People v. Sandiganbayan

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 226169. September 16, 2020.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL., respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 16, 2020, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 226169 (People of the Philippines v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan, et al.). — This Petition for Certiorari1 under Rule 65 assails the Resolutions dated January 21, 2016, 2 June 1, 2016, 3 and June 23, 2016 4 of the Sandiganbayan dismissing the case against Rene L. Relampagos (Relampagos), Edgardo M. Chatto, Isabelito B. Tongco, Concepcion O. Lim, Tomas D. Abapo, Jr., Felix R. Uy, Dennis C. Villareal, Inocentes C. Lopez, Exequiel A. Madriñan, and Eufrasio M. Mascariñas (collectively, respondents) for violation of their constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases.

Facts of the Case

In order to address the negative financial operations and continuing inability of the Provincial Electric System (PES) and the Provincial Water System (PWS) of Bohol and to improve its services to cater to the needs of its customers, as well as avert their deteriorating conditions considering the lack of funds, the Province of Bohol decided to privatize the PES and PWS. For this purpose, the Provincial Government of Bohol commissioned the Asian Appraisal Company, Inc. (AACI) to make an appraisal of the assets of PES and PWS. 5 Subsequently, on December 15, 1999, Relampagos, the then-Governor of Bohol, published a Notice of Public Bidding in local newspapers for the privatization of PES and PWS. A pre-bid conference was held and final bidding was conducted. Five bidders participated in the electric system, while only SALCON Power Corporation (SALCON) participated in the water system. In May 2000, Relampagos announced that the winner of the bidding for the two public utilities was SALCON. 6

In July 2000, a case for prohibition was filed against Relampagos and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Bohol to stop the implementation of the privatization project, but the same was denied. 7

The appraisal report issued by AACI stated the following valuation of the assets of the water and electric systems:

	Total Business	Franchise Value
Power Distribution	P229,142,000.00	P141,707,000.00
Water System	P604,151,000.00	P505,816,000.00
TOTAL	P833,293,000.00	P647,523,000.00 8

 

Arguing that Relampagos and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Bohol proceeded to award the project to SALCON for only P150,000,000.00 or just 10% of the total appraised value of the two systems, a criminal complaint was filed against respondents on October 25, 2000 before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas. 9

Meanwhile, on August 4, 2000, AACI clarified and explained the import of its valuation in this wise:

Based on the results of our analysis of the financial performance of Bohol Electric and Bohol Waterworks, the fair Economic Value of both entities using the Income Approach as a Total Business Enterprise and their Franchise Rights as of December 18, 1998 are reasonably represented in the amounts given below:

	TOTAL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE VALUE	FRANCHISE RIGHTS
Bohol Electric
Current Going Concern	(P126,023,000)	(P213,458,000)
Joint Venture Business	P229,142,000	P141,707,000
Bohol Waterworks
Current Going Concern	(P236,219,000)	(P334,554,000)
Joint Venture Business	P604,151,000	P505,816,000

 

These values can be interpreted to mean that the Net Present Value of the future net cash flows of Bohol Electric and Bohol Waterworks under the present state of conditions are both in the negative unless certain measures are taken to improve their operational and financial performance.

As private joint venture businesses, Bohol Electric and Bohol Waterworks have the potential to have Net Present Values stated above. It is assumed that the joint venture partners will infuse additional funds to pay off the companies' existing debts and acquire additional assets. 10

After the preliminary investigation, the graft investigating officer of the Ombudsman, in its Resolution 11 dated February 22, 2001 (2001 Resolution), dismissed the criminal complaint. The graft investigating officer found that the projected value of the two systems amounting to P1,480,000,000.00 is supposed to be realized within a period of 20 years and is not the actual value of the two systems to which the purchase price for its privatization should be based. 12 The graft investigating officer further gave merit to AACI's valuation that "the Net Present Value of the future net cash flows of Bohol Electric and Bohol Waterworks under the present state of conditions are both in the negative unless certain measures are taken to improve their operational and financial performance." 13

The 2001 Resolution of the graft investigating officer was approved by Acting Ombudsman Orlando C. Casimiro on July 2, 2008. 14 No motion for reconsideration or appeal was filed assailing such dismissal of the complaint. 15

More than five years thereafter, the Ombudsman issued another Resolution 16 dated August 5, 2013 (2013 Resolution) reversing the dismissal of the complaint and recommending the filing of the Information. 17 The 2013 Resolution was approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales on August 22, 2014. 18

