tatad v sb digest

8/9/2019 Tatad v Sb Digest

1/4

Tatad v. Sandiganbayan

Doctrine: The inordinate delay in terminating the preliminary investigationand fling the inormation is violative o the constitutionally guaranteedright o the petitioner to due process and to a speedy disposition o thecases against him

ER: 19!" #ntonio de los Reyes" E$ecutive #ssistant o the Department o%ublic &normation" fled a report 'ith the (egal %anel) %residential SecurityDemand" charging Tatad" the Secretary o the Department" 'ith violationso the #nti *rat (a'. +o action 'as ta,en on the report. -ive years later"de los Reyes fled a complaint 'ith Tanodbayan" alleging the same things.n the same year" Tatad resigned. &t 'as only ater Tatad/s resignation 'asaccepted by 0arcos 'hen the Tanodbayan reerred the complaint to theriminal &nvestigation Service 2&S3 or act fnding investigation. &n 4une1956" the &S report 'as submitted to the Tanodbayan" recommending thefling o charges or grat and corruption against Tatad. 7y October 25,

1982, all afdavits and counter-afdavits were already with theTanodbayn and the case was already or disposition.owever, itwas only on !uly 5, 1985 "three years delay in the preli#inaryinvesti$ation% that a resolution was approved by the Tanodbayan,reco##endin$ the &in$ o the correspondin$ cri#inalinor#ations a$ainst the accused 'rancisco Tatad.Thereater" -ive283 criminal inormations 'ere later fled 'ith the Sandiganbayan. Tatadfled a motion to uash the inormation based on the alleged violation odue process and his right to a speedy disposition o cases. This 'as deniedby the S7. ence ertiorari 2;83 'ith the S.

&SSspeedy disposition> o the cases against him as guaranteedby the onstitution? 2@ES3

eld: The long delay in the termination o the preliminary investigation bythe Tanodbayan in the instant case is violative o the constitutional right othe accused to due process. Substantial adherence to the reuirements othe la' governing the conduct o preliminary investigation" includingsubstantial compliance 'ith the time limitation prescribed by the la' orthe resolution o the case by the prosecutor" is part o the procedural dueprocess constitutionally guaranteed by the undamental la'.

-acts:&n 19()" #ntonio de los Reyes 2ead E$ecutive #ssistant o Department o%ublic &normation3 fled a ormal report 'ith the (egal %anel" %residentialSecurity ommand against Tatad 2'ho 'as then Secretary o the Dept. o%ublic &normation3. #llegations therein relate to alleged violations o R#A619 2anti)grat3. +o action 'as ta,en on said report. 8 years later 21993"

Tatad resigned rom his post as department head. B months later" de losReyes fled a complaint 'ith the Tanodbayan against Tatad alleging thesame things. &n 1956" the resignation o Tatad 'as accepted by %res.0arcos. &n the same year" the Tanodbayan reerred the complaint to theriminal &nvestigation Service 2&S3 or act fnding investigation.

Thereater" an investigation report 'as made stating that based on

evidence gathered" Tatad violated R# A619.


2/4

Tatad fled a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that he hasimmunity rom prosecution 2%D 1913. This 'as denied. So pleadings 'ereinstead submitted. 7y 195B" all aCdavits and counter)aCdavits 'erealready 'ith the Tanodbayan or fnal disposition. +ote that it 'as only in1958 'hen the Tanodbayan made a resolution recommending thatinormations be fled 'ith the Sandiganbayan against Tatad. B monthsater" -ive inormations 'ere fled 'ith the Sandiganbayan 2A inormationsor ailure to fle S#(+" the other t'o relate to bribery and giving undueadvantage to a private corporation3.

Tatad fled a motion to uash 'ith the Sandiganbayan alleging" amongother things" that the prosecution deprived him o due process o la' ando the right to a speedy disposition o the cases fled against him"amounting to loss o urisdiction to fle the inormation and that theoenses charged had already prescribed. n the other hand" Tanodbayansubmitted that based on urisprudence" the fling o the complaint 'iththem interrupted that prescription period so the oenses are not reallyprescribed yet. 0oreover" Tanodbayan pointed out that a la' such as 7%

198" e$tending the period o limitation 'ith respect to criminalprosecution" unless the right to acuittal has been acuired" isconstitutional.

Sandiganbayan denied the motion to uash. &t held that based on the Rule11 o the 1958 Rules on riminal %rocedure" the deect in the inormationcan be cured by amendment. So several months ater this resolution" anamended inormation 'as fled by the Tanodbayan changing the dates othe commission o the oenses.

