SPECIAL FOURTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,'Plaintiff,

-versus-SB-1S-CRM-O143For: Grave Coercion

CELESTINO E. MARTINEZ,JR.,SANTIAGOA. SEVILLA,JOSE CARLOA. MARTINEZ,

Accused.

Present:QUIROZ, J., ChairpersonCRUZ, J. and ...ECONG, J.

.PROMULGATED:

Mo rch 1.I 2011 tVttJ

x -------------------------------------------------------~----------------x

RESOLUTION

Econg, J.:

For resolution are the following incidents:

a. Omnibus Motion for Judicial Determination ofProbable Cause, Motion to Quash and/or Refer theCase for Reinvestigation 1 filed by AccusedCelestino Martinez, Jr., Santiago A. Sevilla andJose Carlo A. Martinez ("Accused-Movants");

b. Comment and/or Opposition>; andc. Motion to Quash and/ or Dismiss Information-:

The accused-rnovants assailed the prosecution's finding ofprobable cause which led to their indictment. They assertedthat based on the complaint-affidavit of complaining witnessthe elements of the offense charged are absent.

1 Omnibus Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause, Motion to Quash and/or Refer the sfor Reinvestigation, dated September 18, 2015 and filed with the Sandiganbayan and received by the4th Division on September 21, 2015.2 Comment and/or Opposition, dated October 1, 2015 and filed on October 2, 2015.a Motion to Quash and/or Dismiss Information, dated January 17,2017 and filed on January 20, 20~

ResolutionPeople v. Martinez, et al.SB-lS-CRM-0143Page 2 ofl0x ---------------------------------------------------- x

They claimed that because Benhur Salimbangon is amember of Congress, .he has the authority to dictate on hissupporters to repulse or counter whatever aggression (is)against them and is capable of resisting assuming that therewas indeed a blockage." They pointed out they could not havecontrolled Salimbangon because at the time of the incident, hewas accompanied by his supporters and bodyguards whocarried firearms and ammunitions. Besides, the complainantalso admitted in his complaint-affidavit that he was able to leavehis vehicle and walk away..He said that policemen were presentand escorted Salimbangon's group out of the place of incident.The media were also on the site covering the standoff.

The accused-movants further argued that this Court didnot acquire jurisdiction over the case considering that the filingof the instant case in Court violated their right to speedy trial."The complaint against them was allegedlyfiled on May 17, 2010and the Office of the City Prosecutor of Cebu released aresolution on August 2,2010. Their motion for reconsiderationto the resolution was resolved on October 10, 2010. Theycontended that from there, nothing. was heard about the casedespite repeated demands and it Was only on September 16,2015 that the accused found out that a ReviewResolution wasissued by the Office of the Ombudsman, which they neverreceived.v It was also on this date that the accused learned ofthe filing of the Information in Court.

The accused-movants claimed that it took theOmbudsman's Officeabout four (4)years and eight (8)monthsto file the instant criminal action against them.

The Prosecution relied on the Cebu City Prosecutor'sfinding of probable cause and quoted its findings:

It becomes readily clear that indeed, during thetime and date mentioned in the complaint,complainants were 'prevented from moving theirvehicles any further within that particular area ofPolambato Road in Bogo City. Such act wascommitted, according to the special report (Annex "E"of the complaint) of the Chief of PoliceofBogo City withthe use of a group of vehicles owned by relatives andsupporters of respondent Celestino Martinez, Jr. Thatreport further declared that even after the police

4 Case Records, p. 226.5 Id. at p. 227.6 Id. at p. 228.

/ 1V.

ResolutionPeople v. Martinez, et al.SB-15-CRM-0143Page 3 ofl0x ---------------------------------------------------- x

authorities informed the same respondent of theabsence of a probable cause to search the vehicles, he(accused Martinez, Jr. in this case) still insisted on hisstand to allow passage only after the desired search.

The Office of the Ombudsman concurred with the CityProsecutor's resolution."

Moreover, the prosecution objected to the Motion to Quashon the ground that violation of speedy trial is not one of thegrounds stated in Sec. 3 of Rule 117, Revised Rules of CriminalProcedure. They also debunked the reliance of accused on theTatad v. Sandiqanbauan" ruling since the factual antecedents ofthis case are different from those of.the Tatad case.

