FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 255962 and 255964-65. June 23, 2021.]
EDGAR G. RAMA, ET AL.,petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SANDIGANBAYAN SIXTH DIVISION, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 23, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. Nos. 255962 and 255964-65 (Edgar G. Rama, et al. v. People of the Philippines and Sandiganbayan Sixth Division). — This Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction 1 assails the Resolutions dated January 21, 2021 2 and February 17, 2021 3 rendered by the Sandiganbayan Sixth Division, which denied the Omnibus Motion to Dismiss and Release of Cash Bond filed by petitioners Edgar G. Rama (Rama), William G. Surbano (Surbano), Gorgonia E. Gonzales (Gonzales), Sergio G. Zurita (Zurita), and Nilo B. Gorgonio (Gorgonio).
Facts of the Case
In 2004, the Department of Agriculture and the Municipal Government of Poro, Cebu, represented by then Municipal Mayor Rama, executed a Memorandum of Agreement stating that P5,000,000.00 would be released to the municipality for the procurement of farm inputs and implements for distribution to farmers. The municipality utilized the fund for the purchase of biochemical fertilizers for farmer-beneficiaries under the 'plant now, pay later' scheme. The Sangguniang Bayan authorized Rama to directly purchase liquid Vitacrop fertilizers from Perzebros Company, owned by Pompey Perez (Perez) and Nancy Catamco (Catamco). 4
Sometime in 2006, the Commission on Audit (COA) found alleged overpricing and irregularities in the procurement process of the fertilizers. Hence, the Office of the Ombudsman launched Task Force Abono (TFA) to specifically conduct a fact-finding investigation into the purported "fertilizer fund scam." 5
Based on the investigation, on June 21, 2013, the task force filed a Complaint dated December 27, 2012 against petitioners, including Perez and Catamco before the Ombudsman. On July 19, 2013, the Ombudsman directed the petitioners, as well as Perez and Catamco to file their respective counter-affidavits. The latter filed their respective counter-affidavits from September 12, 2014 to May 20, 2015. After more than two years, or on July 17, 2017, the Ombudsman issued its Resolution finding probable cause to indict Perez, Catamco, and petitioners for one count of violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 and two counts of Malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Said Resolution was approved on August 1, 2017. 6
Thereafter, Perez, Catamco, and petitioners filed their respective motions for reconsideration from August to September 2017. These were denied in an Order dated November 10, 2017 and approved on January 18, 2018. Four months thereafter, the corresponding Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan. 7
Before arraignment, Rama, Surbano, Catamco, and Perez moved for the dismissal of the case against them, claiming that the Ombudsman's inordinate delay of more than 12 years in the conduct of the investigation violated their constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases. 8 However, in a Resolution dated August 7, 2018, the Sandiganbayan denied the motions to dismiss. While the Sandiganbayan conceded that there was a delay of four years and seven months in the investigation stage before the Ombudsman, such delay was justified due to the voluminous records of the cases and number of respondents involved. 9 The Sandiganbayan likewise denied the Motion to Quash filed by Zurita, Gorgonio, Gonzales, which adopted the motion filed by Rama and Surbano. Subsequently, on October 12, 2018, the Sandiganbayan denied the motions for reconsideration filed by all accused. 10
Thereafter, the accused filed their separate petitions to the Court assailing the Resolutions dated August 7, 2018 and October 12, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan. 11
In its July 1, 2019 Resolution, the Court, through the Third Division, dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by petitioners Rama, Surbano, Gonzales, Zurita, and Gorgonio, in G.R. Nos. 243648 and 243691-92, as follows:
Acting on the petition for certiorari assailing the Resolutions dated August 7, 2018 and October 12, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan in SB-18-CRM-0337 and SB-18-CRM-0338 and 0339, the Court resolves to DISMISS the petition for failure to sufficiently show that any grave abuse of discretion was committed by the anti-graft court in rendering the challenged resolutions, which, on the contrary, appear to be in accord with the facts and the applicable law and jurisprudence. 12 (Emphasis in the original)
Later, the Court's First Division in G.R. Nos. 243560-62 and 243261-63 rendered its Decision 13 dated July 28, 2020, granting Catamco and Perez's petition for certiorari and holding that their right to speedy disposition of cases was violated. 14
In the July 28, 2020 Decision, the Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying Catamco and Perez's motions to dismiss on the ground of violation of their right to speedy disposition of cases. Following the guidelines provided in Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, 15 the Court explained that there was inordinate delay in the resolution of the preliminary investigation, thus:
In assessing whether petitioners' right to speedy disposition of cases was violated, Cagang dictates that the Court first examine whether the Ombudsman followed the specified time periods for the conduct of the preliminary investigation. If the Ombudsman exceeded the prescribed period, the burden of proof shifts to the State. While the Rules of Procedure of the Ombudsman does not provide a period within which the preliminary investigation should be concluded, the periods provided under Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, finds suppletory application.