0R fled by Tatad F also denied. ence" this certiorari and prohibition 2Rule;83 'as fled 'ith the S. Tatad claims that the Tanodbayan culpably

violated the constitutional mandate o due process and speedy dispositiono cases in unduly prolonging the termination o the preliminaryinvestigation and in fling the corresponding inormation only ater morethan a decade rom the alleged commission o the purported oenses"'hich amounted to loss o urisdiction and authority to fle theinormations.

The Sandiganbayan dismissed this by saying that the applicability o theauthorities cited by Tatad to the case at bar 'as >nebulousG> that it 'ouldbe premature or the court to grant the >radical relie> prayed or at thisstage o the proceedingG that the mere allegations o >undue delay> do not

suCce to ustiy acceptance thereo 'ithout any sho'ing >as to thesupposed lac, or omission o any alleged procedural right granted orallo'ed to the respondent accused by la' or administrative fat> or in theabsence o >indubitable proo o any irregularity or abuse> committed bythe Tanodbayan in the conduct o the preliminary investigationG that suchacts and circumstances as 'ould establish petitionerHs claim o denial odue process and other constitutionally guaranteed rights could bepresented and more ully threshed out at the trial.

&ssues: =as Tatad deprived o his constitutional right to due process andthe right to >speedy disposition> o the cases against him as guaranteedby the onstitution? 2@ES3


3/4

eld: &n a number o cases" the S has not hesitated to grant the so)called>radical relie> and to spare the accused rom undergoing the rigors ande$pense o a ull)blo'n trial 'here it is clear that the accused has beendeprived o due process o la' or other constitutionally guaranteed rights. course" it goes 'ithout saying that in the application o the doctrineenunciated in those cases" particular regard must be ta,en o the actsand circumstances peculiar to each case. # revie' o the acts at handcannot but leave the impression that political motivations played a vitalrole in activating and propelling the prosecutorial process in this case.-irst" the complaint came to lie only ater Tatad had a alling out 'ith%resident 0arcos. Second" departing rom established proceduresprescribed by la' or preliminary investigation" 'hich reuire thesubmission o aCdavits and counter)aCdavits by the complainant and therespondent and their 'itnesses" the Tanodbayan reerred the complaint tothe %residential Security ommand or fnding investigation and report.

S held that there 'as a blatant departure rom the established procedure

as a dubious" but revealing attempt to involve an oCce directly under the%resident in the prosecution 'as politically motivated. %rosecutors shouldnot allo'" and should avoid" giving the impression that their noble oCce isbeing used or prostituted" 'ittingly or un'ittingly" or political ends orother purposes alien to" or subversive o" the basic and undamentalobective o serving the interest o ustice evenhandedly" 'ithout ear oravor to any and all litigants ali,e" 'hether rich or poor" 'ea, or strong"po'erless or mighty. nly by strict adherence to the established proceduremay the publicHs perception o the impartiality o the prosecutor beenhanced.

0oreover" the long delay in resolving the case under preliminary

investigation cannot be ustifed on the basis o the acts on record. %D911 prescribes a16 day period or the prosecutor to resolve a case underpreliminary investigation by him rom its termination. =hile this periodf$ed by la' is merely >directory"> yet" on the other hand" it cannot bedisregarded or ignored completely" 'ith absolute impunity. &t certainlycannot be assumed that the la' has included a provision that isdeliberately intended to become meaningless and to be treated as a deadletter.

The long delay in the termination o the preliminary investigation by theTanodbayan in the instant case is violative o the constitutional right o the

accused to due process. Substantial adherence to the reuirements o thela' governing the conduct o preliminary investigation" includingsubstantial compliance 'ith the time limitation prescribed by the la' orthe resolution o the case by the prosecutor" is part o the procedural dueprocess constitutionally guaranteed by the undamental la'. +ot onlyunder the broad umbrella o the due process clause" but under theconstitutionally guarantee o >speedy disposition> o cases as embodied inSection 1; o the 7ill o Rights 2both in the 19A and the 195onstitutions3" the inordinate delay is violative o the petitionerHsconstitutional rights. # delay o close to three 2A3 years cannot be deemedreasonable or ustifable in the light o the circumstance obtaining in thecase at bar. &t has been suggested that the long delay in terminating the

preliminary investigation should not be deemed atal" or even thecomplete absence o a preliminary investigation does not 'arrant


4/4

dismissal o the inormation. True I but the absence o a preliminaryinvestigation can be corrected by giving the accused such investigation.7ut an undue delay in the conduct o a preliminary investigation cannot becorrected" or until no'" man has not yet invented a device or settingbac, time.

tatad v sb digest

Documents