Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
~anbiganha\!an
Quezon City
FIFTH DIVISION
- versus - Present:
Promulgated: (j#
~<z J~ly 2J)t~
)( - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )(
• Designated as Special Member per Administrative Order No. 233-2019 dated June 10,2019.
1,/
Resolution 2
SB-19-CRM-0053 to 0056
People v. Bandila, et al.
x-----------------x
RESOLUTION
CORPUS-MAN-ALAC, J.:
Accused Garcia avers that from the time of filing her answer-affidavit
to the complaint, docketed as OrvtB-C-C-13-0068, allegedly on May 22,
2013, it took almost three (3) years and nine (9) months for the Office of the
Ombudsman to resolve the complaint until February 7, 2017, the date of the
Resolution finding probable cause against her, among others; that she
invoked her right to a speedy disposition of her case right from the start, via
the continuing prayer for the dismissal of the complaint in her answer-
affidavit; and that she has been suffering from grave and undue prejudice
caused by the delay, for she retired from government service in 2013 and her
retirement benefits had been cut off due to administrative sanctions, placing
her in a difficult position to bear the burden, inconvenience and expenses of
litigation, including the long distance between the Honorable Court and her
place of residence, Davao City.
RULING
xxxx
(d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority
to do so[.] (Emphasis supplied)
The case of Villa v. Ibahez' (1951) enunciated the principle that lack
of authority of the officer to file the information prevents the court from
acquiring jurisdiction over the case:
xxxx
(d) That the officer who filed the information had no
authority to do so;
xxxx
The case of Villa is [the) authority for the principle that lack of
authority on the part of the filing officer prevents the court from
acquiring jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
is conferred by law while jurisdiction over the case is invested by the
act of plaintiff and attaches upon the filing of the complaint or
information. Hence, while a court may have jurisdiction over the
subject matter, like a violation of the SSS Law, it does not acquire
jurisdiction over the case itself until its jurisdiction is invoked with the
filing of the information.
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
The 1940 Rules of Court was amended in 1964. With only minimal
changes introduced, the 1964 Rules of Court contained provisions on
unauthorized filing of information similar to the above provisions of the
1940 Rules.
The 1985 Rules was amended in 2000. The 2000 Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure also provide for lack of authority of the filing
officer as among the grounds for a motion to quash and the waiver of
these grounds. Similar to the 1985 Rules, the Revised Rules enumerate the
exceptions from the waiver, namely: x x x. Under the regime of the 2000
Revised Rules, we reiterated the Villa ruling in the above-cited
Romualdez case. x x x, the 2000 Rules did not intend to abandon Villa.
The Villa ruling subsisted alongside the enumerated exceptions under the
1985 Rules, and it remains to do so under the enumerated exceptions
under the 2000 Rules. Neither the Rationale of the 2000 Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure nor the Minutes of the Meeting of the
Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court evinces any intent to
abandon the doctrine enunciated in Villa.
xxxx
Since the information has been rendered void, as the primary result of
a successful challenge under Section 3(d) of Rule 117, preventing the court
from acquiring jurisdiction over the case, substantial differences from this
perspective, as to consequences, between lack of authority of the officer to
file the information and inordinate delay in violation of the right to speedy
disposition of cases need to be highlighted, viz.:
1. In the former, the information filed is void, \0 but in the latter, the
information is valid;
14 Vide People v. Sandiganbayan and Gamos, G.R. Nos. 232197-98, 16 April 2018.
Resolution 7
SB-19-CRM-0053 to 0056
People v. Bandila, et al.
x-----------------x
In the present cases, all the four (4) Informations were approved not
only by then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales on March 23, 2018, but
likewise by the new Ombudsman, Samuel R. Martires, on January 29, 2019.
Considering the approval of the Informations pursuant to Section 4, last
paragraph," Rule 11 of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
Ombudsman, the filing thereof was certainly made by the officer who has
the authority to do so.
Ill. Procedure
xxxx
2. Motions
xxxx
(b) Prohibited Motions. - Prohibited motions shall be denied
outright before the scheduled arraignment without need of comment
and/or opposition.
xxxx
15 Section 4. Procedure - x x x.
xxxx
No information may be filed 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.
16 Rule 117, Sec. 3. Grounds. - The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the
following grounds: (a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense; (b) That the court trying the case
has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; (c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the
person of the accused; (d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so; (e) That it
does not conform substantially to the prescribed form; (t) That more than one offense is charged except
when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law; (g) That the criminal action or liability
has been extinguished; (h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or
justification; and (i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or
the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
Resolution 8
SB-19-CRM-0053 to 0056
People v. Bandila, et al.
x-----------------x
III. Procedure
xxxx
2. Motions
xxxx
(b) Prohibited Motions. - Prohibited motions shall be denied outright before the scheduled
arraignment without need of comment and/or opposition.
