The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tatad, finding that his constitutional rights to due process and a speedy trial were violated. Specifically:
- A complaint against Tatad from 1979 was not acted on by the Tanodbayan until 1985, representing a delay of over 5 years.
- The Tanodbayan's justification for the 3 year delay - that it conducted a "painstaking and grueling scrutiny" - suggests a double standard and was rejected by the Court.
- The charges against Tatad, which included unfiled statement of assets and alleged bribery, did not involve complicated legal issues that would justify such a long delay of over 3 years.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tatad, finding that his constitutional rights to due process and a speedy trial were violated. Specifically:
- A complaint against Tatad from 1979 was not acted on by the Tanodbayan until 1985, representing a delay of over 5 years.
- The Tanodbayan's justification for the 3 year delay - that it conducted a "painstaking and grueling scrutiny" - suggests a double standard and was rejected by the Court.
- The charges against Tatad, which included unfiled statement of assets and alleged bribery, did not involve complicated legal issues that would justify such a long delay of over 3 years.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tatad, finding that his constitutional rights to due process and a speedy trial were violated. Specifically:
- A complaint against Tatad from 1979 was not acted on by the Tanodbayan until 1985, representing a delay of over 5 years.
- The Tanodbayan's justification for the 3 year delay - that it conducted a "painstaking and grueling scrutiny" - suggests a double standard and was rejected by the Court.
- The charges against Tatad, which included unfiled statement of assets and alleged bribery, did not involve complicated legal issues that would justify such a long delay of over 3 years.
Tatad v. Sandiganbayan [G.R. Nos. 72335-39. March 21, 1988] 2.
2. In this case, a delay of 3 years is not reasonable and justifiable. SB's
statement that it was due to a painstaking and grueling scrutiny by FACTS: the Tanodbayan as to whether the preliminary investigation was 1. Executive Asst. delos Reyes of Department of Public merited of Tatad suggests a double standard of treatment and must Information (DPI) filed a formal report w/ Presidential be rejected. Charges against Tatad were for his alleged failure to file Security Command (PSC) against Sec. Tatad of DPI for his SALN, bribery, and unwarranted benefits to his relative certainly commiting graft and corruption. did not involve complicated legal and factual issues to justify such 2. The report was made to sleep in the office of PSC until the delay. end of 1979 (5 years siguro) when it became known that Sec. Tatad had a falling out w/ Pres. Marcos and had resigned from the Cabinet. 3. The complaint was resurrected in the form of a formal complaint filed with the Tanodbayan. The Tanodbayan acted on the complaint by referring the complaint to CIS, 2 months after Tatad's resignation was accepted by Pres. Marcos 4. CIS report was submittted to the Taodbayan, recommending the filing of charges for graft and corrupt practices against Tatad. By October 1982, all affidavit and counter-affidavits were in and the case was ready for disposition by the Tanodbayan. However, it was only in July 1985 that a resolution was approved by the Tanodbayan, recommending the filing of the corresponding criminal informations against the accused Tatad. 5 criminal informations were filed w/ SB on June 1985, all against Tatad alone.
ISSUE: WON Tatad was deprived of his constitutional right to due
process and speedy disposition of cases. - YES.
1. Substantial adherence to the requirements of the law governing
the conduct of preliminary investigation, including substantial compliance with the limitation prescribed by the law for resolution of the cases is part of the procedural due process. Inordinate delay of cases is violative of Tatad's constitutional rights.