherited case/lack of personnel

Page 37: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

38.19510-1212/4/00EstradaInherited case/lack of personnel

39.195936/5/98Badoy, Jr.Inherited case/lack of personnel

40.196147/31/98Badoy, Jr.Inherited case/lack of personnel

41.201941/8/01Chico-NazarioComplicated Issues

42.2042711/3/99Badoy, Jr,Inherited case/lack of personnel

43.20648-491/4/98Badoy, Jr.Inherited case/lack of personnel

44.206943/11/98EstradaInherited case/lack of personnel

45.2292611/13/00No report, Unaccounted for by the Sandiganbayan report

46.230668/16/99Badoy, Jr.Inherited case/lack of personnel

47.2415511/30/00EstradaNot yet due

48.243798/27/00EstradaDraft decision released 7/31/01

Summary/Tally

Cases Assigned to Badoy, J. ***11

Cases Assigned to Estrada, J.7

Cases Assigned to Chico-Nazario, J.1

No report/Unaccounted For1

——

Total20

*** The case assignments of Justice Badoy, Jr. were all transferred to Justice Villaruz when Justice

Badoy, Jr. transferred to the Third Division. The report of the Sandiganbayan with respect case

assignments is dated September 30, 2001 (See Annex "E").

3.Applicability of SC Adm. Circular No. 10-94. — Supreme Court Circular No. 10-94 applies to the

Sandiganbayan.

Administrative Circular 10-94 57 directs all trial judges to make a physical inventory of the cases in their

dockets. The docket inventory procedure is as follows: 58

"a.Every trial judge shall submit not later than the last week of February and the last

week of August of each year a tabulation of all pending cases which shall indicate on a

horizontal column the following data:

"1.Title of the case

"2.Date of Filing

"3.Date arraignment in criminal cases of Pre-trial in civil cases and

"4.Date of initial trial

Page 38: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

"5.Date of last hearing

"6.Date submitted for Decision

"b.The tabulation shall end with a certification by the trial judge that he/she has

personally undertaken an inventory of the pending cases in his/her court; that he/she has examined each case record and initialed the last page thereof. The judge shall

indicate in his/her certification the date when inventory was conducted.

"c.The Tabulation and Certification shall be in the following form.

Docket Inventory for the Period

January ___ to June ______ July

To December ____, ______

(Indicate Period)

"CERTIFICATION:

I hereby certify that on (Date/Dates ____), I personally conducted a physical inventory of pending cases in the docket of this court, that I personally examined the records of each case and initialed the last page

thereof, and I certify that the results of the inventory are correctly reflected in the above tabulation.

___________.

_______________

Presiding Judge"

Given the rationale behind the Administrative Circular, we hold that it is applicable to the

Sandiganbayan with respect to cases within its original and appellate jurisdiction.

Mora Decidendi

We reiterate the admonition we issued in our resolution of October 10, 2000: 59

"This Court has consistently impressed upon judges (which includes justices) to decide

cases promptly and expeditiously on the principle that justice delayed is justice denied.

Page 39: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

Decision making is the primordial and most important duty of the member of the bench.

60 Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency 61 that warrants disciplinary sanction including fine, 62

suspension 63 and even dismissal. 64 The rule particularly applies to justices of the

Sandiganbayan. Delays in the disposition of cases erode the faith and confidence of our

people in the judiciary, lower its standards, and bring it into disrepute. 65 Delays cannot be sanctioned or tolerated especially in the anti-graft court, the showcase of the

nation's determination to succeed in its war against graft (italics ours)." TcDAHS

In Yuchengco v. Republic, 66 we urged the Sandiganbayan to promptly administer justice. We stated that

the Sandiganbayan has the inherent power to amend and control its processes and orders to make them conformable to law and justice. The Sandiganbayan as the nation's anti-graft court must be the first to

avert opportunities for graft, uphold the right of all persons to a speedy disposition of their cases and avert

the precipitate loss of their rights.

