FELIX P. GONZALES, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN and ANTONIO B. BALTAZAR.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 94750
- Promulgated: 1991-07-16
- Ponente: Regalado, J.
Doctrine
Right to a speedy disposition (like right to speedy trial) is violated only when delays are vexatious, capricious, or oppressive; unjustified long inaction is required to show violation.
Apply a balancing test to determine denial of speedy disposition, weighing conduct of prosecution and defendant and other relevant factors.
A 'second motion for reconsideration' means a further reconsideration of an order denying the first motion; a motion arising from a distinct preliminary investigation is not such a second motion.
Facts
Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction seeking annulment of the Sandiganbayan resolution denying his Motion to Dismiss/Quash the amended information in Criminal Case No. 13563 (a prior ruling).
Petitioner is former Director of BFAR; the criminal case arose from an agreement between BFAR, represented by Gonzales, and Roberto F. Palanca for experimental use and installation of the 'Otoshi-Ami Net' (Lambaklad).
The preliminary investigation file (TBP Case No. 83-01547) was submitted for resolution on 29 May 1984; the amended information was admitted by the Sandiganbayan on 7 May 1990, a period of over six years.
Issues
Whether there was a considerable delay in terminating the preliminary investigation (29 May 1984 to 7 May 1990) that violated petitioner’s right to a speedy disposition of the case.
Whether filing of the information after a second motion for reconsideration violated Rule 13(c) of Administrative Order No. 3 (Tanodbayan, Dec. 1, 1979).
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit; the Court found no violation of the right to speedy disposition because delay must be vexatious, capricious or oppressive and is subject to a balancing test considering conduct of prosecution and defendant.
There was no violation of Administrative Order No. 3: the successive motions for reconsideration arose from distinct preliminary investigations (different prosecutors), so the later motion was not a 'second motion' in the proscribed sense.
Keywords
G.R. No. 94750, Sandiganbayan, Ombudsman, certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, resolution, Motion to Dismiss/Quash, amended information, malversation of public funds and property, prima facie case, petition for review, preliminary investigation, Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, Constitutional rights of the accused, due process, speedy termination of cases, Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-72335-39, March 21, 1988, 159 SCRA 70, grave abuse of discretion, lack of jurisdiction, Rule 13(c) of Administrative Order No. 3