The dismissal of the graft and malversation of public funds charges against dismissed Mexico, Pampanga Mayor Teddy C. Tumang and a private individual was affirmed by the Supreme Court for violation of their right to speedy disposition of their cases.

The SC affirmed the 10 June 2024 ruling of the Sandiganbayan that dismissed the charges filed by the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) against Tumang and businessman William B. Colis.

It was challenged by the OMB before the SC through its Office of the Special Prosecutor.

The SC decision, written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan dated 17 February 2025 and made public on 4 April, dismissed the petition filed by the OMB.

In 2022, Tumang was reelected mayor while the cases against him were pending, but he was ordered dismissed by the OMB, whose ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).

He challenged the CA’s decision before the SC and pleaded for his reinstatement. His plea, contained in his appeal, is still pending resolution by the SC.

Records showed that Tumang and Colis were charged for the purchases of base coarse and other construction materials for Mexico town from 2006 to 2007. Tumang, as mayor, “illegally and invalidly” approved the disbursement vouchers in favor of Colis, the proprietor of Buyu Trading and Construction.

On 7 February 2018, Tumang and Colis were asked by the OMB to file their counter-affidavits, which they did on 28 February 2018.

The OMB’s graft investigator, on 20 November 2018, found probable cause to charge them before the Sandiganbayan. The resolution to file the case in court was approved by Ombudsman Samuel R. Martires on 28 March 2019.

Motions for reconsideration were filed by the two on 2 May 2019 and 6 May 2019, respectively.

Tumang and Colis’ motions were denied by the OMB on 23 April 2024, and the corresponding criminal charge sheets were filed before the Sandiganbayan on 25 April 2024.

Before their arraignment on 30 May 2024, Tumang and Colis filed their motions to quash information and/or dismiss the cases. Their motions were granted by the Sandiganbayan.

The Sandiganbayan, in dismissing the charges, agreed with Tumang and Colis that their right to the speedy disposition of cases was violated by the OMB, which conducted the investigation for more than six years from the filing of the complaints before the cases were filed before the anti-graft court.

It did not give credence to the justification of the OMB that the delay was caused by the then Covid-19 pandemic.

The Sandiganbayan said the pandemic was lifted on 23 July 2023, and yet the OMB resolved Tumang and Colis’ motions for reconsideration only on 23 April 2024, or nine months after the lifting.

Thus, the Sandiganbayan ruled that the delay in the preliminary investigation “impaired and prejudiced” Tumang and Colis’ ability to defend themselves.

The SC, in its decision, stated, “Undoubtedly, the long period of time while they were waiting for the resolution of the preliminary investigation proceedings constitute actual prejudice suffered by Tumang and Colis.”

Also, the SC said: “At this juncture, it must be underscored that the dismissal of the criminal charges against Tumang and Colis is tantamount to an acquittal, and therefore, they can no longer be re-litigated because double jeopardy has already attached.

“Significantly, the proscription against placing an accused in double jeopardy is enshrined in Article III, Section 21, of the 1987 Constitution.

“Accordingly, the petition for certiorari dated 8 Aug. 2024 is dismissed, and the Sandiganbayan First Division’s Resolution dated 10 June 2024 is affirmed.

The SC added, “Criminal Case Nos. SB-24-CRM-0013 to 0043 against Teddy C. Tumang and William B. Colis are dismissed on the ground that the Office of the Ombudsman violated their right to the speedy disposition of their cases.”