REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

~a1toiga1thatrCtnQuezon City

FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

- versus - CRIM. CASE NO. SB-17-CRM-1098to SB-17-CRM-1109

For: Violation of Sec. 8 in Relation to Sec. 11 ofof RA 6713 and Perjury

PETRONILO BAUTISTA BUENDIA,

Accused. Present:

DE LA CRUZ, J., Chairperson

ECONG, J.CALDONA, JJ.

Promulgated on:1

AUG 0 Z 2017 L"

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -,- - - - - - - - - -x

RESOLUTION

DE LA CRUZ, J.

This resolves accused Petronilo B. Buendia's Motion to Quashand/or Dismiss Informations, dated July 13, 2017, and theprosecution's Comment/Opposition, dated July 25, 2017, thereto.

The accused seeks the quashal of the twelve (12)Informations against him and/or the dismissal of the instant caseson the ground that his constitutional right to speedy disposition of hiscases was violated when it took the Office of the Ombudsman(OMB) more than eight (8) years to file the Informations on June 2,2017, reckoned from the filing of the complaint by Associate GraftInvestigation Officer I Dennis G. Buenaventura on May 19, 2009.

The accused contends that after he requested for a 15-dayextension to file his counter-affidavit in January 2010, he had not

RESOLUTIONpp vs. Petronilo B. BuendiaCrim. Cases Nos. SB-17-CRM-1098

to SB-17-CRM-1109

Page 20f6

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

received any notice from the OMB anymore until March 3, 2017when he received a copy of the Resolution, dated February 22,2017, of the OMB, recommending the filing of the presentInformations against him. On April 5, 2017, he filed a motion forreconsideration of the said OMB resolution, but the same wasdenied in the Order, dated April 17, 2017, of the OMB. TheInformations were filed with the Sandiganbayan on June 2,2017.

Considering that the subject transactions refer to years 2002to 2007, the accused asserts that the unreasonable delay caused bythe OMB has put him in a tactical disadvantage. The long intervalwill impair his defense as his witnesses and documentary evidencemay no longer be available. Besides, accused Buendia laments thathe is now 67 years old and should no longer be subjected to therigors and anxiety of a prolonged trial.

In support of his motion, accused Buendia cited cases 1 wherethe Supreme Court found that the inordinate delay in theprosecution of cases warranted their dismissal for being violative ofthe right of the accused to speedy disposition of their cases.

The prosecution opposes the motion for the following reasons:

1. The accused contributed to the delay because he twice filedmotions for extension of time to file counter-affidavit-the first onJanuary 4, 2010, and the second on January 18, 2010.

2. The accused never asserted the violation of his right in hismotion for reconsideration of the resolution finding probable causeto indict him. Thus, his silence was tantamount to a waiver of hisright.

3. The right to speedy disposition of cases is violated onlywhen the proceedings are attended with vexatious, capricious andoppressive delays. According to the prosecution, the accused'sallegations on the delay are general assertions and assumptions.

4. The limitations and realities facing the OMB, such as heavyworkload, limited number of personnel, and its increasing case loadhave affected the speedy disposition of cases pending before the

I Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan, 701 SCRA 189; Enriquez v. Office of the Ombudsman, 545 SCRA 618;Duterle v. Sandiganbayan, 289 SCRA 721; Tatad v. Sandiganbayan, 159 SCRA 70

RESOLUTIONpp vs. Petronilo B. BuendiaCrim. Cases Nos. SB-17-CRM-1098

to SB-17-CRM-1109

Page 3 of6

)(- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )(

Office. And this was judicially recognized by the Supreme Court inthe case of Castillo v. Senaiqenbeyen?

The motion is impressed with merit.

In the determination of whether the defendant has beendenied his right to a speedy. disposition of a case, the following maybe considered and balanced: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasonsfor the delay; (3) the assertion or failure to assert such right by theaccused; and (4) the prejudice caused by the delay." None ofthese elements, however, is either a necessary or sufficientcondition; they are related and must be considered together withother relevant circumstances. These factors have no talismaticqualities as courts must still engage in a difficult and sensitivebalancing process."

After weighing the procedural antecedents and thesurrounding circumstances of the instant cases, the Court isconvinced that, indeed, the OMB took a protracted period of morethan eight (8) years to complete the preliminary investigationcounted from the filing of the complaint on May 9, 2009 up to thefiling in court of the subject Informations on June 2, 2017. Even ifthe period of investigation will be counted from the submission ofthe accused's counter-affidavit on January 27, 2010, still, the seven-year lapse is unjustifiable considering that the proceedings beforethe OMB did not involve intricate facts, voluminous records, andcomplex issues, The subject matter of the present cases is thefailure of the accused to disclose in his 2002 to 2007 Statements ofAssets and Liabilities (SALN) his ownership or acquisition of twoparcels of land located in Lipa City, Batangas. To the Court's mind,the time devoted by the OMB to determine whether there existedprobable cause to charge the accused for violation of the Code ofConduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employeesand for Perjury because of such failure, was not commensurate tothe simplicity of the issue.

