THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 232765-67. January 16, 2019.]
MARCIANO A. DOROTEO, petitioner, vs.THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 16, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232765-67 (Marciano A. Doroteo vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan and The Honorable Ombudsman). — This is a petition for certiorari 1 brought under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, questioning the Resolutions dated March 24, 2017 2 and June 21, 2017 3 of the Sandiganbayan in SB-12-CRM-0247-0249. Both resolutions denied the Consolidated Motion to Quash dated January 23, 2017, which petitioner Marciano A. Doroteo (Doroteo) filed on the ground of his right to the speedy disposition of cases. 4
In a Joint Affidavit-Complaint 5 dated February 20, 2003, the Commission on Audit (COA) Special Task Force on Local Government Units (STFLGU) reported its audit findings on the transactions of the Municipality of Cainta, Rizal from 2000 to 2001. 6 The audit revealed irregularities and violations of existing laws in numerous anomalous transactions involving several municipal officers. 7
The COA STFLGU report, therefore, resulted in the filing of numerous criminal and administrative cases against a number of municipal officers from Cainta, Rizal: (a) OMB-L-C-03-0271-C; (b) OMB-L-A-03-0212-C; (c) OMB-L-C-03-0488-D; (d) OMB-L-A-03-0394-D; (e) OMB-L-C-03-0489-D; (f) OMB-L-A-03-0395-D; (g) OMB-L-C-03-0490-D; (h) OMB-L-A-03-0396-D; (i) OMB-L-C-03-0491-D; (j) OMB-L-A-03-0397-D; (k) OMB-L-C-03-0492-D; (l) OMB-L-A-03-0398-D; (m) OMB-L-C-03-0493-D; (n) OMB-L-A-03-0399-D; (o) OMB-L-C-03-0494-D; and (p) OMB-L-A-03-0400-D. Other individuals also initiated separate complaints against the municipal officers, which were consolidated with the COA's Joint Affidavit-Complaint. These cases were docketed as: (a) OMB-L-C-03-0845-G; (b) OMB-L-A-03-0697-G; (c) OMB-L-C-03-0775-F; (d) OMB-L-A-03-0626-F; and (e) CPL-C-02-0831. 8 CAIHTE
For Doroteo in particular, the COA STFLGU investigation revealed that he participated in the following irregular transactions: (a) the purchase of one (1) Contex scanner; and (b) the purchase of supplies, materials, and equipment from business enterprises where certain local officials have direct or indirect interests. 9 As a result, Doroteo and twelve (12) other municipal officers were charged with violating several laws, to wit:
(a) As regards the purchase of the Contex scanner:
1) Colluding in the simulation of the personal canvass and award of contract, in violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and Article 172, in relation to Article 171, of the Revised Penal Code (RPC);
2) Conspiring to enter into a contract grossly prejudicial to the government, which resulted from a simulated canvass, and the subsequent failure to utilize the equipment, in violation of Sections 3 (e) and (g) of R.A. No. 3019, and Article 172, in relation to Article 171, of the RPC;
3) Selecting personal canvass as a mode of procurement for an ineligible transaction, in violation of Section 367 of R.A. No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991;
4) Releasing Purchase Order (P.O.) No. 644 to Joriel Trading without requiring a Performance Bond, in violation of Section 75 of COA Circular No. 92-386; and
5) Recommending the approval of P.O. No. 644 despite the insufficiency of the appropriation, in violation of Section 85 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1445, otherwise known as the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines. 10
(b) With respect to the charge on the conflict of interest:
1) Conspiring in the award of purchase contracts to business establishments where a municipal employee has direct or indirect interest, in violation of Section 89 (a) of R.A. No. 7160, and Article 179 (1) of its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR); and
2) Conspiring in the recommendation for approval of the purchase contracts with business establishments where a municipal employee has direct or indirect interest, in violation of Section 89 (a) of R.A. No. 7160, and Article 179 (1) of its IRR. 11
The Joint Affidavit-Complaint was eventually filed with the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB). During the preliminary investigation, Doroteo submitted his counter-affidavit on August 21, 2003. 12
In a Joint Resolution 13 dated October 14, 2004, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon resolved to file criminal charges against several municipal officers of Cainta, Rizal. 14 The resolution was approved on review, subject to certain modifications stated in the OMB's Order 15 dated August 8, 2005, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the Joint Resolution dated 14 October 2004 and the Joint Decision dated 28 October 2004 are APPROVED with MODIFICATIONS, to wit:
1. Criminal Cases
xxx xxx xxx
f. In OMB-L-C-03-0494-D, the finding of probable cause against public respondents NICANOR C. FELIX, MARCIANO A. DOROTEO, HERMINIA M. CRUZ, OPHELIA C. DE GUZMAN, PRIVADA B. GONZALES and private respondent ARIEL C. BAUTISTA of Joriel Trading for Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for the anomalous purchase of the contex scanner is sustained. DETACa
In addition, sufficient probable cause is found against said public respondents FELIX, DOROTEO, CRUZ, DE GUZMAN, GONZALES and private respondent BAUTISTA for the crime of Malversation through Falsification described under Article 217, in relation to paragraph 2 of Article 171, of the Revised Penal Code.
