42. ALBERT VS.

SANDIGANBAYAN Same; Right to Speedy Trial; This right, however, is deemed violated only
when the proceeding is attended by vexations, capricious, and oppressive
G.R. No. 164015. February 26, 2009.* delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and
RAMON A. ALBERT, petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, and THE secured; or when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.—The right of an
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019); Section 3(e) of accused to a speedy trial is guaranteed under Section 16, Article III of the
Republic Act (RA) 3019; The crime has the following elements: 1) The accused Philippine Constitution which provides: “All persons shall have the right to a
must be public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
2) He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross administrative bodies.” This right, however, is deemed violated only when the
inexcusable negligence; and 3) His proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or
_______________ when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured; or
** Per Division Raffle dated February 18, 2009, Associate Justice Minita when without cause or justifiable motive a long281
Chico-Nazario was designated as Additional Member of the Second Division VOL. 580, FEBRUARY 26, 2009 281
relative to the subject case, to replace Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Albert vs. Sandiganbayan
who was previously designated as Additional Member of the Second Division period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.
per Special Order No. 571 dated February 12, 2009, but inhibited therefrom. A simple mathematical computation of the period involved is not sufficient. We
*** Designated additional member vice Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., concede that judicial proceedings do not exist in a vacuum and must contend
per Special Order No. 572 dated February 12, 2009. with the realities of everyday life.
* FIRST DIVISION. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
280 The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Rodrigo, Berenguer & Guno for petitioner.
Albert vs. Sandiganbayan CARPIO, J.:
action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, The Case
or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in This is a petition for certiorari1 of the Resolutions dated 10 February
the discharge of his functions.—This crime has the following essential 20042 and 3 May 20043 of the Sandiganbayan. The 10 February 2004
elements: 1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, Resolution granted the prosecution’s Motion to Admit the Amended
judicial or official functions; 2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, Information. The 3 May 2004 Resolution denied the Motion For
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and 3. His action caused Reconsideration of petitioner Ramon A. Albert (petitioner).
any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private The Facts
party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his On 24 March 1999, the Special Prosecution Officer (SPO) II of the Office
functions. of the Ombudsman for Mindanao charged petitioner and his co-accused, Favio
Criminal Procedure; Amendment of Pleadings; The test as to when the D. Sayson and Arturo S. Asumbrado, before the Sandiganbayan with violation
rights of the accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint or of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019) or the Anti-Graft and
information is when a defense under the complaint or information, as it Corrupt Practices Act in Criminal Case No. 25231. The Information alleged:
originally stood, would no longer be available after the amendment is made, “The undersigned Special Prosecution Officer II of the Office of the
and when any evidence the accused might have, would be inapplicable to the Ombudsman for Mindanao hereby accuses RAMON A. ALBERT,
complaint or information as amended.—The test as to when the rights of an _______________
accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint or information is 1 Under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
when a defense under the complaint or information, as it originally stood, would 2 Penned by Associate Justice Godofredo L. Legaspi with Associate
no longer be available after the amendment is made, and when any evidence Justices Raoul V. Victorino, and Roland B. Jurado, concurring.
the accused might have, would be inapplicable to the complaint or information 3 Approved by Associate Justices Godofredo L. Legaspi, Raoul V.
as amended. On the other hand, an amendment which merely states with Victorino, and Diosdado M. Peralta (now a member of this Court).
additional precision something which is already contained in the original 282
information and which, therefore, adds nothing essential for conviction for the 282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
crime charged is an amendment to form that can be made at anytime. Albert vs. Sandiganbayan

Page 1 of 6
FAVIO D. SAYSON, and ARTURO S. ASUMBRADO for (sic) violation of filed an Urgent Motion to Amend Motion to Lift Hold Departure Order and to be
Section 3(e) R.A. 3019, as amended, committed as follows: Allowed to Travel. The following day, or on 13 March 2001, the Sandiganbayan
That in (sic) or about May 1990 and sometime prior or subsequent arraigned petitioner who entered a plea of “not guilty.” In the Resolution dated
thereto, in the City of Davao, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of 16 April 2001, the Sandiganbayan granted petitioner’s Urgent Motion to
this Honorable Court, accused RAMON A. ALBERT, a public officer, Amend Motion to Lift Hold Departure Order and to be Allowed to Travel.
