For resolution is accused Alan Ybanez Jaum's...

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESSANDIGANBAYAN

QUEZON CITY

PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES,

Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0773-0774For: Falsification of Public

Documents (Art. 171 [4] ofthe Revised Penal Code)and Splitting of Contracts(Sec. 65 (4] in relation toSec. 52 and 54 ofRepublic Act [R.A.] No.9184 and Sec. 52 and 54of IRR-A of R.A. No. 9184)

ELPIDIO TAGAAN MAGANTEet al.,

CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J.,Chairperson,FERNANDEZ, S.J., J. andFERNANDEZ, B., J.

For resolution is accused Alan Ybanez Jaum's ((Motion toDismiss"dated December 23, 2016/j

1 pp. 323-325, Record

ResolutionCriminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0773-077 4People vs. Magante, et aZ.

Accused-movant Jaum prays for the dismissal of the presentcases against him on the ground that his constitutional rights tospeedy disposition of cases and due process had been allegedlyviolated.2

In support of his prayer, the accused-movant invokes thecase of CoscolZuela v. Sandiganbayan,3 wherein the SupremeCourt found the existence of unjustified delay on the part of theOffice of the Ombudsman and declared it violative of thepetitioner's constitutional rights to speedy disposition of casesand due process.

Accused-movant also points out that the constitutionalguarantee, "that all persons shall have the right to speedydisposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial oradministrative bodies," is further reinforced by Section 3 (f),Rule112 of the Rules of Court,4 which requires that the investigatingofficer shall resolve the case within ten (10) days from theconclusion of the investigation. 5

Moreover, the accused-movant cites the cases ofAngchangco, Jr. v. Ombudsman6 and the 1936 case of Peoplev. Castaneda7 where the Supreme Court ruled that ((thegovernment should be the last to set an example of delay andoppression in the administration of justice and it is the moral andlegal obligation of this court to see that the criminal proceedingsagainst the accused come to an end that they be immediatelydischarged from the custody of law."8

Accused-movant Jaum narrates the followingcircumstancesthat will purportedly show the existence of inordinate delay inthe proceedings before the Officeof the Ombudsman, to wit:

a. On January 7, 2011, Criminal andAdministrative complaints were filed against ~

2 p. 330, Record ~ /l /3701 SCRA 188 (2013)4 (f) Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the investigating officer shall deter ine h her or notthere is sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial. [Section 3, Rule 112, Rules of Co tj

5 p. 328, Record A6268 SCRA301 (1997)763 Phil 480 (1936)8 p. 328, Record

ResolutionCriminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0773-0774People vs. Magante, et ai.

accused and others before the Office of the DeputyOmbudsman for the Visayas. The CriminalComplaint was docketed as OMB-V-C-11-0008-Awhile the administrative complaint was docketedas OMB-V-A-11-0012-A.

b. It was only on April 15, 2016 that GraftInvestigation and Prosecution Officer III JoseRonald M. Bersales rendered a Resolution whichrecommended the filing of Information (in OMB-V-C-11-0008-A) against the accused and others forViolation of Section 65 (4) of RA 9184 in relation toSections 52 & 54 thereof and Sections 52 & 54 ofits IRR-A and for Falsification of PublicDocuments under Article 171 of the Revised PenalCode concerning (sic). He also recommended forthe dismissal of the accused in OMB-V-A-11-0012-A. The Resolution and the Decision wereboth approved by Ombudsman Conchita CarpioMorales;

c. It was only on August 6, 2016 that theDecision9 and the Resolution 10 were received bythe accused through his wife, Suzette Jaum.

d. On August 11, 2016, the accused filed anOmnibus Motion for Reconsideration on theDecision 11 and the Resolution.

e. In an Order dated September 29, 2016, theOmnibus Motion for Reconsideration was denied.Thereafter, the corresponding Informations werefiled to this Honorable Court.12

Based on the above-mentioned facts, the accused-movantavers that these cases bear the manifest earmarks of inordinatedelay; hence, the filing of these cases is in total disregard Of~

9 Footnote omittedlOldHId12 pp. 328-329, Record


constitutional rights to due process and speedy disposition ofcases. 13

Too, the accused-movant cites the case of Tatad v.Sandiganbayan14 and in relation thereto, poses this question:

Thus, if the Supreme Court found three (3)years ofdelay in Tatad as violative of the constitution, whatmore for five (5) years of delay that has transpired inthese cases?1S