The finding of probable cause in the 2013 Resolution was based on the additional evidence which were allegedly submitted after the investigation had already been terminated and the 2001 Resolution had already been drafted. 19 Respondents filed Motions for Reconsideration 20 of the 2013 Resolution but the same were denied. Consequently, Relampagos filed a Petition for Certiorari21 to this Court praying for the annulment of the 2013 Resolution and imputing grave abuse of discretion on the Ombudsman. In a Minute Resolution 22 dated September 23, 2015, We dismissed the petition filed by Relampagos in this wise:

provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governing petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus filed with the Supreme Court, only petitions which are accompanied by or which strictly comply with the requirements specified therein shall be entertained. On the basis thereof, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition for certiorari assailing the Resolution and Order dated August 5, 2013 and June 4, 2015, respectively, of the Ombudsman in OMB-VIS-CRIM-2000-1040 for failure to accompany the petition with certified true copies of the assailed resolution and order certified by the Officer-in-Charge, Ombudsman, in violation of Sec. 1, Rule 65 and Sec. 3, Rule 46 in relation to Sec. 2, Rule 56, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.

In any event, petitioner failed to sufficiently show that any grave abuse of discretion was committed by the Ombudsman in rendering the challenged resolution and order which, on the contrary, appear to be in accord with the facts and the applicable law and jurisprudence. 23

On October 23, 2015, the Information for violation of Section 3 (g) or Republic Act No. (R.A.) 3019 was filed against respondents before the Sandiganbayan. 24 However, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss Based on Lack of Probable Cause; and/or to Quash the Information for Violation of Accused's Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases. 25

In its Resolution 26 dated January 21, 2016, the Sandiganbayan granted the motions to dismiss filed by seven of the respondents for violation of their right to speedy disposition of cases. 27 As found by the Sandiganbayan, the following series of events attended the case:

1. On October 25, 2000. — A criminal complaint against the accused was filed before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas.

2. February 22, 2001. — Graft Investigation Officer II Sarah Jo A. Vergara prepared a Resolution recommending the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. Her Resolution was reviewed and approved by Graft Investigation Officer III Virginia Palanca Santiago.

3. March 21, 2001. — The Resolution dismissing the complaint was recommended for approval by Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Primo C. Miro to then Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto.

4. July 2, 2008. — Then Acting Ombudsman Orlando C. Casimiro approved the dismissal of the complaint.

5. August 5, 2013. — Assistant Special Prosecutor III Faye B. Isaguirre-Singson prepared a resolution reversing the dismissal of the complaint.

6. August 22, 2014. — Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales approved ASP III Isaguirre-Singson's resolution for the filing of the Information.

7. October 23, 2015. — The subject Information was filed before the Sandiganbayan. 28

Based on the timetable established above, the Sandiganbayan concluded that the preliminary investigation of the case was attended by capricious, vexatious, oppressive, and unjustified delay. The Sandiganbayan found that the Ombudsman took 15 years to conclude its preliminary investigation of the case without any intervening event that will excuse it to stretch the proceedings to such unreasonable length. The Sandiganbayan stated that even assuming that the 2001 Resolution, which was approved in 2008, did not become final, it still took the Ombudsman another five years to reverse the same and to issue the 2013 Resolution. Respondents have sensibly believed that the complaint against them was already terminated in 2008 because there was no motion for reconsideration or any other action filed assailing the resolution dismissing the complaint. 29

The prosecution moved for reconsideration 30 which was denied by the Sandiganbayan through its Resolution 31 dated June 1, 2016. In the Resolution 32 dated June 23, 2016, the Sandiganbayan also settled the motions to dismiss filed by the other three respondents with the same conclusion as the first assailed resolution. 33

Imputing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the Sandiganbayan in dismissing the case against respondents, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed this Petition for Certiorari. 34

The Office of the Special Prosecutor faults the Sandiganbayan for not taking into consideration the Minute Resolution 35 issued by this Court on September 23, 2015, which dismissed the petition 36 filed by Relampagos questioning the 2013 Resolution finding probable cause against him and his co-respondents. The Special Prosecutor argues that the Minute Resolution effectively settled that the Ombudsman did not violate the right of the respondents to speedy disposition of their case. Hence, the case before the effectively settled that the Ombudsman did not violate the right of the respondents to speedy disposition of their case. Hence, the case before the Sandiganbayan should not have been dismissed based on violation of respondents' right to speedy disposition of cases. 37

