When speed is of the essence

When speed is of the essence | Daily Tribune

Deeply embedded in our Constitution is the right of every individual to a speedy disposition of cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies, such as the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB). It is imperative to ask, therefore, what is the threshold period for the OMB to resolve the complaint filed before it and to conclude the conduct of the preliminary investigation without transgressing the right to speedy disposition of cases?

In the recent case of People of the Philippines v. Moreno, et al., (G.R. 26185, 29 May 2024), the Supreme Court dismissed the criminal cases against the accused in view of the inordinate and unreasonable delay incurred by the OMB in the resolution of the complaints filed before it.

By way of context, this case stemmed from an affidavit-complaint filed by Danilo on 27 April 2012 (fact-finding investigation) against the accused before the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas for the unlawful purchase of food supplies made by the municipality from a bakeshop previously owned by its mayor.

Thereafter, on 3 October 2014, the Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer filed a formal Complaint and Supplemental Complaint-Affidavit against the accused before the OMB (formal docketing of the complaints).

Acting upon such complaints, on 21 November 2016, the OMB issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause against the accused and recommended for the filing of the corresponding criminal cases for violations of Section 3 (e) and (h) of Republic Act 3019. Further, on 27 February 2017, the OMB issued a resolution on the accused’s motion for reconsideration.

After the full-blown trial, the Sandiganbayan found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. Aggrieved, the accused filed an appeal before the Supreme Court arguing among others that their right to speedy disposition of cases was violated in view of the unreasonable length of time for the OMB to resolve the complaints and to conclude its preliminary investigation.

Finding merit on the appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that the OMB incurred delay in the resolution of the complaints. The Court expounded that while the Rules of Procedure of the OMB does not specify the period to resolve the criminal complaint filed before it, the Revised Rules of Court shall be applied in a suppletory character.

In particular, Rule 112, Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that the investigation officer must determine whether there is sufficient ground to hold respondent for trial within ten days after the investigation. In view thereof, the Court pronounced that the conclusion of the preliminary investigation after the lapse of more than two years since the formal docketing of the criminal and administrative complaints and more than four years since the commencement of the fact-finding investigation violated the right of the accused to speedy disposition of cases.

Interestingly, the Court further ruled that even under the Ombudsman Administrative Order 1, series of 2020, which has a prospective application, the period taken by the OMB to resolve the complaint still exceeded the maximum period for the conduct of preliminary investigation, which is 12 months for simple cases and 24 months for complex cases. To the Court’s mind, although the case involves 28 transactions that took place within one year and the total amount merely involves P282,725.00, the case was not so complex that it could not be resolved within the period prescribed under Rule 112, Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Court.

On account of the pronouncement of the High Court in the Moreno case, it cannot be more emphasized that speed is certainly of the essence in the conduct of preliminary investigation in view of the State’s primordial duty to uphold and protect the right of every individual to speedy disposition of cases.

For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www.divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cad@divinalaw.com.