Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 92 views

    984 Tumbocon Vs Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    erica peji
    The petitioner claimed that the 10 year delay from the filing of an anonymous complaint to the filing of charges violated their right to a speedy trial. The court determined that (1) the 2 year fact-finding investigation period before filing formal charges should be excluded from determining if there was inordinate delay, and (2) the over 5 year preliminary investigation period was beyond what is reasonable for a perjury case and constituted inordinate delay violating the petitioner's right to a speedy trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    984 Tumbocon Vs Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    erica peji
    92 views2 pages
    The petitioner claimed that the 10 year delay from the filing of an anonymous complaint to the filing of charges violated their right to a speedy trial. The court determined that (1) the 2 year fact-finding investigation period before filing formal charges should be excluded from determining if there was inordinate delay, and (2) the over 5 year preliminary investigation period was beyond what is reasonable for a perjury case and constituted inordinate delay violating the petitioner's right to a speedy trial.

    Original Description:

    984 Tumbocon vs Sandiganbayan

    Original Title

    984 Tumbocon vs Sandiganbayan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner claimed that the 10 year delay from the filing of an anonymous complaint to the filing of charges violated their right to a speedy trial. The court determined that (1) the 2 year fact-finding investigation period before filing formal charges should be excluded from determining if there was inordinate delay, and (2) the over 5 year preliminary investigation period was beyond what is reasonable for a perjury case and constituted inordinate delay violating the petitioner's right to a speedy trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    92 views2 pages

    984 Tumbocon Vs Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    erica peji
    The petitioner claimed that the 10 year delay from the filing of an anonymous complaint to the filing of charges violated their right to a speedy trial. The court determined that (1) the 2 year fact-finding investigation period before filing formal charges should be excluded from determining if there was inordinate delay, and (2) the over 5 year preliminary investigation period was beyond what is reasonable for a perjury case and constituted inordinate delay violating the petitioner's right to a speedy trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    POLITICAL LAW; RIGHT TO A SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES

    Question: Sometime in 2007, an anonymous complaint was filed with the Office of the
    Ombudman against herein Eldred Tumbocon. The fact-finding investigation of the FIO
    was concluded by the filing of a formal complaint against the petitioner on August 28,
    2009. On April 6, 2010, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon conducted the
    preliminary investigation. On March 11, 2013, the GIPO II Irmina H. Bautista found
    probable cause against the petitioner for 8 counts of Perjury. On December 22, 2014,
    Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales approved the resolution.
    Petitioner claimed that the delay of 10 years from the time an anonymous complaint
    was filed against him until the filing of four (4) informations against him before the
    Sandiganbayan constitutes inordinate delay which violated his constitutional right to a
    speedy disposition of cases.
    A. Should fact-finding investigation prior to the filing of the formal complaint be
    included in determining whether inordinate delay was incurred?

    B. Is there violation of his Tumbocon’s righty to a speedy disposition of cases?

    C.
    Answer:
    A. No. When an anonymous complaint is filed or the Office of the Ombudsman conducts a
    motu proprio fact-finding investigation, the proceedings are not yet adversarial. Even if
    the accused is invited to attend these investigations, this period cannot be counted
    since these are merely preparatory to the filing of a formal complaint. At this point, the
    Office of the Ombudsman will not yet determine if there is probable cause to charge the
    accused.
    This period for case build-up cannot likewise be used by the Office of the Ombudsman
    as unbridled license to delay proceedings. If its investigation takes too long, it can result
    in the extinction of criminal liability through the prescription of the offense.
    Considering that fact-finding investigations are not yet adversarial proceedings
    against the accused, the period of investigation will not be counted in the
    determination of whether the right to speedy disposition of cases was violated.
    Thus, this Court now holds that for the purpose of determining whether
    inordinate delay exists, a case is deemed to have commenced from the filing of
    the formal complaint and the subsequent conduct of the preliminary
    investigation. In People v. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division, the ruling that fact-finding
    investigations are included in the period for determination of inordinate delay is
    abandoned.
    Thus, the 2 years spent for the fact-finding investigation prior to the filing of the formal
    complaint should be excluded from determining whether inordinate delay was incurred.
    B. Yes. It took 5 years, 3 months and 24 days to conclude the preliminary investigation
    and for the Ombudsman to approve the resolution of GIPO II Bautista. The said period
    for determining probable cause for a case of perjury is beyond the reasonable period of
    ninety (90) days to determine probable cause.The purpose of a preliminary
    investigation is only to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that
    petitioner should be held for trial or not. It bears stressing that this case involves only
    the petitioner and his SALNs regarding an alleged undeclared real property, motor
    vehicle, and a business interest. Certainly, this does not involve a complicated and
    complex issue that would require the painstaking scrutiny and perusal of the
    Ombudsman. Thus, the period of 5 years, 3 months and 24 days to resolve a simple
    case of perjury is clearly an inordinate delay, blatantly intolerable, and grossly
    prejudicial to the constitutional right of speedy disposition of cases.

    You might also like