Let the informations charging them with the said offenses be prepared and filed forthwith before the Sandiganbayan.
The charges arising from this transaction against respondents GLADY G. FORMALES, RENATO S. ATANACIO, PAUL MONZALES for violation of the same law are hereby DISMISSED for lack of probable cause.
Moreover, sufficient probable cause exists to indict public respondents NICANOR C. FELIX, HERMINIA M. CRUZ, OPHELIA C. DE GUZMAN, MARCIANO A. DOROTEO, PRIVADA B. GONZALES and GLADY G. FORMALES for violation of Section 89 of R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code, and of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for violation of the conflict of interest rule and the unwarranted benefit given to Tueance Alera Gentrade Industries in the purchase of supplies and materials without the benefit of a public bidding.
Let separate informations charging them with the said offenses be prepared and filed forthwith before the Sandiganbayan.
The charge relative to this transaction against respondent GREGORIO E. ARIOLA is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
As for EXELITA S. CRUZ, let a complaint be separately filed against her before this Office and the same assigned a new criminal case docket number for the conduct of proper preliminary investigation.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 16 (Emphasis Ours)
Doroteo's co-accused municipal officers in OMB-L-C-03-0494-D 17 filed their respective motions for reconsideration from the finding of probable cause. 18 Among them, only two of his co-accused (i.e., Municipal Budget Officer Privada Bidbid Gonzales [Gonzales], and Budget Officer III Glady G. Formales [Formales]), raised the issue of delay in the resolution of the subject cases. 19Doroteo, on the other hand, failed to file his own motion for reconsideration.
In a Joint Order 20 dated October 15, 2012, the OMB, through a Special Panel and with the approval of former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales (OMB Morales), denied the motions for reconsideration and affirmed the Order dated August 8, 2005 with certain modifications:
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that:
1. The motions for reconsideration filed in the above-captioned cases by respondents HERMINIA M. CRUZ, OPHELIA C. DE GUZMAN, PRIVADA BIDBID GONZALES and GLADY G. FORMALES be DENIED;
2. The challenged October 28, 2004 Joint Decision and August 8, 2005 Order in OMB-L-A-03-0400-D BE AFFIRMED; aDSIHc
3. The challenged October 14, 2004 Joint Resolution and August 8, 2005 Order in OMB-L-C-03-0394-D be AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONthat respondents should no longer be prosecuted for Malversation through Falsification for the purchase of Contex scanner from Joriel Trading;
4. An Information for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, against respondents Municipal Mayor NICANOR CRUZ FELIX, Municipal Accountant OPHELIA CRUZ DE GUZMAN, Municipal Treasurer HERMINIA MENDOZA CRUZ, Municipal Budget Officer PRIVADA BIDBID GONZALES, Acting General Services Officer MARCIANO A. DOROTEO and private respondent ARIEL BAUTISTA for the purchase of Contex Scanner be FILED in the Sandiganbayan;
5. An Information for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, against respondents Municipal Mayor NICANOR CRUZ FELIX, Municipal Accountant OPHELIA CRUZ DE GUZMAN, Municipal Treasurer HERMINIA MENDOZA CRUZ, Municipal Budget Officer PRIVADA BIDBID GONZALES, Acting General Services Officer MARCIANO A. DOROTEO and Budget Officer III GLADY G. FORMALES for the purchase of miscellaneous supplies be FILED in the Sandiganbayan;
6. An Information for violation of Section 89 in relation to Section 514 of RA 7160 against respondents Municipal Mayor NICANOR CRUZ FELIX, Municipal Accountant OPHELIA CRUZ DE GUZMAN, Municipal Treasurer HERMINIA MENDOZA CRUZ, Municipal Budget Officer PRIVADA BIDBID GONZALES, Acting General Services Officer MARCIANO A. DOROTEO and Budget Officer III GLADY G. FORMALES for the purchase of miscellaneous supplies be FILED in the Sandiganbayan. 21 (Emphasis Ours)
In addition, OMB Morales justified the delay in the resolution of the motions for reconsideration by referring to the numerous respondents and transactions involved in the audit report of the COA STFLGU. 22
Thereafter, the corresponding informations against the municipal officers of Cainta, Rizal were filed on November 7, 2012 with the Sandiganbayan. 23 The cases involving Doroteo and his co-accused were docketed as follows: (a) SB-12-CRM-0247; (b) SB-12-CRM-0248; and (c) SB-12-CRM-0249. 24
Two (2) of Doroteo's co-accused, Gonzales and Formales, moved to quash the informations in an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss and/or Quash Information and for Determination of Probable Cause dated November 18, 2012. 25 Their motion was, subsequently, denied in a Sandiganbayan Resolution 26 promulgated on November 4, 2014.