being then the President of the National Home Mortgage and Finance On 26 November 2001, the Sandiganbayan denied petitioner’s Motion to
Corporation, occupying the said position with a salary grade above 27, Dismiss and ordered the prosecution to conduct a reinvestigation of the case
while in the performance of his official function, committing the offense with respect to petitioner. In a Memorandum dated 6 January 2003, the SPO
in relation to his office, taking advantage of his official position, who conducted the reinvestigation recommended to the Ombudsman that the
conspiring and confederating with accused FAVIO D. SAYSON, then indictment against petitioner be reversed for lack of probable cause. However,
the Project Director of CODE Foundation Inc. and accused ARTURO the Ombudsman, in an Order dated 10 March 2003, disapproved the
S. ASUMBRADO, then the President of the Buhangin Residents and Memorandum and directed the Office of the Special Prosecutor to proceed
Employees Association for Development, Inc., acting with evident bad with the prosecution of the criminal case. Petitioner filed a Motion for
faith and manifest partiality and or gross neglect of duty, did then and Reconsideration of the Order of the Ombudsman.
there willfully, unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury to the In a Resolution promulgated on 16 May 2003, the Sandiganbayan
government and public interest, enter and make it appear in Tax scheduled the arraignment of petitioner on 24 July 2003. However, in view of
Declaration Nos. D-3-1-7691 and D-3-1-7692 that two parcels of real the pending motion for reconsideration of the order of the Ombudsman, the
property particularly described in the Certificate of Titles Nos. T-151920 arraignment was reset to 2 October 2003.
and T-151921 are residential lands which Tax Declarations accused _______________
submitted to the NHMFC when in truth and in fact, as accused well 5 Id., at p. 36.
knew, the two pieces of real property covered by Certificate of Titles 6 Records, Vol. I, p. 173.
Nos. T-151920 and T-151921 are agricultural land, and by reason of 284
accused’s misrepresentation, the NHMFC released the amount of 284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
P4,535,400.00 which is higher than the loanable amount the land could Albert vs. Sandiganbayan
command being agricultural, thus causing undue injury to the In a Manifestation dated 24 September 2003, the SPO informed the
government. Sandiganbayan of the Ombudsman’s denial of petitioner’s motion for
CONTRARY TO LAW.”4 reconsideration. On even date, the prosecution filed an Ex Parte Motion to
On 26 March 1999, a Hold Departure Order was issued by the Admit Amended Information. During the 2 October 2003 hearing, this ex
Sandiganbayan against petitioner and his co-accused. parte motion was withdrawn by the prosecution with the intention of filing a
On 25 May 1999, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss Criminal Case No. Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Information. The scheduled arraignment
25231 on the following grounds: (1) the accused (petitioner) was denied due of petitioner was reset to 1 December 2003.7
process of law; (2) the Office of the Ombudsman did not acquire jurisdiction On 7 October 2003, the prosecution filed a Motion for Leave to Admit
over the Amended Information. The Amended Information reads:
_______________ “The undersigned Special Prosecution Officer I of the Office of Special
4 Rollo, pp. 34-35. Prosecutor, hereby accuses RAMON A. ALBERT, FAVIO D. SAYSON, and
283 ARTURO S. ASUMBRADO for (sic) violation of Section 3(e) R.A. 3019, as
VOL. 580, FEBRUARY 26, 2009 283 amended, committed as follows:
Albert vs. Sandiganbayan That in (sic) or about May 1990 and sometime prior or subsequent
person of the accused; (3) the constitutional rights of the accused to a speedy thereto, in the City of Davao, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
disposition of cases and to a speedy trial were violated; and (4) the resolution this Honorable Court, accused RAMON A. ALBERT, a public officer,
dated 26 February 1999 finding the accused guilty of violation of Section 3(e) being then the President of the National Home Mortgage and Finance
of RA 3019 is not supported by evidence.5 Corporation, occupying the said position with a salary grade above 27,
On 18 December 2000, pending the resolution of the Motion to Dismiss, while in the performance of his official function, committing the offense
petitioner filed a Motion to Lift Hold Departure Order and to be Allowed to in relation to his office, taking advantage of his official position,
Travel. The prosecution did not object to the latter motion on the condition that conspiring and confederating with accused FAVIO D. SAYSON, then
petitioner would be “provisionally” arraigned.6 On 12 March 2001, petitioner the Project Director of CODE Foundation Inc. and accused ARTURO
Page 2 of 6
 S. ASUMBRADO, then the President of the Buhangin Residents and Albert vs. Sandiganbayan
Employees Association for Development, Inc., acting with evident bad 3. Through gross inexcusable negligence.
