Catamco Vs Sandiganbayan Rivera

NANCY A. CATAMCO (FORMERLY NANCY C. PEREZ), PETITIONER, VS.
SANDIGANBAYAN
SIXTH DIVISION; OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN; AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. Nos. 243261-63]
POMPEY M. PEREZ, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (SIXTH DIVISION), RESPONDENT.
Facts
The Department of Agriculture and the Municipal Government of Poro entered into a memorandum of
agreement to purchase biochemical fertilizers for farmer beneficiaries under the plant now, pay later
scheme. Mayor Rama was authorized by the Sangguniang Bayan to directly purchase liquid Vitacrop
fertilizers from Perzebros Company, which was owned by herein petitioners Perez and Catamco.
The Office of the Ombudsman launched Task Force Abono to specifically conduct a fact-finding
investigation into the purported "fertilizer fund scam." A Complaint dated December 27, 201210 was
thereafter filed by the TFA on June 21, 201311 against Perez, Catamco and the other public officials
involved in the transaction. The Complaint alleged that there were irregularities in their transaction
including overpricing, among others.
The Ombudsman issued its Resolution14 finding probable cause to indict Perez, Catamco and their
co-respondents, including Mayor Rama, for one (1) count of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 3019 and two (2) counts of Malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC).15 Said Resolution was approved on August 1, 2017.16
Before arraignment, Catamco and Perez each moved for the dismissal of the case against them
claiming that the Ombudsman's inordinate delay of more than twelve (12) years, from the conduct of
its investigation in 2006 until the filing of the Information in court, violated their constitutional right to
speedy disposition of cases.
The Sandiganbayan found that petitioners' right to speedy disposition of their case was not violated.
While the Sandiganbayan conceded that there was a delay of four (4) years and seven (7) months to
issue a Resolution, it agreed with the Ombudsman's claim that such delay was justified due to the
voluminous records and number of respondents involved.
Issue:
Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
in denying the motions to dismiss respectively filed by petitioners.
Ruling
Yes, the Court rules that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioners'
respective motions to dismiss for violation of their right to speedy disposition of cases.
First, the right to speedy disposition of cases is different from the right to speedy trial. While the
rationale for both rights is the same, the right to speedy trial may only be invoked in criminal
prosecutions against courts of law. The right to speedy disposition of cases, however, may be invoked
before any tribunal, whether judicial or quasi-judicial. What is important is that the accused may
already be prejudiced by the proceeding for the right to speedy disposition of cases to be invoked.
Second, a case is deemed initiated upon the filing of a formal complaint prior to a conduct of a
preliminary investigation. This Court acknowledges, however, that the Ombudsman should set
reasonable periods for preliminary investigation. Delays beyond this period will be taken against the
prosecution.
Third, courts must first determine which party carries the burden of proof. If the delay occurs beyond
the given time period and the right is invoked, the prosecution has the burden of justifying the delay.
Fourth, determination of the length of delay is never mechanical. Courts must consider the entire
context of the case, from the amount of evidence to be weighed to the simplicity or complexity of the
issues raised.
Fifth, the right to speedy disposition of cases or the right to speedy trial must be timely raised. The
1âшphi1
respondent or the accused must file the appropriate motion upon the lapse of the statutory or
procedural periods. Otherwise, they are deemed to have waived their right to speedy disposition of
cases.
Applying the foregoing parameters to the present case, the Court finds that, contrary to the
Sandiganbayan's ruling, petitioners' right to speedy disposition of cases was violated by the
Ombudsman's delay in concluding the preliminary investigation.
There was inordinate delay in the resolution of the preliminary investigation.
In view of petitioners' timely invocation of their right to speedy disposition of cases, it is quite evident
that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motions to dismiss the
case.

Catamco Vs Sandiganbayan Rivera

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Catamco Vs Sandiganbayan Rivera

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Catamco Vs Sandiganbayan Rivera

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NANCY A. CATAMCO (FORMERLY NANCY C. PEREZ), PETITIONER, VS.

[G.R. Nos. 243261-63]

POMPEY M. PEREZ, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (SIXTH DIVISION), RESPONDENT.

There was inordinate delay in the resolution of the preliminary investigation.

You might also like