More than two (2) years later, Doroteo filed his own Consolidated Motion to Quash dated January 23, 2017. He argued that the inordinate delay in the investigation violated his right to due process and speedy disposition of cases. 27 According to Doroteo, the preliminary investigation of his case involved a period of more than ten (10) years; thus, warranting the dismissal of the charges against him. 28 The Sandiganbayan denied this motion for lack of merit in its Resolution 29 dated March 24, 2017:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Consolidated Motion to Quash dated January 23, 2017, filed by accused Marciano Aquino Doroteo, through counsel, is hereby denied.
SO ORDERED. 30 ETHIDa
Unsatisfied, Doroteo moved for the reconsideration of this resolution, which the Sandiganbayan denied in its Resolution 31 dated June 21, 2017:
WHEREFORE, premises considered the Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Reset Arraignment dated April 6, 2017, filed by accused Mariano A. Doroteo, through counsel, is hereby denied.
SO ORDERED. 32
Hence, Doroteo filed the present petition before the Court challenging the Sandiganbayan resolutions for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Doroteo submits that it took the OMB more than seven (7) years to file the information on November 7, 2012, reckoned from the promulgation of the Joint Resolution on August 8, 2005 finding probable cause against him and his co-accused. Such delay, according to Doroteo, is capricious, vexatious, and oppressive. 33
He further asserts that the resolution of his motion for the reconsideration of the Order dated August 8, 2005 does not justify the delay. Citing Section 7, Rule II of the OMB's Rules of Procedure, Doroteo alleges that motions for reconsideration do not bar the filing of the corresponding information. 34 He also adds that the charges against him are politically-motivated. 35
The Court finds his petition without merit.
No less than the 1987 Constitution guarantees the right to the speedy disposition of cases, which covers all kinds of proceedings, whether criminal or administrative. 36 This Court, in a number of cases, upheld this right when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays. This includes unjustified postponements of the trial, or when a long period of time is allowed to lapse without the party having his or her case tried. 37
In Torres v. Sandiganbayan, 38 the Court considers the periods before, during, and after trial as within the contemplation of this constitutional guarantee. This notwithstanding, mere mathematical computation of the period is not the sole criterion in determining whether the due process rights of the accused were violated. The factual circumstances of each case must be examined on a case-to-case basis. 39
In the more recent ruling of the Court in Cesar Matas Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division, Quezon City, Office of the Ombudsman, and People of the Philippines, 40 the Court laid down the mode of analysis in cases where the right to speedy disposition of cases or the right to speedy trial is invoked. The Court included a number of factors as considerations in evaluating whether the right of the accused is violated, and placed the burden of proof on either party, depending on the time when the right is invoked. Thus, when the accused invokes the right within the period for disposition prescribed by the Court, the defense bears the burden of proving that: (1) the case is motivated by malice, or it is politically motivated and attended by utter lack of evidence; and (2) the defense did not contribute to the delay. But if the prosecution has exceeded the prescribed period and the accused invokes the right, the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution, who must prove that: (1) it followed the prescribed procedure in the conduct of preliminary investigation and in the prosecution of the case; (2) the complexity of the issues and the volume of evidence made the delay inevitable; and (3) there was no prejudice caused on the part of the accused as a result of the delay. 41
The Court further explained in Cagang that the right to speedy disposition of cases and the right to speedy trial must be timely raised. 42 Upon the lapse of the prescribed period, the accused or the respondent must invoke this right through an appropriate motion. Otherwise, the accused or the respondent is deemed to have waived these rights. 43 cSEDTC
Following these parameters, it is clear that the Court must not solely rely on the amount of time that lapsed from the preliminary investigation until the filing of the informations with the Sandiganbayan. Again, whether there is a violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases depends on the circumstances surrounding each case.