The accused-movant further submits that the delay isunjustifiable since the complaints filed against them did notinvolve complicated factual or legal issues; 16 that the presentcases involve transactions which happened between the years of2008 to 2009 and there is a possibility that the accused-movantand his witnesses could not recall accurately the events thathappened eight (8) years ago;17that he was pr~iudiced by thelong delay on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman;18 andthat due to the pendency of his case for five (5) long years andthe failure of the anti-graft investigating prosecutor to promptlyresolve the preliminary investigation of his case, he wassubjected to ignominy, shame, anxiety, embarrassment andhumiliation. 19

In its ((Comment/ Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss datedDecember 23, 2016 of accused Allan Y.Jaum, ,~o the prosecutiondisputes the applicability of the ruling in Coscolluela to thepresent cases. According to it, the circumstances whichconstitute inordinate delay are not present in these cas~

13 p. 329, Record14159 SeRA 70 (1988)15 p. 329, Record161d17

'd18 p. 330, Record191d20 pp. 336-341, Record21 p. 337, Record

ResolutionCriminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0773-0774People vs. Magante, et al.

The prosecution explains the reasons for the delay byrecounting the following circumstances in the drafting of theInformations against the accused-movant and his co-accused, towit:

5. Case records show that on November 18, 2010,then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez approved theFinal Evaluation Report22 of Rosanna Ortiz (Ms. Ortiz)recommending the upgrading of the Fact FindingInvestigation docketed as CPL-V-09-1042 into anOmbudsman Criminal and Administrative Cases.Thereafter, a Supplemental Complaint-Affidavit23 wasexecuted by Ms. Ortiz representing the PublicAssistance and Corruption Prevention Office of theOmbudsman Visayas (PACPO-OMB-Visayas) against 10respondents namely: 1) Elpidio Magante; 2) Ma. AgnesB. Candug (Candug); 3) Ambrosio S. Orillos (Orillos); 4)Trinidad T. Castolo (Castolo); 5) Alan Jaum (Jaum); 6)Gaudioso C. Renegado, Jr. (Renegado Jr.); 7) Lorenzo T.Sarigumba (Sarigumba); 8) Ernesto Rulida (Rulida); 9)Raymundo T. Appari (Appari); and 10) RochelleCababan (Cababan). A case was thereafter docketedagainst the said respondents in 2011. In an Order datedFebruary 15, 201124 the said respondents were directedto file their respective Counter-Affidavit. The Counter-Affidavits filed by Candug, Renegado, Jaum and Castolowere received by OMB-Visayas on May 3, 2011.25 As tothe Counter-Affidavits of Magante, Orillos, Sarigumba,Rulida and Aparri these were received by OMB-Visayason May 6, 2011.26 In a Resolution dated 15 April 2016,the Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause forviolation of Section 65 (4) of RA 9184 in relation toSections 52 & 54 thereof and Sections 52 and 54 of itsIRR-A and Falsification of Public Documents underArticle 171 of the Revised Penal Code against Magante,Sarigumba, Orillos, Jaum and Cababan. Orillos,/7

22 Footnote omitted231d241d251d261d

ResolutionCriminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM -0773-077 4People vs. Magante, et al.

Magante and Saligumba (sic) filed their Motion forReconsideration received by OMB-Visayas on May 31,2015. In an Order dated June 28, 2016, the Office ofthe Ombudsman denied Orillos, Magante andSaligumba's (sic) Motion for Reconsideration. Jaumlikewise filed a separate Motion for Reconsiderationwhich was resolved by the Ombudsman in an Orderdated September 9, 2016. Two Informations were filedagainst accused Magante, Sarigumba, Orillos, Jaumand Cababan before the Sandiganbayan in October2016.27

According to the prosecution, given the above-mentionedchronological events, the Office of the Ombudsman did notincur inordinate delay in the conduct of the preliminaryinvestigation in these cases.28 The prosecution ratiocinates thatthere were ten (10) respondents in the complaint who wereafforded their right to fully explain themselves; that the serviceof processes took time and so was the filing of the pleadingsfrom the respondents; that the case records were voluminouswhich entailed considerable time to study and analyze; and,that it is a known fact that the Office has to contend with moreor less thousands of complaints with shortage of lawyers.29

The prosecution also adverts to the fact that throughoutthe proceedings, accused-movant Jaum did not assert his rightto a speedy disposition cases; hence, he should not be made tobenefit from his own failure. 30