faith and manifest partiality and/or gross inexcusable negligence, did Proof of the existence of any of these modes in connection with the
then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury to prohibited acts under said section of the law should suffice to warrant
the government and public interest, enter and make it appear in Tax conviction.”10
Declaration Nos. D-3-1-7691 and D-3-1-7692 that two parcels of real However, the Sandiganbayan also held that even granting that the
property particularly described in the Cer- amendment of the information be formal or substantial, the prosecution could
_______________ still effect the same in the event that the accused had not yet undergone a
7 Due to various pending matters, the arraignment of petitioner was permanent arraignment. And since the arraignment of petitioner on 13 March
postponed several times and was finally conducted on 10 March 2005. 2001 was merely “provisional,” then the prosecution may still amend the
(Records, Vol. II, p. 221) information either in form or in substance.
285 Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the
VOL. 580, FEBRUARY 26, 2009 285 Sandiganbayan in its Resolution of 3 May 2004. Hence this petition.
Albert vs. Sandiganbayan The Issues
tificate of Titles Nos. T-151920 and T-151921 are residential lands The issues raised in this petition are:
which Tax Declarations accused submitted to the NHMFC when in truth 1. WHETHER THE SANDIGANBAYAN GRAVELY ABUSED ITS
and in fact, as accused well knew, the two pieces of real property DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN
covered by Certificate of Titles Nos. T-151920 and T-151921 are ADMITTING THE AMENDED INFORMATION; AND
agricultural land, and by reason of accused’s misrepresentation, the 2. WHETHER THE SANDIGANBAYAN GRAVELY ABUSED ITS
NHMFC released the amount of P4,535,400.00 which is higher than the DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN
loanable amount the land could command being agricultural, thus FURTHER PROCEEDING WITH THE CASE DESPITE THE VIOLATION OF
causing undue injury to the government. THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO A SPEEDY TRIAL.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”8 The Ruling of the Court
Petitioner opposed the motion, alleging that the amendment made on the The petition has no merit.
information is substantial and, therefore, not allowed after arraignment. _______________
The Ruling of the Sandiganbayan 10 Citing Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 50691, 5 December 1994,
In its Resolution of 10 February 2004,9 the Sandiganbayan granted the 238 SCRA 655.
prosecution’s Motion to Admit Amended Information. At the outset, the 287
Sandiganbayan explained that “gross neglect of duty” which falls under VOL. 580, FEBRUARY 26, 2009 287
Section 3(f) of RA 3019 is different from “gross inexcusable negligence” under Albert vs. Sandiganbayan
Section 3(e), and held thus: On Whether the Sandiganbayan
“In an information alleging gross neglect of duty, it is not a requirement that Should Admit the Amended Information
such neglect or refusal causes undue injury compared to an information Section 14 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
alleging gross inexcusable negligence where undue injury is a constitutive provides:
element. A change to this effect constitutes substantial amendment “Sec. 14. Amendment or Substitution.—A complaint or information may
considering that the possible defense of the accused may divert from the one be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before
originally intended. the accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal
It may be considered however, that there are three modes by which the amendment may only be made with leave of court and when it can be done
offense for Violation of Section 3(e) may be committed in any of the following: without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.
