republic of the philippines sandiganbayan quezon city...

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESSANDIGANBAYAN

QUEZON CITY

PEOPLE OFPHILIPPINES,

Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0264For: Violation of Section 3(e),Republic Act (R. A.) No. 3019

LEONIDES THERESAPLAZA, et aL

Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0265For: Violation of Section 3(g),Republic Act (R. A.) No. 3019

CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J.,ChairpersonMARTIRES,l J. andFERNANDEZ,J.

This resolves accused Leonides Theresa Plaza's Motion forReconsideration dated October 10, 2016 of the Court'sResolution promulgated on September 21, 20 16 which deniedher Omnibus MOtir fd1 ', Slgn.toey to the ",,;led Re,o',tlon pcom"goted on se~'6

ResolutionCriminal Cases Nos. SB-16-CRM-0264 and 0265People vs. Plaza, et. ai.

In the subject motion for reconsideration, accused Plazainsists that the delay in the conduct of the preliminaryinvestigation by the Office of the Ombudsman wasunreasonable and oppressive. According to her, the four (4)years which 'took the Office of the Ombudsman to come outwith its resolution finding probable cause to charge her fromthe time they had filed their respective counter-affidavitsviolates her right to a speedy disposition of cases. This alsoallegedly violates Section 3(f),Rule 112 of the Rules of Courtwhich provides that the investigating officer has ten (10) daysto conduct an investigation to determine whether there issufficient ground to hold respondent for tria1.2

Accused Plaza also contends that the Office of theOmbudsman had not purportedly presented any justificationwhy it could not have terminated the conduct of thepreliminary investigation earlier. She argues that she raisedthe issue of violation of her right to a speedy disposition ofcase in motion for reconsideration filed before the Officeof theOmbudsman. She also argues that she cannot be faulted forher failure to assert her right to a speedy disposition of casesbecause after she filed her counter-affidavit, she was totallyunaware that the investigation against her was s~illon-going.She further argues that it is the duty of the Ombudsman tospeed up the conduct of the preliminary investigation and nothers. Finally~she argues that the tremendous lapse of time isprejudicial to her because her witnesses will be unable torecall accurately the events. Also, she is now more than sixty(60) years old and it is highly probable that she could notrecall the documents she signed ten (10) or fifteen (15) yearsago.3

In its Comment/Opposition dated October 30, 2016, theprosecution claims that the arguments raised by accusedPlaza are mere rehash of the arguments contained in herOmnibus Motion which were already passed upon by theCourt. It argues that as aptly explained by the Court, thechronology of incidents surrounding the conduct o~

'pp.1-2, Mot;oo 1o, Recoos;d."t;oo; pp. 505-506, Re<",d, Vol. " M'pp. 3-4, Mo';OO 10' Recoos;de",;oo; pp. 507,508, Reco,d, Vol." . ~

ResolutionCriminal Cases Nos. SB-16-CRM-0264 and 0265People vs. Plaza, et. al.

preliminary investigation shows that the delay was reasonable.It also claims that accused Plaza failed to establish anyserious prejudice which she suffered because of the allegeddelay. It contends that accused Plaza's argument that she wasunaware that the preliminary investigation was still ongoingonly shows that she is not interested in the outcome of theinvestigation and is an indication that she has no plan ofasserting her constitutional right to a speedy dispqsition of thecase against her. It further argues that while it is true that theResolution dated September 3, 2013 was approved by theOmbudsman on June 26, 2015, the same cannot beconsidered vexatious, capnCIOUSand oppressive in theabsence of proof that the delay was employed in order toharass and violate the rights of the accused. According to theprosecution, the protection under the right to a speedydisposition of cases should not operate as to deprive thegovernment of its inherent prerogative in prosecuting criminalcases. It invokes Dansal vs. Fernandez, Sr.4 where theSupreme Court took judicial notice of the fact that the natureof the Office of the Ombudsman encourages individuals whoclamor for efficient government service to freely lodge theircomplaints against wrongdoings of governmep.t personnelthus, resulting in a steady stream of cases reaching the Officeof the Ombudsman.s

An examination of the motion for reconsideration showsthat accused Plaza did not raise any new argument that wouldwarrant a reversal of this Court's Resolution promulgated onSeptember 21, 2016. To be sure, accused Plaza raises thesame arguments she invoked in her Omnihtis Motion whichthe Court had squarely passed upon.