Likewise, the prosecution contends that the ruling in thecase of Tatad v. Sandiganbayan31 is not controlling in thepresent cases because of the' differences in its factual milieuwith the present cases~

27 pp, 337-338, Record28 p, 338, Record29 p.ld30 p.ld31159 SeRA 70 (1988)32 p. 338, Record


Lastly, the prosecution submits that accused-movantJaum's assertion that he was prejudiced by the alleged delaysince he is being made to answer for a transaction thathappened in 2008 to 2009 and that there is a possibility that heand his witnesses could no longer recall accurately the eventsthat transpired eight (8) years ago is bereft of merit.33 It pointsout that the accused-movant filed a Counter-Affidavit datedApril 15, 2011 in these cases narrating his defenses. Thus, theaccused-movant and his witness' memory could easily berefreshed by the said document.34

The Court finds the motion to dismiss filed by the accused-movant Jaum unmeritorious.

It is jurisprudentially settled that courts must not hastilydismiss criminal cases based on the right of the accused tospeedy disposition of cases. Instead, it must carefully weigh andtake into account the facts and circumstances attending eachcase in order to determine whether the proceedings wereattended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays.35

Assuredly, the Constitution guarantees the right of aperson to a speedy disposition of a case against him. However,the right to speedy disposition of cases should be understood tobe a relative or flexible concept such that a mere mathematicalreckoning of the time involved would not be sufficient. 36Jurisprudence also dictates that such right is deemed violatedonly when the proceedings are attended by vexatious,capnCIOUS, and oppressive delays; or when unjustifiedpostponements of the trial are asked for and secured; or /733 p. 339, Record341d35 Ombudsman v. Jurado, 561 SCRA135 (2008)36 Dacudao v. Gonzales, 688 SCRA 109 (2013) See also Enriquez v. Office of the Om618 (2008), Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan, 701 SCRA188 (2013)

ResolutionCriminal Cases No. SB-l6-CRM-0773-0774People vs. Magante, et al.

without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time IS

allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.37

In his bid to dismiss these cases, accused -movant J aumrelies heavily on the case of CoscolZuela v. Sandiganbayan38to support his argument that inordinate delay exists in thetermination of the preliminary investigation of his case. Suchreliance is misplaced.

In CoscolZuela, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of thepetitioners for the followingreasons, namely: [1]the preliminaryinvestigation proceedings took a protracted amount of time tocomplete;39[2] the Ombudsman's delay in the resolution of thecase remains unjustified;4o [3] the petitioners could not haveurged the speedy resolution of their case because they wereunaware that the investigation against them was still on-going.41 They were informed of the Ombudsman Resolutiondated March 27, 2003 against them only after the lapse of six(6)years, or when they received a copy of the Information afterits filing with the Court on June 19, 2009;42 and [4] theSupreme Court recognized the prejudice caused to thepetitioners by the lengthy delay in the proceedings againstthem.43

The Court finds that accused-movant Jaum IS notsimilarly situated as the petitioners in CoscolZuela.

In CoscolZuela, the Supreme Court found that the reasonfor the delay of the termination of the preliminary investigationremained unjustified. In these cases, the prosecution points outthat the preliminary investigation involved ten (10) respondentswho were all amply afforded the opportunity to fully explaintheir Side.~

"(o,",olluela v. Sandl.anb van,7 SeRA 188 (2013) k.J38701 SCRA188 (2013) :':1039 p. 196, Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan, 701 SCRA188 (2013)40 p. 197, /d41 p. 198, /d42/d, /d43 p. 199, /d


Notably, the Supreme Court held in the case of Tan v.People44 that the task of the pillars of the criminal justicesystem is to preserve our democratic society under the rule oflaw, by ensuring that all those who appear before or arebrought to the bar of justice are afforded a fair opportunity topresent their side.

Moreover, unlike the petitioners in Coscolluela who wereunaware that an investigation against them was still on -going,45

accused-movant Jaum knew of the pendency of the case againsthim. In fact, the record shows that the same accused-movantfiled his Counter-Affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsmanas early as 2011.46 Thus, he could have asserted his right tospeedy disposition of cases or move for an early resolution of hiscase before the Office of the Ombudsman in order to safeguardhis rights.