Practice of Unloading Cases

According to the memorandum submitted by the OCA, there is a practice in the first and third divisions of

the Sandiganbayan of unloading cases to other divisions despite the fact that these cases have been

submitted for decision before them. We cite relevant portions of the memorandum: 67

Cases Submitted for Decision When Unloaded to the Fourth Division

Case No.Title of the CaseDivisionDate

where caseSubmitted for originatedDecision

1)17015PP vs. Raul Zapatos3rd06/06/94

2)17016PP vs. Raul Zapatos3rd06/06/94

3)14380PP vs. Francisco Ramoran3rd02/14/95

4)18005PP vs. Panfilo Bongcac3rd05/07/96

5)18006PP vs. Panfilo Bongcac3rd05/07/96

6)13593PP vs. Dominador Meninguito3rd05/30/96

7)13594PP vs. Dominador Meninguito3rd05/30/96

8)19567PP vs. Dominador Meninguito3rd05/30/96

9)17140PP vs. Jose Café3rd06/13/96

10)17141PP vs. Jose Café3rd06/13/96

11)20064PP vs. Ben dela Pena3rd07/01/96

12)21131PP vs. Rufino Mamanguin3rd08/05/96

13)17209PP vs. Isidro Catapang3rd12/27/96

14)13757PP vs. Catalino Daganzo3rd03/21/97

15)18257PP vs. Zenaida Sazon1st09/22/97

Cases Submitted for Decision When Unloaded to the Fifth Division

Case NumberDate Submitted

1.1026412/22/90

Page 40: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

2.133445/14/97

3.162234/25/94

4.165745/30/95

5.167605/25/95

6.168101/23/96

7.170187/20/94

8.170557/5/95

9.171394/24/94

10.171622/23/95

11.171933/8/94

12.174262/12/94

13.174803/22/94

14.1753811/20/95

15.175672/24/93

16.175988/3/94

17.176173/28/96

18.176184/6/95

19.176194/6/95

20.176406/12/95

21.1766112/15/94

22.176668/25/97

23.1788411/12/95

24.179024/16/95

25.180089/15/97

26.184231/15/96

27.186879/30/94

28.1875910/12/95

29.187857/13/95

30.189324/20/97

31.1898810/25/95

32.1899912/21/95

33.190395/6/95

34.193784/17/96

35.193794/17/96

36.1967910/5/95

37.197122/18/95

Page 41: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

38.199076/22/95

39.2048712/14/96

40.206247/15/95

41.234277/25/97

We suggest a review of the practice of unloading cases that greatly contributes to the backlog of undecided cases. When a case has been heard and tried before a division of the Sandiganbayan, it is ideal

that the same division and no other must decide it as far as practicable.

We further note that several cases which were earlier reported as undecided by the Sandiganbayan and the

OCA have been decided since the reports of September 26, 2000 and January 26, 2001. Nonetheless, the

delay in deciding these cases is patent and merits reprobation. According to the compliance report submitted by the OCA on November 16, 2001, there are several cases decided way beyond the

reglementary period prescribed by law, even assuming without granting, a reglementary period of twelve

months from the time a case is submitted for decision. 68

In a case brought before this Court, Presiding Justice Garchitorena admitted fault and that the fault is exclusively his own, in failing to decide the case, though submitted for decision as early as June 20, 1990.

69 This case was not even included among pending cases in the Sandiganbayan report of September 26,

2000.

The following cases were decided, though beyond the prescribed period:

First Division

Case NumberSubmitted forDate of Ponente

DecisionPromulgation

14195March 31, 1997November 10, 2000Ong

21608March 31, 1997November 15, 2000Ong

20588February 14, 1998January 12, 2001Ong

19651November 15, 1996January 26, 2001Ong

17670November 25, 1994January 26, 2001Ong

17447-48September 6, 1994February 22, 2001Ong

18283February 21, 1995February 23, 2001Ong

17514August 19, 1994April 24, 2001Ong

Second Division

Case NumberSubmitted forDate of Ponente

DecisionPromulgation

18403-18417December 4, 1998February 2, 2001Victorino

18435August 11, 2000March 26, 2001Victorino

18786November 28, 2000March 28, 2001Legaspi

19004September 10, 1996March 16, 2001Victorino

Page 42: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

19692-19707August 27, 2000February 26, 2001Sandoval

19848March 28, 1996January 29, 2001Victorino

20483-20484July 26, 1995April 6, 2001Victorino

20660December 20, 2000August 2, 2001Legaspi

20765August 30, 1996February 23, 2001Victorino

20816March 11, 1998January 25, 2001Victorino

21097December 13, 2000June 15, 2001Victorino

22858August 11, 2000January 31, 2001Victorino

22934October 14, 2000February 15, 2001Sandoval

22976May 4, 1999March 1, 2001Sandoval

23111November 27, 2000March 14, 2001Sandoval

23262October 11, 2000May 16, 2001Victorino

23338December 2, 1999December 14, 2000Sandoval

23529-23530October 23, 2000March 28, 2001Victorino

24407-24408August 11, 2000January 24, 2001Legaspi

24994August 17, 2000May 30, 2001Sandoval

AR#035December 9, 2000August 28, 2001Legaspi

Third Division

Case NumberSubmitted forDate of Ponente DecisionPromulgation

A/R 016November 16, 1999January 26, 2001Ilarde

13861-13863April 6, 2000December 22, 2000Del Rosario

13889September 30, 1999May 10, 2001Ilarde

16756August 28, 1999December 11, 2000Del Rosario

23522July 6, 2000January 12, 2001Del Rosario

Fourth Division

Case NumberSubmitted forDate of Ponente

DecisionPromulgation

17664August 31, 1999June 1, 2000Palattao

17016June 6, 1994March 27, 2001Ferrer

17140-41June 13, 1996February 6, 2001Nario

17209December 27, 1996April 30, 2001Ferrer

17805-09;February 15, 2000October 10, 2001Palattao 17814

17856April 2, 2000June 25, 2001Palattao

18005-06May 7, 1996May 18, 2001Ferrer

18257September 22, 1997July 26, 2001Ferrer

Page 43: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

18894-96November 17, 2000March 20, 2001Palattao

18900October 28, 2000March 23, 2001Ferrer

18935-37June 16, 2000January 18, 2001Palattao

19567May 21, 1996January 15, 2001Ferrer

20338May 19, 1997February 9, 2001Ferrer

20469July 7, 2000June 25, 2001Palattao

13036-37February 22, 1999February 28, 2001Ferrer

13593-94May 21, 1996January 15, 2001Ferrer

20470-76July 7, 2000June 25, 2001Palattao

20664June 29, 1996February 20, 2001Ferrer

20685February 18, 2000March 2, 2001Palattao

20828September 13, 2000October 8, 2001Palattao

21093August 7, 1999January 15, 2001Palattao

21131August 4, 1996February 13, 2001Ferrer

21778-80September 29, 1997June 21, 2001Ferrer

22891-92March 2, 2000December 13, 2000Ferrer

23007May 24, 1999March 14, 2000Ferrer

13757March 21, 1997July 2, 2001Ferrer

14380February 14, 1995April 23, 2001Ferrer

17015June 6, 1994March 27, 2001Ferrer

23366November 26, 1999October 29, 2001Ferrer

23415May 25, 2000May 28, 2001Palattao

23534December 15, 2000February 28, 2001Palattao

23708September 27, 2000September 10, 2001Nario

24464-65July 26, 2000June 26, 2001Nario

24742October 10, 2000March 22, 2001Ferrer

24841-42May 9, 2000March 7, 2001Ferrer

25198July 12, 2000February 6, 2001Nario

25543December 27, 2000February 26, 2001Palattao

25658July 28, 2000July 20, 2001Palattao

24447-48September 18, 2000December 7, 2001Palattao

Fifth Division

Case NumberSubmitted forDate of Ponente

DecisionPromulgation

17826-17827December 9, 2000March 28, 2001Chico-Nazario

19668July 26, 1998February 9, 2001Badoy, Jr.

21882August 12, 2000July 25, 2001Chico-Nazario

Page 44: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

22184December 16, 2000May 21, 2001Chico-Nazario

22873December 4, 1999May 31, 2001Chico-Nazario

23319September 30, 2000April 23, 2001Chico-Nazario

23450September 16, 2000March 16, 2001Chico-Nazario

23515January 29, 2000May 28, 2001Cortez-Estrada

24759May 5, 2000July 10, 2001Cortez-Estrada

24858December 28, 2000May 31, 2001Chico-Nazario

Relief of Presiding Justice

At this juncture, the Court cites the case of Canson v. Garchitorena. 70 In that case, we admonished

respondent Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena. General Jewel F. Canson, Police Chief Superintendent, National Capital Region Command Director, complained of deliberate delayed action of

the Presiding Justice on the transfer of Criminal Cases Nos. 23047-23057 to the Regional Trial Court of

Quezon City, depriving complainant of his right to a just and speedy trial. Due to a finding of lack of bad faith on the part of respondent justice, we issued only a warning. However, the dispositive portion of the

decision cautioned respondent justice that "a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be

dealt with more severely." 71

Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena sits as the Chairman, First Division, with a backlog of cases pending decision. At least seventy-three cases have been unassigned for the writing of the extended

opinion, though submitted for decision. It may be the thinking of the Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan

that an unassigned case is not counted in its backlog of undecided cases. This is not correct. It is the duty

of the Presiding Justice and the Chairmen of divisions to assign the ponente as soon as the case is declared submitted for decision, if not earlier. If he fails to make the assignment, he shall be deemed to be

the ponente.