As the Court had ruled in its assailed Resolution, therewas no unreasonable or oppressive delay to speak of in theconduct of the preliminary investigation;hence, accused Pl//

4327 seRA 145 (2000)5 pp. 512-519, Record, Vbl. II


cannot successfully claim a violation of her right to a speedydisposition of cases against her:

Invoking her right to speedy disposition of casesand relying on Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan,6 accusedPlaza moves for the dismissal of the cases against her.She argues that the length of time, or the period ofalmost five (5) years, that it took the Ombudsman toconduct its preliminary investigation violated her rightto speedy disposition of cases. She contends that theOmbudsman cannot use the motions for extension oftime that she filed as an excuse for the delay allegedlybecause the said motions "only attributed to the periodfor arguably less than six (6) months." She stressesthat she raised the issue of violation of her right in hermotion for reconsideration when she assailed theOmbudsman's Resolution dated September 3, 2013finding probable cause to charge her with these cases.It took the Office of the Ombudsman more than three (3)months to resolve her motion by denying the same onthe ground that it was filed beyond the reglementaryperiod. She takes issue with the fact that theOmbudsman approved the Resolution dated September3, 2013 only on June 26, 2015 and that she receivedthe same Resolution only on September 22,2015.

The Court finds the omnibus motion devoid ofmerit.

First. The concept of speedy disposition IS

relative or flexible. A mere mathematical reckoning ofthe time involved is not sufficient.? It is consistent withdelays and depends upon the circumstances. What theConstitution prohibits are unreasonable, arbitrary andoppressive delays which render rights nugatory. 8 Thus,the fact that it took the Office of the ombudS/7

6159 SCRA70 (1988) , f1t7 Braza Y5. Sandiganabayan, 691 SCRA471 (2013)8 Caballero Y5. Alfonso, Jr., 153 SCRA 153 (1987)

ff

ResolutionCriminal Cases Nos. SB-16-CRM-0264 and 0265People vs. Plaza, et. at.

almost five (5) years to resolve accused Plaza's case andfile the: corresponding Information does not, by itself,automatically establish that accused Plaza's right tospeedy disposition of cases had been violated.

In the determination of whether or not the right toa "speedy trial" has been violated, certain factors may beconsidered and balanced against each other. These arelength of delay, reason for the delay, assertion of theright or failure to assert it, and prejudice caused by thedelay.9

These cases are part of the P728 million fertilizerscam where the Task Force Abono, Field InvestigationOffice (TFA-FIO) initially conducted an investigation offifteen (15) respondents. As pointed out by theprosecution, the voluminous documents, the number ofaccused involved and the several levels of review, shouldbe considered in resolving the complaint. Theprosecution further enumerates the followingchronology of incidents to allegedly "dispel theimpression of delay" in the resolution of these cases:

i. On 11 April 2011, the Task Force Abono,Field Investigation Office,Officeof the Ombudsman, asthe nominal complainant hereto filed a complaint. Itmust be noted that said complaint includes severalannexes and several respondents, namely:

11. On 5 August 2011, after evaluation of thecomplaint and finding enough basis to proceed withthe preliminary investigation, the respondents wererequired to file their respective counter-affidavits.

111. On 2 and 16 September 2011, accusedPlaza filed a Motion for Extension of Time to FileCounter-Affidavit. It is worth (sic) to emphasize thatthe other respondents also filed their respectiveMotions for Extension of Time to File Counter-Affidavits.

iv. On 10 October 2011, accused Plaza filedher counter-affidavit. The other respondents also filedtheir respective counter-affidavits sometime in 20~

-9 B-a-r-ce-lo-n-a-v-s.-l-im-,-7-24-S-C-R-A-4-33-(20141, citing Cobolle,o vs. Alfonso, !<., supm P1


v. On 26 June 2015, the Office of theOmbudsman issued a Resolution dated September 3,2013, finding probable cause to indict herein accusedPlaza together with the other accused for violation ofSection 3(e) in relation to Section 3(g) of Republic ActNo. 3019 otherwise known as the Anti-Graft andCorrupt Practices Act.

o vi. On 8 October 2015, accused Plaza filed aMotion for Reconsideration of the 3 September 2013Ombudsman Resolution. "'

vii. On 11 March 2016, the Ombudsmanissued an Order denying accused Plaza'a motion forreconsideration. Subsequently, informations were filedon 2 May 2016, before the Sandiganbayan.

