Scribd
Upload
360 views

Guiani Vs Sandiganbayan (2003) Digest

The Commission on Audit found irregularities in impact projects of the DPWH-ARMM related to inflated accomplishment reports for road concreting work. The Office of the President asked the Ombudsman to investigate. The Ombudsman took almost six years to complete the preliminary investigation. Petitioners argued this violated their right to a speedy trial. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court upheld this, finding the Ombudsman provided reasonable explanations for the delay related to the complexity of the case and need to obtain a full report. The Court held that right to speedy disposition is only violated if delays are unreasonable, vexatious, oppressive, taking into account length of

Uploaded by

Arahbells
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
360 views

Guiani Vs Sandiganbayan (2003) Digest

The Commission on Audit found irregularities in impact projects of the DPWH-ARMM related to inflated accomplishment reports for road concreting work. The Office of the President asked the Ombudsman to investigate. The Ombudsman took almost six years to complete the preliminary investigation. Petitioners argued this violated their right to a speedy trial. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court upheld this, finding the Ombudsman provided reasonable explanations for the delay related to the complexity of the case and need to obtain a full report. The Court held that right to speedy disposition is only violated if delays are unreasonable, vexatious, oppressive, taking into account length of

Uploaded by

Arahbells
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Guiani vs Sandiganbayan

[G.R. Nos. 146897-917. August 6, 2002]


Facts:
The Commission on Audit-Special Audit Office (COA-SAO) conducted a
physical inspection of the impact projects of DPWH-ARMM and found several
irregularities therein. More specifically, the COA-SAO found that in relation to the
concreting of the Cotabato-Lanao Road, the contractors bloated the
accomplishment reports.
The Office of the President then, through then Executive Secretary Edelmiro
A. Amante, asked the Ombudsman to conduct a preliminary investigation. Thus, the
Commission on Audit, Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, instituted a
complaint for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No.
3019) against regional officials of Cotabato City and DPWH-ARMM.
Petitioners filed with the Sandiganbayan an Omnibus Motion to quash the
information, to defer the issuance of warrants of arrest and to defer their
arraignment. At the hearing of petitioners motion to quash, petitioners argued that
the delay in the resolution of the complaint against them by the Ombudsman
violated their constitutional right to speedy trial; hence, the criminal cases against
them should be dismissed. The Sandiganbayan denied petitioners motion to dismiss
the cases and on the same day, denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.
Issue:
WON the delay of almost six (6) years to resolve the preliminary investigation
disregarded the Ombudsmans duty, as mandated by the Constitution and RA No.
6770, to act promptly on complaints before him violated the petitioners rights to
due process and to a speedy disposition of the cases filed against them.
Held:
NO. The Ombudsman offered explanation for the delay of six years in
resolving the complaints and completing the preliminary investigation. Hence, the
SC held that there was no unreasonable, vexatious and oppressive delay in the
preliminary investigation. Therefore, petitioners right to speedy disposition of the
case was not infringed.
The Ombudsman explained that the period of time that elapsed during the
conduct of the preliminary investigation in this case was warranted by the sequence
of events. Because of the complexity of the transactions complained of which were
contained in a two-page report from the COA, the Graft Investigation Officer (GIO)
sought further substantiation of the allegations therein and requested for the
complete report of the COA Special Audit Office.
In the application of the constitutional guaranty of the right to speedy
disposition of cases, particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances
peculiar to each case. Well-settled is the rule that the right to a speedy
disposition of cases, like the right to a speedy trial, is deemed violated
only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and
oppressive delay. In the determination of whether or not that right has been
violated, the factors that may be considered and balanced are: the length of delay,
the reasons for such delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right by the
accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay.

You might also like