The Constitution provides that a case shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing

of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself. 72 In Administrative Circular No. 28, dated July 3, 1989, the Supreme Court provided that "A case is

considered submitted for decision upon the admission of the evidence of the parties at the termination of

the trial. The ninety (90) days period for deciding the case shall commence to run from submission of the

case for decision without memoranda; in case the court requires or allows its filing, the case shall be considered submitted for decision upon the filing of the last memorandum or the expiration of the period

to do so, whichever is earlier. Lack of transcript of stenographic notes shall not be a valid reason to

interrupt or suspend the period for deciding the case unless the case was previously heard by another judge not the deciding judge in which case the latter shall have the full period of ninety (90) days from the

completion of the transcripts within which to decide the same." 73 The designation of a ponente to a case

is not a difficult administrative task.

Administrative sanctions must be imposed. "Mora reprobatur in lege." 74 Again, we reiterate the

principle that decision-making is the most important of all judicial functions and responsibilities. 75 In this area, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena, as the ponente assigned to the cases submitted for

decision/resolution long ago, some as far back as more than ten (10) years ago, has been remiss

constituting gross neglect of duty and inefficiency. 76 As we said in Canson, 77 unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a case amounts to a denial of justice, bringing the Sandiganbayan into disrepute,

eroding the public faith and confidence in the judiciary. 78

Page 45: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

Consequently, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena should be relieved of all trial and administrative

work as Presiding Justice and as Chairman, First Division so that he can devote himself full time to decision-making until his backlog is cleared. He shall finish this assignment not later than six (6) months

from the promulgation of this resolution.

We have, in cases where trial court judges failed to decide even a single case within the ninety (90) day

period, imposed a fine ranging from five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) to the equivalent of their one

month's salary. 79 According to the report of the Sandiganbayan, as of September 26, 2000, there were three hundred forty one (341) cases submitted for decision before its first division headed by the Presiding

Justice. In the memorandum of the OCA, there were one hundred ninety eight (198) cases reported

submitted for decision before the First Division. 80 Even in the updated report, there are one hundred

thirty eight (138) cases still undecided in the First Division.

In fact, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena admitted that he has a backlog. 81 He claimed that one

(1) case alone comprises fifty percent (50%) of the backlog. We find this claim exaggerated. We cannot

accept that a backlog of three hundred forty one (341) cases in the First Division could be eliminated by

the resolution of a single consolidated case of one hundred fifty six (156) counts. A consolidated case is considered only as one case. The cases referred to were consolidated as Criminal Case Nos. 9812-9967,

People v. Corazon Gammad-Leaño, decided on December 8, 2000. What about the one hundred eighty-

five (185) cases that unfortunately remained undecided to this date? Worse, the motion for reconsideration of the decision in said cases, submitted as of January 11, 2001, has not been resolved to

this date. 82 The First Division has only thirty (30) days from submission to resolve the same. It is now

ten (10) months from submission. The expediente and the motion were transmitted to the ponente, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena, on that date, but to this day the case remains unresolved. 83

Unfortunately, even other divisions of the Sandiganbayan may be following his example. 84

In the first report of the Court Administrator, he indicated a total of one hundred ninety five (195)

criminal cases and three (3) civil cases, or a total of one hundred ninety-eight (198) cases submitted for

decision as of December 21, 2000. 85 Almost a year later, as of November 16, 2001, there are still one hundred thirty eight (138) cases undecided submitted long ago. For almost one year, not one case was

decided/resolved by the Presiding Justice himself. 86

Directive

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court resolves:

(1)To IMPOSE on Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena a fine of twenty thousand pesos

(P20,000.00), for inefficiency and gross neglect of duty.