The following motions are prohibited:
i. Motion for judicial determination of probable cause.
ii. Motion for preliminary investigation filed beyond the five (5)-day reglementary period in
inquest proceedings under Sec. 6, Rule 112, or when preliminary investigation is required under Sec. 8,
Rule 112, or allowed in inquest proceedings and the accused failed to participate in the preliminary
investigation despite due notice.
iii. Motion for reinvestigation of the prosecutor recommending the filing of information once the
information has been filed before the court (1) if the motion is filed without prior leave of court; (2) when
preliminary investigation is not required under Sec. 8, Rule 112; and (3) when the regular preliminary
investigation is required and has been actually conducted, and the grounds relied upon in the motion are not
meritorious, such as issues of credibility, admissibility of evidence, innocence of the accused, or lack of
due process when the accused was actually notified, among others.
iv. Motion to quash information when the ground is not one of those stated in Sec. 3, Rule 117.
v. Motion for bill of particulars that does not conform to Sec. 9, Rule 116.
vi. Motion to suspend the arraignment based on grounds not stated under Sec. 11, Rule 116.
vii. Petition to suspend the criminal action on the ground of prejudicial question. when no civil
case has been filed, pursuant to Sec. 7, Rule Ill.
(c) Meritorious Motions. - Motions that allege plausible grounds supported by relevant documents
and/or competent evidence, except those that are already covered by the Revised Guidelines, are
meritorious motions, such as:
i. Motion to withdraw information, or to downgrade the charge in the original information, or to
exclude an accused originally charged therein, filed by the prosecution as a result of a reinvestigation,
reconsideration, and review;
ii. Motion to quash warrant of arrest;
iii. Motion to suspend arraignment on the ground of an unsound mental condition under Sec.
11(a), Rule 116;
iv. Motion to suspend proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial question where a civil case was
filed prior to the criminal case under Sec. 11(b), Rule 116;
v. Motion to quash information on the grounds that that facts charged do not constitute an offense,
lack of jurisdiction, extinction of criminal action or liability, or double jeopardy under Sec. 3, par. (a), (b),
(g), and (i), Rule 117;
vi. Motion to discharge accused as a state witness under Sec. 17, Rule 119;
vii. Motion to quash search warrant under Sec. 14, Rule 126, or motion to suppress evidence; and
viii. Motion to dismiss on the ground that the criminal case is a Strategic Law Suit Against Public
Participation (SLAPP) under Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.
xxxx
Motions that do not conform to the requirements stated above shall be considered unmeritorious
and shall be denied outright.
18 In Aguinaldo v. Ventus, G.R. No. 176033, 11 March 2015, the Supreme Court has declared that "the
quashal of a warrant of arrest may only take place upon the finding that no probable cause exists."
19 Supra note 16.
Sec. 9 of Rule 117 provides that "[t]he failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to
quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, x x x, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections
except those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of section 3 of this Rule; tT'
Resolution 9
SB-19-CRM-0053 to 0056
People v. Bandila, et al.
x-----------------x
dismiss the information on the ground of denial of right to speedy trial under
Section 9 of Rule 119;20and 4) Motion to dismiss under Section 10 of Rule
119 on the ground of denial of the right to speedy trial under Section 14(2),
Article III of the 1987 Constitution."
20 Rule 119, Sec. 9. Remedy where accused is not brought to trial within the time limit. - If the accused is
not brought to trial within the time limit required by Section 1(g), Rule 116 and Section 1, as extended by
Section 6 of this rule, the information may be dism issed on motion of the accused on the ground of denial
of his right of speedy trial. x x x. The dismissal shall be subject to the rules on double jeopardy. Failure of
the accused to move for dismissal prior to trial shall constitute a waiver of the right to dismiss under this
section.
21 Rule 119, Sec. 10. Law on speedy trial not a bar to provision on speedy trial in the Constitution. - No
provision of law on speedy trial and no rule implementing the same shall be interpreted as a bar to any
charge of denial of the right to speedy trial guaranteed by Section 14(2), Article III, of the 1987
Constitution.
