Scribd
Upload
1K views1 page

Cagang vs. Sandiganbayan

The Supreme Court ruled that no inordinate delay existed in the filing of criminal charges against the petitioner based on the following factors: 1) The Ombudsman received a complaint and referred it to the Commission on Audit for a 7-year investigation due to the complexity of the case involving 40 individuals and 81 transactions. 2) Unforeseen circumstances like unavoidable postponements must be considered in determining what constitutes reasonable time. 3) The petitioner did not assert his right to speedy disposition during the investigation, choosing instead to wait until an information was filed against him in court.

Uploaded by

Lance Christian Zoleta
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views1 page

Cagang vs. Sandiganbayan

The Supreme Court ruled that no inordinate delay existed in the filing of criminal charges against the petitioner based on the following factors: 1) The Ombudsman received a complaint and referred it to the Commission on Audit for a 7-year investigation due to the complexity of the case involving 40 individuals and 81 transactions. 2) Unforeseen circumstances like unavoidable postponements must be considered in determining what constitutes reasonable time. 3) The petitioner did not assert his right to speedy disposition during the investigation, choosing instead to wait until an information was filed against him in court.

Uploaded by

Lance Christian Zoleta
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Cagang vs.

Sandiganbayan
G.R. Nos. 210141-42 | July 31, 2018

Doctrine:
What may constitute a reasonable time to resolve a proceeding is not determined by “mere mathematical reckoning.”
It requires consideration of a number of factors, including the time required to investigate the complaint, to file the
information, to conduct an arraignment, the application for bail, pre-trial, trial proper, and the submission of the case
for decision. Unforeseen circumstances, such as unavoidable postponements or force majeure, must also be taken
into account.

Facts:
The office of ombudsman received a complaint for violation of anti graft and corruption against petitioners. The
complaint was then referred to the commission on audit for investigation.
7 years after, the OMB filed Informations for Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and Malversation
of Public Funds through Falsification of Public Documents against Cagang, Camanay, Zoleta, Macagcalat, and
Mangalen.
Petitioner Cagang argues that there was an inordinate delay of seven (7) years in the filing of the Informations.
Citing Tatad v. Sandiganbayan and Roque v. Ombudsman, he argued that the delay violated his constitutional rights
to due process and to speedy disposition of cases. The OMB, on the other hand, filed a Comment/Opposition
arguing that there was no showing that delay in the filing was intentional, capricious, whimsical, or motivated by
personal reasons.
Cagang filed a Motion to Quash/Dismiss with Prayer to Void and Set Aside Order of Arrest but it was subsequently
dismissed. The Sandiganbayan argued that there was no inordinate delay in the issuance of the information,
considering that 40 different individuals were involved with direct participation in more or less 81 different
transactions.
Petitioner argues that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed his Motion to
Quash/Dismiss since the Informations filed against him violated his constitutional rights to due process and to
speedy disposition of cases.

Issue: WoN inordinate delay exists in this case and the petitioner’s right to speedy disposition of cases was violated

Held:
No. (See doctrine)
The court further held that inordinate delay in the resolution and termination of a preliminary investigation violates
the accused’s right to due process and the speedy disposition of cases, and may result in the dismissal of the case
against the accused. The burden of proving delay depends on whether delay is alleged within the periods provided
by law or procedural rules. If the delay is alleged to have occurred during the given periods, the burden is on the
respondent or the accused to prove that the delay was inordinate. If the delay is alleged to have occurred beyond the
given periods, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that the delay was reasonable under the circumstances
and that no prejudice was suffered by the accused as a result of the delay. Every accused has the rights to due
process and to speedy disposition of cases. Inordinate delay in the resolution and termination of a preliminary
investigation will result in the dismissal of the case against the accused. Delay, however, is not determined through
mere mathematical reckoning but through the examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding each case.
Nonetheless, the accused must invoke his or her constitutional rights in a timely manner. The failure to do so could
be considered by the courts as a waiver of right.

In this case, while there was delay, petitioner has not shown that he asserted his rights during this period, choosing
instead to wait until the information was filed against him with the Sandiganbayan.

You might also like