It is of no moment that the accused did not assert his right tospeedy disposition of his cases at the first instance. The SupremeCourt in the more recent case of Remutie" has clarified that the utter

2328 SCRA 693 Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan, supra, pp. 195-1964 Remulla v. Sandiganbayan (Second Division), G.R No. 218040, April 17, 20175 Supra

RESOLUTIONpp vs. Petronilo B. BuendiaCrim. Cases Nos. SB-17-CRM-1098

to SB-17-CRM-1109

Page 4 of6

)(- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )(

failure of the prosecution to explain the delay in the proceedingsoutweighs the lack of follow-ups from the accused. The HighTribunal said so after reconciling the seeming inconsistencies in thepronouncements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Tilendo v.Ombudsmen" Guerrero v. CA,7 Bernat v. Sandiganbayan, BandTello v. Peopie" (first set) and the cases of Coscolluela v.Sandiganbayan10 and its related cases 11 (second set). Thus:

The first set of cases shows that the criminal cases werenot dismissed because of the non-assertion of the accused oftheir right to a speedy disposition of cases or speedy trial. Otherfactors in the balancing test were also considered by the Court,particularly, the reason for the delay in the proceedings and theprejudice caused by the delay.

In Guerrero and Bernat, it was held that the delay wasacceptable because there was a necessity to retake thetestimonies of the witnesses due to the lost TSN. The courts couldnot have adjudicated the case without the TSN. On the otherhand, in Tilendo, the Court accepted the explanation of the OSPthat there was inordinate delay because the NBI's inquiry was notpart of the preliminary investigation. Hence, as the length of delayin these cases were properly justified by the prosecution and theaccused therein failed to take steps to accelerate their cases, theCourt found that there was no prejudice caused, which wouldwarrant the assertion of their right to a speedy disposition ofcases.

In the second set of cases, the lengthy delay in theproceedings against the accused therein was not satisfactorilyexplained. In Cervantes, the prosecution provided a lacklusterexcuse that there was no inordinate delay because the case wasnot politically motivated. In People, the filing of the case in courtwas drastically delayed because it was subjected to unnecessaryreviews, and the Ombudsman basically failed to decide whether tofile the case or not. In Inocentes, there was unwarranted delay inthe filing of the case due to the lethargic transfer of the recordsfrom the RTC to the Sandiganbayan. Finally, in Coscolluela, theOmbudsman could not give an explanation why the preliminaryinvestigation was delayed for six years.

6 559 Phil. 739 (2007)7327 Phil. 496 (1996)8472 Phi I. 869 (2004)9606 Phil. 514 (2009)10 Supra11 Cervantes v. Sandiganbayan, 366 Phil. 602 (1999); People v. Sandiganabayan, 798 SCRA 36;Inocentes v. People, 796 SCRA 34

RESOLUTIONpp vs. Petronilo B. BuendiaCrim. Cases Nos. SB-17-CRM-1098

to SB-17-CRM-1109

Page 5 of6

)(- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )(

Essentially, the Court found in those cases that the Statemiserably failed to give an acceptable reason for the extensivedelay. Due to the manifest prejudice caused to the accusedtherein, the Court no longer gave weighty consideration to theirlack of objection during the period of delay. It was emphasized inthose cases that it was the duty of the prosecutor to expedite theprosecution of the case regardless if the accused failed to objectto the delay.

In the cases now under consideration, the prosecution has notoffered a satisfactory explanation why the OMS spent more thanseven (7) years, if not eight (8) years, to determine that probablecause exists to indict the accused for failure to include in his SALNsthe two properties in Lipa, Satangas. The supposed limitations andrealities facing the OMS, such as heavy workload, limited number ofpersonnel, and its increasing case load that have affected thespeedy disposition of cases pending before the Office are notsufficient reasons to justify the lapse of seven (7) or eight (8) years.In fact, the same explanation was rejected in Coscolluela. Thus:

Verily, the Office of the Ombudsman was created under themantle of the Constitution, mandated to be the "protector of thepeople" and as such, required to "act promptly on complaints filedin any form or manner against officers and employees of theGovernment, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentalitythereof, in order to promote efficient service." This greatresponsibility cannot be simply brushed aside by ineptitude.Precisely, the Office of the Ombudsman has the inherent dutynot only to carefully go through the particulars of case butalso to resolve the same within the proper length of time. Itsdutiful performance should not only be gauged by the qualityof the assessment but also by the reasonable promptness ofits dispensation. Thus, barring any extraordinary complication,such as the degree of difficulty of the questions involved in thecase or any event external thereto that effectively stymied itsnormal work activity-any of which have not been adequatelyproven by the prosecution in the case at bar-there appears to beno justifiable basis as to why the Office of the Ombudsman couldnot have earlier resolved the preliminary investigation proceedingsagainst the petitioners.V

WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the instant casesare hereby ordered DISMISSED for violation of the right of theaccused to speedy disposition of his cases.

12 At pp. 197-198

RESOLUTIONpp vs. Petronilo B. BuendiaCrim. Cases Nos. SB-17-CRM-1098

to SB-17-CRM-1109

Page 60f6

)(- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )(

Considering that this dismissal is tantamount to an acquittal,the hold departure order issued against the accused by reason ofthese cases are hereby LIFTED and SET ASIDE, and the bond heposted is ordered RELEASED, subject to the usual accounting andauditing procedures.

SO ORDERED.

EFREN r:(01 LA CRUZChairperson/Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

~~~4GERALDINE FAITH A. ECONG

Associate Justice

~~;\t3 \tll .~tur~ '---__L..r~j"'" DO M. CALOONA

Associate Justice