22 G.R. No. 135913,4 November 1999.
23 G.R. Nos. 140619-24, 9 March 2001.
24 Tirol, Jr. v. Del Rosario, supra note 22; Kuizon v. Desierto, id.; Nava v, Commission on Audit, G.R. No.
136470, 16 October 2001; Baylon v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 142738, 14 December 2001;
Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas), G.R. No. 149148,5 April 2002; Enemecio v. Office
of the Ombudsman (Visayas), G.R. No. 146731, 13 January 2004; Perez v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 131445,
27 May 2004; Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 156160,9 December 2004; Acuha v. Deputy Ombudsmanfor
Luzon, G.R. No. 144692,31 January 2005; Golangco v. Fung, G.R. No. 147640, 12 October 2006; Soriano
v. Cabais, G.R. No. 157175,21 June 2007; Office of the Ombudsman v. Heirs of Margarita Vda. de
Ventura, G.R. No. 151800, 5 November 2009; Duyon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 172218, 26 November
2014; Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
159139,6 June 2017; and Gatchalian v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 229288, 1 August 20) 8.
25 Id.
It!
Resolution 10
SB-19-CRM-0053 to 0056
People v. Bandila, et al.
x-----------------x
Neither did she raise, however, the issue of alleged inordinate delay
during preliminary investigation nor she filed an action for certiorari before
the Supreme Court.
26 Art. Ill, Sec. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial,
quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
27 People v. Sandiganbayan and Gamos, supra note 14, citing The Ombudsman v. Jurado, G.R. No.
154155,6 August 2008.
28 Records, pp. 9-27 (Reviewed by the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon and Chairman, Special Panel on
Fertilizer Fund Seam, Gerard A. Mosquera, on July 17, 2017, and approved by Ombudsman Conchita
Carpio Morales on July 31, 2017).
29 Id. at 521-525 (Reviewed by Acting Director, PIAB-C, Maricel M. Marcial-Oquendo, and recommended
for approval by Assistant Ombudsman, PAMO I, Aleu A. Amante, on November 23, 2017 and December
5,2017, respectively, and approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales on January 8, 2018).
30 Id. at 517-520 (Annexes "E" to "E-3" ofCommentlOpposition dated June 27, 2019).
31 Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036,2 April 2002.
Thus, based on all the foregoing reasons, the Court opines that the
motion to quash the Informations may be denied under these circumstances.
In the exercise of its discretion, however, the Court gives due course to
the motion to quash, albeit the same is still denied for lack of merit.
xxxx
xxxx
In Cagang, the Supreme Court further enunciated the doctrine that the
right to speedy disposition of cases must be timely raised, or during
preliminary investigation, for the waiver of the right does not necessarily
require that the respondent has already been subjected to the rigors of
criminal prosecution. Otherwise, the failure of the respondent to invoke that
right, despite the presence of inordinate delay, constitutes a valid waiver
thereof:
xxx x
xxxx
35
36
Records, pp. 510-511 (Annexes "C-I" & "C-2" ofCommentlOpposition dated June 27, 2019).
Id. at 509-511 (Accused Garcia's Letter and Answer-Affidavit, both dated May 22, 2013 and stamped
received by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman foe Luzon on June 4, 2013; Annexes "C" to "C- 2", id.). / 11
Resolution 13
SB-19-CRM-0053 to 0056
People v. Bandila, et al.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --x
Accused Garcia argues in the motion to quash that she invoked said
right at the outset, via the continuing prayer for the dismissal of the
complaint in paragraph 8 of her answer-affidavit, for, according to her, such
prayer covers all the reliefs available to her, including the right to speedy
disposition of cases. Paragraph 8 of her answer-affidavit reads:
Nor did she raise the issue of alleged inordinate delay in her motion
for reconsideration, while likewise merely avers a general prayer for the
dismissal of the complaint and the reconsideration of the finding of probable
cause.
Thus, granting arguendo that there was inordinate delay on the part of
the Office of the Ombudsman in the conduct of preliminary investigation,
accused Garcia did not raise the right to a speedy disposition of her case in a
timely manner, for she failed to invoke that right during preliminary
investigation, resulting in a valid waiver of said right.
April 15, 2013 The Special Panel on Fertilizer Fund Seam Cases
issued an Order dated April 15, 2013 directing all
the respondents to file their respective counter-
affidavits.l?
37 Id. at 517-520 (Accused Garcia's Letter dated September 4, 2017 and Motion for Reconsideration dated
August 31,2017, both stamped received by the Office of the Ombudsman on September 19,2017; Annexes
"E" to "E-3", id.).
38 Id. at 511 (Answer-Affidavit, p. 2).
39 Id. at 506-507 (Annexes "A" & "A-I" ofCommentlOpposition dated June 27,2019).
Resolution 14
SB-19-CRM-0053 to 0056
People v. Bandila, et at.
x-----------------x
May 3, 2013 The Order dated April 15, 2013 was sent via
registered mail to respondents."
May 23, 2013 The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon
received the counter-affidavits of respondents
Osmefia M. Bandila and John Estelito G. Dollosa."