In Relampagos' Comment 38 dated August 22, 2016, he reiterates that the Sandiganbayan's dismissal of the case against him and his co-respondents was consistent with Our rulings on violation of an accused's right to speedy disposition of cases. He agrees with the Sandiganbayan that the 15 years which took the Ombudsman to conclude the preliminary investigation of the case is unreasonable. 39 Further, according to Relampagos, the Minute Resolution of the Supreme Court dated September 23, 2015 did not make any ruling on the merits of the petition as to establish a controlling legal rule that had to be followed by the Sandiganbayan in the criminal case. 40 Lastly, Relampagos insists that the Sandiganbayan had full control over the disposition of the case irrespective of whether the Ombudsman properly exercised its discretion in deciding to file it. 41

The other respondents similarly invoked that the Minute Resolution dated September 23, 2015 should not be applied to them because it was only Relampagos who filed it. Hence, they should not be adversely affected by the import of the minute resolution. 42

In its Reply 43 dated October 17, 2017, the Office of the Special Prosecutor reiterates his arguments in his Petition for Certiorari. 44

Ruling of the Court

After a perusal of the records of the case, this Court resolves to dismiss the Petition for Certiorari for failure of the Office of the Special Prosecutor to show that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the case against respondents for violation of their right to speedy disposition of cases.

The Office of the Special Prosecutor anchors this petition on the Minute Resolution 45 We issued dated September 23, 2015, dismissing the Petition for Certiorari46 filed by Relampagos questioning the 2013 Resolution of the Ombudsman, which overturned the 2001 Resolution and found probable cause against respondents for violation of Section 3 (g) of R.A. 3019. The Minute Resolution reads as follows:

In accordance with Rule 65 and other related provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governing petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus filed with the Supreme Court, only petitions which are accompanied by or which strictly comply with the requirements specified therein shall be entertained. On the basis thereof, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition for certiorari assailing the Resolution and Order dated August 5, 2013 and June 4, 2015, respectively, of the Ombudsman in OMB-VIS-CRIM-2000-1040 for failure to accompany the petition with certified true copies of the assailed resolution and order certified by the Officer-in-Charge, Ombudsman in violation of Sec. 1, Rule 65 and Sec. 3, Rule 46 in relation to Sec. 2, Rule 56, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.

In any event, petitioner failed to sufficiently show that any grave above of discretion was committed by the Ombudsman in rendering the challenged resolution and order which, on the contrary, appear to be in accord with the facts and the applicable law and jurisprudence. 47

Following such pronouncement, the Office of the Special Prosecutor argues that the Sandiganbayan erred in dismissing the criminal case because no less than the Supreme Court concluded that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the Ombudsman in filing the Information 48 against respondents. 49

A minute resolution is manner of adjudication where:

x x x [T]he Court (1) dismisses a petition filed under Rule 64 or 65 of the Rules of Court, citing as legal basis the failure of the petition to show that the tribunal, board or officer exercising or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; x x x and (5) dismisses a petition on technical grounds or deficiencies. 50 (Emphasis supplied)

Unlike a full-blown decision, a minute resolution does not contain clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. The Minute Resolution 51 subject of this case did not discuss the merits of the petition. A plain reading of the Minute Resolution shows that the petition was dismissed based on procedural grounds. The Rules of Civil Procedure gives the Supreme Court the discretion to dismiss a case outright for failure to include the necessary attachments to the petition required by the Rules. While the second paragraph of the Minute Resolution ruled that petitioner was not able to prove grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman, no explanation was given by this Court. 52 This should not be taken to mean that the Sandiganbayan can no longer rule whether the Ombudsman committed inordinate delay in the issuance of the 2013 Resolution in violation of the respondents' right to speedy disposition of cases. Hence, when the Information was filed in the Sandiganbayan, the Sandiganbayan cannot be faulted in making its own ruling of whether the right to speedy disposition of respondents' case was violated.

Moreover, a Certiorari petition is narrow in scope and inflexible in character whose sole function is to correct errors of jurisdiction. 53 Thus, even though this Court ruled in a minute resolution that the 2013 Resolution was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, this does not mean that there was no violation of respondents' right to speedy disposition of cases which the Sandiganbayan has the power to rule upon.

