DIGEST — (12) Tumbocon vs Sandiganbayan, GR No.

235412

Full Text: h ps://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64902

FACTS:

Some me in the year 2007, an anonymous complaint was led against the pe oner with the
O ce of the Ombudsman docketed for fact- nding inves ga on.

Four (4) informa on for Perjury were led only on January 23, 2017 before the Sandiganbayan.

Pe oner le a Mo on to Dismiss seeking to dismiss the criminal case for Perjury on the ground
of inordinate delay.

On August 10, 2017, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolu on denying the mo on to dismiss and
held that there is no inordinate delay. The Sandiganbayan found that the following periods
should be excluded:

[a] The me spent by the FIO in issuing the subpoena duces tecum to several government
agencies/o ces, and the receipt of the cer ca ons and le ers by the FIO from November 13,
2007 to March 3, 2009, or one (1) year, three (3) months and eighteen (18) days;
[b] The period from April 6, 2010 to May 23, 2012, or two (2) years, one (1) month and
seventeen (17) days, should likewise be excluded since it was a ributable to the pe oner and
his wife for failing to submit their counter-a davit and their op on to adopt the counter-
a davit they led in the administra ve case;
[c] The period from May 23, 2012 to December 22, 2014, or two (2) years, six (6) months and
twenty-nine (29) days is excusable as they were used by the O ce of the Deputy Ombudsman
to thoroughly study the case;
[d] The period from December 22, 2014 to February 26, 2015, or two (2) months and four (4)
days, is a ributable to the pe oner for seeking reconsidera on of the resolu on nding
probable cause to indict him; and,
[e] The period of one (1) year, seven (7) months and nineteen (19) days is jus ed because the
resolu on of the mo on for reconsidera on was thoroughly reviewed by the Ombudsman.
The Sandiganbayan found that the delay of ve (5) years, six (6) months, and twenty-nine (29)
days can hardly be considered as inordinate, capricious, oppressive and vexa ous. Mo on for
reconsidera on denied.

Pe oner claimed that the delay of 10 years from the me an anonymous complaint was led
against him un l the ling of four (4) informa ons against him before the Sandiganbayan
cons tutes inordinate delay which violated his cons tu onal right to a speedy disposi on of
cases. Pe oner further asserted that the cases against him only involved his alleged untruthful
ffi
ffi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
fi
tt
ffi
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
fi
fi
fi
ffi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
tt
ti
ffi
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
fi
 statements in his Statement of Assets, Liabili es and Net Worth involving a real property
registered in 1995, a motor vehicle purchased in 2000 and a business interest registered in
2000. The issues in the formal complaint were not complex and is within the exper se of the
O ce of the Ombudsman, hence a delay of 10 years cannot be considered as jus ed.

On the other hand, the People of the Philippines, through the O ce of the Special Prosecutor,
argued that there is no inordinate delay in which it amounted to a viola on of pe oner's
cons tu onal right to a speedy disposi on of his case. Pe oner has merely shown a mere
mathema cal reckoning of the period that lapsed during the fact- nding and preliminary
inves ga on of his cases before the O ce of the Ombudsman. Further, the People claimed that
pe oner failed to assert his right to speedy disposi on of his case before the O ce of the
Ombudsman.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there is inordinate delay that violated pe oner's cons tu onal right to a
speedy disposi on of a case?

RULING:

The pe on is meritorious. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Pe on for Review

on Cer orari is GRANTED. The Resolu ons dated August 10, 2017 and November 10, 2017 of
the Sandiganbayan in SB-17-CRM-0059-0062 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The criminal
complaint led against Eldred Palada Tumbocon, docketed as OMB-L-C-10-0161-B is
hereby DISMISSED.

A total period of 6 years, 11 months and 13 days cannot be said, in any standard, as reasonable,
for resolving a simple case of perjury that does not involve millions of pesos and numerous
accused.
ffi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ffi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ffi
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ffi
ti
ti
ti