Considering the above cited reasons and thechronology of incidents, the Court finds that there wasno unreasonable or oppressive delay to speak of in theconduct of the preliminary investigation. The delay wasreasonaple being part of the ordinary process ofjustice.

Further, in factoring prejudice caused by the delayin the determination of violation of the right to speedydisposition of cases, prejudice should be assessed in thelight of the interest of the defendant that the speedytrial was designed to protect, namely: to preventoppressiv~. pre-trial incarceration; to minimize anxietyand concerns of the accused to trial; and to limit thepossibility that his defense will be impaired. Of these,the most serious is the last, because the inability of adefendan t adequately to prepare his case skews thefairness of the entire system. There is also prejudice ifthe defense witnesses are unable to recall accurately theevents of the distant past. Even if the accused is notimprisoned prior to trial, he is still disadvantaged byrestraints on his liberty and by living under a cloud ofanxiety, suspicion and often, hostility. His financialresources may be drained, his association is curtailed,and he is subjected to public ObIOqU~ P1

10 Caballes vs. Court of Appeals, 452 SeRA 312 (2005), citing Corpuz, et.al. vs. Sandiganbayan, 442 SeRA294(2004)


Here, accused Plaza failed to establish any seriousprejudice which she suffered because of the "delay" inthe resolution of her cases.

Finally, accused Plaza's reliance on the Tatad caseis misplaced. In Tatad, the Supreme Court ruled thatthe delay of almost three (3) years in the conduct ofpreliminary investigation was tantamount to a violationof the accused's rights to due process and to a speedydisposition of his cases. In arriving at said declaration,the Supreme Court considered the following peculiarcircumstance: "political motivations played a vital rolein activating and propelling the prosecutorial process;"there was a departure from the established procedure inconducting the preliminary investigation and the issuesinvolvedwere simple.

To be sure, the aforementioned circumstances inTatad justifying the dismissal of the case against Tatadare not attendant to these cases.

Anent the issue on the alleged violation of the Rules ofCourt on the ten-day period within which an investigatingofficer must come out with a resolution, the Supreme Courthas ruled that the said period of time is merely directory: 11

The length of time it took before the conclusion ofthe preliminary investigation may only be attributed tothe adherence of the Ombudsman and the NBI to therules of procedure and the rudiments of fair play. Theallegations of Abano's complaint had to be verified; theOmbudsman did not believe the same hook, line andsinker. Recently, the Court held that while the Rulesof Court provides a ten-day period from submission

of the case within which an investigating o~. /fJAUiI

11 Raro V5. Sandiganbayan, 335 seRA 581 (2000) r'W"'l

ff


must come out with a resolution, that period of timeis merely directory. 12 Thus:

"The Court is not unmindful of theduty of the Ombudsman under theConstitution and Republic Act No. 6770 toact promptly on Complaints brought beforehim. But such duty should not be mistakenwith a hasty resolution of cases at theexpense of thoroughness and correctness.Judicial notice should be taken of the factthat the nature of the Office of theOmbudsman encourages individuals whoclamor for efficient government service tofreely lodge their Complaints againstwrongdoings of government personnel, thusresulting in a steady stream of casesreaching the Office of the Ombudsman."

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES accused LeonidesTheresa Borja Plaza's Motion for Reconsideration datedOctober 10,2016 for lack of merit and for beingprojorma.

SO ORDERED.Quezon City, Metro Manila

~~TAJE-TA/ Presiding Justice

Chairperson

JANE T. FE ANDEZAssociate \.Justlce

republic of the philippines sandiganbayan quezon city...

Documents