Facts:
Balanga Rural Bank (BRB) sold a parcel of land to Avelino Batungbacal. A deed of absolute sale was executed. Thereafter, Sps Batungbacal sold it to Sps Vitug. They requested BRB to transfer the title directly to Sps Vitug. BRB refused and later on discovered several falsified documents such as a Board Resolution and a DOAS.
Two information charging Sps Batungbaca with falsification of public document were filed before the MTCC. The Sps filed a motion to quash but it was denied. The MTCC found no evidence that the preliminary investigation was attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delay that deprived them of their right to speedy trial.
Sps filed a motion for recon but was also denied. Thereafter, they filed a petition for Certiorari and prohibition with the RTC. It was denied.
They appealed. While the appeal was pending, Avelino died. The CA denied the appeal. CA concurred with the RTC that Spouses Batungbacal 's right to speedy disposition of cases was not violated and that the lack of prosecutors in Balanga City was a sufficient justification for the delay. The CA also agreed that Spouses Batungbacal belatedly raised the alleged violation of their right to speedy disposition of cases, as they could have raised it in their counter-affidavit but did not do so.
Issue:
Whether petitioner's right to speedy disposition of cases was violated.
Ruling:
Yes.
The right to speedy disposition of cases is different from the right to speedy trial. While the rationale for both rights is the same, the right to speedy trial may only be invoked in criminal prosecutions against courts of law. The right to speedy disposition of cases, however, may be invoked before any tribunal, whether judicial or quasi-judicial. What is important is that the accused may already be prejudiced by the proceeding for the right to speedy disposition of cases to be invoked.
First, it is undisputed that what is involved here is petitioner's right to speedy disposition of cases and not her right to speedy trial. Petitioner assails the delay from the time that the complaint was filed by Balderia until the Informations were filed against her and Avelino. She does not question the period of the proceedings before the courts a quo.
Second, there was a delay in the resolution of the preliminary investigation. The OCP issued its Resolution on July 21, 2016,84 or almost six years after the filing of the counter-affidavit and more than nine years after the filing of the complaint. Clearly, the OCP incurred delay beyond the period provided under the law.
Third, the
prosecution was not able to offer sufficient justification for the delay. The
courts a quo excused the delay incurred by the OCP on the ground that there was only
one prosecutor in Balanga City from 2004 to 2014. There is no showing that petitioner
employed dilatory tactics before the OCP. Accordingly, the delay is
solely attributable
to the
OCP.
The case does not involve complicated questions of law and fact or voluminous records that required a significant amount of time for the OCP to study. The subject of Balderia's complaint was the allegedly falsified DOAS and Board Resolution.
Although several documents were submitted by the parties, these would hardly qualify as voluminous so as to justify the resolution of the case almost 10 years after the complaint was filed. Moreover, the prosecution failed to establish that petitioner suffered no prejudice because of the delay. On the contrary, petitioner duly alleged that she could no longer accurately recall the events subject of the case considering her advanced age. This is a consequence of the delay that is undoubtedly prejudicial to petitioner.
Fourth,
pet1t10ner timely assailed the violation of her right to speedy disposition
of cases. Notably, Spouses
Batungbacal filed an Omnibus Motion and a Motion to Quash before their arraignment. Therefore, petitioner timely raised the violation of her right
to speedy disposition of cases.
The objective of the constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases is to ensure that an innocent person is freed from anxiety and expense of litigation by having his or her guilt determined in the shortest time possible compatible with his or her legitimate defenses. The inordinate delay in the resolution of the case is inconsistent with this objective and is a violation of petitioner's right to speedy disposition of cases. No less than the dismissal of the cases against petitioner is warranted as a consequence of this violation.