1. Through evident bad faith; x x x”
2. Through manifest partiality; Petitioner contends that under the above section, only a formal amendment
_______________ of the information may be made after a plea. The rule does not distinguish
8 Rollo, pp. 59-60. between a plea made during a “provisional” or a “permanent” arraignment.
9 Id., at pp. 28-29. Since petitioner already entered a plea of “not guilty” during the 13 March 2001
286 arraignment, then the information may be amended only in form.
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Page 3 of 6
 An arraignment is that stage where in the mode and manner required by 16 Records, Vol. I, p. 192.
the rules, an accused, for the first time, is granted the opportunity to know the 17 Id., at pp. 198-199.
precise charge that confronts him.11 The accused is formally informed of the 289
charges against him, to which he enters a plea of guilty or not guilty. As an VOL. 580, FEBRUARY 26, 2009 289
indispensable requirement of due process, an arraignment cannot be regarded Albert vs. Sandiganbayan
lightly or brushed aside peremptorily.12 ment of the Information which is prejudicial to his rights. He asserts that under
The practice of the Sandiganbayan of conducting “pro-visional” or the amended information, he has to present evidence that he did not act with
“conditional” arraignments is not sanctioned “gross inexcusable negligence,” evidence he was not required to present
by the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan or by under the original information. To bolster his argument, petitioner refers to the
the regular Rules of Court.13 However, in People v. Espino- 10 February 2004 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan which ruled that the
_______________ change “constitutes substantial amendment considering that the possible
11 Borja v. Mendoza, 168 Phil. 83, 87; 77 SCRA 422, 426 (1977). defense of the accused may divert from the one originally intended.”18
12 People v. Espinosa, 456 Phil. 507, 516; 409 SCRA 256, 263 (2003). We are not convinced.
13 Id. Petitioner is charged with violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 which
288 provides as follows:
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED “SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.—In addition to acts or
Albert vs. Sandiganbayan omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following
shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared
sa,14 this Court tangentially recognized such practice, provided that the alleged to be unlawful:
conditions attached thereto should be “unmistakable, express, informed and xxx
enlightened.” Moreover, the conditions must be expressly stated in the Order (e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or
disposing of the arraignment; otherwise, the arraignment should be deemed giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in
simple and unconditional.15 the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through
In the present case, the arraignment of petitioner is reflected in the Minutes manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This
of the Sandiganbayan Proceedings dated 13 March 2001 which merely states provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government
that the “[a]ccused when arraigned entered a plea of not guilty. The Motion to corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other
Travel is granted subject to the usual terms and conditions imposed on concessions.”
accused persons travelling (sic) abroad.”16 In the Resolution of 16 April This crime has the following essential elements:19
2001,17 the Sandiganbayan mentioned the arraignment of petitioner and “1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative,
granted his Urgent Motion to Amend Motion to Lift Hold Departure Order and judicial or official functions;
to be Allowed to Travel, setting forth the conditions attendant thereto which, _______________
however, were limited only to petitioner’s itinerary abroad; the setting up of 18 Rollo, pp. 12 and 28.
additional bailbond; the required appearance before the clerk of court; and 19 Uriarte v. People, G.R. No. 169251, 20 December 2006, 511 SCRA
written advice to the court upon return to the Philippines. Nothing on record is 471, 486, citing Santos v. People, G.R. No. 161877, 23 March 2006, 485
indicative of the provisional or conditional nature of the arraignment. Hence, SCRA 185, 194; Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 162314-17, 25
following the doctrine laid down in Espinosa, the arraignment of petitioner October 2004, 441 SCRA 377, 386; and Jacinto v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
should be deemed simple and unconditional. 84571, 2 October 1989, 178 SCRA 254, 259.
The rules mandate that after a plea is entered, only a formal amendment 290
of the Information may be made but with leave of court and only if it does not 290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
prejudice the rights of the accused. Albert vs. Sandiganbayan
Petitioner contends that replacing “gross neglect of duty” with “gross 2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence” is a substantial amend- inexcusable negligence; and
_______________ 3. His action caused any undue injury to any party, including the
14 Id.; Cabo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169509, 16 June 2006, 491 government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or
SCRA 264, 273. preference in the discharge of his functions.”