Section 3(f), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that the investigating prosecutor has ten (10) days "after the investigation x x x [to] determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial." In addition, Section 4 of the same rule states that "within five (5) days from his resolution, [the investigating prosecutor] shall forward the record of the case x x x to the Ombudsman or his deputy x x x, [who] shall act on the resolution within ten (10) days from their receipt thereof and shall immediately inform the parties of such action." Thus, the investigating officer of the Ombudsman, has ten (10) days from the termination of the investigation or the submission of the case for resolution, to determine existence of probable cause to indict an accused.
In the present case, the Ombudsman failed to observe the period prescribed under its rules.
Records show that on June 21, 2013, 29 n the Complaint was filed against petitioners and other twelve (12) co-respondents. They were directed to file their respective counter-affidavits on July 19, 2013. The respondents, together with petitioners, filed their respective counter-affidavits from September 12, 2014 to May 20, 2015. 31 n However, from the date the last counter-affidavit was filed, the case remained stagnant for two (2) years and two (2) months, until the investigating officer issued a Resolution, on July 17, 2017, finding probable cause against petitioners and their co-respondents.
The Court further notes that Section 7, Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the Ombudsman, as amended by Administrative Order No. 15-01, "sanction[s] the immediate filing of an information in the proper court upon a finding of probable cause, even during the pendency of a motion for reconsideration." However, in this case, the Ombudsman still took almost a year from the issuance of the said Resolution to file the corresponding Informations with the Sandiganbayan. And even if the Court were to consider the period for the resolution of the motions for reconsideration filed by petitioners and their co-respondents, the Ombudsman still took a considerable time in concluding its preliminary investigation. From the filing of the last motion for reconsideration on September 28, 2017 to the approval of the Order denying said motions for reconsideration, a period of almost four (4) months passed. The Informations in the present cases were filed on April 27, 2018 or almost four (4) months thereafter. In other words, from the filing of the last counter-affidavit on May 20, 2015, it took the Ombudsman two (2) years, eleven (11) months and twelve (12) days to resolve the Complaint and file the Informations before the court. Thus, following Cagang, the burden of proof in this case is shifted to the prosecution, who must establish that the delay is reasonable and justified under the circumstances. 16
The Decision dated July 28, 2020 of the Court found that the only reason given by the Ombudsman to justify the delay in the preliminary investigation is that it needed time to meticulously evaluate and review numerous records and relied heavily on the Court's recognition in a previous case of the steady stream of cases handled by the Ombudsman. However, the Court held that this does not, by itself, justify the Ombudsman's failure to comply with the periods provided under the rules. Hence, the Court concluded that the Ombudsman failed to prove that the delay was reasonable. 17
Using as basis the Decision dated July 28, 2020 of the Court granting the petition of Catamco and Perez, petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss and Release of Cash Bond. 18 According to petitioners, since there was only one fact-finding investigation and preliminary investigation conducted in the case against all accused, it can be said that their right to speedy disposition of cases was likewise violated. 19
On January 21, 2021, the Sandiganbayan rendered its Resolution 20 denying petitioners' Omnibus Motion to Dismiss and Release of Cash Bond. The Sandiganbayan sought a clarification from the Court, through then Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, on whether the Decision dated July 28, 2020 of the Court is ordering the Sandiganbayan Sixth Division to dismiss the case for all accused including petitioners or whether the directive is intended only to apply to Catamco and Perez. In his Letter dated December 14, 2020, the Chief Justice clarified that the prefatory and dispositive portions of the July 28, 2020 Decision pertain only to Catamco and Perez. 21
Hence, the Sandiganbayan held that there was no doubt that the Court's directive in its Decision dated July 28, 2020 applies to Catamco and Perez only. 22
Petitioners moved for reconsideration 23 which was denied in a Resolution 24 dated February 17, 2021.
