Scribd
Upload
124 views2 pages

Melchor Quemado, SR., v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 225404, September 14, 2020

(1) The Supreme Court dismissed Melchor Quemado Sr.'s petition challenging the Sandiganbayan's denial of his motion to dismiss criminal charges against him for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft law due to inordinate delay. (2) The Court ruled that under its precedents, the period spent on the Ombudsman's fact-finding investigations prior to filing a formal complaint is not included in assessing delays. As the investigations against Quemado were still preliminary, there was no inordinate delay. (3) The Court also affirmed the Sandiganbayan's resolutions, finding that the factors for assessing speedy trial violations like length of delay and prejudice to the accused did

Uploaded by

Greta Fe Dumallay
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
124 views2 pages

Melchor Quemado, SR., v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 225404, September 14, 2020

(1) The Supreme Court dismissed Melchor Quemado Sr.'s petition challenging the Sandiganbayan's denial of his motion to dismiss criminal charges against him for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft law due to inordinate delay. (2) The Court ruled that under its precedents, the period spent on the Ombudsman's fact-finding investigations prior to filing a formal complaint is not included in assessing delays. As the investigations against Quemado were still preliminary, there was no inordinate delay. (3) The Court also affirmed the Sandiganbayan's resolutions, finding that the factors for assessing speedy trial violations like length of delay and prejudice to the accused did

Uploaded by

Greta Fe Dumallay
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/ 2

CASE NO 137

CASE NAME Melchor Quemado, Sr., v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 225404, September 14, 2020.
PONENTE INTING, J
TOPIC R.A. No. 8493, The Speedy Trial Act of 1998.
DOCTRINE Section 16, Article III, Constitution.

FACTS:

This resolves the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by Melchor M. Quemado, Sr. pursuant
to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the Resolutions dated April 11, 2016, and June 13,
2016, issued by the Sandiganbayan (SB)-Sixth Division in SB-16-CRM-0051 for violation of
Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019. The assailed Resolution denied petitioner's Motion to
Dismiss on the ground of inordinate delay in the disposition of the case.

In a Letter dated September 25, 2006, addressed to the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB)-Visayas,
the members of the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Sta. Fe, Leyte called attention to the
"irregular and unnecessary transaction” entered by petitioner, who was then the mayor of the
municipality. The letter, which the OMB received on the same date, alleged, among others, that:

(1) as local chief executive, petitioner approved the rental of an office space in Hayward Travelodge
to be used by those involved in the preparation of a feasibility study of the municipality's
Infrastructure for Rural Productivity Enhancement Sector Project;

(2) the rental was unnecessary since an office space is readily available in the municipality, while
Hayward Travelodge is 21 kilometers away;

(3) Hayward Travelodge is owned by petitioner's brother, Anastacio M. Quemado;

(4) the payment for the rent in the amount of P16,000.00 was made out to petitioner who also
received the check therefor. The letter was docketed as CPL-V-06-0627 and treated as a regular
complaint requiring further factual inquiry.

ISSUE:

WHETHER THE SANDIGANBAYAN COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING


TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE ASSAILED RESOLUTIONS
WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN CONTRAST TO THE
SUPREME COURT DECISION OF WHICH THE CHAIRMAN OF THE RESPONDENT COURT
WAS THEN AN ASSOCIAQTE JUSTICE OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN FIRST DIVISION?

RULING:

The petition has no merit.

In Magante v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) (Magante), the Court (Third Division) clarified that
delay in the disposition of cases before the OMB begins to run on the date of the filing of a formal
complaint by a private complainant or the filing by the Field Investigation Office with the OMB of a
formal complaint based on an anonymous complaint or as a result of its motu
proprio investigations. Thus, the period spent for fact finding investigations of the OMB prior to the
filing of the formal complaint by the Field Investigation Office is irrelevant in determining inordinate
delay.

Consistent with Magante is the subsequent En Banc Decision in Cagang v. Sandiganbayan (Fifth


Division) (Cagang). It declared as abandoned the ruling in People v. Sandiganbayan, et al.that fact-
finding investigations are included in the period for the determination of inordinate delay.

Significantly, the abandoned ruling in People v. Sandiganbayan, et al. is the one being invoked by
petitioner in the instant case.  In deciding to abandon the ruling, the Court in Cagang ratiocinated
Ꮮαwρhi ৷

that the proceedings at the fact-finding stage are not yet adversarial. This period cannot be counted
even if the accused is invited to attend the investigations since these are merely preparatory to the
filing of a formal complaint. At this point, the OMB will not yet determine if there is probable cause to
charge the accused.

Jurisprudence has listed the following factors to consider in treating petitions invoking the right to
speedy deposition of cases:

(1) length of the delay,


(2) reasons for the delay,
(3) assertion of right by the accused, and
(4) prejudice to the respondent. Taking these factors into consideration, the Court finds that there
was no inordinate delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation and the filing of the
Information by the OMB.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED. The. Resolutions dated April 11, 2016 and June 13,
2016 issued by the Sandiganbayan - Sixth Division in SB-16-CRM-0051 are AFFIRMED

You might also like