15 Id., at p. 274.
Page 4 of 6
 The second element provides the different modes by which the crime may the other hand, an amendment which merely states with additional precision
be committed, that is, through “manifest partiality,” “evident bad faith,” or “gross something which is already contained in the original information and which,
inexcusable negligence.”20 In Uriarte v. People,21 this Court explained that therefore, adds nothing essential for conviction for the crime charged is an
Section 3(e) of RA 3019 may be committed either by dolo, as when the amendment to form that can be made at anytime.27
accused acted with evident bad faith or manifest partiality, or by culpa, as In this case, the amendment entails the deletion of the phrase “gross
when the accused committed gross inexcusable negligence. There is neglect of duty” from the Information. Although this may be considered a
“manifest partiality” when there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or substantial amendment, the same is allowable even after arraignment and
predilection to favor one side or person rather than another.22 “Evident bad plea being beneficial to the accused.28 As a replacement, “gross inexcusable
faith” connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent negli-
and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some _______________
perverse motive or ill will.23“Evident bad faith” contemplates a state of mind 26 People v. Montenegro, G.R. No. L-45772, 25 March 1988, 159 SCRA
affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest 236, 241, citing Sec. 2, CJS, Sec. 240, pp.1249-1250.
or ill will or for ulterior purpose.24“Gross inexcusable negligence” refers to 27 Id., citing United States v. Alabot, 38 Phil. 698 (1918).
negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or 28 Fronda-Baggao v. People, G.R. No. 151785, 10 December 2007, 539
omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but SCRA 531, 535, citing Matalam v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 165751, 12 April
willfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences insofar 2005, 455 SCRA 736, 746 and People v. Janairo, 370 Phil. 59; 311 SCRA 58
as other persons may be affected.25 (1999).
_______________ 292
20 Gallego v. Sandiganbayan, 201 Phil. 379, 383; 115 SCRA 793, 796-797 292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
(1982). Albert vs. Sandiganbayan
21 Supra note 19. gence” would be included in the Information as a modality in the commission
22 Id., citing Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan, 454 Phil. 34, 72; 406 SCRA 311, of the offense. This Court believes that the same constitutes an amendment
344 (2003). only in form. In Sistoza v. Desierto,29 the Information charged the accused with
23 Id., citing Sistoza v. Desierto, 437 Phil. 117, 132; 388 SCRA 307, 326 violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, but specified only “manifest partiality” and
(2002). “evident bad faith” as the modalities in the commission of the offense charged.
24 Id., citing Air France v. Carrascoso, 124 Phil. 722, 737; 18 SCRA 155, “Gross inexcusable negligence” was not mentioned in the Information.
166-167 (1966). Nonetheless, this Court held that the said section is committed
25 Id., citing Sistoza v. Desierto, supra. by dolo or culpa, and although the Information may have alleged only one of
291 the modalities of committing the offense, the other mode is deemed included
VOL. 580, FEBRUARY 26, 2009 291 in the accusation to allow proof thereof.30 In so ruling, this Court applied by
Albert vs. Sandiganbayan analogy the pronouncement in Cabello v. Sandiganbayan31 where an accused
The original information filed against petitioner alleged that he acted with charged with willful malversation was validly convicted of the same felony of
“evident bad faith and manifest partiality and or (sic) gross neglect of duty.” malversation through negligence when the evidence merely sustained the
The amended information, on the other hand, alleges that petitioner acted with latter mode of perpetrating the offense. The Court held that a conviction for a
“evident bad faith and manifest partiality and/or gross inexcusable criminal negligent act can be had under an information exclusively charging
negligence.” Simply, the amendment seeks to replace “gross neglect of the commission of a willful offense upon the theory that the greater includes
duty” with “gross inexcusable negligence.” Given that these two phrases the lesser offense. Thus, we hold that the inclusion of “gross inexcusable
fall under different paragraphs of RA 3019—specifically, “gross neglect of negligence” in the Information, which merely alleges “manifest partiality” and
duty” is under Section 3(f) while “gross inexcusable negligence” is under “evident bad faith” as modalities in the commission of the crime under Section
Section 3(e) of the statute—the question remains whether or not the 3(e) of RA 3019, is an amendment in form.
