"x x x.
Ombudsman; preliminary investigations of Ombudsman subject to petitioners’ right to speedy disposition of cases under the Constitution. A person’s right to the speedy disposition of his case is guaranteed under section 16, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution (Constitution) which provides: “All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.” This constitutional right is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases, be it civil or administrative in nature, as well as all proceedings, either judicial or quasi-judicial. In this accord, any party to a case may demand expeditious action to all officials who are tasked with the administration of justice. Rafael L. Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan, et al./Edwin N. Nacionales, et al v. Sandiganbayan, et al, G.R. No. 191411/G.R. No. 191871, July 15, 2013.
Ombudsman; preliminary investigations of Ombudsman subject to petitioners’ right to speedy disposition of cases under the Constitution. The right to speedy disposition of cases should be understood to be a relative or flexible concept such that a mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not be sufficient. Jurisprudence dictates that the right is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured; or even without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. Hence, in the determination of whether the defendant has been denied his right to a speedy disposition of a case, the following factors may be considered and balanced: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and (4) the prejudice caused by the delay. Rafael L. Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan, et al./Edwin N. Nacionales, et al v. Sandiganbayan, et al, G.R. No. 191411/G.R. No. 191871, July 15, 2013.
Ombudsman; the Ombudsman’s failure to resolve cases under preliminary investigation for eight years held to be unjustifiable and violated right of petitioners to a speedy disposition of their cases under the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that its prior decisions regarding the legal effects of a violation of the constitutional right of the accused to a speedy trial apply equally when a person’s constitutional right to the speedy disposition of his case is violated. Since the proceedings relative to the preliminary investigation of the case against petitioners were terminated by the Ombudsman only after almost eight (8) years after the filing of the complaint, the Supreme Court found the delay in the Ombudsman’s resolution of the case to be unjustified. The Supreme Court held: “[I]n view of the unjustified length of time miring the Office of the Ombudsman’s resolution of the case as well as the concomitant prejudice that the delay in this case has caused, it is undeniable that petitioners’ constitutional right to due process and speedy disposition of cases had been violated. As the institutional vanguard against corruption and bureaucracy, the Office of the Ombudsman should create a system of accountability in order to ensure that cases before it are resolved with reasonable dispatch and to equally expose those who are responsible for its delays, as it ought to determine in this case. Corollarily, for the [Sandiganbayan’]s patent and utter disregard of the existing laws and jurisprudence surrounding the matter, the Court finds that it gravely abused its discretion when it denied the quashal of the Information [against petitioners]. Perforce, the assailed resolutions must be set aside and the criminal case against petitioners be dismissed. . . . [T]he foregoing pronouncement should, as matter of course, result in the acquittal of the petitioners.” Rafael L. Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan, et al./Edwin N. Nacionales, et al v. Sandiganbayan, et al, G.R. No. 191411/G.R. No. 191871, July 15, 2013.
x x x."
No comments:
Post a Comment