The prosecution asserted that there was no attendantvexatious, capricious and oppressive delay. The prosecutionpointed out that the filing of the complaint was with the CebuProsecutor's Officebefore the matter was brought to the Officeof the Ombudsman. And, when thecase was pending before theOmbudsman's Office, the accused never filed any motion orpleading to question the purported delay.9

The prosecution also opposed the accused's plea ofreinvestigation considering that this case had been thoroughlyinvestigated by the Cebu City Prosecutor's Officeand the Officeof the Ombudsman. The reinvestigation is based solely on theground that the accused failed to receive a copy of theOmbudsman's Review Resolution, which the prosecutionclaimed, was mailed to them. The prosecution also manifestedtheir willingness to furnish the accused a copy of said ReviewResolution, if and when ordered by this Court.

The January 20, 2017 Motion to Quash and/ or Motion toDismiss raised the same arguments as their earlier motion toquash. Thus, on January 25,2017, the Court ordered:

Accused Celestino E. Martinez, Jr., Jose Carlo A.Martinez, and Santiago A. Sevilla, having failed to filedtheir "Reply" to the prosecution's "Comment and/orOpposition (Re: Omnibus Motion (1) for the JudicialDetermination of Probable Cause; (2) to QuashInformation; and/or to (3) Refer Case forReinvestigation);" but having subsequently : fil d

7 Id. at p. 236.8 Tatad v. Sandiganbayan, 159 SCRA 70, March 21, 1998.9 Case Records, p. 241.

ResolutionPeople v. Martinez, et al.SB-lS-CRM-0143Page 4 of10x --------------------------------------- ------ ---- --- x

another "Motion to Quash and/ or DismissInformation" on January -20, 2017, which this CourtNOTES as having the same ground as the previous"Motion to Quash;" these incidents shall be deemedSUBMITTEDfor resolution. 10

The issues for determination by this Court are thefollowing:

a. Whether or not there is lack of probable cause for'the issuance of a warrant of arrest;

b. Whether or not there was inordinate delay in 'thefiling of this case thereby violating the right ofaccused to the speedy disposition of cases againstthem.

After weighing the arguments of the parties, this Courtbelieves that, indeed, there exists probable cause for theissuance of the warrants of arrest against the accused.

The judicial determination of probable cause, rests onevidence that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudentman to believe that an offense has been committed by theperson sought to be arrested. 11 It is the knowledge of facts,actual or apparent, strong enough to justify a reasonable manin the belief that he [has] lawful grounds for arresting theaccused. 12

It is apparent from the affidavits of the parties and theirwitnesses during the conduct of preliminary investigation thatcomplainant Salimbangon and his party and their vehicles werelimited, if not restricted, in their movements within thatparticular area of Polambato Road in BogoCity. Because of therestriction, there was a so-called "standoff' between the groupof the complainant Salimbangon and the accused.

Thus, the finding of probable cause for the issuance ofwarrants of arrest against the three (3)accused is proper.

However, the accused-movants, in a Motion to Quash,invoked their constitutional right to speedy trial claiming thatthere was delay in the processing of their case duringpreliminary investigation before the Officeof the Ombudsman.They claim that this Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear

10 Id. at p. 286. ,II Allado v. Diokno, G.R. No. 113630, May 5, 1994,232 SeRA 192.12 Ibid.

ResolutionPeople v. Martinez, et al.SB-1S-CRM-0143Page 5 ofl0x ---------- --------- ------ -------------- ---- --------- x

decide this case by reason of the delay. The Motion to Quashwas reiterated by the accused-rnovants in their motion styled asMotion to Quash and/ or Motion to Dismiss but still raisedidentical grounds.

Perhaps, the accused-movants confused the right tospeedy trial and the right to the speedy disposition of.cases.These are actually two (2) different concepts that are protectedunder the Bill of Rights. The former pertains to his right to havehis case heard by a competent court with dispatch and followingthe timelines set in the Speedy Trial Act. A speedy trial is oneconducted according to the law of criminal procedure and therules and regulations, free from vexatious, capricious andoppressive delays. The primordial purpose of this constitutionalright is to prevent the oppression of an accused by delayingcriminal prosecution for an indefinite period of time. 13 Toensure a speedy trial of all criminal cases before theSandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Courtand Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Republic Act No. 8493 (TheSpeedy Trial Act of 1998) was enacted on February 4, 1998. Toimplement its provisions, the Court issued SC Circular No. 38-98 dated September 15, 1998 setting a time limit forarraignment and pre-trial for thirty (30) days from the date thecourt acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused.!+

On the other hand, the right to the speedy disposition ofcases is provided for in Sec. 16, Article III of the 1987Constitution. This mandates:

"All persons shall have the right to a speedydisposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies. "

The constitutional right to a "speedy disposition of cases"is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but extendsto all parties in all cases, including civil and administrativecases, and in all proceedings, including judicial and quasi-judicial hearings. IS

Considering that the accused -rnovants averred that therewas inordinate delay in the processing of the case against themwhen the case was yet at the preliminary investigation stabefore the Ombudsman, then it is, in reality, the right to s e dy

13 Socrates v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 116259-60, 118896-97, February 20,1996,253 SCPhil151-191.14 People v. Anonas, G.R. No. 156847, January 31, 2007, 513 SCRA 552,542 Phil539-546.15 Ombudsman v. jurado, G.R. No. 154155, August 6,2008,561 SCRA 135, 583 Phil132-157.

ResolutionPeople v. Martinez, et al.S8-15-CRM-0143,Page 6 of10x ---- ------ ------------ --------- ---- ------------- ---- x

disposition of cases and not speedy trial that accused invokedin their Motion.

On the other hand, it is best to understand the role of theOffice of the Ombudsman in order to understand the harshsanction imposed for its inordinate delay.

Article XI, Section 120f the 1987 Constitution mandates:

Section 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, asprotectors of the people, shall act promptly oncomplaints filed in any form or manner against publicofficials or employees of the Government, or anysubdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof.including government-owned or controlledcorporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notifythe complainants of the action taken and the resultthereof. (Emphasis supplied)

Certainly, the duty of the Ombudsman to act promptly andexpeditiously in the performance of its function is not justlimited to preliminary investigations in criminal cases but alsoincludes fact-finding investigations, administrativeinvestigations as well as preliminary inquiries under R.A. No.1379, which is akin to a preliminary investigation 'in criminalcases.

In Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan 16, the Supreme Courtexplained that, "As the institutional vanguard againstcorruption and bureaucracy, the Office of the Ombudsmanshould create a system of accountability in order to ensure thatcases before it are resolved with reasonable dispatch and toequally expose those who are responsible for its delays x x x."

Moreover, the Supreme Court, through Mme. JusticeAngelina Sandoval-Gutierrez in Enriquez v. Office of theOmbudsmanst , held that the Ombudsman was:

x x x constitutionally created to be the "protector ofthe people," with the expressed mandate that it"shall act promptly on complaints filed in any formor manner against officers or employees of theGovernment, or of any subdivision, agency orinstrumentality thereof, includinq government-owned or controlled corporations, and enforce their

16 Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 191411 and 191871, July 15, 2013, 701 SCRA 188.17 Enriquez v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 174902-06, February 15, 2008, 545 SCRA 618Phi! 309-323. '

ResolutionPeople v. Martinez, et at.S8-1S-CRM-0143Page 7of10x ----- ------------ ----- ------- -- ---- ------------- --- - x

administrative, civil and criminal liability in everycase where the evidence warrants in order topromote efficient service by the Government to thepeople. "

xxx xxx xxx

These powers, functions and duties are aimed toenable respondent to be "a more active and effectiveagent of the people in ensuring accountability inpublic office. " Unfortunately, respondent hastransgressed its constitutional and statutory duties.When the Constitution enjoins respondent to "actpromptly" on any complaint against any publicofficer or employee, it has the concomitant duty tospeedily resolve the same. But respondent did notact promptly or resolve speedily petitioners I cases.The Rules of Procedure of the Office « theOmbudsman requires that the hearing officer isgiven a definite period of "not later than thirty (30)days" to resolve the case after the formalinvestigation shall have been concluded. Definitely,respondent did not observe this 3D-day rule.

In People vs. Sandiganbaya.n(Fifth Dioisionp», the SupremeCourt laid down the factors to be considered in thedetermination of whether there is inordinate delay. It said:

The concept of speedy disposition is relative orflexible. A mere mathematical reckoning of the timeinvolved is not SUfficient. Particular regard must betaken of the facts and circumstances peculiar toeach case. Hence, the doctrinal rule is that in thedetermination of whether that right has beenviolated, the factors that may be considered andbalanced are as follows: (1) the length of delay; (2)the reasons for the delay; (3) the assertion orfailureto assert such right by the accused; and (4) theprejudice caused by the delay.

We now proceed to apply the test in this case to determineif there was inordinate delay ..before the Office of· eOmbudsman, as alleged by the accused -movants.

