CERVANTES VS.

SANDIGANBAYAN
307 SCRA 149

FACTS:

On March 6, 1986, private respondent Pedro Almendras filed a sworn complaint with
the Office of the Tanodbayan (predecessor of the Ombudsman) against a certain
Alejandro Tapang for falsification of Almendra's “salaysay” alleging that Tapang made
him sign a piece of paper in blank on which paper a “salaysay” was later inscribed
stating that Almendras had been paid his claim in the amount of P17,594.00, which
was not true. Almendras mentioned in the complaint that he sought the help of
petitioner Elpidio C. Cervantes who worked as analyst in the office of labor arbiter
Teodorico L. Ruiz. Tapang in a counter-affidavit denied the accusation of Almendras.
Cervantes also denied the accusation against him.

On May 18, 1992, more than 6 years after the filing of the initiatory complaint, the
Tanodbayan filed with the Sandiganbayan an information charging Cervantes,
together with Ruiz and Tapang, with violation of Section 3(e), RA 3019.

On October 2, 1992, petitioner filed a motion to quash and motion to recall warrant
of arrest on the ground that the case against him had already prescribed due to
unreasonable delay in the resolution of the preliminary investigation.

The Sandiganbayan in a minute resolution dated December 24, 1992 denied

petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE:

W/N there was a violation of the accused's right to speedy trial.

HELD:

It took the Special Prosecutor (succeeding the Tanodbayan) six (6) years from the
filing of the initiatory complaint before he decided to file an information for the offense
with the Sandiganbayan.

The Sandiganbayan and the Special Prosecutor try to justify the inordinate delay in
the resolution of the complaint by stating that “no political motivation appears to
have tainted the prosecution of the case” in apparent reference to the case of Tatad
vs. Sandiganbayan where the Court ruled that the “long delay (3 years) in the
termination of the preliminary investigation by the Tanodbayan” was violative of the
Constitutional right of “speedy disposition” of cases because “political motivations
played a vital role in activating and propelling the prosecutorial process in this case.”

The Special Prosecutor also cited Alvizo vs. Sandiganbayan alleging that, as in Alvizo,
the petitioner herein was “insensitive to the implications and contingencies thereof
by not taking any step whatsoever to accelerate the disposition of the matter.” It is
the duty of the prosecutor to speedily resolve the complaint, as mandated by the
Constitution, regardless of whether the petitioner did not object to the delay or that
the delay was with his acquiescence provided that it was not due to causes directly
attributable to him. The SC granted the petition and annulled the minute resolution
of the Sandiganbayan denying petitioner’s motion to quash.