In the relatively recent case of Barcelona v. Tan,47 theSupreme Court ruled that the right to speedy disposition ofcases is lost unless seasonably invoked. In the same case, theHigh Tribunal rejected therein petitioner's claim that he neverfailed to assert his right to speedy disposition of casesbecause he made several telephone calls to the Commissionerof the Civil Service Commission and inquired about the statusof his appeal. The Supreme Court reasoned that thisallegation of the petitioner is self-serving and lackscorroborative evidence. Speaking through Chief Justice MariaLourdes P.A. Sereno, the Supreme Court ruled that one'sright to a speedy disposition of cases must be asserted;otherwise, it is deemed waived, viz:

The right to a speedy trial, as well as other rightsconferred by the Constitution or statute, may be waivedexcept when otherwise expressly provided by law. One'sright to the speedy disposition of his case musttherefore be asserted. Due to the failure/'7

44 586 SCRA 139 (2009)45 p. 198, Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan, 701 seRA 188 (2013)46 pp. 129-144, Record47724 SCRA433 (2014)


petitioner to assert this right, he is considered tohave waived it.48

Likewise, the Court holds that accused-movant Jaum'sreliance on the case of Angchangco, Jr. v. Ombudsman49 isalso misplaced.

In Angchangco, Jr., the Supreme Court ordered thedismissal of the Information and held that the delay of more thansix (6)years in resolving the complaints against therein petitioneramounted to a violation of the accused's constitutional right todue process and speedy disposition of cases. It must be noted,however, that in Angchangco, Jr., the Officeof the Ombudsmanfailed to act on several omnibus motions for early resolution andmotions to dismiss filed by the petitioner. Clearly, the factualcircumstances of the abovementioned case differ substantiallyfrom the cases at bar.

The Court further finds that the ruling in the case of Tatadv. SandiganbayanSO is inapplicable to the cases at bar becauseof the material differences in their factual milieu.

In Tatad v. Sandiganbayan,51 the Supreme Court appliedthe {{radical relief' of dismissing the Informationf complaint onthe ground of ({inordinate delay in terminating the preliminaryinvestigation and filing the information" which was tantamountto a violation of the accused's rights to due process and to aspeedy disposition of his cases.

However, in Tatad, there were peculiar circumstancesattendant to the three-year delay in terminating thepreliminary investigation against him. According to theSupreme Court, (political motivations played a vital role inactivating and propelling the prosecutorial process;"52 and, there

~ Emphas;s supphed r49268 SCRA301 (1997) ~50159 SCRA70 (1988)

51159 SCRA70 (1988) Jrt.1"p. 81, Tatad v, Sand;ganbayan, 159 SCRA70 {19881 IV 0


was a departure from the established procedure in conductingthe preliminary investigation. The present cases involve noimputation of any political motivation in the filing of thepresent Informations against accused-movant.

Regarding accused-movant Jaum's allegation that he wasprejudiced by the alleged inordinate delay because he wassubjected to ignominy, shame, anxiety, embarrassment andhumiliation, suffice it to state that these are unwelcome butattendant inconveniences that confront any respondent or anyaccused in a criminal case.

Moreover, the Court is not persuaded by accused-movant'sassertion that there is a possibility that he and his witnessescould not accurately recall the events that transpired eight (8)years ago. The prosecution aptly observes that the accused-movant and his witnesses could easily refer to his Counter-Affidavit dated April 15,2011 to refresh their memory.

Anent accused-movant's argument that Section 3 (f),Rule112 of the Rules of Court requires the investigating officer toresolve the case within ten (10) days from the conclusion of theinvestigation, 53 the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Raro v.Sandiganbayan54 that this period of time is merely directory,VLZ:

The length of time it took before the conclusion ofthe preliminary investigation may only be attributed tothe adherence of the Ombudsman and the NBI to therules of procedure and the rudiments of fair play. Theallegations of Abaiio's complaint had to be verified; theOmbudsman did not believe the same hook, line andsinker. Recently, the Court held that while the Rulesof Court provides a ten-day period from submissionof the case within which an investigating officermust come out with a resolution, that period of timeis merely directOry.~

53 p. 328, Record54335 SeRA 581 (2000)55 Emphasis supplied


In sum, the Court does not find that there wasunreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive delay of theproceedings before the Office of the Ombudsman.

WHEREFORE, accused-movant Alan Y. Jaum's ((Motionto Dismiss" dated December 23,2016 is DENIED for utter lackof merit.

..)\MPARO ~ ~G/ Presiding Justice

Chairperson

o R. FERNANDEZiate Justice

For resolution is accused Alan Ybanez Jaum's...

Documents

Transcript of For resolution is accused Alan Ybanez Jaum's...