18 People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 199151-56, July 25, 2016,

ResolutionPeople v. Martinez, et al.SB·15·CRM·0143Page 8 ofl0x •......•............................................ x

Length of Delay

Below is the summary of the important case events whilethis case was still for preliminary .investigation with theProsecutor's Office and the Office of the Ombudsman, frominitiation until the filing of the criminal case before this Court:

Date Case Event Period from Last CaseEvent (Years &

Months)

May 17,2010 Complaint filed before theProvicincial Prosecutor's Office

.August 2,2010 Resolution issued by the City 2 Months

Prosecutor's Office

October 4,2010 Denial of the Motion from 2 MonthsReconsideration

December 30,2010 Resolution issued by the 2 MonthsRegional State Prosecutor onAccused's Petition for Review

January 21,2011 DOJ Resolution denying Less than 1 MonthAccused Petition and directedthe Provincial Prosecutor'sOffice to forward case' to theOfficeof the Ombudsman

February 3,2011 Receipt by the Officeof the Less than 1 MonthOmbudsman -Visayas of thecase records

August 7,2013 Officeof the Over-all Deputy 2 Years and 6 MonthsOmbudsman Issued theReviewResolution

September 23,2013 ReviewResolution approved by 1 MonthOmbudsman Morales

November 13,2014 Information against accused 1 Year and 1 Monthwas prepared

February 18, 2015 Information was approved by 3 MonthsOmbudsman Morales //

r

l\~

ResolutionPeople v. Martinez, et al.SB-1S-CRM -0143Page 9 ofl0x ------- ------ ------ -- ------ ----- -- -- --- ------ -- ---- - x

There was a span of four (4) years and nine (9) monthsfrom May 17, 2010, the time when the sworn complaint wasfiled before the Officeof the Provincial Prosecutor until February18, 2015, when this case was filed before this Court. Althoughit took the Office of the Prosecutor/Department of Justicearound nine (9)months to conduct the investigation and resolvethe matter of probable cause, it took the Ombudsman four (4)years in order to release its review resolution and' file theInformation in Court.

It should be emphasized that the OMB-Visayas,OMB-ODOand the other offices within the Ombudsman's Office did notconduct the preliminary investigation as this was completed bythe Office of the City Prosecutor of Cebu, the Regional StateProsecutor of Region VII and the DOJ. What the Ombudsmandid was merely to review the findings of the DOJ, which theformer affirmed through its review resolution.

Reason for the delay

The prosecution (OSP) reasoned that the reason for thedelay is because it had to review the voluminous recordsendorsed by the DOJ. The Court finds this reason implausiblegiven the nature of the cases lodged by the complainant as wellas the complaint-affidavits, affidavits of complainant'switnesses, the attached documents as well as the counter-affidavits of the respondents and their witnesses and the otherdocuments. The issues raised by the parties are not complexconsidering that the matter involves verbal allegations.

It could not be overemphasized that the Office of theOmbudsman, as the "protector of the people", was conceived bythe framers of the Constitution to ensure the accountability ofall public officials. The only tool that any public official hasagainst the said powerful officeis his or her right to invoke hisor her constitutional rights including the right to the speedydisposition of cases against him/her. Thus, once a complaintis lodged with the Officeof the Ombudsman, the clock ticks andthey are burdened to dispose of the case with dispatch.

Assertion of such right by the accused

Accused-movants could not be considered to have waivedtheir right to the speedy disposition of their case. As a ma terof fact, they made this assertion at the first opportunity i.e.,they filed the motion to quash on the ground of inordina delay

ResolutionPeople v, Martinez, et al.SB-1S-CRM-0143Page 10 of10x ----------- ----- ---------- ----- ---- ---------- --- --- - x

on September 21, 2015 immediately after the Informationagainst them were filed on September 9,2015.

Prejudice caused by the delay

That the accused are prejudiced by the delay is obvious.This case has been pending in court for a considerable period oftime.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, although thisCourt finds probable cause for the issuance of the warrants ofarrest against accused Celestino E. Martinez, Jr. Santiago A.Sevilla and Jose Carlo A. Martinez in Criminal Case No. S13-15-CRM-0143, It is constrained to'DISMISS the' same for beingviolative of their right to the speedy disposition of cases lodgedagainst them.

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines.

~ fW4tGERALDINE FAITH ~ONG*

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR: .•

RE DO/cRUZA sociate Justice

*Sitting as Special Member of the Special Fourth Division per Administrative Order No. 024-2017 datedFebruary 1, 2017