(2)Effective December 1, 2001, to RELIEVE Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena of his powers,

functions and duties as the Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan, and from presiding over the trial of cases as a justice and Chairman, First Division, so that he may DEVOTE himself exclusively to DECISION

WRITING, until the backlog of cases assigned to him as well as cases not assigned to any ponente, of

which he shall be deemed the ponente in the First Division, are finally decided. There shall be no

unloading of cases to other divisions, or to the First Division inter se.

Page 46: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

In the interim, Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, as the most senior associate justice, shall

TAKE OVER and exercise the powers, functions, and duties of the office of the Presiding Justice,

Sandiganbayan, until further orders from this Court.

(3)To DIRECT Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena and the associate justices of the Sandiganbayan

to decide/resolve the undecided cases submitted for decision as of this date, within three (3) months from

their submission, and to resolve motions for new trial or reconsiderations and petitions for review within

thirty (30) days from their submission. With respect to the backlog of cases, as hereinabove enumerated, the Sandiganbayan shall decide/resolve all pending cases including incidents therein within six (6)

months from notice of this resolution.

(4)To ORDER the Sandiganbayan to comply with Supreme Court Administrative Circular 10-94,

effective immediately.

(5)To DIRECT the Sandiganbayan en banc to adopt not later than December 31, 2001 internal rules to govern the allotment of cases among the divisions, the rotation of justices among them and other matters

leading to the internal operation of the court, and thereafter to submit the said internal rules to the

Supreme Court for its approval. 87

This directive is immediately executory

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-

Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez and Carpio, JJ., concur.

Buena, J., is on official leave.

Separate Opinions

DE LEON, J.,concurring and dissenting:

I respectfully dissent from the resolution of Mr. Justice Bernardo P. Pardo insofar as it declares and rules that the judgment of any division of the Sandiganbayan shall be rendered within three (3) months, and not

within twelve (12) months, from the date the case was submitted for decision.

The resolution cites Section 6 of P.D. No. 1606 which requires that the judgment of the Sandiganbayan

"shall be rendered within three (3) months from the date the case was submitted for decision". The said

provision was apparently adopted by the Sandiganbayan in Section 3 of Rule XVIII of its Revised Rules

of Procedure which was issued pursuant to P.D. No. 1606. The resolution also cites Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94, dated June 25, 1994 which is addressed "To: All Trial Court Judges

and Clerks of Courts, Branch Clerks of Courts but not to Sandiganbayan Justices or the Clerk of Court

and Division Clerks of Courts of the Sandiganbayan.

SECTION 15 (1) and (2) Article VII of the 1997 Constitution, however, provides that:

SECTION 15 (1).All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the

Page 47: Re Delays in the Sandiganbayan

Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower

collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.

(2)A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the

Court itself.

xxx xxx xxx

The Supreme Court in Administrative Circular No. 10-94 has not reduced the 12-month period mentioned in the above-quoted constitutional provision insofar as the Sandiganbayan, a collegiate court, is

concerned. It is basic that in case of conflict between a constitutional provision on one hand and a statute or an internal rule of procedure of a court on the other, the former, being a part of the fundamental law of

the land, must prevail. Also pursuant to Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8245 (approved on February 5,

1997) the Sandiganbayan has also exclusive appellate jurisdiction "over final judgments, resolutions or orders of the regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their original jurisdiction or of their appellate

jurisdiction as herein provided."

In this connection, be it noted that Section 1 of R.A. No. 8249 further amending P.D. No. 1606, as

amended, provides that:

SECTION 1.Sandiganbayan; Composition; Qualifications; Tenure; Removal and

Compensation — A special court, of the same level as the Court of Appeals and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice, to be known as the

Sandiganbayan is hereby created composed of a presiding justice and fourteen

associate justices who shall be appointed by the President.

Incidentally, per the Rules of Procedure of the Sandiganbayan, each division is composed of three (3) justices whose unanimous vote is required to render a decision, resolution or order. In the event there is a

dissent, a special division is formed whereby two (2) justices who shall be chosen by raffle and added to

the division concerned, in which event, the majority rule shall prevail. For that reason and considering

also that appeals from the decisions of the Sandiganbayan are to be filed directly with the Supreme Court, the Sandiganbayan as a collegiate trial court, is significantly different from the one-man regional trial

court.

Subject to the foregoing observations and partial dissent, I concur with the rest of the resolution.