[G.R. No. 191411. July 15, 2013.

]
RAFAEL L. COSCOLLUELA , petitioner,
vs .
SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

EDWIN N. NACIONALES, ERNESTO P. MALVAS, and JOSE MA. G.

[G.R. No. 191871. July 15, 2013.]

PERLAS-BERNABE, J p:

Digest Author: Jude Fanila

Topic: Rights of the accused – Right to a speedy trial

Case Summary: Petitioners were accused of graft and corruption in 2003 when they were
working for Negros Occidental provincial government. However, information was filed before
the Sandiganbayan only in 2009. Raised defense of a right to a speedy trial. SB said no violation
of right as the delay was due to internal procedures of the Ombudsman.
SC said right was violated. Ombudsman failed to present evidence that adequately justifies the 6
year delay in the filing of the information and resolution of the preliminary investigation.

Petitioners: Rafael Coscolluella – Governor of Negros Occidental | Edwin nacionales – Special

Doctrines Involved: Factors – the following factors are considered and balanced when
determining w/n the right to a speedy trial has been violated.
(1) the length of delay;
(2) the reasons for the delay;
(3) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and
(4) the prejudice caused by the delay.

FACTS:
1. Petitioner, Rafael Coscoluella served as Negros Occidental governor for (3) terms,
ending June 30 2001. Co-petitioners were employees who worked for the provincial
government under his term.
 2. Nov. 9 2001 – the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas Office) received a letter-
complaint, dated Nov. 7 from People’s graftwatch. The complaint alleged an anomalous
purchase of medical and agricultural equipment for the province totaling to P20M which
allegedly happened a month before Rafael stepped down from office.
3. March 27 2003 – assigned Graft Investigation Officer found probable cause against
petition for violation of RA 3019 Sec. 3e – recommended the filing of an information.
a. April 16 2002 – the case building team of the ombudsman upgraded the complaint
into a criminal case. Petitioners filed counter-affidavits.
b. June 5 2003 – Visayas Deputy Ombudsman, Primo Miro approved the
information.
c. May 21 2009 – final approval of acting ombudsman, Orlando Casimiro.
4. June 19 2009 – formal information filed before the Sandiganbayan.
a. July 9 2009 – Coscoluella filed a motion to quash. Alleging that his right to
speedy disposition of cases was violated as the criminal charges were filed only
after (8) years since the complaint was instituted.
b. Respondents – Filed opposition to motion to quash. Argued that although the
information was originally dated 2003, it had to go through review and revision
prior to final approval. Argued that petitioners failed to object to the delay prior to
the current proceedings.
5. Oct. 6 2009 – Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash.
a. Preliminary Investigation – was resolved via the March 27 resolution. Delay was
only due to internal procedure.
6. Motion for Reconsideration denied. Led to current appeal.

ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

ISSUES + HELD:
1. W/N there was a violation of the constitutional right to the speedy disposition of cases? –
YES
a. Art. III – Sec. 16 – of the 1987 Constitution provides the aforementioned right
explicitly.1 The right is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but
extends to all parties in all proceedings. Including civil, or administrative cases
heard before judicial or quasi-judicial bodies.
b. Flexible Nature – the right is a relative or flexible concept. Mere mathemathical
reckoning of the time involved insufficient. Instead, the right is deemed violated
in the following circumstances:
i. when the proceedings are postponed due to vexatious, capricious and
oppressive delays or;
ii. when unjustified postponements of trial are asked for and secured

1
SEC. 16.All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their
cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies
 iii. When a long period of time allowed to elapse without the party having his
case tried, the delay being without cause or justifiable motive.
c. Factors – the following factors are considered and balanced when determining
w/n the right has been violated.
i. (1) the length of delay;
ii. (2) the reasons for the delay;
iii. (3) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and
iv. (4) the prejudice caused by the delay.
d. Analysis
i. (1) Preliminary investigations took a protracted amount of time to
complete. Under Rule II, Sec. 4 of the Rules of procedure of the office of
the Ombudsman there is no complete resolution of a case under
preliminary investigation until the Ombudsman either approves the
investigating officer’s recommendation or dismisses the complaint. i Thus,
preliminary investigation took 8 years to end. (2003-2009)
ii. (2) The Office of the Ombdsman is charged with both carefully going
through complaints filed before it but also with their prompt dispensation.
Absent any proof that there were extraordinary complications such as
degree of difficulty of questions involved, there is no justifiable basis for
the failure to resolve the preliminary investigation in time.
iii. (3) Petitioners could not have asserted their right earlier. They were
informed of the charges on march 27, 2003 only when they received a
copy after the filing of the information on June 19, 2009. They were
unaware that the investigation was still on-going. As respondents in a
preliminary investigation, it was not their duty to follow up on the
prosecution of the case. Duty was wit the Ombudsman to expedite the
resolution of the proceedings.
1. Duterte v. Sandiganbayan – Similar case.. Petitioners there could
not have raised right to speedy resolution as they were unaware
that the investigation was still on-going. Lapse of years after initial
complaint before the Ombudsman was reasonable ground for them
to believe that the investigation had already terminated.
2. Barker v. Wingo – A defendant has no duty to bring himself to
trial. Such duty rests with the State, who is bound to insure that
trial is consistent with due process.
iv. (4) Prejudice is present. The objective of the right is to assure that an
innocent person may be free from the anxiety and expense of litigation or,
that they have their guilt determined in the shorterst possible time.
1. Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan - Delay prejudices their ability to raise a
proper defense as they might have difficulties recalling events, etc.
Same applies to prosecutor. Thus, in the interest of all parties to
resolve the case as fast as possible.
e. Petitioners are acquitted, without prejudice to a finding of civil liability in a
subsequent case. This is pursuant to Rule 111, Sec. 2 of the RoC ii which declares
that unless an acquittal explicitly declares that the act or omission from which the
civil liability may arise did not exist, there is no bar to a subsequent civil case.
RULING:

WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions dated
October 6, 2009 and February 10, 2010 of the First Division of the Sandiganbayan are
ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Sandiganbayan is likewise ordered to DISMISS Crim.
Case No. SB-09-CRM-0154 for violation of the Constitutional right to speedy disposition of
cases of petitioners Rafael L. Coscolluela, Edwin N. Nacionales, Dr. Ernesto P. Malvas, and
Jose Ma. G. Amugod, without prejudice to any civil action which the Province of Negros
Occidental may file against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

DISSENT:

NOTES:
i
SEC. 4.Procedure. — The preliminary investigation of cases falling under
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and Regional Trial Courts shall be
conducted in the manner prescribed in Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court,
subject to the following provisions:
xxx xxx xxx
No information may be led and no complaint may be dismissed
without the written authority or approval of the Ombudsman in cases
falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, or of the proper
Deputy Ombudsman in all other cases. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
ii
"The extinction of the penal action does not carry
with it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a
declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might
arise did not exist. In other cases, the person entitled to the civil action
may institute it in the jurisdiction and in the manner provided by law
against the person who may be liable for restitution of the thing and
reparation or indemnity for the damage suffered."