Indeed, Section 7 (b), Rule II of the OMB's Rules of Procedure provides that the filing of a motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation is not a bar to the filing of the corresponding information. On this basis, the OMB may proceed with charging the accused municipal officers of Cainta, Rizal before the Sandiganbayan, notwithstanding the pendency of the motions for reconsideration that some of the accused separately filed with the OMB. However, considering that the OMB charged Doroteo and his co-accused only on November 7, 2012, 44 the burden of justifying the inordinate delay is placed on the prosecution.
In its Comment, the OMB submits that the delay in the resolution of the separate motions for reconsideration is reasonable because there were numerous transactions reported in the audit findings of the COA STFLGU. It was also pointed out that the accused municipal officers in the other cases stemming from the COA STFLGU report, filed separate motions for reconsideration from the OMB's Order dated August 8, 2005. This naturally resulted in the delay in the resolution of these cases. 45
Records indeed show that the irregularities discovered by the COA STFLGU involved at least eleven (11) transactions covering a span of one year. 46 In the matrix summarizing the COA STFLGU audit findings, it is revealed that these transactions involved at least 40 individuals, more than a hundred documents, and a copious amount of disbursement vouchers and checks. 47 These audit findings further resulted in ten (10) administrative and eleven (11) criminal cases before the OMB. 48
Evidently, the anomalous transactions involved are complex and numerous, which necessitated a thorough examination on the part of the OMB. It should be emphasized that the OMB is duty bound to rely on its own independent determination of probable cause because the prosecution is not bound by the findings of the COA, regardless of how exhaustive the report may be. 49 Furthermore, the separate motions for the reconsideration of the Order dated August 8, 2005, which were filed by various respondents in the other related cases, also contributed to the delay. 50 These circumstances resulted in the inevitable protracted resolution of the motions for reconsideration filed by the co-accused of Doroteo in OMB-L-C-03-0494-D.
Notably, Doroteo himself did not seek the reconsideration of the Order dated August 8, 2005, or the probable cause finding of the OMB. He also did not immediately move to quash the informations charging him and his co-accused, when these were filed with the Sandiganbayan on November 7, 2012. Doroteo only invoked his right to the speedy disposition of cases in a Consolidated Motion to Quash dated January 23, 2017. This motion was filed after more than four (4) years from the filing of the informations on November 7, 2012 charging him and his co-respondents in OMB-L-C-03-0494-D, and more than eleven (11) years from the Order dated August 8, 2005 of the OMB. Clearly, the failure of Doroteo to timely assert his right constitutes a waiver on his part of the right to speedy disposition of cases. 51 SDAaTC
More importantly, the delayed resolution of the motions for reconsideration on the OMB's Order dated August 8, 2005 was not prejudicial to Doroteo and his co-accused. On the contrary, they were able to benefit from the Joint Order dated October 15, 2012 of the OMB 52 because it resulted in the dismissal of the charge of Malversation through Falsification:
As regards the finding in the challenged Order of 8 August 2005 to indict for Malversation through Falsification respondents Felix, Herminia, Ophelia, Privada and Doroteo for the purchase of the Contex scanner, the undersigned Special Panel is of the view that the same must be reconsidered.
xxx xxx xxx
The amount of ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P1,400,000.00) was not appropriated, misappropriated, taken or stolen but was paid as payment of the Contex scanner which has been delivered. Although the Contex scanner was purchased without the required competitive public bidding and for excessive price, such circumstances cannot be legally equated as appropriation, misappropriation or taking. 53
As to Doroteo's allegation that the charges against him are politically motivated, there is nothing in the records that would support this allegation. It is elementary that mere allegation is not proof, and the burden of evidence lies with the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue. 54 Lacking any substantial evidence showing that there were malicious intentions on the part of the COA STFLGU, or the OMB as the case may be, the Court finds no basis to dismiss the case for being politically motivated.