Still aggrieved, petitioners filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction insisting that the July 28, 2020 Decision of the Court's First Division dismissing the criminal cases as to Catamco and Perez should likewise favorably apply to petitioners. 25 Petitioners assert that the principle of stare decisis is applicable 26 and that an appeal filed by any of the several accused should favorably affect those who did not appeal. 27
Issue
The issue in this case is whether the Decision dated July 28, 2020 of the Court dismissing the criminal cases against Catamco and Perez should also be applied to petitioners.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is meritorious.
The Decision dated July 28, 2020 of the Court dismissing the criminal cases against Catamco and Perez for violation of their constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases should favorably apply as well to petitioners who were all similarly situated. Although there was a previous minute resolution issued by the Court's Third Division dismissing the certiorari petition filed by petitioners predicated on the same set of facts as those of Catamco and Perez, the said minute resolution did not discuss comprehensively the basis for the dismissal. This is because a minute resolution is issued for the prompt dispatch of the action of the Court and will only include a general statement that the petition failed to show any grave abuse of discretion committed by the Sandiganbayan in rendering the challenged resolutions.
Meanwhile, the Decision dated July 28, 2020 of the Court's First Division is a full-blown decision comprehensively discussing the facts and sufficiently stating the law and jurisprudence on which the judgment is based. It must be noted that petitioners, Catamco, and Perez are all similarly situated being the same accused in the Complaints filed before the Ombudsman and Informations filed before the Sandiganbayan. Whatever inordinate delay experienced by Catamco and Perez during the preliminary investigation before the Ombudsman until the filing of the Informations in the Sandiganbayan were likewise suffered by petitioners. Hence, there is no reason why the discussion and ruling arrived at by the Court should not be applied to petitioners.
Further, Section 11 (a), 28 Rule 122 of the Rules of Court provides that in a criminal case, an appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter. Although this is not technically an appeal but a petition for certiorari, there is no reason why the wisdom of the provision should not apply to petitioners in this case. As above-mentioned, Catamco, Perez, and petitioners are all similarly situated and suffered the same inordinate delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation before the Ombudsman.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolutions dated January 21, 2021 and February 17, 2021 rendered by the Sandiganbayan Sixth Division are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated July 28, 2020 of the Court's First Division in Catamco v. Sandiganbayan, Sixth Division and People of the Philippines docketed as G.R. Nos. 243560-62 and Perez v.Sandiganbayan, Sixth Division docketed as G.R. Nos. 243261-63, dismissing Criminal Case Nos. SB-18-CRM-0337, SB-18-CRM-0338, and SB-18-CRM-0339 for violation of Pompey Perez and Nancy Catamco's constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases should favorably apply to petitioners.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-25.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Sarah Jane T. Fernandez with the concurrence of Associate Justices Karl B. Miranda and Kevin Narce B. Vivero; id. at 41-45.
3.Id. at 60-65.
4.Id. at 68.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 68-69.
7.Id. at 69.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 70.
10.Id. at 43.
11.Id. at 70.
12.Rollo, p. 43.
13. Penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa (now a Member of this Court), with the concurrence of Associate Justices Diosdado M. Peralta (Former Member of the Court), Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (Former Member of the Court), Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of the Court), and Mario V. Lopez (now a Member of the Court); id. at 67-78.
14.Id. at 70-77.
15. 837 Phil. 1 (2018).
16.Rollo, pp. 72-73.
17.Id. at 74.
18.Id. at 41.
19.Id. at 42.
20.Supra note 2.
21.Rollo, pp. 44-45.
22.Id. at 45.
23.Id. at 46-57.
24.Supra note 3.
25.Rollo, p. 9.
26.Id. at 15.
27.Id. at 19.
28. Section 11. Effect of Appeal by Any of Several Accused. —
(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.
xxx xxx xxx
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.