REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

$>anbiganhapan
Quezon City

FIFTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASE No. SB-17-

Plaintiff, CRM-1387

For: Perjury (Art. 183 of the

Revised Penal Code)

-versus- CRIM. CASE No. SB-17-

CRM-1388

JULIUS SIMBAJON MAQUILING For: Violation of Sec. 8(a),

Accused. R.A. No. 6713

Present:

Lagos, J., Chairperson,

Mendoza-Arcega, J., and
Cruz, J.*

Promulgated:

Oc.tober 05, l01J~

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

RESOLUTION

MENDOZA-ARCEGA, J.:

Before Us is the Entry of Appearance with Omnibus Motion (a) to

dismiss; (b) to cancel the August 29, 2017 arraignment; and (c) to suspend
further proceedings filed by accused Julius Simbajon Maquiling
("Maquiling") on August 22, 201 7.

* As per Administrative Order No. 025-2017 dated February 1.2017.

RESOLUTION
People v. Maquiling
Criminal Case Nos. SB-17-CRM-\387-1388
Page 2 of7
x-----------------------------------------------------x

In his motion, I it was averred that the Field Investigation Unit (FlU),
Mindanao Area Office, Office of the Ombudsman received a letter from a
certain Juan dela Cruz on November 25, 2010 requesting a lifestyle
investigation against herein accused. On October 27,2015, the FlU completed
its fact-finding investigation and filed a complaint-affidavit against the
accused before the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao ("OMB-
Mindanao"). Thus, from November 25,2010 to October 27,2015, there was
a delay of five (5) years to complete the fact-finding investigation although
the matter under investigation by the FlU merely involved a simple
verification of the accused's SALN that was compared to his actual assets
found from the records of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Thereafter, the
preliminary investigation commenced on October 27,2015 and concluded on
December 21, 2016. On July 3, 2017, the instant cases were filed before the
Sandiganbayan. Reckoned from November 25,2010 to July 2017, there was
an inordinate delay of about seven (7) years.

On August 29,2017, the prosecution filed its Comment/Opposition.i It

was maintained that the fact-finding investigation phase should not be
included in reckoning whether or not the right of the accused to speedy
disposition of cases has been violated. The fact-finding inquiry is separate and
distinct from the conduct of preliminary investigation. In the fact-finding
investigation phase, it cannot be said that the accused was already prejudiced
since the subpoenas issued by the Office of the Ombudsman in the course
thereof were addressed to the various government offices and not to the
accused himself. The prosecution stressed that whatever delay during the fact-
finding phase could not have concerned the accused at all.

The procedural backdrop of the instant cases are as follows.'

1. On November 25, 2010, the OMB-Mindanao received a letter

dated October 27,2010 from a certain "Juan dela Cruz".

2. On October 27, 2015, a complaint-affidavit was filed by the FlU

of the OMB-Mindanao against accused Maquiling. On the same date,
the preliminary investigation commenced.

3. On November 6, 2015, the OMB-Mindanao released its Joint-

Order directing the accused to file his counter-affidavit within ten (10)
days from receipt thereof.

I Records, pp. 58-67.

2 Ibid., pp. 71-77.
3 Ibid., pp. 5-61.
RESOLUTION
People v. Maquiling
Criminal Case Nos. SB-17 -CRM-\3 87-1388
Page 3 of7
x-----------------------------------------------------x

4. On December 18, 2015, the OMB-Mindanao received the

counter-affidavit of Maquiling.

5. On February 24, 2016, the complainant filed his Reply.

6. On June 7, 2016, the OMB-Mindanao released the transmittal

letter dated May 16, 2016 with the proposed resolution indicting the
accused Maquiling.

7. On July 15, 2016, the Hon. Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-

Morales approved the Resolution dated April 13, 2016 indicting the
accused for perjury under Art. 183 of the Revised Penal Code and
violation of Sec. 8(a) in relation to Sec. 11 ofR.A. No. 6713.

8. On August 24, 2016, the OMB-Mindanao received the said

Resolution.

9. On September 7, 2016, the accused filed a Motion for

Reconsideration.

10. On November 15, 2016, Maquiling's Motion for

Reconsideration was denied and the denial was approved by Hon.
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales on December 21, 2016.

11. On July 3, 2017, the instant charges were filed before the Court.

THE COURT'S RULING

After a conscientious perusal of the records and a deliberate

consideration of the arguments of the parties, We find the instant motion
impressed with merit.

The right to a speedy disposition of cases is a no hollow concept. It is a

constitutionally guaranteed right found in Section 16, Article III of the 1987
Constitution which states that all persons shall have the right to a speedy
disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative
bodies. In Dansal, et al. v. Hon. Gil P. Femandez, Sr.,4 the Supreme Court
expounded on the import of the right to a speedy disposition of cases, viz:

4 G.R. No. 126814, March 2, 2000.

RESOLUTION
People v. Maquiling
Criminal Case Nos. SB-17-CRM-1387-1388
Page 4 of7
x-----------------------------------------------------x

"Initially embodied in Section 16, Article IV of the 1973

Constitution, the aforesaid constitutional provision is one of three
provisions mandating speedier dispensation of justice. 5 It guarantees the
right of all persons to "a speedy disposition oftheir case"; includes within
its contemplation the periods before, during and after trial, and affords
broader protection than Section 14(2),6 which guarantees just the right to
a speedy trial. It is more embracing than the protection under Article VII,
Section 15, which covers only the period after the submission of the
case.' The present constitutional provision applies to civil, criminal and
administrative cases.!"