We, likewise, agree with Relampagos that while it is the Ombudsman who has the full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in the Sandiganbayan, nevertheless, once the case has been filed with said court, it is the Sandiganbayan and no longer the Ombudsman, which has full control of the case. 54

In determining whether there was inordinate delay in the conduct of preliminary investigation vis-à-vis the violation of the accused's right to speedy disposition of his cases, this Court, time and again, used the balancing test which considers: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reason for delay; (3) the defendant's assertion or non-assertion of his right; and (4) the prejudice to the defendant as a result of the delay. 55

Cagang v. Sandiganbayan56 gave a detailed analysis on situations where the right to speedy disposition of cases or the right to speedy trial is invoked. It clarified that: (1) for purposes of determining the fact of delay, the periods taken for fact-finding investigations prior to the filing of the formal complaint shall not be included; (2) It also discussed the burden of proof, such that, if the right is invoked within the given time periods contained in current Supreme Court resolutions and circulars, and the time periods that will be promulgated by the Office of the Ombudsman, the defense has the burden of proving that the right was justifiably invoked. If the delay occurs beyond the given time period and the right is invoked, the prosecution has the burden of justifying the delay; (3) the determination of delay is never mechanical; and (4) the right to speedy disposition must be timely raised. 57

Here, the preliminary investigation of the case commenced on October 25, 2000. The graft investigation officer already recommended the dismissal of the case as early as February 22, 2001 for failure to find probable cause against respondents. The dismissal was approved on July 2, 2008 by then Acting Ombudsman Orlando C. Casimiro. However, for reasons beyond the comprehension of this Court, suddenly on August 5, 2013, the assistant special prosecutor reversed the dismissal of the case and recommended the filing of an Information. 58 Even if We begin the counting of the period in 2008, still the Ombudsman took another five years to reverse the earlier resolution dismissing the case for lack of probable cause. The Ombudsman was not able to present justifiable reasons for such delay. The case is not complex and does not involve difficult questions of law. We cannot fault respondents for believing that the case against them had been dismissed with finality in 2008 as there was no motion for reconsideration or any action filed by the prosecution for its review. In fact, Relampagos already invoked the violation of his right to speedy disposition of cases in his Petition for Certiorari59 filed in this Court questioning the 2013 Resolution recommending the filing of the Information.

Based on the following disquisition, We find no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of Sandiganbayan in dismissing the case against respondents for violation of their right to speedy disposition of cases.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED. The Resolutions dated January 21, 2016, June 1, 2016, and June 23, 2016 of the Sandiganbayan are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 7-29.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Efren N. De La Cruz, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Rodolfo A. Ponferrada and Rafael R. Lagos; id. at 35-40.

3.Id. at 41-47.

4. Penned by Associate Justice Efren N. De La Cruz, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Reynaldo P. Cruz and Michael Frederick L. Musngi; id. at 48-57.

5.Id. at 482.

6.Id. at 12-13.

7.Id. at 13.

8.Id.

9.Id.

10.Id. at 485.

11. Penned by Graft Investigation Officer II Sarah Jo A. Vergara, reviewed by Graft Investigation Officer III Virginia Palanca Santiago, with the approval of Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Primo C. Miro and Acting Ombudsman Orlando C. Casimiro; id. at 512-518.

12.Id. at 516-517.

13.Id. at 517.

14.Id. at 518.

15.Id. at 486.

16. Penned by Assistant Special Prosecutor III Fay B. Isaguirre-Singson, with the approval of Deputy Special Prosecutor John I.C. Turalba and Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales; id. at 519-532.

17.Id. at 532.

18.Id.

19.Id. at 415-416.

20.Id. at 420-448, 451-459.

21.Id. at 59-99.

22.Id. at 58.

23.Id.

24.Id. at 15.

25.Id. at 420-447.

26.Supra note 2.

27.Rollo, pp. 39-40.

28.Id. at 36.

29.Id. at 38-39.

30.Id. at 451-457.

31.Supra note 3.

32.Supra note 4.

33.Rollo, p. 16.

34.Supra note 1.

35.Supra note 24.

36.Supra note 23.

37.Rollo, pp. 22-24.

38.Id. at 358-384.

39.Id. at 369-370.

40.Id. at 374.

41.Id. at 381.

42.Id. at 205-206.

43.Id. at 653-667.

44.Id. at 659-665.

45.Supra note 24.

46.Supra note 23.

47.Rollo, p. 58.

48.Id. at 15-16.

49.Id. at 21.

50. A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC, Rule 13, Section 6 (d).

51.Supra note 24.

52.Rollo, p. 58.

53.Sps. Delos Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, 698 Phil. 1, 14 (2012).

54.Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 645 Phil. 69, 82 (2010).

55.Martin v. Ver, 208 Phil. 658, 664 (1983).

56. G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458, July 31, 2018.

57.Id.

58.Rollo, p. 36.

59.Supra note 2.