REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESSANDIGANBAYAN

Quezon CityFIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

-versus-

ANTONIO P. BELICENA et.al.,Accused.

CASE No. SB-12-CRM-01Slto 0162Re: Violation of Sec. 3(e) ofR.A. No. 3019, and Estafathrough Falsification of PublicDocuments

DE LACRUZ, J. ChairpersonECONG, J. andCALDONA, J.

PROMULGATED:

SEP 2 () 2017 :;/)x -----------------------------------------------------------------~------ X

RESOLUTION

Econg, J:

Once again, this Court is tasked to measure the acts ofthe Office of the Ombudsman against the yardstick of theprinciple of inordinate delay.

Accused Tan Cho Chiong is asking this Court to dismissthe present cases against him, on the ground of the violationof his conatitutiorial right to a speedy disposition of cases. Hemaintains that he learned of these cases against him pendingbefore the First Division of the Sandiganbayan when he triedto lift the Hold Departure Order issued by the Fourth Divisionof this Court in a separate case.

ResolutionPeople v. Belicena et. al.SB-12-CRM-01S1 to 0162Page 2 of 4x---------------------------- ------------------------------------- ---- -x

He asserts that on May 29, 2002, an investigation reportwas prepared by Graft Investigator San Joaquin. This reportwas then approved by then Ombudsman Aniano Desierto onJune 7, 2002, and recommended the filing of the case againsthim. Pursuant to this, the Fact Finding Bureau prepared andfiled on September 4, 2002 a complaint-affidavit for Estafathrough Falsification of Official Documents and violation ofSection 3(e), R.A. No. 3019. However, the Informations werenot filed before the Sandiganbayan until after almost ten (10)years later, oron May 25,2012.

The prosecution, however, claims that the delay in thefiling of these cases was not inordinate, but reasonable. Itargued that the issues involved in these cases are complex andcircuitous, and that the Office of the Ombudsman had toconduct painstaking reviews before it could file the same incourt. 1 It confirms the accused-movant's assertion that theFact Finding Bureau already prepared the affidavit-complaintas early as September 4, 2002, but pointed out that the caseinvolves sixteen (16) respondents and that the case recordsconsisted of seven (7) voluminous folders.

It further states that after the September 4, 2002complaint-affidavit was filed and docketed as OMB-C-C-02-0618-1, it was immediately submitted for resolution onDecember 6, 2002.2 On February 27, 2004, GIPO Favila Jr.resolved it and recommended the filing of the Informationsagainst the respondents. Thereafter, Assistant OmbudsmanPelagio Apostol re-assigned the case for review to GIPO IIPamular. Three (3) years later, in 2007, Pamular unloaded thecase to comply with his superior's instruction for him toconcentrate on his prosecutorial duties', and in view of histhen pending application to the Judiciary. The other GIPOwho took over from Pamular eventually begged off due to theheavy caseload, and the case was eventually assigned to GIPOAlvardo, who agreed with Favila Jr. 's findings. WhenOmbudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales assumed office, she re-assigned the case to GIPO Calderon for another review to"eliminate any shroud of doubt before she eventually approvedthe filing of Informations."> Finally, on May 25, 2012, the casewas filed before the Sandiganbayan.

I Records, Volume Ill, p. 88. Prosecution's Comment/Opposition to the Motion to Quash Informations2 Id. at 89.3 Id.

ResolutionPeople v. Belicena et. af.S8-12-CRM-OlSl to 011)2Page 3 of 4x--- - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - -- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - --- -x

It is without any doubt that, in this case, theinvestigation for determining whether or not there is probablecause that the crimes were committed, and that the accusedare probably guilty of such commission, lasted for almost ten(10) years. For the accused, the length of the delay alone isalready inordinate. On the other hand, the prosecutionbelieves that the delay was reasonable.

The Court, however, IS not persuaded by theprosecution's insistence that the almost decade-long delay infinding probable cause is reasonable and not violative of TanCho Chiong's right to the speedy disposition of cases againsthim.

It should' be emphasized that the issue of probable causewas submitted for resolution as early as December 6, 2002,and was resolved only in early 2004. It may beunderstandable why it took the investigating prosecutor morethan one (1) year and two (2) months to come up with hisresolution finding probable cause, given the multipledefendants whose culpability should be weighed, and thenumber of documents to evaluate. However, the long delay,from February 2004 until May 2012, brought about by themultiple reviews of the Office of the Ombudsman, is no longerreasonable nor acceptable, especially when OmbudsmanAniano Desierto already approved the filing of the case againstaccused-movant as early as June 7, 2002.

In People v. Sandiganbayan (Fifth Divisioni,' the SupremeCourt held: '

xxx (t)he Court cannot agree with the petitioner thatthe delay in the proceedings could be excused by the factthat the case had to undergo careful review and revisionthrough the different levels in the Office of the Ombudsmanbefore it is finally approved, in addition to the steady streamof cases which it had to resolve. Verily, the Office of theOmbudsman was created under the mantle of theConstitution, mandated to be the "protector of the people"and, as such, required to "act promptly on complaints filedin any form or manner against officers and employees of theGovernment, or of any subdivision, agency orinstrumentality thereof, in order to promote efficient service."Precisely, the Office of the Ombudsman has the inherentduty not only to carefully go through the particulars of the

4 •G.R. Nos. 199151-56,July25,2016.

ResolutionPeople v. Belicena et. al.S8-12-CRM-01Sl to 0162Page 4 of 4x -- --- - - -- - --- ----- - - - ---- - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - -- -- -- - ---- - - - - - - - - -- --- - - - - -x

case but also to resolve the same within the proper length oftime. Its dutiful performance should not only be gauged bythe quality of the assessment, but also by the reasonablepromptness of its dispensation.

Thus, in the above-cited case, the Supreme Court foundthe delay caused by the need of the Ombudsman "to 're-evaluate' and 'thoroughly review' the proper charges to filewith the court'" to be vexatious, capricious and oppressive.Similarly, the same delay was caused here by the samereasons as the aforementioned case.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant cases(Criminal Nos. SB-12-CRM-0151 to Criminal Nos. SB-12-CRM-0162) against accused Tan Cho Chiong are herebyDISMISSED. The cash/surety bonds posted for the provisionalliberty of said accused are ordered released, subject to theusual accounting and auditing procedures. The HoldDeparture Orders issued against him are lifted and set aside.

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, MetroManila, Philippines

JW.,.1~ ~ ~GERALDINE FAITH A. EitONG

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

EFREN f D LA CRUZAss ciate Justice

Chairperson

1~~< 'L\.~l1'('(cu ~DV~-

-E .GA DO M. CALDONA)Associate Justice