March 23, 2018 Then Ombudsman Morales approved the four (4)
Informations.
April 22, 2019 The four (4) Informations were filed before the
Sandiganbayan.
Apart from accused Garcia, there were nine (9) other respondents in
OMB-C-C-13-0068 for alleged violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No.
301958 and Malversation of Public Funds, viz.: 1) Datu Andal S. Ampatuan,
Sr.; 2) Osmefia M. Bandila; 3) John Estelito G. Dollosa, Jr.; 4) Keise T.
Usman; 5) Roger C. Chio; 6) Alma B. Mahinay; 7) Carlos P. Mendoza; 8)
Rita R. Retino; and 9) Corazon M. Ebero.59
Based on the above timeline, the Order dated April 15,2013 directing
all the respondents to submit their respective counter-affidavits was sent to
each of them on May 3, 2013, via registered mail. While some of them
immediately filed their respective counter-affidavits on May 23, 2013 and
June 4, 2013, it clearly appears that the Special Panel on Fertilizer Fund
Seam, which was conducting the preliminary investigation, had difficulty in
effecting the service of said order on respondent Ampatuan, Sr., who was the
primary respondent in OMB-C-C-13-0068.
54 Id.
55 Id. at 472 -473(Annexes "L" & "L-l", id.).
56 Id. at 476-477 (Annexes "M-2" & "M-3", id.).
57 Id. at 477 (Annex "M-3", id.).
58 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Section 3(e) ofR.A. No. 3019 provides that:
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers
already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and
are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxxx
(e) Causing any undue. injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party
any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial
functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision
shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of
licenses or permits or other concessions.
" Records, pp. 47-60 (FIO Complaint).
j
It;
Resolution 16
SB-19-CRM-0053 to 0056
People v. Bandila, et at.
x-----------------x
Records show that on June 17, 2015, the service of said order was
finally effected on respondent Ampatuan, Sr., via personal service, in the
National Kidney Training Institute at East Avenue, Quezon City, Metro
Manila, with the assistance of a member of the Bureau of Jail Management
and Penology, as he was apparently under custody at the time." On July 6,
2015, respondent Ampatuan, Sr. filed a Very Urgent Motion for Extension of
Time to file Counter-Affidavit." In the assailed Resolution dated February 7,
2017, it stated that "respondent Ampatuan passed away on 17 July 2015,"62
as can be verified by news reports/"
From this date until the issuance of the assailed Resolution dated
February 7, 2017, and its review by the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon and
Chairman, Special Panel on Fertilizer Fund Seam, Gerard A. Mosquera, on
July 17,2017, and approval by then Ombudsman Morales on July 31, 2017,
only two (2) years had elapsed. Thereafter, on September 19, 2017, the
Office of the Ombudsman received accused Garcia's motion for
reconsideration, which was immediately acted upon via Order dated
November 23, 2017, reviewed and recommended for approval by the Acting
Director and Assistant Ombudsman on even date and on December 5, 2017,
respectively, and approved by Ombudsman Morales on January 8, 2018.
60 Id at 457-458 (Annexes "E" & "E-I" ofCommentJOpposition dated June 4,2019; Affidavit of Service
dated June 17,2015 by jail officer Juliva A. Tuguinay, BJMP, and a document dated June 17,2015 signed
by respondent Ampatuan, Sr. acknowledging receipt of the order to file counter-affidavit and the complaint
and annexes thereto).
6\ Id. at 459 (Annex "F", id.).
63 Andal Ampatuan Sr. is dead, 12:00 AM July 18, 2015, INQUIRER.net <https://newsinfo.
inquirer.netJ705934/andal-ampatuan-sr-is-dead>; Maguindanao massacre suspect Ampatuan Sr dead,
12:33 AM July 18, 2015, Rappler.com <https://www.rapPler.COmlnatjOn/99713_magUindanao-massacre_~
suspect -andal-ampatuan -sr-dead>. .
V
Resolution 17
SB-19-CRM-0053 to 0056
People v. Bandila, et al.
x-----------------x
The reality is that institutional delay [is] a reality that the court
must address. The prosecution is staffed by overworked and underpaid
government lawyers with mounting caseloads. x x x.
client's case. More often than not, the accused only invoke the right to
speedy disposition of cases when the Ombudsman has already rendered an
unfavorable decision. The prosecution should not be prejudiced by private
counsels' failure to protect the interests of their clients or the accused's
lack of interest in the prosecution of their case.
SO ORDERED.
MARYANNE. 0 US-MAN-ALAC
Asso iate Justice
WE CONCUR:
A-ARCEGA
GEORGINA I. HIDALGO
Associa Justice