Taking all of these into consideration, there are compelling reasons to justify the delay on the part of the OMB. Balanced against the interest of the State to prosecute criminal offenses and the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust, the Court finds the petition unmeritorious. The OMB, however, should remain circumspect in the performance of its mandate to exact accountability among public officers.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. The Resolutions dated March 24, 2017 and June 21, 2017 of the Sandiganbayan in SB-12-CRM-0247-0249 are AFFIRMED in toto. acEHCD
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-20.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar C. Herrera, Jr., with Associate Justices Rodolfo A. Ponferrada and Karl B. Miranda concurring; id. at 24-31.
3.Id. at 33-36.
4.Id. at 50.
5.Id. at 72-80.
6.Id. at 83-124.
7.Id. at 72-79; 83-124.
8.Id. at 132-133.
9.Id. at 78-79.
10.Id. at 118-122.
11.Id. at 123-124.
12.Id. at 25, 54.
13.Id. at 25.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 125-212.
16.Id. at 192-212.
17. Namely: (1) Municipal Treasurer Herminia M. Cruz; (2) Municipal Accountant Ophelia C. De Guzman; (3) Municipal Budget Officer Privada Bidbid Gonzales; and (4) Budget Officer III Glady G. Formales; id. at 213.
18.Id. at 215-217.
19.Id. at 217.
20.Id. at 213-222.
21.Id. at 221-222.
22.Id. at 219.
23. Id. at 7 and 56.
24. Id. at 54.
25. Id. at 226.
26. Id. at 225-239.
27. Id. at 24.
28. Id. at 26.
29. Id. at 23-31.
30. Id. at 31.
31. Id. at 33-36.
32. Id. at 36.
33. Id. at 9-10, citing Tatad v. Sandiganbayan, 242 Phil. 563, 575-576 (1988); Lopez, Jr. v. Office of the Ombudsman, 417 Phil. 39, 49-50 (2001); Cervantes v. Sandiganbayan, et al., 366 Phil. 602, 608 (1999); Roque v. Ombudsman, et al., 366 Phil. 568, 576 (1999).
34. Rollo, p. 13.
35. Id. at 15-16.
36. 1987 CONSTITUTION, Article III, Section 16.
37. Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan, et al., 714 Phil. 55, 61 (2013).
38. 796 Phil. 856 (2016).
39. People v. Sandiganbayan 5th Div., et al., 791 Phil. 37, 53 (2016).
40. G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458, 210141-42, July 31, 2018.
41. Id.
42. Id., citing Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan, 292-A Phil. 144 (1993), and Dela Peña v. Sandiganbayan, 412 Phil. 921 (2001).
43. Cesar Matas Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division, Quezon City, Office of the Ombudsman, and People of the Philippines, id.
44. Rollo, pp. 7, 56.
45. Id. at 58.
46. Id. at 72-79.
47. Id. at 83-124.
48. These cases are as follows: (a) OMB-L-C-03-0271-C; (b) OMB-L-A-03-0212-C; (c) OMB-L-C-03-0488-D; (d) OMB-L-A-03-0394-D; (e) OMB-L-C-03-0489-D; (f) OMB-L-A-03-0395-D; (g) OMB-L-C-03-0490-D; (h) OMB-L-A-03-0396-D; (i) OMB-L-C-03-0491-D; (j) OMB-L-A-03-0397-D; (k) OMB-L-C-03-0492-D; (l) OMB-L-A-03-0398-D; (m) OMB-L-C-03-0493-D; (n) OMB-L-A-03-0399-D; (o) OMB-L-C-03-0494-D; and (p) OMB-L-A-03-0400-D. Other individuals also initiated separate complaints against the municipal officers, which were consolidated with the COA's Joint Affidavit-Complaint. These cases were docketed as: (a) OMB-L-C-03-0845-G; (b) OMB-L-A-03-0697-G; (c) OMB-L-C-03-0775-F; (d) OMB-L-A-03-0626-F; and (e) CPL-C-02-0831; id. at 125-133.
49. Cesar Matas Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division, Quezon City, Office of the Ombudsman, and People of the Philippines, supra note 40, citing Binay v. Sandiganbayan, 374 Phil. 413, 450 (1999).
50. Rollo, p. 230.
51.Cesar Matas Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division, Quezon City, Office of the Ombudsman, and People of the Philippines, supra note 40.
52.Rollo, pp. 213-223.
53.Id. at 220-221.
54.Manila Mining Corporation v. Amor, et al., 758 Phil. 268, 280-281 (2015).