REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Sandigauhayan QUEZON CITY FOURTH DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SB-17-CRM-2165 Plaintiff, FOR: Violation of Section 3(e), - versus - Republic Act No. 3019, as amended EVELIO R. LEONARDIA, GOLDWYN V. NIFRAS, PRESENT: LUZVIMINDA S. TREYES, Quiroz, J., Chairperson NELSON M. SEDILLO, JR., Cruz, J. BELLY P. AGUILLON, Jacinto, J EDUARDO H. RAVENA, ALADINO A. AGBONES, JARIES EBENIZER E. ENCABO, MELVIN B. RECABAR, and Promulgated on ANABELLE C. BADAJOS, Janvary 26; 2018 wah Accused. x — RESOLUTION QUIROZ, J.: Before the Court is accused Evelio R. Leonardia's Motion to Dismiss for Violation of the Constitutional Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases with Opposition to the Issuance of Warrants of Arrest for Lack of Probable Cause dated December 1, 2017' and accused Goldwyn V. Nifras, Luzviminda S Treyes, Nelson M. Sedillo, Sr., Belly P. Aguillon, Eduardo H. Ravena, Aladino A. Agbones, Jaries Ebenizer E. Encabo, and Melvin B, Recabar’s Omnibus Motion : To Dismiss 2: To Suspend Proceedings 3. To Withhold Issuance of Warrant of Arrest dated December 1, 2017.* On December 22, 2017, the prosecution filed its Consolidated Comment/Opposition.’ Accused Leonardia filed a Reply [To: Consolidated Comment/Opposition Dated 21 December 2017] on January 12, 2018.* The Court finds for the accused. The accused cite several grounds for their motion, but the principal basis for the dismissal sought is anchored on Section 14 (2) of the Bill of Rights on the right of an accused to speedy disposition of cases. Accused Nifras, Treyes, Sedillo, Aguillon, Ravena, Agbones, Encabo, and Recabar claim that the preliminary investigation took more than five (5) years, reckoned from the issuance of the fact-finding committee's Final Evaluation Report dated May 9, 2011 until the issuance of the Joint Resolution dated Records, Volume 2, pp. 188 ~ 706. Records, Volume 2, pp. 708 ~ 715. Records, Volume 2, pp. 785 ~ 782 Records, Volume 2. pp. 787 — 844 HetRESOLUTION People v. Leonardia, etal ‘SB-17-CRM-2165 Page 2 0f3 December 2, 2016, while accused Leonardia points out that the delay in the resolution of their case was for more than eight (8) years, reckoned from the time the complaint was sent on October 14, 2008 via electronic mail, considering that upon receipt of the email, the complaint was immediately docketed as CPL-V-08- 0801, and that following the ruling of the Supreme Court in People v Sandiganbayan,® the period pertaining to the conduct of the fact-finding investigation should not be deemed separate from the preliminary investigation in the determination whether the delay violates the constitutional right of the accused to speedy disposition of cases. Considering the more recent ruling of the Supreme Court in Torres v. Sandiganbayan.” where the Supreme Court underscored that speedy disposition of cases covers the period spent by the Office of the Ombudsman in the conduct of factfinding investigations, and considering further that in People v. Sandiganbayan’ the Supreme Court ruled that a total of five (5) years and five (5) months in the conduct of both the fact-finding investigation and preliminary investigation constitute inordinate delay, the Court sustains the claim of the accused that the proceeding before the Office of the Ombudsman as to their case, spanning a period of eight (8) years and two (2) months, reckoned from the filing of the email complaint on October 14, 2008 until the approval by the Honorable Ombudsman on December 13, 2016 of the Joint Resolution dated December 2, 2016, violated the constitutional guarantee against inordinate delay. The prosecution cites the motion for extension of time sought by the accused to file their respective counter-affidavits as contributory to the delay in the proceedings before the Office of the Ombudsman, but the Court notes that based on the timeline provided by the prosecution, the last counter-affidavit had been filed on December 16, 2013 and does not in any way explain the three-year period spent in evaluating the case, culminating in the issuance of the December 2, 2016 Joint Resolution. The Court further notes that based on the Order dated May 8, 2017,° the accused had seasonably asserted their constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases before the Office of the Ombudsman. Applying the four-factor test, i.e., the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the assertion of the right or failure to assert it, and the prejudice caused by such delay, in determining whether the attendant delay indeed offends, the Court finds the motions impressed with merit. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motion to Dismiss for Violation of the Constitutional Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases with Opposition to the Issuance of Warrants of Arrest for Lack of Probable Cause filed by accused Evelio R. Leonardia’s and the Omnibus Motion 1: To iss 2: To Suspend Proceedings 3. To Withhold Issuance of Warrant of Arrest filed by accused Goldwyn V. Nifras, Luzviminda S. Treyes, Nelson M. Sedillo, Sr., Belly P. Aguillon, Eduardo H. Ravena, Aladino A. Agbones, Jaries Ebenizer E. Encabo, and Melvin B, Recabar's are GRANTED. GR. No. 189083, December 11, 2013, 712 SCRA 359, GR. No. 221562’ 69, October 8, 2016. Supra, see Note 5. Records, Volume 1, pp. 34 46.RESOLUTION People v, Leonard, et.al. ‘SB-17-CRM-2165 Page 3 of3 Accordingly, the case is hereby DISMISSED and the December 4, 2017 Hold Departure Order is ordered LIFTED and SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED. Quezon City, Philippines, January 23, 2018. Chairperson rte posal. RE’ Dt RUZ BAYAI JACINTO ‘ssociate“Justice Assoriate Justice