amendment is substantial and prejudicial to the rights of petitioner. On Whether Petitioner’s
The test as to when the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the Right to a Speedy Trial was Violated
amendment of a complaint or information is when a defense under the Petitioner contends that the complaint-affidavit against him was filed on 15
complaint or information, as it originally stood, would no longer be available June 1992, but it was resolved by the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao
after the amendment is made, and when any evidence the accused might only on 26 February 1999, or after a period of almost seven (7) years. Four (4)
have, would be inapplicable to the complaint or information as amended.26 On years thereafter, the SPO, upon reinvestigation of the case,
Page 5 of 6
_______________ reinvestigation inadvertently resulted to further delay in the proceedings, this
29 Supra note 23. process could not have been dispensed with as it was done for the protection
30 Id., at p. 325. of the rights of petitioner himself. It is well-settled that although the conduct of
31 274 Phil. 369; 197 SCRA 94 (1991). an investigation may hold back the progress of a case, it is necessary so that
293 the accused’s right will not be compromised or sacrificed at the altar of
VOL. 580, FEBRUARY 26, 2009 293 expediency.34 The succeeding events appear to be parts of a valid and regular
Albert vs. Sandiganbayan course of judicial proceedings not attended by delays which can be considered
recommended that the case against petitioner be dismissed for lack of vexatious, capricious, oppressive, or unjustified. Hence, petitioner’s contention
probable cause, but this recommendation was denied by the Ombudsman. A of violation of his right to a speedy trial must fail.
Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Information was later filed by the WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition. We AFFIRM the Resolutions
prosecution and granted by the Sandiganbayan in the questioned Resolution dated 10 February 2004 and 3 May 2004 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal
of 10 February 2004. Thus, petitioner maintains that it took the Office of the Case No. 25231.
Ombudsman twelve (12) years since the initial filing of the complaint-affidavit SO ORDERED.
in 1992 to charge accused with the offense under the Amended Information, Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Corona, Leonardo-De
in violation of petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. Castro and Brion,** JJ., concur.
Petitioner’s contentions are futile. Petition dismissed, resolutions affirmed.
The right of an accused to a speedy trial is guaranteed under Section 16, Note.—It is settled that objections to the amendment of an information
Article III of the Philippine Constitution which provides: “All persons shall have should be raised at the time the amendment is made, otherwise, defects not
the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, seasonably raised are deemed waived. (People vs. Capwa, 541 SCRA 516
or administrative bodies.” This right, however, is deemed violated only when [2007])
the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; ——o0o——
or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured; or _______________
when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to 34 Matalam v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 165751, 12 April 2005, 455 SCRA
elapse without the party having his case tried.32 A simple mathematical 736, 752.
computation of the period involved is not sufficient. We concede that judicial ** Designated member per Special Order No. 570.
proceedings do not exist in a vacuum and must contend with the realities of
everyday life.33 © Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
After reviewing the records of the case, we believe that the right of
petitioner to a speedy trial was not infringed upon. The issue on the inordinate
delay in the resolution of the complaint-affidavit filed against petitioner and his
co-accused and the filing of the original Information against petitioner was
raised in petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss, and was duly addressed by the
Sandiganbayan in its Resolution denying
_______________
32 Lumanlaw v. Peralta, Jr., G.R. No. 164953, 13 February 2006, 482
SCRA 396, 410, citing Gonzales v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 94750, 16 July
1991, 199 SCRA 298, 307.
33 Id.
294
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Albert vs. Sandiganbayan
the said motion. It appears that the said delays were caused by the numerous
motions for extension of time to file various pleadings and to reproduce
documents filed by petitioner’s co-accused, and that no actual preliminary
investigation was conducted on petitioner. The Sandiganbayan properly held
that a reinvestigation of the case as to petitioner was in order. Although the
Page 6 of 6