In the determination of whether or not that right has been violated, the
factors that may be considered and balanced are: the length of the delay, the
reasons for such delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right by the
accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay." A mere mathematical
reckoning of the time involved, therefore, would not be sufficient. 10 In the
application of the constitutional guarantee of the right to speedy disposition
of cases, particular regard must also be taken of the facts and circumstances
peculiar to each case.'!

A reading and understanding of the records show that on November

25,2010, the OMB-Mindanao received a letter dated October 27,2010 from
a certain "Juan dela Cruz" which prompted the former to conduct a lifestyle
check on the accused. The FlU of the OMB-Mindanao filed a formal
complaint against accused Maquiling on October 27, 2015. Otherwise stated,
it took the OMB-Mindanao four (4) years, eleven (11) months and two (2)
days to conclude its fact-finding investigation. The inevitable inference,
therefore, is that there was an inordinate delay in the instant cases as it took
the Office of the Ombudsman six (6) years, seven (7) months and eight (8)
days to resolve the same. Besides, the allegations against herein accused do

5 Ibid., citing Bemas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary,
1996, p. 489.
6 Ibid., citing Art. Ill, Sec 14 (2). "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed

innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel,
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial,
and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment,
trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly
notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. (Emphasis supplied)
7 Ibid., citing Bemas, supra, citing Talabon v. Iloilo Provincial Warden, 78 PHIL 599.

8 Ibid., citing Bemas, supra.

9 Ty-Dazo, et al. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 143885-86, January 21, 2002 citing Blanco v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 136757-58, November 27,2000.
]0 Ibid.

]] Ibid., citing Binay v. Sandiganbayan, 316 SCRA 65 (1999); Gonzales v. Sandiganbayan, 199
SCRA 298 (1991).
RESOLUTION
People v. Maquiling
Criminal Case Nos. SB-17-CRM-1387-1388
Page 5 of7
x-----------------------------------------------------x

not involve complex factual and legal matters which justify the protracted
amount of time in concluding the aforesaid investigation.

Furthermore, it is the prosecution's submission that the accused erred

in including the timeline of the fact-finding investigation conducted by the
FlU from November 10,2010 until the filing of the complaint on October 27,
2015. The fact-finding investigation phase should not be included in
determining whether there is inordinate delay in the instant case.

The prosecution's postulation has no legal mooring.

In one case.F the High Court pronounced:

"The State further argues that the fact-finding investigation

should not be considered a part of the preliminary investigation because
the former was only preparatory in relation to the latter; and that the
period spent in the former should not be factored in the computation of
the period devoted to the preliminary investigation.

The argument cannot pass fair scrutiny.

The guarantee of speedy disposition under Section 16 of Article

III of the Constitution applies to all cases pending before all judicial,
quasijudicial or administrative bodies. The guarantee would be defeated
or rendered inutile if the hair-splitting distinction by the State is
accepted. Whether or not the fact-finding investigation was separate
from the preliminary investigation conducted by the Office of the
Ombudsman should not matter for purposes of determining if the
respondents' right to the speedy disposition of their cases had been
violated." (Emphasis supplied.)

More so, the Supreme Court in Commo. Torres v. Sandiganbayan, et

13
al. made clear that the fact-finding period should be included in determining
whether there is inordinate delay in a particular case, to wit:

"We find it necessary to emphasize that the speedy disposition

of cases covers not only the period within which the preliminary
investigation was conducted, but also all stages to which the accused
is subjected, even including fact-finding investigations conducted
prior to the preliminary investigation proper.

12 People v. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 188165, December 11,2013.

13 G.R. Nos. 221562-69, October 5, 2016.
RESOLUTION
People v. Maquiling
Criminal Case Nos. SB-17-CRM-1387-1388
Page 6 of7
x-----------------------------------------------------x

xxx xxx

Any delay in the investigation and prosecution of cases must be

duly justified. The State must prove that the delay in the prosecution was
reasonable, or that the delay was not attributable to it.'?" (Emphasis
supplied.)

The foregoing considered, We cannot subscribe to the claim of the

prosecution that the accused was not prejudiced during the fact-finding phase
since the subpoenas issued by the Office of the Ombudsman in the course of
the said phase were addressed to the various government offices and not to
the accused himself. Above and beyond, the prosecution miserably failed to
proffer any valid reason that would justify the delay. No complex issue of fact
or law is involved in these cases as what was to be resolved only was whether
the accused had a business interest in JS Maquiling Marketing and he failed
to include this in his two (2) SALNs. The prosecution's argument that the
Office of the Ombudsman is nationwide and the latter has a heavy case load
fails to persuade Us.

The length of delay in the conduct of the fact-finding stage is, to the
mind of the Court, a patent transgression of his constitutional right to a speedy
disposition of the case. Perforce, the unreasonable delay warrants the
dismissal of the Informations against Maquiling.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant Omnibus Motion filed by accused

Julius Simbajon Maquiling is GRANTED. The instant cases are ordered
DISMISSED.

Accordingly, all previous settings are CANCELLED. The hold-

departure orders issued by the Court against accused Julius Simbajon
Maquiling are hereby LIFTED and SET ASIDE, and the cash bond posted
by him is ordered RELEASED, subject to the usual accounting and auditing
procedures.

The Formal Entry of Appearance of Atty. Eusebio M. Avila as counsel

for the accused is NOTED.

SO ORDERED.

14 Ibid., citing People v. Hon. Sandiganbayan, First Division & Third Division, et al., G.R. No.
188165, December 11,2013.
RESOLUTION
People v. Maquiling
Criminal Case Nos. SB-17-CRM-1387-1388
Page 7 of7
x-----------------------------------------------------x

......
'-'.L-Jr1l-AR CEG A

WE CONCUR:

~~AGOS
Associate Justice
Chairperson